Re: 83 vs. 85/86

Re: 83 vs. 85/86

• To: CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM
• Subject: Re: 83 vs. 85/86
• From: CaptainSp <soleil@UNFORGETTABLE.COM>
• Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 16:38:07 -0800
• Comments: To: Joseph Gaffney <gaffney@thethinker.com>
• References: <v02110100b0dd9025388e@[206.149.127.65]> <3.0.1.32.19980110190256.007a7580@www.thethinker.com> <3.0.1.32.19980110192813.007b1940@www.thethinker.com>
• Reply-To: captain@heartthrob.com

I'm geting your msg's twice because you're sending to my address AND
calc-ti.

CaptainSp

Joseph Gaffney wrote:
>
> At 04:23 PM 1/10/98 -0800, CaptainSp wrote:
> >Gee thanks... it's nice to know SOMEONE out there pays attention to the
> >fact that TI didn't intend to to give the TI-85 support for ASM.
> >
> >CaptainSp
> >
>
> *Sigh...* You are ridiculous.  Why did you say they would be documenting
> it? Utterly preposterous behaviour.....
>
>  ----------------------------------------------
> |               Joseph M. Gaffney              |
> |    Efnet: rm-rf - gaffney@thethinker.com     |
> |  http://www.thethinker.com/members/gaffney/  |
>  ----------------------------------------------

• Re: 83 vs. 85/86
• From: Adam Berlinsky-Schine <adam@FINDCURE.COM>

• Re: 83 vs. 85/86
• From: Grant Stockly <gussie@ALASKA.NET>
• Re: 83 vs. 85/86
• From: Joseph Gaffney <gaffney@THETHINKER.COM>
• Re: 83 vs. 85/86
• From: Joseph Gaffney <gaffney@THETHINKER.COM>

• Prev: Re: 83 vs. 85/86
• Next: Re: An idea...
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread