home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.lang.pop:15 alt.lang.basic:820
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.pop,alt.lang.basic
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sunic!ericom!eos.ericsson.se!etxmesa
- From: etxmesa@eos.ericsson.se (Michael Salmon)
- Subject: Re: Ok, so pop *pop* may be a valid lang, but where's basic?
- Message-ID: <1992Nov13.084558.14012@ericsson.se>
- Sender: news@ericsson.se
- Nntp-Posting-Host: eos6c02.ericsson.se
- Reply-To: etxmesa@eos.ericsson.se (Michael Salmon)
- Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
- References: <1992Nov12.163410.12678@julian.uwo.ca>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:45:58 GMT
- Lines: 18
-
- In article <1992Nov12.163410.12678@julian.uwo.ca>, wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
- |> Flame me all you want, but if some obscure UK language developed 20
- |> years ago can make it into a comp.lang group, why is basic still shit-upon
- |> and relegated to the status of an alt group? (alt.lang.basic)?
- |>
-
- Actually shitting on basic is IMHO redundant :^)
-
- --
-
- Michael Salmon
-
- #include <standard.disclaimer>
- #include <witty.saying>
- #include <fancy.pseudo.graphics>
-
- Ericsson Telecom AB
- Stockholm
-