[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Date Index Thread Index Search archive:
Date:Mon Nov 13 08:45:58 1992 
Subject:Re: Ok, so pop *pop* may be a valid lang, but where's basic? 
From:Michael Salmon 
Volume-ID:921113.16 

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