Re: PL/I is not viable
- From: "William M. Klein" <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:24:17 GMT
..com> wrote in message
news:Z7SXe.1569$q1.950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:IHRXe.154544$e95.80350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> <snip irrelevant complaints>
>
> When I stopped posted after the lengthy WordCounts exercise (using BIBLE.TXT
> file) back in March,
> which with its cross-posted topics (including yours) had about 300 replies,
> the interest in this newsgroup then dropped until finally in July there was
> only 1 new topic opened with 1 reply.
<snip>
Yes, I (and as far as I can tell everyoje else) would MUCH prefer you leaving so
that the PL/I newsgroup could be sufficiently "quiet" for a sufficiently long
time that people would start coming back to it for PL/I issues (as there were a
few during the time you didn't post).
Do you see ANY real evidence that your posts (that cause "negative reaction")
are viewed as useful by
- any PL/I programmer?
- by any Fortran programmer?
- by any new programmer?
- by any experienced programmer?
If not, then why do you think we would WANT you to waste newsgroup bandwidth?
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: PL/I is not viable
- From: David Frank
- Re: PL/I is not viable
- References:
- PL/I is not viable
- From: David Frank
- Re: PL/I is not viable
- From: Mark Yudkin
- Re: PL/I is not viable
- From: David Frank
- Re: PL/I is not viable
- From: Mark Yudkin
- Re: PL/I is not viable
- From: David Frank
- Re: PL/I is not viable
- From: William M. Klein
- Re: PL/I is not viable
- From: David Frank
- PL/I is not viable
- Prev by Date: Re: PL/I is not viable
- Next by Date: Re: PL/I is not viable
- Previous by thread: Re: PL/I is not viable
- Next by thread: Re: PL/I is not viable
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|