On Feb 25, 2:54 am, "4Q" <paul_z...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> Dustin Cook wrote:
> > On Feb 25, 12:11 am, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > </quote> childish code. No wonder they
> > > > call it BASIC (read: code for children)
>
> > Actually, it's not quiet basic.. See below, as I tear K-man to
> > shreds
>
> Well I hope you do a better job of it
> than the last time you tore him to bits
> (in your mind) *grin* Back in 2005 when
> you first ran into KM and AUK I actually
> felt sorry for you. I was under the
> impression you was being bullied, but
> I guess was wrong. You invite trouble
> and conflict. I like a bit of malicious
> mischief now and a again and I guess
> this time I'm going to sit back and enjoy
> this... <LOG ON> Set Webpage = 4Q
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > > woefully inefficient code requires values to be moved left, right and
> > > centre, then all the way back again before a result is obtained. I use the
>
> > Ouch, I don't think you realize how close asic really is to
> > assembler... Your loss.
>
> *Shrug* You are using it as BASIC
> not assembler. One or two Int86 calls
> does not make you an assembly language
> coder. This is why people like Mandragore
> ,T2000, MrSandman laugh at you whenever
> you open your mouth.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > You don't actually do much with assembler do you?
>
> *laugh* You clueless ****tard, it's
> you that doesn't have a clue about
> assembler.
>
> >Well anyways, when
> > asic compiles the binary, the resulting assembler code assigns
> > 80characters of memory for each string variable I use. Regardless of
> > whether or not I use all of the space, the location of the variable is
> > known the whole time my code is running. Nothing need be, moved.
>
> You wouldn't be using ASIC's 80characters
> if you had a clue about assembler.

Heh.. Maybe you ignored what was posted. All of the internal asic
commands are setup for that limitation. It would take a bit more than
the modification to the data statement your suggesting.
If I'm going to do that much after compilation patching, I might as
well do it all in assembler. the time taken would be about the same.

> <snip> cut and pasting the ASIC manual
> (someone elses work) will not work
> as smoke and mirrors you ****ing turd
> in a blender.

No smoke and mirrors 4q, its a design decision the author made.. It's
a bit more than a couple of bytes to fix it. Any internal asic command
is setup for this silly limitation. I might as well do it in pure asm
if i'm going to go thru that much trouble.

> > follow this link:
> >http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/asic500.zip
>
> Or he could just get it from a reputable
> source where he'd be guaranteed not to
> have something nasty installed like a
> backdoorBugHunterTrojan.

4Q, you know at somepoint, you'll have to back that claim up right? or
risk losing what tiny amount of credibility you have left since
****ing with me. *grin*

> *Simtel* <-- He could get IBRARY.LIB
> as well, you know the one you code ripped

Really? I already posted my disassembly. Point out the differences
please. I already gave you the clue, retf is present in mine, not in
his. The beginning data is the same, and if you see asic.doc, you'll
see I couldn't "rip" it, you either setup with it the way asic wants,
or you cant exchange data between your routine and the one that called
it. Twist what I've said all you like, everything's in the doc
file.

> > and if you dont want to touch the problem, but want to see the docs
> > alone, go here:
> >http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/asic.txt
>
> > There ya go, enjoy!
>
> FOAD! I thought you was dying from AIDS?

Ouch 4Q, Do you remember what I said about credibility? I have a liver
problem that I've had since birth, I already went over that too. I
have no diseases of any kind, thanks all the same.

> How long have you got left? You look
> like you are in the advanced stages of
> the disease, but just gives us an eta

Ouch, I've really toasted your ass here eh? Have you run dry of
anything useful old buddy? Have I kicked the great 4Q's arse at his
own game?

Hah!

> so we have got a rough idea when you plan
> to launch theBugHuntersurprise.

Ouch, another shot at your credibility. Damn dude, I don't think you
have any left now.

Hey, btw I sent you an email; I hope you enjoy the statistics. to
verify the email claim, just type "bughunter" in any of those search
engines. I carbon copied the email to various individuals, good luck
trying to alter anything.

And since I see you want the kookologists involved, they may suck on
the email I sent you as well:

BugHunter MalWare Removal Tool is first link at the following search
engines... and I didn't have to pay
for any of this. I certainly do appreciate the popularity. It's
evident my hit counter isn't showing all the traffic...
hehehe


www.google.com
www.yahoo.com
www.ask.com
www.dogpile.com
www.msn.com
www.alltheweb.com
aolsearch.aol.com

and 2nd place on
www.altavista.com

Thanks for your continued support for BugHunter!

PS, I have sent this to 4Q also, I know, it wasn't very nice, rubbing
his nose in it like that, but.. I couldn't resist.. *grin*


--
Dustin Cook
author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk