Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #539011
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. |
| Date | 2015-12-14 06:07 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <1u22kc-od9.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <0chr6b5vipo3bj11ii9c74g8o90ni28c0t@4ax.com> <2f11kc-q66.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <p33s6bp5to7pr1ma6qu91bg2khd059p1mm@4ax.com> <8vj1kc-208.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <mlds6b5gb31s3c95bcg07i5oo6djgjgsfh@4ax.com> |
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. >>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? >>> Hence, the current rants. >> >>Hence you have been left behind the tide of progress. > > I have found a way to reuse things without rewriting them -- no thanks > to M$. Well, goody goody for you. Now you can stop whinning about Microsoft. > >>> <snip> >>> >>>>>>>>> One feature of QBASIC that is at least rare in later languages: the >>>>>>>>> "immediate mode" where the values of all variables known to the >>>>>>>>> program at the point where an error happens in a program are available >>>>>>>>> by accessing their values at the command line via the "print" command. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Nonsense; almost all modern programming languages have such a feature. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not as easily. >>>>>> >>>>>>Bullshit, this is just more whinning. >>>>> >>>>> Apparently not: >>>>> <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24938527/can-php-cli-return-immediate-results-in-the-terminal-window> >>>>> >>>> >>>>PHP is just one of many languages. I see you know nothing about debugging. >>> >>> I said "not as easily." My statement seems to be accurate. >> >>I guess for someone that is clueless debugging can be difficult. > > So you want people who were comfortable with QBASIC to install new > software and learn debugging techniques for this "new and improved" > software -- with no benefit to them other than to find a new way to do > the same thing they could do before. Or they could go on using Windows 3, Windows 2000, Windows XP. Or they could grow with the rest of the world. > That is not "progress." You don't seem to have much of a grasp on reality. >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> You seem to be unwilling to recognize that M$ 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. 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. The standard for C has changed over the years yet even the earliest C programs ever written can still be compiled today. >>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. > > 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. >>>>>>Passing programs around, no matter how simple or complex, is trivial >>>>>>these days. >>>>> >>>>> For you. >>>> >>>>And for just about everyone other than you apparently. >>> >>> And many people I have encountered who have no interest in rewriting >>> things that worked fine on their last machine. Or any interest in >>> installing **someone else's** favorite programming language. >> >>And apparently those things are useless or they would have either >>ported them or installed one of the free versions of BASIC that >>would run them. > > Or installed VDOS or DOSBox .. or moved to Linux and run them in > DOSemu. So problem solved, you can quit whinning now. >>>>> 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. >>>>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. >>> 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. Nope, silly childish nonsense. > Are you a shill for M$? Are you 12 years old and mentally challenged? >>Software developers use a standard language to help make their product >>as widely usable as possible. >> >>Do you think Netscape is written in BASIC? > > People writing one-off programs for their own use or for sharing with > a limited don't need to waste time on form over function. You mean hobbyists? >>>>>>No one held a gun to your head and forced you to abandon Windows 3 >>>>>>or Windows XP; it was your choice. >>>>> >>>>> M$ 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. >>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. >>It would be a little difficult for me to develop Unix and Linux >>applications on a Windows laptop. >> >>>>Next I suppose you will be whinning about Ford dropping support for the >>>>Model T. >>>> >>>>>>> They screwed the pooch with Win 10. >>>>>> >>>>>>See above, whinner. >>>>> >>>>> Not a whinner ... a former customer who is voting with his feet and >>>>> has no interest in contributing to M$'s profits on the path I see them >>>>> taking. >>>> >>>>That is your choice. >>> >>> Indeed. >> >>So quit whinning about your choices. >> >>>>If you think you know how to do it better than Microsoft, nothing is >>>>keeping you from starting your own company to provide an OS with >>>>support for a decades old version of BASIC and 16 bit programs. >>> >>> Or switch to Linux. >> >>So quit whinning about Winows. >> >>>>I'm sure there is a huge customer base out there for that... >>> >>> There is a growing customer base for Linux. Win 10 is a reason why. >> >>Yes and no. >> >> > -- 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