Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #539269
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. |
| Date | 2015-12-15 05:04 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <1kj4kc-inh.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <p33s6bp5to7pr1ma6qu91bg2khd059p1mm@4ax.com> <8vj1kc-208.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <mlds6b5gb31s3c95bcg07i5oo6djgjgsfh@4ax.com> <1u22kc-od9.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <ol1v6bpvcbmf8s5k3277tr76v4scqi8cd3@4ax.com> |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 06:07:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 01:52:08 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:36:18 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:13:07 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>>>If you upgraded your CPU and operating system, but did not port your >>>>>>>>precious programs as the world advanced past non standard programming >>>>>>>>languages, that is your problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I already wrote them and debugged them. Where did I agree to let >>>>>>> Microsoft make work for me by constantly adapting to their whims of >>>>>>> the day? >>>>>> >>>>>>If you upgraded your CPU and operating system, but did not port your >>>>>>precious programs as the world advanced past non standard programming >>>>>>languages, that is your problem. >>>>> >>>>> You already said that. Addressed above. >>>> >>>>Yep, but it doesn't seem to sink in. >>> >>> The reply doesn't seem to sink in. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>If you had used a language that adhered to a standard, you wouldn't >>>>>>be having any problems with YOUR choice in doing upgrades. >>>>> >>>>> "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose >>>>> from." - Andrew_S._Tanenbaum >>>>> >>>>> QBASIC was written to a M$ Standard. They were good at doing that kind >>>>> of thing; regardless of the standards valued elsewhere. >>>> >>>>Microsoft doesn't set standards. >>> >>> They have no internal standards? Really? >> >>You know what I meant; grow up. > > And you knew what I meant by "all machines," but that didn't stop you > from being picky. > > In this case, people writing in QBASIC didn't give a rat's ass about > external standards. > > >>>>If you don't like their business model, don't buy their products then >>>>whine about it. >>>> >>>>> It ran fine in a 16-bit environment. M$ abandonned 16-bit >>>>> environments. >>>> >>>>As did everyone else in the world. >>> >>> Except those including the writers of DOSBox, VDOS, and DOSemu; and >>> those who use them. >> >>Yep, big time sellers, those. >> >>How is the stock in those guys doing compared to Microsoft? > > Well, it deflates your "everyone else in the world" a bit, doesn't it? > > > <snip> >>>>>>>>>>> One feature of QBASIC that is at least rare in later languages: the >>>>>>>>>>> "immediate mode" where the values of all variables known to the >>>>>>>>>>> program at the point where an error happens in a program are available >>>>>>>>>>> by accessing their values at the command line via the "print" command. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Nonsense; almost all modern programming languages have such a feature. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not as easily. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Bullshit, this is just more whinning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apparently not: >>>>>>> <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24938527/can-php-cli-return-immediate-results-in-the-terminal-window> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>PHP is just one of many languages. I see you know nothing about debugging. >>>>> >>>>> I said "not as easily." My statement seems to be accurate. >>>> >>>>I guess for someone that is clueless debugging can be difficult. >>> >>> So you want people who were comfortable with QBASIC to install new >>> software and learn debugging techniques for this "new and improved" >>> software -- with no benefit to them other than to find a new way to do >>> the same thing they could do before. >> >>Or they could go on using Windows 3, Windows 2000, Windows XP. > > You are changing the subject from "ease of debugging." > > >>Or they could grow with the rest of the world. >> >>> That is not "progress." >> >>You don't seem to have much of a grasp on reality. > > Rewriting things for the sake of rewriting things is not "progress" in > my world. YMMV. > >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>> You seem to be unwilling to recognize that M$ created problems for >>>>>>> others. Why are you so resistant to recognizing that fact? >>>>>> >>>>>>Microsoft did not create any problems for anyone. >>>>>> >>>>>>Microsoft released new products which people choose to buy. >>>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>> If they need to be installed with admin rights, they may not do do me >>>>>>> any good if I need to run a compatible BASIC program *now*. >>>>>> >>>>>>Why would anyone need to run a decades old program in an obsolete >>>>>>language "now"? >>>>>> >>>>>>Why would you not have admin rights unless the computer was not yours >>>>>>and therefor not your toy to play with? >>>>> >>>>> Typical IT control-freak mindset: I know what everyone needs installed >>>>> on the machine they use. If they need something else, they are >>>>> playing. If they need it immediately, they should have been more >>>>> clairvoyant and made arrangements for me to interrupt their work so I >>>>> could "install" what they need. >>>> >>>>You have no more right to install software on someone else's computer >>>>than you have to put up wallpaper in someone else's house. >>>> >>>>Good employees that see a way the company can be improved go to management >>>>and make their pitch. >>>> >>>>Self righteous ass clowns that can't follow company SOP need to be >>>>shown the exit door. >>> >>> If QBASIC was installed on the machine, it would safely run simple >>> task-specific programs. >> >>Except there is no demand for QBASIC as is shown by the utter lack >>of any real demand that Microsoft support it and the very little >>interest in more modern versions of QBASIC that are available. > > Again missing the point. If one *has* a QBASIC program, or someone > writes a simple one-off program for a specific purpose, it would run > safely in a machine where QBASIC could run. > > Please try to focus. > >>You are tilting at windmills. >> >>>>>>>>> And I agree with Max that it was a convenient a way to pass simple >>>>>>>>> programs around in a language that was a common denominator on all >>>>>>>>> machines. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Qbasic was never standardized and has never run on "all machines" by >>>>>>>>any stretch of the imagination. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It was backward compatible and on all Windows machines. >>>>>> >>>>>>Backward compatible and stadardized are two different things. >>>>> >>>>> So what? Later versions of the BASIC installed on Windows machines >>>>> were backward compatible, which is what users needed. They didn't care >>>>> about standards. And standards change, which is another way things can >>>>> become broken. >>>> >>>>Drooling gibberish. >>> >>> Unsubstantiated attempt to discredit. >> >>It is still gibberish. > > What is gibberish about WinXP machines being able to run QBASIC > programs that were written on Win95 machines? > >>The standard for C has changed over the years yet even the earliest >>C programs ever written can still be compiled today. > > Goody for C. We're talking about BASIC. > >>>>As there has been no popular outcry for Qbasic, it is obvious that >>>>there are few to no people that need it. >>>> >>>>>>ANSI X3.60-1978 "For minimal BASIC" is a standard BASIC. >>>>> >>>>>>The world of "all machines" is more than Windows machines. >>>>> >>>>> Pickiness that is irrelevant to the context of the discussion, which >>>>> was and is the ability of modern Windows versions to run 16-bit DOS >>>>> programs; specificially, QBASIC. >>>> >>>>Nope, extremely relevant, but you haven't a clue what standards mean. > > Sometimes they mean jack shit to someone who wants to get something > done in an environment for which they already have a working program. > >>> Which standard? How does it apply to the ease of runnig QBASIC in >>> Win8? >> >>There is no standard QBASIC. There never has been a standard for QBASIC, >>which is one of the reasons it became obsolete. > > Another reason is that M$ abandoned it. > > <snip> > >>>>>>> I have worked with people who have no interest or willingness to deal >>>>>>> with any level of complexity in driving software. It doesn't interest >>>>>>> them. It has come to interest me less because I have been there and >>>>>>> done that. M$ making change for the sake of change just pisses me off >>>>>>> now. >>>>>> >>>>>>Meaningless screed. >>>>> >>>>> Meaningless ... why? >>>> >>>>You are just ranting about what YOU think other people think. >>> >>> I have encountered these people. You apparently live in a bubble. >> >>Nope, I've always been in the professional world at the cutting edge >>of technology. The last time I saw anyone in industry use BASIC for >>anything was about 25 years ago and as soon as they got a compiler >>the application was ported to FORTRAN. > > Why is industry the only meaningful environment? > > Are you making my point that the primary customer base for M$ is > corporate IT departments; that home users are a tolerated annoyance > only because 1) they can be a source of additional cash, and 2) they > help the corporate IT departments stay customers if M$ throws enough > bones to home users so they can run some of the same business software > at home? > >>>>>>Microsoft changes things to address what Microsoft feels is the desires >>>>>>of their customer base. >>>>> >>>>> Their customer base is now corporate IT departments, just like that of >>>>> the former evil empire. Home computers get what can: >>>>> 1. Be bolted onto the business versions >>>>> 2. Further the interests of software developers who similarly dislike >>>>> "personal computing." >>>> >>>>Childish nonsense. >>> >>> Actually, both are spot on. >> >>Actually both are childish nonsense. > > Actually, both are spot on. > > You have refuted neither with anything other than a sloppy attempt at > derision. > >>>>> The failure to provide a 16-bit environment helped software developers >>>>> who now had a "replacement" market for things that would have worked >>>>> fine otherwise. >>>> >>>>Silly, childish nonsense. >>> >>> Again, spot on; just that you find it to be an inconvenient truth for >>> some reason. > > See above; more of the same. > > >>Nope, silly childish nonsense. >> >>> Are you a shill for M$? >> >>Are you 12 years old and mentally challenged? > > No, I am neither. > > Your turn: Are you a shill for M$? > >>>>Software developers use a standard language to help make their product >>>>as widely usable as possible. >>>> >>>>Do you think Netscape is written in BASIC? > > Why would I care? > >>> People writing one-off programs for their own use or for sharing with >>> a limited don't need to waste time on form over function. >> >>You mean hobbyists? > > Not necessarily. > > And so what if they are hobbyists? > > Why do you look down your nose at hobbyists? > >>>>>>>>No one held a gun to your head and forced you to abandon Windows 3 >>>>>>>>or Windows XP; it was your choice. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> M$ dropping support and leaving XP in whatever level of brokenness and >>>>>>> vulnerability it had when they decided to pull the plug wouldn't have >>>>>>> had anything to do with it, would it? >>>>>> >>>>>>I have no idea why you are not still running Windows XP. >>>>>> >>>>>>I have software that would require major, i.e. cost a lot of money, to >>>>>>upgrade to run on a later Microsoft OS, so I keep a machine running >>>>>>Windows XP just to support it and will likely continue to do so for >>>>>>years to come. >>>>> >>>>> By your own admission, the lack of backward compatibility after WinXP >>>>> is causing you to maintain another computer setup, which has real >>>>> estate requirements for a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. If a home user >>>>> has the extra space, they should also have the computer networked for >>>>> ease of access to the files needed by or created by the old software. >>>> >>>>It is a laptop, fool, and all the data files are on network attached >>>>RAID storage. >>> >>> Which is what I said about having it networked. Your situation doesn't >>> help the home user who has counter space for one computer. >> >>Oh grou up. >> >>I work out of a home office and there are eight computers here, including >>two Solaris SPARC servers. > > Not everyone wants to accessorize their homes with computers. > >> >>>>And no, it did not cause me to maintain another computer setup, it is >>>>the same setup I have had from day 1. >>>> >>>>> In the minds of many, that qualifies as "M$ creating problems" for >>>>> those who want to do all their work on one machine. >>>> >>>>There is no problem. >>>> >>>>The machine in question has one, and only one purpose; accounting. >>> >>> It is also networked. How nice for you. >> >>Eveyone is networked these days or computers would have little >>home appeal. >> >>> Your solution doesn't help the home user with counter space for one >>> computer. >> >>Oh grou up. >> >>I work out of a home office and there are eight computers here, including >>two Solaris SPARC servers. > > Again, not everyone wants to accessorize their homes with computers. > > >>>>It would be a little difficult for me to develop Unix and Linux >>>>applications on a Windows laptop. > > Two words: Dual boot. Two words: clueless idtiot. You have become boing and repetitive. -- Jim Pennino
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-11 19:50 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 04:22 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-12 10:05 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 19:10 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-13 05:52 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-13 19:13 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-13 19:38 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-14 01:27 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-14 15:55 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-14 21:28 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-15 10:30 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 20:23 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-16 05:42 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-16 19:29 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-17 05:08 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-17 20:22 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:16 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-13 16:11 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 08:43 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-12 11:06 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 19:01 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-14 15:52 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 01:03 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-18 02:09 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-18 19:39 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-19 00:27 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-19 05:40 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-19 07:50 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-19 18:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 11:47 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. "Sam Gordon" <invalid@examplll.com> - 2015-11-19 11:58 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 12:21 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-19 23:35 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 07:22 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-20 09:20 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 17:47 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-20 15:31 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 21:56 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-21 08:18 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 19:02 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-22 09:17 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 19:07 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-23 08:11 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 18:24 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-24 21:37 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 19:08 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 23:33 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-25 13:44 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 06:25 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-26 15:19 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 08:51 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-27 14:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 20:10 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-15 10:00 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 10:21 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-15 14:18 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 20:08 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 19:12 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-26 15:19 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-24 22:35 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 06:08 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-21 14:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 18:49 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-22 14:50 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 19:17 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-23 14:13 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 18:32 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-24 13:20 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-24 19:38 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-25 13:43 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 19:25 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-22 11:03 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 19:19 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 11:46 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 20:27 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 12:58 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 21:04 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-22 19:05 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 00:59 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 18:46 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 06:07 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 04:00 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 18:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 20:17 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-19 16:07 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 00:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-22 16:28 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 01:10 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-25 14:13 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 23:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-29 16:17 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-30 01:22 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-03 15:12 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-04 00:15 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-03 23:34 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-04 05:14 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-05 17:01 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-06 02:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-06 00:55 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-06 15:07 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-06 10:15 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-06 18:51 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-07 03:23 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-07 13:46 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-07 19:20 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-07 15:53 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-06 18:44 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-14 15:12 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-14 16:56 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-14 13:13 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 19:32 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-14 20:47 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 21:36 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-14 22:33 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 00:09 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-14 21:57 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 05:00 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jürgen Großenbuch <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-15 15:02 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 19:13 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-15 13:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 19:31 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 22:11 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 03:44 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 23:04 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 05:01 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-15 06:36 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-12 02:43 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-12 19:18 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 00:48 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 06:08 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 03:21 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 19:13 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 14:37 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 20:36 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 15:48 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 21:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 19:58 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 01:32 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 20:54 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 03:15 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 19:55 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 01:52 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 22:38 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 06:07 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 22:38 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 05:04 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-15 06:50 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-15 13:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-15 08:53 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 19:52 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 19:48 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-15 22:12 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-16 03:44 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-13 20:15 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 20:20 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-13 20:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 21:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-15 02:24 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 20:03 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-26 15:18 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-27 01:32 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-27 14:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-12 15:17 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 23:34 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-13 05:57 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-13 19:23 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-13 19:53 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. emptypost@hotmail.com - 2015-11-19 19:26 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. emptypost@hotmail.com - 2015-11-19 19:40 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. emptypost@hotmail.com - 2015-11-20 15:57 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 00:30 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-20 21:53 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 07:15 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-21 13:46 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 19:57 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-21 15:50 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 22:44 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-21 22:30 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 05:14 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. emptypost@hotmail.com - 2015-11-25 22:57 -0800
csiph-web