A general request for information regarding Dustin Cook

[bughunter.dustin@gmail.com]

On Feb 25, 5:35 am, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I bet when your code is peer-reviewed your stock response to the
> peels of laughter is "that was sloppy on my part". You have had
> code peer-reviewed, yes?

Your very amusing at times.

> >> As another example of the woefully poor exploitation of variable
> >> names...
>
> >>> ar=local
>
> >> ar might be short for "AR AR ME 'ARTIES!!!"
>
> >> Perhaps Dustfart fancies himself as a pirate on the high seas or
> >> something.
>
> > just lazy...
>
> Just lazy, huh? More like you downright don't ****ing know what you're
> doing. Of course, the rest of this post is aimed at proving exactly that
> claim.

We shall see.

> 20-20 hindsight, btw.
>
> >>> b=rnd(0)
> >>> b=b mod 23
> >>> death=b
>
> >> Three lines of code are used to do what can be done in one line...
>
> >> death = rnd(0) mod 23
>
> > Ahh, but your wrong sir. This is Asic, it cannot be done in one
> > line.
>
> Admission to using **** to write **** noted.

Admission that you messed up, noted.
Admission that you couldn't even get such simple code commented
properly, also noted.

I won't bother responding to your assinine attempts to figure asic
out, as you aren't correct on any of it, even after providing you the
damn manual which comes with it. The code generated by asic, as in the
exe fie, isn't interpreted or p-code as you seem to be thinking it is.
Your assembler sample, is (golly gee) the same thing that's actually
inside the exe file. *burn*

> >> The results are the same but the process is not. Dustfart's
> >> amateurish and
>
> > The results would be the same, If the language supported it in one
> > statement like that.
>
> 20-20 hindsight.


> > (It doesn't). It's asic, not quiet basic.
>
> >> 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...
>
> 1. Unsupported assertion. Claim fails.

> 2. ASIC is a BASIC compiler that includes a number of BASICA and QBASIC
> commands, Dustfart. The ASIC instruction set does not contain any JMP, MOV,
> NOP, CPL, JNZ, JZ, INC, DEC or any other assembler [sic] commands. So it is
> beyond the reasonable mind to understand how it can be the case that anyone
> other than you can appreciate just "how close asic really is to assembler
> [sic]".

Because I've disassembled the resulting binary files created with the
language. Asic isn't p-code nor is it interpreted.

> Why the assembler [sic] code straw-man, Dustfart? Got you by the scruff of
> the neck, have I? Hmmm?

See above. What was that about the scruff?

> Assembler [sic] code is your straw-man to avoid the charges against you.
> Nevertheless I will gleefully and wilfully attack your straw-man with gusto,

K-man, You were not even able to properly comment on very simple code,
of course you would try the "well, you have a strawman" defense. Face
it, I've beaten you. You jumped before you looked.

> but only because doing so exposes you to even more justifiable accusations
> of complete and utterly delusional ****wittery.

Yes, I'm sure you will.

> 4. I will now proceed to show you just "how close asic really is to
> assembler [sic]", Dustin...
>
> First the assembler [sic]:
>
> Name "SuckEggsDustin"
> org 300H
> JMP Start
> String db "Hello, ****Nuts Dustfart!", 0DH, 0AH, 24H
> Start: LEA DX, String
> MOV DX, 09H
> INT 21H
> MOV AH, 0
> RET
>
> Now in ASIC
>
> Print "Hello, ****Nuts Dustfart!";

And the resulting binary's code closely matches your assembler. Asic
does use some code which I find unnecessary, but it does it anyway.

> As you can see, Dustin, I obviously do not realise "how close asic reallyis
> to assembler" [sic] as much as you do.

No, that I understood with your first try.

> That would be assembler [sic] code put there by the compiler, yes? You know,
> "code" that you did not actually write. Oh, and the completely straw-man

Well, short of writing everything in machine language, you can't
actually claim anybody has authored anything original, and even
then....

> assembler [sic] code that we're not actually dicussing because we're really
> talking about the ASIC BASIC compiler that does not include support for
> assembly language mnemonics, yes?

It doesn't?

Strange... According to the documentation, I'm free to write
supporting functions in whatever language I desire (assembler
recommended). Asic doesn't have more than 80 commands in the entire
language. To allow for expandability, it supports you adding
additional code to your program written with more advanced languages
to do things not already available to you.

> A) Claim 'asic is really close is to assembler' when the actual
> reality is that it isn't

Ahh, but the final output executable present on your hard disk after
asic has "compiled" it closely matches that of your resulting
assembler file (well, depending on your sloppyness level...). Asic
isn't p-code kook, it generates some unncessary code but not much.

> B) You habitually refer to assembly as assembler


> C) You do not know the difference between an opcode and its mnemonic;
> indeed, it is verifiably provable that you believe that the
> mnemonics are referenced in the executable.

Yes I do. You forget, The criterr.obj file posted is a patched
variant. Obviously I know what the various mnemonic statements
translate to. For example, retf is CB. Mnemonics is for you to
remember things, it's one step below machine language; you keying in
the hex yourself.

> And you say you're a programmer, huh?

Yes, that I am. BugHunter clearly demonstrates this. Have you seen it
recently?
> > if it's going to be used more than once, it should be a routine. Why
> > repeat the same code?
>
> DUH! So, why isn't it, Dustfart...?

I agreed with your statement concerning the fact it should have been
and I didn't make it so. Why do you think your going to misquote what
was said now?

> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

> Don't tell me. Let me guess...
>
> "just lazy..."

Your laughing at your own intentional misquotation?

> Of course, an utter lack of capability on your part has nothing to do with
> it at all, right?

Well, I don't know.. I understand what I'm doing with asic code, and
you don't seem to know what is going on. You seem to think you can
correct my code for me or something, but you can't even get the
language syntax right... You have to understand why I think that's so
damn funny. You know just as well as I do that most of our readers
aren't in fact programmers and might lap up whatever you have to say
purely on faith, but you have to consider one important thing. Some
others here are programmers and aren't fooled by your little games.

> Dustfart, you need a seriously hard kick in the reality glands. First of
> all, compilers produce output in a predictible manner. That is to say, when
> you put your garbage code into the compiler, what comes out is, lo and
> behold, compiled garbage. A BASIC compiler will not fix your crap,
> inefficient code, Dustfart; it will only produce a crap, inefficient
> program.

When you learn the language syntax, and get several years of actual
hands on experience programming in it, then I might consider your
advice as something more than somebody talking out of turn.

> Secondly, Dustfart, let us assume, for the sake of supposition only, that
> everything I have written, plus all the evidence placed before you to
> refute your insane lies is 100 percent pure, unadulterated, irrefutable
> bull****. Yes, let us assume that everything I have written is 100%
> techno-poppycock.

Oh, no real assumption here. It's obvious to everyone what's going on.
4Q is failing miserably, are you the reinforcement? I've made my
points several times over, this was just salt on your wounds.
language syntax? c'mon.. Your "corrected" one line code example would
generate an error, because it's not right, idiot. Mine is.

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



> So, Dustfart, based on that assumption, do you believe that your readers are
> more inclined to fall for the techno-gobbledegook bull**** than they are,
> say, to fall for the delusional ramblings of an utterly inept ****wit who
> puffs up his horribly sunken chest and declares, "it's not quiet [sic]
> basic... I will tear K-man to shreds blah blah. Your loss. Ehhhehh..
> Heh, the code is written in asic. I don't think you quiet [sic] understand
> what asic is"?
>
> >>> b=b mod 23
>
> ...
>
> read more »

[bughunter.dustin@gmail.com]

On Feb 25, 7:05 am, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dustin Cook <bughunter.dus...@gmail.com> Thou such toasts-and-butter.
> Out of my sight, thou dost infect mine eyes. Thou idle gaud. Thou
> hell-bound. Ye blurted and ye blubbed:
>
> > a$=string$(24,"+-")
>
> Here, eat some crow, you piteous halfwit...
>
> > that will do the same as the code above and below.
>
> > a$="+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-"
>
> Pig's ****ing arse it will, you utterly inept wretch.
>
> STRING$ only recognises the first character, so, unlike in your delusional
> world where any ****ing old bull**** rules, in the real world, the result of
> this:
>
> a$=string$(24,"+-")
>
> Is this...
>
> "++++++++++++++++++++++++"
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! LMFARO@you, Dustfart.

Yep, so you read the asic.txt link eh? It's been a very long time
since I've used the function.
language syntax helps, doesn't it?

> So, you still reckon you're a programmer, eh, Dustfart? **** me dead. You

Yep, I am. I know to atleast know the language syntax before I comment
on someone elses code, especially if I'm trying to make them look
stupid in doing so, wouldn't want it to backfire as it has here on
you.

> waffle on and on about assembler [sic] code and you can't even ****ing well
> write working code in your precious ****BASIC. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ****ing
> pathetic.

Well k-man, I made a simple mistake which would have still generated
an executable. Your one line code improvement over my code that you
dedicated a paragraph bashing on me was not proper syntax, and would
not compile.

My programming mistake resulting in a less functional program, yours
resulted in no functional program at all. <g>


> --
> alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
> September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
>
> "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
> alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
> AOK innews:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org

[bughunter.dustin@gmail.com]

On Feb 25, 7:13 am, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bughunter.dus...@gmail.com wrote:
> >BugHunterMalWare 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
>
> 9891?

The hit counter records single IP hits (hits from the same ip in a
period of time do not count) to the main page only. No link clicks are
counted. No effort is made to prevent sites from direct linking to the
zipfile, which will not appear on the hit counter either.

I know how well the site is doing by the logfiles generated on the
server. The log file information is extensive.

> How many people have downloaded the most recent version ofBugHunter,
> Dustin?

According to the logs, almost 2,000 times in a period of days.
Directly from my site. This does not include sites which are mirroring
the download. (And many are now, thanks to my finally getting a pad
file created).

> > isn't showing all the traffic...
> > hehehe
>
> Right.

Well, it's not like we didn't already know your a technological moron.
The hit counter was really messing you up huh?

> >www.google.com
>
> Personalized Results 1 - 50 of about 998 forbughuntertrojan

Yep, and anyone with half a brain who reads them can tell it's
simplistic trolling. Akin to schoolyard "cooties" antics.
> All Search Engines 1 - 20 of 77
> #2 "WARNING: Do not download and run theBughunterTrojan!"

Which is a completely unproven claim that makes you look like a
halfwit.

> I'm sure he'll be fine.

With a little education dear, even you could be one day.
I hope I've helped to educate you further on the great wonders of
links. Heh Heh.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

bughunter.dustin@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 25, 7:13 am, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> bughunter.dus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> BugHunterMalWare 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
>>
>> 9891?
>
<snip evasion>

>> How many people have downloaded the most recent version ofBugHunter,
>> Dustin?

<snip more evasion>

I'll ask again.

How many people have downloaded the /most recent/ version of BugHunter?

There's no doubt that with all the flurry last year, a whole lot of
people wanted to see what the fuss is.

I'm asking you how many people actually /use/ your program.

I know it isn't 9891, nor is it 2000. But the number of downloads of the
most recent version of the program should give us a good idea.

Go ahead. Lie. You know you want to.

>>> isn't showing all the traffic...
>>> hehehe
>>
>> Right.
>
> Well, it's not like we didn't already know your a technological moron.
> The hit counter was really messing you up huh?

Ooooh...cut to the quick! I'm bleeding to death.

>>> www.google.com
>>
>> Personalized Results 1 - 50 of about 998 forbughuntertrojan
>
> Yep, and anyone with half a brain who reads them can tell it's
> simplistic trolling. Akin to schoolyard "cooties" antics.
>> All Search Engines 1 - 20 of 77
>> #2 "WARNING: Do not download and run theBughunterTrojan!"
>
> Which is a completely unproven claim that makes you look like a
> halfwit.

Maybe we should take a vote.

Oh wait. We already did.

>> I'm sure he'll be fine.
>
> With a little education dear, even you could be one day.
> I hope I've helped to educate you further on the great wonders of
> links. Heh Heh.

Does this mean the maniacal laughter will start soon?

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay

[bughunter.dustin@gmail.com]

On Feb 25, 7:22 pm, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bughunter.dus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 25, 7:13 am, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>bughunter.dus...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> BugHunterMalWare 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
>
> >> 9891?
>
> <snip evasion>

What evasion? You relied on the hit counter to tell you how many times
the zipfile may have been downloaded. I can't help it if you relied on
information that's unreliable due to the fact you didn't know how it
worked.

Admission of your attempt to evade, noted.

> >> How many people have downloaded the most recent version ofBugHunter,
> >> Dustin?
>
> <snip more evasion>

See above.

> I'll ask again.
>
> How many people have downloaded the /most recent/ version ofBugHunter?

I already told you, according to the logfiles, close to 2000 downloads
of it. You are counting version of program, and not signature release
right? As the signatures and the program aren't the same files....

> There's no doubt that with all the flurry last year, a whole lot of
> people wanted to see what the fuss is.

The flurry hasn't stopped, hon. It's increasing again. Despite your
efforts to kill my legitimate program by misleading the public, it had
the opposite effect. You caused people to become interested in the
program.

> I'm asking you how many people actually /use/ your program.

I don't know. How many people actually drive Chevy Astrovans?

> I know it isn't 9891, nor is it 2000. But the number of downloads of the
> most recent version of the program should give us a good idea.

Once again, it won't give us a good idea. Any site that is mirroring
the zipfile won't be taken into account.
With the pad file submission, that's many more sites which could be
mirroring and/or direct linking to me.

The only numbers I can get are from the logfiles, and the logfiles
only know systems that have got it directly from me.

> Go ahead. Lie. You know you want to.

Nothing to lie about. BugHunter speaks for itself.

> > Well, it's not like we didn't already know your a technological moron.
> > The hit counter was really messing you up huh?
>
> Ooooh...cut to the quick! I'm bleeding to death.

So the hit counter did, infact, mess you up huh?

> > Yep, and anyone with half a brain who reads them can tell it's
> > simplistic trolling. Akin to schoolyard "cooties" antics.
> >> All Search Engines 1 - 20 of 77
> >> #2 "WARNING: Do not download and run theBughunterTrojan!"
>
> > Which is a completely unproven claim that makes you look like a
> > halfwit.
>
> Maybe we should take a vote.
>
> Oh wait. We already did.

We should take a vote to decide whether or not something is true? The
claim is completely unproven. If you have evidence to the contrary,
I'm calling your bluff to provide it. The spotlight's on you.

> > With a little education dear, even you could be one day.
> > I hope I've helped to educate you further on the great wonders of
> > links. Heh Heh.
>
> Does this mean the maniacal laughter will start soon?

As long as you continue to remain on your medication, you shouldn't be
having any issues.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

bughunter.dustin@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 25, 7:22 pm, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> bughunter.dus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 25, 7:13 am, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> bughunter.dus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> BugHunterMalWare 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
>>
>>>> 9891?
>>
>> <snip evasion>
>
> What evasion? You relied on the hit counter to tell you how many times
> the zipfile may have been downloaded.

No I didn't.

I was making fun of the feeble hit count.

> I can't help it if you relied on
> information that's unreliable due to the fact you didn't know how it
> worked.

<sigh>

> Admission of your attempt to evade, noted.
>
>>>> How many people have downloaded the most recent version
>>>> ofBugHunter, Dustin?
>>
>> <snip more evasion>
>
> See above.

Answer the question.

>> I'll ask again.
>>
>> How many people have downloaded the /most recent/ version
>> ofBugHunter?
>
> I already told you, according to the logfiles, close to 2000 downloads
> of it. You are counting version of program, and not signature release
> right? As the signatures and the program aren't the same files....

Y'know...I was asking only for the current version of the program, but I
think that the most recent signature release figures would be a more
accurate indicator of how many people are using the program.

Put up.

>> There's no doubt that with all the flurry last year, a whole lot of
>> people wanted to see what the fuss is.
>
> The flurry hasn't stopped, hon. It's increasing again. Despite your
> efforts to kill my legitimate program by misleading the public, it had
> the opposite effect. You caused people to become interested in the
> program.

I haven't done anything to mislead the public, Dustin.

Your utter lack of credibility speaks for itself without any help from
me.

>> I'm asking you how many people actually /use/ your program.
>
> I don't know. How many people actually drive Chevy Astrovans?

I don't make Chevy Astrovans.

But if I did, I would know.

>> I know it isn't 9891, nor is it 2000. But the number of downloads of
>> the most recent version of the program should give us a good idea.
>
> Once again, it won't give us a good idea. Any site that is mirroring
> the zipfile won't be taken into account.
> With the pad file submission, that's many more sites which could be
> mirroring and/or direct linking to me.
>
> The only numbers I can get are from the logfiles, and the logfiles
> only know systems that have got it directly from me.
>
>> Go ahead. Lie. You know you want to.
>
> Nothing to lie about. BugHunter speaks for itself.

Yep.

And no one is using it.

<choking on laughter>

>>> Well, it's not like we didn't already know your a technological
>>> moron. The hit counter was really messing you up huh?
>>
>> Ooooh...cut to the quick! I'm bleeding to death.
>
> So the hit counter did, infact, mess you up huh?

You dolt.

>>> Yep, and anyone with half a brain who reads them can tell it's
>>> simplistic trolling. Akin to schoolyard "cooties" antics.
>>>> All Search Engines 1 - 20 of 77
>>>> #2 "WARNING: Do not download and run theBughunterTrojan!"
>>
>>> Which is a completely unproven claim that makes you look like a
>>> halfwit.
>>
>> Maybe we should take a vote.
>>
>> Oh wait. We already did.
>
> We should take a vote to decide whether or not something is true? The
> claim is completely unproven. If you have evidence to the contrary,
> I'm calling your bluff to provide it. The spotlight's on you.

Google is full of evidence that you're a halfwit, Dustin.

You are a shoo-in to win this contest.

>>> With a little education dear, even you could be one day.
>>> I hope I've helped to educate you further on the great wonders of
>>> links. Heh Heh.
>>
>> Does this mean the maniacal laughter will start soon?
>
> As long as you continue to remain on your medication, you shouldn't be
> having any issues.

/My/ medication?

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay

[Kadaitcha Man]

bughunter.dustin@gmail.com Thou votary to fond desire. Thou heedless
jolthead. Thou poor inch of nature. Bless me, what a fry of fornication
is at the door. Ye meandered and ye ministered:

> On Feb 25, 7:05 am, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dustin Cook <bughunter.dus...@gmail.com> Thou such toasts-and-butter.
>> Out of my sight, thou dost infect mine eyes. Thou idle gaud. Thou
>> hell-bound. Ye blurted and ye blubbed:
>>
>>> a$=string$(24,"+-")
>>
>> Here, eat some crow, you piteous halfwit...
>>
>>> that will do the same as the code above and below.
>>
>>> a$="+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-"
>>
>> Pig's ****ing arse it will, you utterly inept wretch.
>>
>> STRING$ only recognises the first character, so, unlike in your
>> delusional world where any ****ing old bull**** rules, in the real
>> world, the result of this:
>>
>> a$=string$(24,"+-")
>>
>> Is this...
>>
>> "++++++++++++++++++++++++"
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! LMFARO@you, Dustfart.
>
> Yep, so you read the asic.txt link eh? It's been a very long time
> since I've used the function.
> language syntax helps, doesn't it?

You need to backpedal harder, Dustfart, and your pathetic IDIOTICONS will
not save you. You ****ed up completely mid-way through bragging and
bull****ting about how good you think you are but aren't. It is now my job
as a k0oKologist to make sure all that rotten egg on your face stays there
and stinks for as long as possible.

>> So, you still reckon you're a programmer, eh, Dustfart? **** me
>> dead. You
>
> Yep, I am.

That's some mighty fine delusion you're having, Dustfart. Next time the
pharmacy fills the prescription for your psychotropic drugs, ask them to
write six extra zeroes on the dispensing quantity and to deliver them by
truck.

Oh, and don't forget to take them all at once.

> I know to atleast know the language syntax before I comment
> on someone elses code, especially if I'm trying to make them look
> stupid in doing so, wouldn't want it to backfire as it has here on
> you.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Dustfart, you just shot yourself in the head.
Again. "atleast [sic] know[ing] the language syntax" is _not_ a
qualification for being a programmer. Only one solitary personal attribute
is required to become a programmer, Dustfart, and you do not possess it; you
never had it. Your incompetent usenet blitherings and your typed-out chaos,
which you have the gall to call a "program", prove you never had it.

There are pitiful, homeless tramps gadding about the streets dressed in
stinking, tatty rags and piss-stained slippers who possess the only requiste
skill, which you lack.

>> waffle on and on about assembler [sic] code and you can't even
>> ****ing well write working code in your precious ****BASIC.
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ****ing pathetic.
>
> Well k-man, I made a simple mistake which would have still generated
> an executable.

Don't look now, Dustfart, but every time you go over those freshly-opened,
self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the side of your head you're doing my work
for me.

> Your one line code improvement over my code that you
> dedicated a paragraph bashing on me was not proper syntax, and would
> not compile.

You keep getting told but you never hear, do you, Dustfart? Stop picking at
your self-inflicted wounds, you dumb ****.

You are the one who is bragging and inflating your worthlessness in a vain
attempt to make it into something, Dustfart. Not anyone else. You can polish
a turd until it looks like burnished bronze, but it is still a turd,
Dustfart. You are too stupid to realise that it is irrelevant that the code
would not compile. What is relevant, Dustfart, is that you actually compiled
it.

No doubt you need that explained to you because, clearly, you lack
sufficient discernment skills to understand the point being made.

You do not even have the ****ing halfwit about you to state that code "will
not compile" so as to at least _give_ the impression you possess the simple
ability to think ahead. Instead you admit to compiling the code before
declaring that the code "would not" compile. In short, Dustfart, you could
not assert with even a single, paltry shred of confidence that the code
would not compile beforehand.

**** me dead, Dusfart, freaking squirrels stowing acorns for next winter are
think ahead better than you.

I will take your false accusation of reading the manual over your bragging
claim that a$=string$(24,"+-") did something that it does not do. And I will
take that kind of false accusation over your endless series of utterly inept
cockups and backpedals any day of the week.

> My programming mistake resulting in a less functional program, yours
> resulted in no functional program at all. <g>

Dustfart, what sort of a ****ing retard are you to keep poking your fist
into the gunshot wounds in the side of your head to make them start bleeding
again whilst at the same time declaring "NEENER! NEENER! It's just a
scratch!", only to end up staring blankly at the screen with a gormless grin
or your stupid gob?

> a$=string$(24,"+-")
>
> that will do the same as the code above and below.
>
> a$="+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH! LMAO@you

--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org

[Kadaitcha Man]

bughunter.dustin@gmail.com Thou recreant. Thy will is most malignant.
Thou inane dish of skim milk. Thou unsightly most villainous knave. Ye
jargoned and ye swore:

> On Feb 25, 5:35 am, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I bet when your code is peer-reviewed your stock response to the
>> peels of laughter is "that was sloppy on my part". You have had
>> code peer-reviewed, yes?
>
> Your very amusing at times.

The question stands. Please attend to it...

You have had code peer-reviewed, yes?

<snip>

>> Just lazy, huh? More like you downright don't ****ing know what
>> you're doing. Of course, the rest of this post is aimed at proving
>> exactly that claim.
>
> We shall see.

You can only fool yourself all of the time, Dustfart.

Firstly, your delusions of adequacy and your NORAD-like psychological
defence mechansisms (to pinch a phrase I coined earlier in another thread
where other ko0ks like yourself were being discussed) never fail kick in to
protect you from the reality of the depth of your utter worthlessness. It
goes without saying that you could stand before God Almighty, Him accusing
you of sheer ****wittery, and still have the bare-faced cheek to deny you're
a ****wit.

Secondly, Dustfart, and you've been told this time and time again, and still
it hasn't sunken in to that massive slab of steel-reinforced concrete you
like to call a head; It is neither your decision nor mine to determine the
accuracy or otherwise of the accusations of consummate ****wittery made
against you.

Your readers will decide. Not you. Not me.

>> 20-20 hindsight, btw.
>>
>>>>> b=rnd(0)
>>>>> b=b mod 23
>>>>> death=b
>>
>>>> Three lines of code are used to do what can be done in one line...
>>
>>>> death = rnd(0) mod 23
>>
>>> Ahh, but your wrong sir. This is Asic, it cannot be done in one
>>> line.
>>
>> Admission to using **** to write **** noted.
>
> Admission that you<BICTHSLAP>

Monkey see, monkey do.

> messed up, noted.
> Admission that you couldn't even get such simple code commented
> properly, also noted.
>
> I won't bother responding to your assinine attempts

Dustfart, if the same principle were applied to you and all your usenet
posts, you'd be the world's loneliest poster. Hell, even drive-by spammers
would get more acknowledgement of their existence.

> to figure asic
> out, as you aren't correct on any of it

Is that so? How do you explain this then...?

>> a$=string$(24,"+-")
>
> Here, eat some crow, you piteous halfwit...
>
>> that will do the same as the code above and below.
>>
>> a$="+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-"
>
> Pig's ****ing arse it will, you utterly inept wretch.

Go on. Explain that in context of my allegedly not being "correct on any of it".

> even after providing you the
> damn manual which comes with it. The code generated by asic, as in the
> exe fie, isn't interpreted or p-code as you seem to be thinking it is.

You incompetent ****head. Code is what you write; or in your case, scribble.
Instructions are what compilers produce.

CODE <> INSTRUCTIONS

Do you understand that, Mister-High-and-Mighty-Programmer who also does not
know the difference between input and output?

Results 1 - 100 of about 1,090,000 English pages for computer programming
basics code instructions. (0.76 seconds)

Picking a link at random from only the first eight displayed of the more than one million pages...

Programming BasicsSince a computer program consists of a series of
instructions for the computer ... the process of writing the actual program
code in some computer language. ...
http://www.play-hookey.com/computers...ng_basics.html - 8k - Cached -
Similar pages

> Your assembler<*****SLAP>

Assembly, Dustfart. Assembly. I, being highly skilled in programming, write
Assembly. You, being the dribbling ****wit that you are are the one who
dabbles about with "assembler".

> sample, is (golly gee) the same thing that's actually
> inside the exe file. *burn*

Oh, someone else wrote a program that displays "Hello, ****Nuts Dusfart!"?

<snippage of stuff you ignored and did not reply to, yet again>

>>> Ouch, I don't think you realize how close asic really is to
>>> assembler...
>>
>> 1. Unsupported assertion. Claim fails.
>
>> 2. ASIC is a BASIC compiler that includes a number of BASICA and
>> QBASIC commands, Dustfart. The ASIC instruction set does not contain
>> any JMP, MOV, NOP, CPL, JNZ, JZ, INC, DEC or any other assembler
>> [sic] commands. So it is beyond the reasonable mind to understand
>> how it can be the case that anyone other than you can appreciate
>> just "how close asic really is to assembler [sic]".
>
> Because I've disassembled the resulting binary files created with the
> language. Asic isn't p-code nor is it interpreted.

Well, **** me dead, Dustfart. You've made a major discovery there. Do you
suppose it could be possible that if you disassembled every natively
compiled executable ever compiled by every native complier available that
you'd identify a correlation so undeniable that you could state with some
certainty that all native compilers produce binary files that are not
interpreted and are not p-code?

I can see now why you believe you're a genius, Dustfart.

The alert reader will note that not only have you conflated code with
instructions, you just tried to conflate reverse-engineered
instructions represented by assembly mnemonics into ASIC BASIC.

How smart did you say you weren't again, Dustfart?

>> Why the assembler [sic] code straw-man, Dustfart? Got you by the
>> scruff of the neck, have I? Hmmm?
>
> See above. What was that about the scruff?
>
>> Assembler [sic] code is your straw-man to avoid the charges against
>> you. Nevertheless I will gleefully and wilfully attack your
>> straw-man with gusto,
>
> K-man, You were not even able to properly comment on very simple code,
> of course you would try the "well, you have a strawman" defense. Face
> it, I've beaten you. You jumped before you looked.

Your delusional opinion counts for what, exactly, Dustfart?

>> but only because doing so exposes you to even more justifiable
>> accusations of complete and utterly delusional ****wittery.
>
> Yes, I'm sure you will.
>
>> 4. I will now proceed to show you just "how close asic really is to
>> assembler [sic]", Dustin...
>>
>> First the assembler [sic]:
>>
>> Name "SuckEggsDustin"
>> org 300H
>> JMP Start
>> String db "Hello, ****Nuts Dustfart!", 0DH, 0AH, 24H
>> Start: LEA DX, String
>> MOV DX, 09H
>> INT 21H
>> MOV AH, 0
>> RET
>>
>> Now in ASIC
>>
>> Print "Hello, ****Nuts Dustfart!";
>
> And the resulting binary's code closely matches your assembler. Asic
> does use some code which I find unnecessary, but it does it anyway.
>
>> As you can see, Dustin, I obviously do not realise "how close asic
>> really is to assembler" [sic] as much as you do.
>
> No, that I understood with your first try.

Well then, you're just going to have to force yourself to show, step by
woefully laborious step, how it is that this code indicates just "how close
asic really is to assembler [sic]"...

First the assembler [sic]:

Name "SuckEggsDustin"
org 300H
JMP Start
String db "Hello, ****Nuts Dustfart!", 0DH, 0AH, 24H
Start: LEA DX, String
MOV DX, 09H
INT 21H
MOV AH, 0
RET

Now in ASIC

Print "Hello, ****Nuts Dustfart!";

The bad news, Dusfart, is that you are now going to have to do it without
confusing CODE with INSTRUCTIONS, and without confusing binary OUTPUT
with ASIC BASIC input.

Your audience awaits your stony silence. Get to it.

>> That would be assembler [sic] code put there by the compiler, yes?
>> You know, "code" that you did not actually write. Oh, and the
>> completely straw-man
>
> Well, short of writing everything in machine language, you can't
> actually claim anybody has authored anything original, and even
> then....

Woah! Back up there a moment, retard...

Who made any claim even remotely resembling "writing everything in machine
language, you can't actually claim anybody has authored anything original"?

The point under discussion here, which must have gone right through one of
those shotgun wounds in your head, is this:

The ASIC BASIC code is very close to Assembly code.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^

That is a paraphrase of your claim. It has already been established that you
do not know the difference between input and ouput, and that you do not know
the difference between code and instructions. And it has already been
established that, following on from your failure to understand the
difference between code and instructions, that you believe machine
instructions are code.

The points are these:

Point 1. "I don't think you realize how close asic really is to
assembler..."

The implication that I do not know the difference is
proven false and the reverse is true, viz it is you
who knows nothing.

The implication that "ASIC BASIC code is very close
to Assembly code" is proven false.

Point 2: It is verifiably true that in order to justify and
support your claims you not only conflated machine
instructions and code, you also conflated binary
output with ASIC BASIC input.

The implications of those two points are also two-fold:

1. Either you deliberately performed the conflation, OR

2. It is true that you have less repute as a programmer
than the coprophilic orang-utans swinging upside down
from the tops of trees in Indonesia that were used to
pillory you previously.

Taken together, your ineptitude and lack of ability are so immense that you
do not have the wits about you to even think of trying to pull off a slimy
card trick, let alone get caught doing it, so my money is on implication 2.

Ceteris paribus, your pervasive confusion between CODE and INSTRUCTIONS,
and binary OUTPUT with ASIC BASIC INPUT could stand alone as testament to
the truth.

>> assembler [sic] code that we're not actually dicussing because we're
>> really talking about the ASIC BASIC compiler that does not include
>> support for assembly language mnemonics, yes?
>
> It doesn't?

No, it doesn't. Perhaps you would like to quote vast tracts of the manual
again showing exactly where support for assembly language mnemonics is
documented while proving the exact opposite?

> Strange... According to the documentation, I'm free to write
> supporting functions in whatever language I desire (assembler
> recommended). Asic doesn't have more than 80 commands in the entire
> language. To allow for expandability, it supports you adding
> additional code to your program written with more advanced languages
> to do things not already available to you.

Let us grant, for the sake of argument only, that it is true that "[you are]
free to write supporting functions in whatever language [you] desire".

Now, from that granted assumption, please explain, in your best spluttering
drool, why it is not the case that "the ASIC BASIC compiler that does not
include support for assembly language mnemonics."

Thank you.

PS: Your audience awaits more of your shifty footwork. get to it.

Let me know if the mental dexterity required to invert the logical negation
of a plain English sentence expressed in the negative gives you a headache,
Dustfart. I'll fix it for you.

<reloads shotgun>

>> A) Claim 'asic is really close is to assembler' when the actual
>> reality is that it isn't
>
> Ahh, but the final output executable<*****SLAP>

Code is input. Your claim is that the code 'is really close is to
assembler'.

Once more, for the perpetually stupid, we are dealing with input,
Dustfart, not output.

> present on your hard disk after
> asic has "compiled" it closely matches that of your resulting
> assembler file (well, depending on your sloppyness level...). Asic
> isn't p-code kook, it generates some unncessary code but not much.

Output <> Input

Code <> Instructions

ASIC BASIC <> "assmebler" [sic]

HTH

>> B) You habitually refer to assembly as assembler
>
>
>> C) You do not know the difference between an opcode and its mnemonic;
>> indeed, it is verifiably provable that you believe that the
>> mnemonics are referenced in the executable.
>
> Yes I do. You forget, The criterr.obj file posted is a patched
> variant.

What evidence do you have to support the claim that I forgot anything about
the "criterr.obj file posted"?

In order to support your claim, you are going to have to show that I knew
about, let alone ****ing cared about, the "criterr.obj file posted", you
stupidly presumptuous ****plug.

> Obviously I know what the various mnemonic statements
> translate to. For example, retf is CB. Mnemonics is for you to
> remember things, it's one step below machine language; you keying in
> the hex yourself.

The available empirical evidence does not indicate what you now claim is
the obvious.

>> And you say you're a programmer, huh?
>
> Yes, that I am. BugHunter clearly demonstrates this. Have you seen it
> recently?

<pours high-octane petroleum on Dustfart's latest straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>

At best, the available empirical evidence indicates that you are nothing
more than a ****witted dabbler who lacks the necessary logical turn of mind
to cut proper code.

At worst, the available empirical evidence indicates that you are a
self-immersed and utterly delusional lying cur who rightly belongs under
intensive treatment in a mental institution.

You know, Dustfart, whenever I read your posts, I get the feeling that your
parents must surely have rued the day that lobotomies were outlawed. Yours
would be the only case in history where a full lobotomy ever resulted in an
improvement in cognitive ability.

>>> if it's going to be used more than once, it should be a routine. Why
>>> repeat the same code?
>>
>> DUH! So, why isn't it, Dustfart...?
>
> I agreed with your statement concerning the fact it should have been
> and I didn't make it so. Why do you think your going to misquote what
> was said now?

Real meaning: 20-20 hindsight.

Your hindsight is so keen that I am forced to wonder if you eyes in your
arse.

>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>> Don't tell me. Let me guess...
>>
>> "just lazy..."
>
> Your laughing at your own intentional misquotation?

Seeing as you got caught in yet another inept context snip I'll merely point
to the body of evidence that says you're a delusional ****tard and leave it
at that.

>> Of course, an utter lack of capability on your part has nothing to
>> do with it at all, right?
>
> Well, I don't know.

Sure you know. Deep down you do know. Your delusional state prevents you
from acknowledging it though.

>. I understand what I'm doing with asic code, and
> you don't seem to know what is going on. You seem to think you can
> correct my code for me or something, but you can't even get the
> language syntax right... You have to understand why I think that's so
> damn funny. You know just as well as I do that most of our readers
> aren't in fact programmers and might lap up whatever you have to say
> purely on faith, but you have to consider one important thing. Some
> others here are programmers and aren't fooled by your little games.

Let's break that down into more manageable chunks:

> you don't seem
> You seem to think
> you can't even
> You have to understand
> You know just as well as I do
> purely on faith
> you have to consider

Ok, but have you got any facts to go on?

As for this...

"You know just as well as I do that most of our readers aren't in fact
programmers and might lap up whatever you have to say purely on faith"

I sincerely doubt your capacity to have thought about that until it was told
to you. Nevertheless if it is true that "most of our readers aren't in fact
programmers and might lap up whatever [I] have to say purely on faith" then
that's not my problem. It's yours, entirely, and I refuse to deal with it.

You deal with it, Dustfart. It's your problem.

As for "our readers", this show is all about you, Dustfart. You and you
only. I am merely the puppeteer pulling your strings from up in the loft.

>> Dustfart, you need a seriously hard kick in the reality glands.
>> First of all, compilers produce output in a predictible manner. That
>> is to say, when you put your garbage code into the compiler, what
>> comes out is, lo and behold, compiled garbage. A BASIC compiler will
>> not fix your crap, inefficient code, Dustfart; it will only produce
>> a crap, inefficient program.
>
> When you learn the language syntax, and get several years of actual
> hands on experience programming in it, then I might consider your
> advice as something more than somebody talking out of turn.

So, what depth of knowledge of "the language syntax" and how many "years
of actual hands on experience programming in" ASIC BASIC did it take to
make the following cockup...?

> a$=string$(24,"+-")
>
> that will do the same as the code above and below.
>
> a$="+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-"

Hmm? Well?

>> Secondly, Dustfart, let us assume, for the sake of supposition only,
>> that everything I have written, plus all the evidence placed before
>> you to refute your insane lies is 100 percent pure, unadulterated,
>> irrefutable bull****. Yes, let us assume that everything I have
>> written is 100% techno-poppycock.
>
> Oh, no real assumption here. It's obvious to everyone what's going on.
> 4Q is failing miserably, are you the reinforcement? I've made my
> points several times over, this was just salt on your wounds.
> language syntax? c'mon.. Your "corrected" one line code example would
> generate an error, because it's not right, idiot. Mine is.

Would you mind showing, using, say, a join the dots picture of a bunny
rabbit, how your wild imagination managed to run up the ladder of inference
like a rat up a drainpipe and get from a wholly valid supposition into
"BRING ON THE CAVALRY!!!!" in a single leap.

In your best scribble, please. And no drool.

Thank you.

>> So, Dustfart, based on that assumption, do you believe that your
>> readers are more inclined to fall for the techno-gobbledegook
>> bull**** than they are, say, to fall for the delusional ramblings of
>> an utterly inept ****wit who puffs up his horribly sunken chest and
>> declares, "it's not quiet [sic] basic... I will tear K-man to shreds
>> blah blah. Your loss. Ehhhehh.. Heh, the code is written in
>> asic. I don't think you quiet [sic] understand what asic is"?

The unanswered question to the wholly valid supposition stands. Answer it.

Do you believe that your readers are more inclined to fall for the
techno-gobbledegook bull**** than they are, say, to fall for the delusional
ramblings of an utterly inept ****wit who puffs up his horribly sunken chest
and declares, "it's not quiet [sic] basic... I will tear K-man to shreds
blah blah. Your loss. Ehhhehh.. Heh, the code is written in asic. I don't
think you quiet [sic] understand what asic is"?

--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org

[bughunter.dustin@gmail.com]

On Feb 25, 8:20 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yep, so you read the asic.txt link eh? It's been a very long time
> > since I've used the function.
> > language syntax helps, doesn't it?
>
> You need to backpedal harder, Dustfart, and your pathetic IDIOTICONS will

I'm not the one doing any backpeddling...

> > I know to atleast know the language syntax before I comment
> > on someone elses code, especially if I'm trying to make them look
> > stupid in doing so, wouldn't want it to backfire as it has here on
> > you.
>
> Again. "atleast [sic] know[ing] the language syntax" is _not_ a
> qualification for being a programmer. Only one solitary personal attribute

Oh your right of course, not knowing the syntax of the language your
instructing a person in makes alot of sense. /sarcasm.

> > Well k-man, I made a simple mistake which would have still generated
> > an executable.
>
> Don't look now, Dustfart, but every time you go over those freshly-opened,
> self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the side of your head you're doing my work
> for me.

I think your suffering from mental halliciounations (sp?). I'm unaware
of any gunshot wounds. I'm aware of an individual (you) who tried to
school me in coding in asic. One obvious problem with this is, you
don't even know the asic syntax.

> Dustfart. You are too stupid to realise that it is irrelevant that the code
> would not compile. What is relevant, Dustfart, is that you actually compiled
> it.

I compiled it? Ehh, no. I didn't need too.

> No doubt you need that explained to you because, clearly, you lack
> sufficient discernment skills to understand the point being made.

Oh the point is simple, k-man. You don't know asic from assembler, and
you've been trying to convince others that this isn't the case ever
since.

> You do not even have the ****ing halfwit about you to state that code "will
> not compile" so as to at least _give_ the impression you possess the simple
> ability to think ahead. Instead you admit to compiling the code before
> declaring that the code "would not" compile. In short, Dustfart, you could
> not assert with even a single, paltry shred of confidence that the code
> would not compile beforehand.

K-man, your grasping desperatly at straws. I didn't compile any code
from you. You didn't know your improved code wasn't valid Asic syntax
until I pointed this out to you. Now, try as you might to paint the
picture opposite of what it is, You are the individual who posted
invalid syntax trying to correct my code.

> **** me dead, Dusfart, freaking squirrels stowing acorns for next winter are
> think ahead better than you.

If the squirrels are making the same assumptions about things that you
are, they're going to starve next winter.

> I will take your false accusation of reading the manual over your bragging
> claim that a$=string$(24,"+-") did something that it does not do. And I will

bragging claim? Desperate huh? I said it was a mistake on my part. The
reason I suspect you read the manual is because you didn't know asic
syntax well enough to know that the code you posted wouldn't work, the
code I posted on the other hand is the correct way in asic to do what
I was doing, burns you up doesn't it? Caught with your pants down like
this, I mean.

> > My programming mistake resulting in a less functional program, yours
> > resulted in no functional program at all. <g>
>
> Dustfart, what sort of a ****ing retard are you to keep poking your fist
> into the gunshot wounds in the side of your head to make them start bleeding
> again whilst at the same time declaring "NEENER! NEENER! It's just a
> scratch!", only to end up staring blankly at the screen with a gormless grin
> or your stupid gob?

While you are indeed clever with your insults, it doesn't change the
fact this thread has shown you to be an utter idiot with regards to
asic, the language, it's syntax or anything else concerning it. No
amount of witty attempts to twist things around is going to change
those facts.

> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH! LMAO@you

I was laughing alot at your correction. I bet you laugh at yourself
alot, with all the mistakes you likely make in a day.
I really started laughing when you said syntax wasn't important. See
how easy it is to mislead people into thinking you said something you
didn't actually say?

Trademark troll tactic, crossposting. That's alright, this response is
certainly worth cross-posting back.

--
Dustin Cook
Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool v2.2

[Kadaitcha Man]

bughunter.dustin@gmail.com Thou swasher. Thou hag of all despite. Thou
woeful man. Pray God we may make haste, and come too late. Ye sniveled
and ye confounded:

> On Feb 25, 7:22 pm, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> bughunter.dus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 25, 7:13 am, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> bughunter.dus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> BugHunterMalWare 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
>>
>>>> 9891?
>>
>> <snip evasion>
>
> What evasion? You relied on the hit counter to tell you how many times
> the zipfile may have been downloaded. I can't help it if you relied on
> information that's unreliable due to the fact you didn't know how it
> worked.

You know, Dustfart, in all my days on usenet, and there many, indeed, in all
my days on this planet, I have never, ever seen anyone padlock the exit
door, swallow the key then promptly proceed to paint themselves into a
corner quite the way you do, and with such unwitting stupidity and haste.

How witless are you to not realise that you just defenestrated every single
one of your claims about the imaginary success of your BogHunter trojan?

--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org