KR> personally i prefer to use the already invented wheels to
 KR> produce some new mode of transport, if you have some fantastic
 KR> new idea for a comms prog, fine, but if you just end up with
 KR> the same thing or less then it all seems pointless, the effort
 KR> could be used to produce something new. there was a time when i
 KR> wanted to poke into everything and understand it, now i see
 KR> that there just aint time to do it properly so i'll just go
 KR> after what i need to achieve what i want, or anything that
 KR> seems particularly interesting, and leave the rest to others. 

  You poor ole bugger. 

  I know the feeling. As you get older you get lazy and are inclined
to take things on face value; to use results rather than raw data; to
use past experience to cut corners and avoid the need to *understand*.
It's a trap. You'll end up a silly old fart telling people you used to
be an engineer, claiming the T-29 was the best TV ever designed, and
that the simple answer to the Australian economy is tariffs.

  The minute you stop stretching yourself to understand something new
is the minute you begin to die. The year you find yourself comntent to
follow the herd rather than lead it is the year the lion gets you. I'm
not that old yet. The idea of buying a VBX rather than writing my own
is still anathema to me. The idea of cobbling together other people's
ideas to "create" something of mine still feels silly to me. But I can
see the writing on the wall...

 BL> I think I'll go back and have a go at DOS and registers. That
 BL> looks lie fun!

 KR> well rod did always reckon that you liked lying (:

  This programming shit is turning into a real voyage. Brenton drops
hints, and he said that Windows only does what it *has* to do, so now
I'm back in DOS seeing what it has to do. It's all fiendishly clever,
actually. The idea of the PC using the  address of an interrupt
handler is mind-blowing! It's shit-easy... if I can only work out
WTF it all means.

Regards,
Bob
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---