Re: Another Fortran forum (without the spam)?
- From: gmail-unlp <ftinetti@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 20, 8:32 pm, Terence <tbwri...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 21, 12:29 am, Arjan <arjan.van.d...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
Spam does be an issue.
Ignoring its impact is ignoring the demise of CLF.
Which is a pity.
A.
Hurrah for logic!
This is funny for me. I tend to think along this line:
if the demise of CLF is real and such demise is somehow produced by
the spam then CLF was meant to demise independently of spam.
but maybe I have the wrong logic...
Fernando.
[snip again]
.
- References:
- Another Fortran forum (without the spam)?
- From: sturlamolden
- Re: Another Fortran forum (without the spam)?
- From: Tim Prince
- Re: Another Fortran forum (without the spam)?
- From: Daniel H
- Re: Another Fortran forum (without the spam)?
- From: Daniel Carrera
- Re: Another Fortran forum (without the spam)?
- From: Arjan
- Re: Another Fortran forum (without the spam)?
- From: Terence
- Another Fortran forum (without the spam)?
- Prev by Date: Re: Another Fortran forum (without the spam)?
- Next by Date: Re: integer random number generator in given range
- Previous by thread: Re: Another Fortran forum (without the spam)?
- Next by thread: Re: Another Fortran forum (without the spam)?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
