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