]
Sent: 26 February 2003 21:06
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Coderutters: Discovering Fusebox 3 with ColdFusion by Hal Helms John
Quarto-vonTivadar is excellent.
ISBN: 0972078630
-Original Message-
From: Thane Sherrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26
On Wednesday, Feb 26, 2003, at 11:57 US/Pacific, John Quarto-vonTivadar
wrote:
actually in Fusebox 4 you will be able to extend the core quite easily
using
plugins.
That's great news - I think that was the part of Hal's FBMX preview
that I liked best of all (I'm a big fan of pluggable
Web Site http://www.webapper.com
Blog http://www.webapper.net
Webapper Web Application Specialists
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:31 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFCs's aren't that bad, was RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
On Monday
Bastardized fusebox is simply that -- bastardized fusebox. It's sort of
saying the application is sort of MVC or that the database is sort of
backed up -- it is or it isn't.
well that's like CFC being sort of OO, now isn't it? :)
thus there's no way to maintain and extend a single core.
Umm fusebox will cure you cold, you didnt get the Memo?
- Original Message -
From: John Quarto-vonTivadar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Bastardized fusebox is simply that -- bastardized fusebox. It's
John, fabulous email, thanks.
Kind Regards - Mike Brunt
Original Message ---
Bastardized fusebox is simply that -- bastardized fusebox. It's sort of
saying the application is sort of MVC or that the database is sort of
backed up -- it is or it isn't.
well that's like CFC
At 02:57 PM 2/26/03 -0500, John Quarto-vonTivadar wrote:
So it is with Fusebox. Just like with English, it can only help you to
learn it, since it becomes just one more skill in your arsenal.
Ok, I'm sold. Where can I get a good book on it?
T
Or if you're a larger shop that has a vested interest in a secret
methodology -- much like the people of Florence at one time gave
Michaelangelo's David a FigLeaf, which only serves to create interest in
what is covered up-- then any open publically known framework, Fusebox or
otherwise, has
On a recent large FB project we were able to add 3 non CF developers and an
experienced FB developer with little pain because those who did not know CF found the
logical framework very understandable. We rolled out the most successful Enterprise
app that company had ever experienced and I love
Coderutters: Discovering Fusebox 3 with ColdFusion by Hal Helms John
Quarto-vonTivadar is excellent.
ISBN: 0972078630
-Original Message-
From: Thane Sherrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:37 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
At 02:57 PM 2/26
Hi,
Try Discovering Fusebox 3 with ColdFusion:
http://www.techspedition.com/store/moreinfo.cfm?Product_ID=1
Best regards,
MW
-Original Message-
From: Thane Sherrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok, I'm sold. Where can I get a good book on it?
So it is with Fusebox. Just like with English, it can only help you to
learn it, since it becomes just one more skill in your arsenal.
Ok, I'm sold. Where can I get a good book on it?
(hmm, I'm wondering if you're joshing me or if you're really asking about a
book on Fusebox!! :) Just in
All these are great books and I would read them in this order to get the most benefit
IMHO
Discovering Fusebox
Jeff Peters and Nat Papovich book
Discovering CFCs
Original Message ---
So it is with Fusebox. Just like with English, it can only help you to
learn it, since
On Wednesday, Feb 26, 2003, at 13:14 US/Pacific, Michael Wilson wrote:
Try Discovering Fusebox 3 with ColdFusion:
http://www.techspedition.com/store/moreinfo.cfm?Product_ID=1
Or Jeff Nat's book, reviewed in some detail here:
http://www.corfield.org/index.php?fuseaction=coldfusion.fusebook
John
To answer your question, our thinking is as follows: CFCs are not ready
for
the big time.
The reasons why have been discussed and debated for literally months by
tons
of people on the various lists.
All the same, would you mind just giving a summary - for those of us who've
missed
, February 25, 2003 3:09 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
John
To answer your question, our thinking is as follows: CFCs are not ready
for
the big time.
The reasons why have been discussed and debated for literally months by
tons
of people on the various lists.
All
On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 18:27 US/Pacific, Mike Brunt wrote:
So we would have something to distribute we
finished the re write of the sample FB30 app Taskmanager using CFC's,
mainly as replacements for fuses (with the exception of display fuses).
That's interesting... Hal was pursuing an
Granted, if a developer were to
totally rework the core files, some issues might arise; however, just
deviating from the methodology in some ways doesn't make it more
difficult to follow. Besides, most developers don't fiddle around with
the core files.
This is the actual issue I *was*
: Monday, February 24, 2003 9:20 am
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Granted, if a developer were to
totally rework the core files, some issues might arise; however,
just deviating from the methodology in some ways doesn't make it more
difficult to follow. Besides, most developers don't fiddle
On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 08:20 US/Pacific, John Paul Ashenfelter
wrote:
This is the actual issue I *was* talking about. All the really good FB
developer I've worked with *have* modded the core file. And it's
encouraged -- look at Hal's whitepaper on adding fbx_permissions for
his
-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 4:42 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 08:20 US/Pacific, John Paul Ashenfelter
wrote:
This is the actual issue I *was* talking about. All the really good FB
developer I've
On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 17:51 US/Pacific, Barney Boisvert wrote:
I think that a version of Fusebox that uses CFCs as the base
component is a
long ways off as in months. There are just too many problems with CFCs
for
me to suggest that people rely heavily on them, which we would be
as possible while maintaining the potential for large-scale use.
barneyb
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:00 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 17:51 US/Pacific, Barney Boisvert wrote:
I
, February 24, 2003 6:00 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 17:51 US/Pacific, Barney Boisvert wrote:
I think that a version of Fusebox that uses CFCs as the base
component is a
long ways off as in months. There are just too many problems with CFCs
for
me
CFCs work just fine and can be used to build high-performance,
scalable systems. I think it's very unfair of Hal to claim there are
just too many problems with CFCs without providing more specific
details.
Sean,
We'll be releasing FB4 pretty soon now. We chose not to base it on CFCs
Specialists
-Original Message-
From: John Quarto-vonTivadar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:28 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
CFCs work just fine and can be used to build high-performance,
scalable systems. I think it's very unfair of Hal to claim
) 6213 7287
-Original Message-
From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 25 February 2003 4:45 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
I have a question for Sean, how much of MM's web site is running on CFMX
using CFCs? I imagine that is a reasonable yardstick
, is this not called initiative, breaking
rules is so negative.
and my 2 cents, or 2p in N.Ireland J.
-Original Message-
From: Fregas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 20:38
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Bryan,
I think the issues here is trade-offs. To use fusebox, you
FUSEBOX is not a set of rules, this is what is so irritating
about peoples ignorance to the methodology, its a free Open
Source standard API to work from.
I would have to disagree. If it's nothing else, it is a set of rules. It's
not a methodology, either; maybe it's a framework. It's
.
Regards,
John Paul Ashenfelter
CTO/Transitionpoint
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Bryan Stevenson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Couldn't have said it better myself Michael
Do what works
I would suggest that FB is more a set of rules than an
API.
--- John McCosker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
//My opinion is that fusebox makes 90% of
application development in
//coldfusion easier and more standardized. The
other 10% you have to either
//violate the rules or make a work
-Original Message-
From: John Paul Ashenfelter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:07 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
My biggest criticism of FB is, while the community is great, it's
not become
a project that's truly developed collaboratively
... or you get to slog through some Heinous Wonderland
of Spaghetti Code.
Wasn't this one of the new rides at Disney World this year?
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
of the puzzle.
barneyb
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Tyrone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:11 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
I think the reason that people make so many variations of Fusebox
is because
they are constantly finding limitations
I think the reason that people make so many variations of Fusebox
is because they are constantly finding limitations.
Or you could rephrase that in a somewhat more positive light rather than
a negative one: One of the reasons you find so many variations of
Fusebox is because creative developers
-Original Message-
From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:30 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
I have to disagree with this opinion. As I see it, there are two major
'types' of fusebox: normal and fuseQ.
And the rest
-Original Message-
From: Ken Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:35 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
I think the reason that people make so many variations of Fusebox
is because they are constantly finding limitations.
Or you could
Hi
I think the reason that people make so many variations
of Fusebox is because they are constantly finding limitations.
You could also say people are finding ways to improve the methodology
(framework), which, is a good thing in some cases.
As you stated, there could be so many variations
-Original Message-
From: Michael Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 1:49 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hi
Hi!
I think the reason that people make so many variations
of Fusebox is because they are constantly finding limitations.
You
Hi,
I think you may need to provide a better example of what your talking
about in terms of a bastardized Fusebox app. Although I have never
encountered anything similar to what you are describing, I am sure
someone else has. Even if the app is Fusebox-ish, I would still be
able to quickly grasp
-Original Message-
From: Michael Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hi,
I think you may need to provide a better example of what your talking
about in terms of a bastardized Fusebox app. Although I
I think you may need to provide a better example of
what your talking about in terms of a bastardized
Fusebox app.
...
I do not know how much experience you have had with
Fusebox, but it sounds to me--and I do not mean this
as an insult in any way--as if you aren't very familiar
with
Developer
Fulbright Jaworski L.L.P.
Phone 713-651-5432
Fax 713-651-5246
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:18 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
I think you may need to provide a better example of
what your talking
I don't see how you could compare a well-written
fusebox3 with one that is non-fuseboxed, unless it
is written in some other tight knitted framework
/methodology. The code would speak for itself.
In my opinion, well-written code is always self-documenting - it always
speaks for itself. If
Hi,
Well, obviously, the code is only as good as the developer--no matter
what methodology is used. Fusebox can't really help with this issue. The
question that really has to be answered is: Does Fusebox enhance a
competent developer's effort to produce manageable, well documented
code? If your
No problems. Running smoothly.
-Original Message-
From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 10:44
To: CF-Talk
Subject: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hi,
just wondering, is there any issues with FBX3 and MX,
our will it run fine as it does under 5.0,
I know this is
WhHo!!
Right, lets Migrate this baby.
-Original Message-
From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 11:19
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
No problems. Running smoothly.
-Original Message-
From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Can I just say that you had better test this on a staging box first.
Not gonna have you suing my arse cos you took my word for it :P
-Original Message-
From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 11:16
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
WhHo
Any performance issues?
Kola
-Original Message-
From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 11:16
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
WhHo!!
Right, lets Migrate this baby.
-Original Message-
From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL
Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 11:31
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Any performance issues?
Kola
-Original Message-
From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 11:16
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
:37
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Yes.
You deliver code in half the time, can hand it on easily to people,
working
out how to do updates is simpler and can estimate more precisely so you
can
come in under budget.
:)
As to performance issues. Not really had any that I am aware
Actually that was one of my concerns,
cheers,
//Can I just say that you had better test this on a staging box first.
come on, I'm not stuuuppiiiddd.
J
-Original Message-
From: Andre Mohamed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 11:58
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
The INDEX.cfm file for Fusebox 3 contains the following code:
CFSNIPPET
!--- include the core FuseBox ---
cflock type=READONLY name=#server.coldfusion.productVersion#
timeout=10
cfset
variables.fuseboxVersion=Replace(Replace(ListDeleteAt(server.coldfusion.prod
uctVersion,4)all),
Cheers Larry. :)
-Original Message-
From: Larry Juncker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 13:43
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
The INDEX.cfm file for Fusebox 3 contains the following code:
CFSNIPPET
!--- include the core FuseBox ---
cflock type=READONLY name
I am receiving though, strange.
John, if this is the case, be certain that the email address that is
set up in your email client for outgoing is the same that you are receiving
through.
I signed up for a talk list at home and tried submitting from work, and was
turned down
a post until I went in
Application Specialists
-Original Message-
From: Larry Juncker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 5:57 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
I am receiving though, strange.
John, if this is the case, be certain that the email address that is
set up in your email
Yea sure mike, include me in that.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 15:04
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
To answer your question we have ported many FB3 apps over to CFMX with no
problems. The only caveat is if there are many
Hi,
I hate to jump on the me too train, but I'm gonna do it anyway. I'd
like to see what you have done in regards to a Fb3 to CFC conversion.
Thanks :),
MW
-Original Message-
From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
If anyone would like a copy please let me know, it will be later
On Thursday, Feb 20, 2003, at 05:42 US/Pacific, Larry Juncker wrote:
Then everything works SUPER.
One issue to be aware of is if any of your fbx_switch.cfm files contain
a large number of cases *and* a lot of code - you may hit the Java
switch/jump limit. A couple of people have reported
Cheers Sean!
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 16:22
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
On Thursday, Feb 20, 2003, at 05:42 US/Pacific, Larry Juncker wrote:
Then everything works SUPER.
One issue to be aware of is if any
-
Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group
Founder Director
www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: Sean A Corfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
On Thursday, Feb 20, 2003, at 05:42 US
:17 am
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
On a personal note.
It still baffles me that people use FB simply because I always see
variouswrokarounds etc. because of using FB (like simply because
of switching to
CFMX this or that must be re-worked). I fully understand the
hand off to
other
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:17 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
On a personal note.
It still baffles me that people use FB simply because I always see various
wrokarounds etc. because of using FB (like simply because of switching to
CFMX this or that must
PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:30 AM
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
I don't want to get into the quarterly is FB good debate, but had to
reply
to this post. I'm obviously on the side of FB, but tried to make this
objective. I will studiously ignore
Users Group
Founder Director
www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:30 AM
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
I don't want to get into the quarterly is FB good debate
ColdFusion Users Group
Founder Director
www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:30 AM
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
I don't want to get into the quarterly
: FBX3 AND CFMX
LOL...nothing is better than CFFORM *snicker*
Bryan Stevenson B.Comm.
VP Director of E-Commerce Development
Electric Edge Systems Group Inc.
t. 250.920.8830
e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Macromedia Associate Partner
Hi,
If I understand your point correctly, I would argue that migrating any
existing application, Fusebox or other, to CFMX could potentially
require some code adjustments. For me, Fusebox has worked fine on CFMX
with only a single modification--telling Fusebox which version of CF I'm
using. Also,
-
Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group
Founder Director
www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: Michael Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:00 PM
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hi,
If I understand your point correctly
-
Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group
Founder Director
www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: Michael Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:00 PM
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hi
exist.
In any case, you seem to be very comfortable and productive within your
own methodology; that is all that truly counts. :)
Best regards
MW
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:21 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3
As with any design pattern, it's a given that eventually, the pattern will have to be
violated for some particular bit of functionality.
- Original Message -
From: Fregas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:38 pm
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Bryan,
I think the issues
- Original Message -
From: Michael Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:40 PM
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hi,
Actually, I totally understand where you're coming from. I wasn't trying
to imply that Fusebox is better, because for some people
, February 20, 2003 1:40 pm
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hi,
Actually, I totally understand where you're coming from. I wasn't
tryingto imply that Fusebox is better, because for some people it
certainly is
not. And, you are right--A methodology is supposed to make development
smoother
Message-
From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:39 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Couldn't have said it better myself Michael
Do what works for you and your projects ;-)
I still wouldn't mind hearing from the FBers out there
Did you
: Bryan Stevenson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Couldn't have said it better myself Michael
Do what works for you and your projects ;-)
I still wouldn't mind hearing from the FBers out there
Did you
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Bryan,
I started with just plain old vanilla cf. I hadn't done any web
programming, only a little VB5-6 and some basic and pascal years earlier,
so
I was a pretty green programmer.
Well, as I mentioned we had done some
I still wouldn't mind hearing from the FBers out there
The one thing I like about fusebox is no more CFLOCATION.
This is great and eliminates tons of issues with mac browsers.
Well, that and it was pretty close to what I was doing anyway. Don't we all
hate change :-)
, 2003 4:04 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Fregas said:
One thing that fusebox did that has nothing to do with any particular
methodology is it taught me how to best structure a web application. It
taught me more about custom tags, application session variables, cfmodule,
naming
Did you start CF with FB or pickup FB along the way?
Picked it up along the way several years ago before there was any such
thing as version numbering with FB. I've not moved over to FB3 yet and
personally never much bought into the notion of the thou shalt and
thou shalt not aspect of the
and I'll use what I'm able to.
Except for netscape browsers--those suck ass.
:)
- Original Message -
From: Bryan Stevenson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Fregas said:
One thing that fusebox did
, February 20, 2003 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Yeah, I agree. I'm so sick of the divisions. Mac vs PC, Microsoft vs The
Word, Java vs .NET, my programming language can beat up your programming
language.
I say: The right tool for the right job.
I don't consider myself a Cfer, .NETer
Hey, there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade :)
- Original Message -
From: Fregas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:24 pm
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Yeah, I agree. I'm so sick of the divisions. Mac vs PC, Microsoft
vs The
Word, Java vs .NET, my
: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hey, there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade :)
- Original Message -
From: Fregas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:24 pm
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Yeah, I agree. I'm so sick of the divisions. Mac vs PC, Microsoft
vs
Try fertilizing with Netscape... I've heard it works wonders :)
- Original Message -
From: Bryan Stevenson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:41 pm
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hey...I love to garden...how dare you compare my trusty spade to
Netscape!!;-)
Bryan
85 matches
Mail list logo
