Re: is 4Q in violation of the terms of service for host.sk?

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Dustin Cook wrote:

<snip>

> *yawn*. Keep running that mouth 4Q.
> maybe you'll get a taste of the available bandwidth, just not as you
> had hoped. Remember the email?
>
> If all this is true, we have alot of network resources at our
> disposal. In theory if your sites administrator isn't willing to deal
> with you, I suspect we'd have enough resources to show a hand of
> force... Getting my drift?

Apparently you just threatened his hosting company with a denial of
service attack.

I have a vague recollection of similar threats.

<snip>

> Well, The way I see it, we've gone beyond satire; The comments you
> made towards my mom, who has absolutely nothing to do with your
> personal issue with me, is pretty much what crossed the line. I told
> you ****head, you can bash on me all you like, but ****ing with my
> family or others (HHI) who have nothing to do with this, isn't in your
> best interest.

<snip>

You brought your mother into it when you tried to blame her for those
stupid "supportive" posts, just like you brought HHI into it when you
tried to blame one of them for the alt.sex post.

No one believes you, Dustin, because you've pissed on your own
credibility.

I looked at the Yahoo profile for "strawberrydamsel."

http://profiles.yahoo.com/strawberrydamsel

It's completely blank but for the update line. What I'm sure you don't
realize is that until the account is actually updated, the update line
reflects the date the account was opened. In this case, that was
2/25/2007.

What you have asked us all to believe is that you left google open, and
when your mother saw the posts, she became so incensed, she logged out
of your account, opened both a yahoo account and a google account,
logged into the google account, found the group again and made those
posts.

It is the height of narcissism for you to think you are so much smarter
than the rest of us, when you continue to demonstrate you are so much
stupider than most of us.


In other news, you've been nominated for two kooks awards, one for which
you've been nominated previously (I think): the Pathetic Anal Pineapple,
and a brand new one (for you): the Palmjob Paddle.

Congratulations, Dustin.



--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

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

[Dustin Cook]

On Feb 27, 12:47 pm, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dustin Cook wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > *yawn*. Keep running that mouth 4Q.
> > maybe you'll get a taste of the available bandwidth, just not as you
> > had hoped. Remember the email?
>
> > If all this is true, we have alot of network resources at our
> > disposal. In theory if your sites administrator isn't willing to deal
> > with you, I suspect we'd have enough resources to show a hand of
> > force... Getting my drift?
>
> Apparently you just threatened his hosting company with a denial of
> service attack.

Did I? I don't believe I did.

> <snip>
>
> You brought your mother into it when you tried to blame her for those
> stupid "supportive" posts, just like you brought HHI into it when you
> tried to blame one of them for the alt.sex post.

Ehm, Rhonda, lets think about this for a second. Why the hell would I
have my mom post on my behalf, or better yet, stupid one, why would I
create supportive posts from my OWN ****ING IP ADDRESS. You stupid,
stupid ****.

> No one believes you, Dustin, because you've pissed on your own
> credibility.

Oh, I must disagree. You assume that because people won't feed you
like I have been that everyone is against me, that's not the case.

> I looked at the Yahoo profile for "strawberrydamsel."
>
> http://profiles.yahoo.com/strawberrydamsel

You stupid ****. I already explained this.. My mom did not (still
doesn't) understand usenet, she had no ****ing clue about any of it.
She plays on neopets you stupid ****. She followed google's
instructions, created an account and posted. She thought she was
helping me out, She and I have already been over this, and I've
already told her she did more harm than good. You'll just crack on her
like you've tried doing to me.

I repeat, you stupid ****, My mom has NO CLUE about usenet, ftp, mp3s,
xvid/divx, nothing, nada, zip, zilch. She knows even less than you,
and you don't exactly know very much if you catch my meaning.

I repeat, you stupid ****,
Why the hell would I have my mom post on my behalf, or better yet,
stupid one, why would I create supportive posts from my OWN ****ING IP
ADDRESS. You stupid, stupid ****.

> It's completely blank but for the update line. What I'm sure you don't
> realize is that until the account is actually updated, the update line
> reflects the date the account was opened. In this case, that was
> 2/25/2007.

Christ, your really bright /sarcasm. The account was created minutes
before she posted, you ignoramous.


> What you have asked us all to believe is that you left google open, and
> when your mother saw the posts, she became so incensed, she logged out
> of your account, opened both a yahoo account and a google account,

logged out of my account? Ehm, ignorant ****, I wasn't logged in. I
was reading usenet articles in date order with the words bughunter.
She had no way to post aside from creating her own account; which was
not a bright thing for her to do.

My mom knows how to surf neopets and do some very simple html for her
webpage there. I thought she posted from her yahoo account via google?

> logged into the google account, found the group again and made those
> posts.

Found the group again? What the **** are you smoking? I have start
icons all over the place, she knows the browser can be used more than
once. IE: you don't have to close what your viewing to goto another
site.

> It is the height of narcissism for you to think you are so much smarter
> than the rest of us, when you continue to demonstrate you are so much
> stupider than most of us.

You don't speak for anyone but yourself, dear. and yes, I'm alot
smarter than you. You had to have hitcounters explained to you, You
had to have the concept of a LAN explained to you, and you can't even
read simple ****ing english.

You probably can't understand what I wrote for the majority of this
reply... the reason being is because... *drumroll* you have to be one
of the dumbest ****ing people on usenet. I swear licenses should be
required before people like you, and people like my mom are even
allowed near one.

4Q, our fighting aside, you really picked one dumb **** for an ally.

--
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Dustin Cook wrote:
> On Feb 27, 12:47 pm, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> *yawn*. Keep running that mouth 4Q.
>>> maybe you'll get a taste of the available bandwidth, just not as you
>>> had hoped. Remember the email?
>>
>>> If all this is true, we have alot of network resources at our
>>> disposal. In theory if your sites administrator isn't willing to
>>> deal with you, I suspect we'd have enough resources to show a hand
>>> of force... Getting my drift?
>>
>> Apparently you just threatened his hosting company with a denial of
>> service attack.
>
> Did I? I don't believe I did.

I believe that you need to learn to be a little more discrete when you
make threats, Dustin.

>> <snip>
>>
>> You brought your mother into it when you tried to blame her for those
>> stupid "supportive" posts, just like you brought HHI into it when you
>> tried to blame one of them for the alt.sex post.
>
> Ehm, Rhonda, lets think about this for a second. Why the hell would I
> have my mom post on my behalf, or better yet, stupid one, why would I
> create supportive posts from my OWN ****ING IP ADDRESS. You stupid,
> stupid ****.

Well, if that just isn't one big fat IKWYABWAI.

BTW, does it make you feel better to foam and froth, Dustin?

>> No one believes you, Dustin, because you've pissed on your own
>> credibility.
>
> Oh, I must disagree. You assume that because people won't feed you
> like I have been that everyone is against me, that's not the case.

Results 1 - 50 of about 5,030 for "The lurkers support me"

>> I looked at the Yahoo profile for "strawberrydamsel."
>>
>> http://profiles.yahoo.com/strawberrydamsel
>
> You stupid ****. I already explained this.. My mom did not (still
> doesn't) understand usenet, she had no ****ing clue about any of it.
> She plays on neopets you stupid ****. She followed google's
> instructions, created an account and posted. She thought she was
> helping me out, She and I have already been over this, and I've
> already told her she did more harm than good. You'll just crack on her
> like you've tried doing to me.

Your mother (along with your lies about her) has nothing to do with
this, so I don't know why you've dragged her into it.

> I repeat, you stupid ****, My mom has NO CLUE about usenet, ftp, mp3s,
> xvid/divx, nothing, nada, zip, zilch. She knows even less than you,
> and you don't exactly know very much if you catch my meaning.
>
> I repeat, you stupid ****,
> Why the hell would I have my mom post on my behalf, or better yet,
> stupid one, why would I create supportive posts from my OWN ****ING IP
> ADDRESS. You stupid, stupid ****.

Dustin, you would have us believe that your disabled mother, who is
utterly clueless, was nonetheless clued enough to create two brand new
accounts for the purpose of posting to google in the brief time you were
away from your computer.

Occam's Razor says you're liar.

>> It's completely blank but for the update line. What I'm sure you
>> don't realize is that until the account is actually updated, the
>> update line reflects the date the account was opened. In this case,
>> that was 2/25/2007.
>
> Christ, your really bright /sarcasm. The account was created minutes
> before she posted, you ignoramous.

My point, exactly.

>> What you have asked us all to believe is that you left google open,
>> and when your mother saw the posts, she became so incensed, she
>> logged out of your account, opened both a yahoo account and a google
>> account,
>
> logged out of my account? Ehm, ignorant ****, I wasn't logged in. I
> was reading usenet articles in date order with the words bughunter.
> She had no way to post aside from creating her own account; which was
> not a bright thing for her to do.

"How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child."

> My mom knows how to surf neopets and do some very simple html for her
> webpage there. I thought she posted from her yahoo account via google?
>
>> logged into the google account, found the group again and made those
>> posts.
>
> Found the group again? What the **** are you smoking? I have start
> icons all over the place, she knows the browser can be used more than
> once. IE: you don't have to close what your viewing to goto another
> site.

Dustin. Watch the monitor. I don't believe you.

>> It is the height of narcissism for you to think you are so much
>> smarter than the rest of us, when you continue to demonstrate you
>> are so much stupider than most of us.
>
> You don't speak for anyone but yourself, dear.

I wasn't speaking for anyone else.

It's that reading comprehension thing again, isn't it.

> and yes, I'm alot
> smarter than you. You had to have hitcounters explained to you, You
> had to have the concept of a LAN explained to you, and you can't even
> read simple ****ing english.

rofl!

"When all else fails, lie."

> You probably can't understand what I wrote for the majority of this
> reply... the reason being is because... *drumroll* you have to be one
> of the dumbest ****ing people on usenet. I swear licenses should be
> required before people like you, and people like my mom are even
> allowed near one.
>
> 4Q, our fighting aside, you really picked one dumb **** for an ally.

It's because I've never won a kook award, Mr. Kook of the Month for
September 2006.

P.S. Did you see your two nominations this month?

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

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

[Kadaitcha Man]

Dustin Cook <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> Thou wanton boy that swims on
bladders. Thou mechanic slave. Thou balloon-headed graceless. Thou weedy
base pander. Ye disputed and ye hung crepe:

> On Feb 27, 12:47 pm, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> *yawn*. Keep running that mouth 4Q.
>>> maybe you'll get a taste of the available bandwidth, just not as you
>>> had hoped. Remember the email?
>>
>>> If all this is true, we have alot of network resources at our
>>> disposal. In theory if your sites administrator isn't willing to
>>> deal with you, I suspect we'd have enough resources to show a hand
>>> of force... Getting my drift?
>>
>> Apparently you just threatened his hosting company with a denial of
>> service attack.
>
> Did I? I don't believe I did.

Don't lose sight of the fact that you do believe you're a programmer.

"If all this is true, we have alot of network resources at our
disposal. In theory if your sites administrator isn't willing to
deal with you, I suspect we'd have enough resources to show a hand
of force..."

That is not, by any stretch of the reasonable imagination, any kind of "get
my drift", side-ways looking hint, hint, nudge, nudge, wink, wink statement,
Dustfart. It is one shade off being an outright threat.

> Why the hell would I have my mom post on my behalf, or better yet,
> stupid one, why would I create supportive posts from my OWN
> ****ING IP ADDRESS.

Because you're a 100% certifiable k0oK.

>> No one believes you, Dustin, because you've pissed on your own
>> credibility.
>
> Oh, I must disagree.

It's either that or agree with every word that has been said against you,
eh.

>> I looked at the Yahoo profile for "strawberrydamsel."
>>
>> http://profiles.yahoo.com/strawberrydamsel
>
> You stupid ****. I already explained this.. My mom did not (still
> doesn't) understand usenet, she had no ****ing clue about any of it.
> She plays on neopets you stupid ****. She followed google's
> instructions, created an account and posted. She thought she was
> helping me out, She and I have already been over this, and I've
> already told her she did more harm than good. You'll just crack on her
> like you've tried doing to me.
>
> I repeat, you stupid ****, My mom has NO CLUE about usenet, ftp, mp3s,
> xvid/divx, nothing, nada, zip, zilch. She knows even less than you,
> and you don't exactly know very much if you catch my meaning.

Do pigs fly, Dustin?

>> It's completely blank but for the update line. What I'm sure you
>> don't realize is that until the account is actually updated, the
>> update line reflects the date the account was opened. In this case,
>> that was 2/25/2007.
>
> Christ, your really bright /sarcasm. The account was created minutes
> before she posted, you ignoramous.

On the subject of being really bright, it seems that is exactly what Rhonda
was telling you.

>> What you have asked us all to believe is that you left google open,
>> and when your mother saw the posts, she became so incensed, she
>> logged out of your account, opened both a yahoo account and a google
>> account,
>
> logged out of my account? Ehm, ignorant ****, I wasn't logged in. I
> was reading usenet articles in date order with the words bughunter.
> She had no way to post aside from creating her own account; which was
> not a bright thing for her to do.

Correction: It was not a bright thing for you to do.

> My mom knows how to surf neopets and do some very simple html for her
> webpage there. I thought she posted from her yahoo account via google?
>
>> logged into the google account, found the group again and made those
>> posts.
>
> Found the group again? What the **** are you smoking? I have start
> icons all over the place, she knows the browser can be used more than
> once. IE: you don't have to close what your viewing to goto another
> site.

You're very good at knowing precisely what your crippled, bed-ridden mother
does and does not know, Dustfart. I wonder how many other seriously obsessed
netloons like you know as much about their mothers.

Ever heard of Oedipus? Hmmm?

>> It is the height of narcissism for you to think you are so much
>> smarter than the rest of us, when you continue to demonstrate you
>> are so much stupider than most of us.
>
> You don't speak for anyone but yourself, dear.

Said the Oedipian who speaks for his mother.

> and yes, I'm alot smarter than you.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And don't forget your uberprogrammer status,
Dustfart.

> You had to have hitcounters explained to you, You
> had to have the concept of a LAN explained to you, and you can't even
> read simple ****ing english.

And yet, your stinking, fat, ulcerating mother needs "usenet, ftp, mp3s,
[and] xvid/divx" explained to her.

> You probably can't understand what I wrote for the majority of this
> reply... the reason being is because... *drumroll* you have to be one
> of the dumbest ****ing people on usenet. I swear licenses should be
> required before people like you, and people like my mom are even
> allowed near one.

Your mother is a $2 ***** and your father was one of a multitude of johns
she had on any given day.

Tell me, Dustfart, how do you feel when you imagine gallons of slimy sperm
from a hundred different men flowing down the insides of your mother's fat
thighs?

> 4Q, our fighting aside, you really picked one dumb **** for an ally.

"BRING ON THE CAVALRY!!!!1!"

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

Vescere puter subgalia meis.

"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

[relic]

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> Dustin Cook <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> Thou wanton boy that swims on
> bladders. Thou mechanic slave. Thou balloon-headed graceless. Thou
> weedy base pander. Ye disputed and ye hung crepe:
>
>> On Feb 27, 12:47 pm, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> *yawn*. Keep running that mouth 4Q.
>>>> maybe you'll get a taste of the available bandwidth, just not as
>>>> you had hoped. Remember the email?
>>>
>>>> If all this is true, we have alot of network resources at our
>>>> disposal. In theory if your sites administrator isn't willing to
>>>> deal with you, I suspect we'd have enough resources to show a hand
>>>> of force... Getting my drift?
>>>
>>> Apparently you just threatened his hosting company with a denial of
>>> service attack.
>>
>> Did I? I don't believe I did.
>
> Don't lose sight of the fact that you do believe you're a programmer.
>
> "If all this is true, we have alot of network resources at our
> disposal. In theory if your sites administrator isn't willing to
> deal with you, I suspect we'd have enough resources to show a hand
> of force..."
>
> That is not, by any stretch of the reasonable imagination, any kind
> of "get my drift", side-ways looking hint, hint, nudge, nudge, wink,
> wink statement, Dustfart. It is one shade off being an outright
> threat.
>
>> Why the hell would I have my mom post on my behalf, or better yet,
>> stupid one, why would I create supportive posts from my OWN
>> ****ING IP ADDRESS.
>
> Because you're a 100% certifiable k0oK.
>
>>> No one believes you, Dustin, because you've pissed on your own
>>> credibility.
>>
>> Oh, I must disagree.
>
> It's either that or agree with every word that has been said against
> you, eh.
>
>>> I looked at the Yahoo profile for "strawberrydamsel."
>>>
>>> http://profiles.yahoo.com/strawberrydamsel
>>
>> You stupid ****. I already explained this.. My mom did not (still
>> doesn't) understand usenet, she had no ****ing clue about any of it.
>> She plays on neopets you stupid ****. She followed google's
>> instructions, created an account and posted. She thought she was
>> helping me out, She and I have already been over this, and I've
>> already told her she did more harm than good. You'll just crack on
>> her like you've tried doing to me.
>>
>> I repeat, you stupid ****, My mom has NO CLUE about usenet, ftp,
>> mp3s, xvid/divx, nothing, nada, zip, zilch. She knows even less than
>> you, and you don't exactly know very much if you catch my meaning.
>
> Do pigs fly, Dustin?
>
>>> It's completely blank but for the update line. What I'm sure you
>>> don't realize is that until the account is actually updated, the
>>> update line reflects the date the account was opened. In this case,
>>> that was 2/25/2007.
>>
>> Christ, your really bright /sarcasm. The account was created minutes
>> before she posted, you ignoramous.
>
> On the subject of being really bright, it seems that is exactly what
> Rhonda was telling you.
>
>>> What you have asked us all to believe is that you left google open,
>>> and when your mother saw the posts, she became so incensed, she
>>> logged out of your account, opened both a yahoo account and a google
>>> account,
>>
>> logged out of my account? Ehm, ignorant ****, I wasn't logged in. I
>> was reading usenet articles in date order with the words bughunter.
>> She had no way to post aside from creating her own account; which was
>> not a bright thing for her to do.
>
> Correction: It was not a bright thing for you to do.
>
>> My mom knows how to surf neopets and do some very simple html for her
>> webpage there. I thought she posted from her yahoo account via
>> google?
>>
>>> logged into the google account, found the group again and made those
>>> posts.
>>
>> Found the group again? What the **** are you smoking? I have start
>> icons all over the place, she knows the browser can be used more than
>> once. IE: you don't have to close what your viewing to goto another
>> site.
>
> You're very good at knowing precisely what your crippled, bed-ridden
> mother does and does not know, Dustfart. I wonder how many other
> seriously obsessed netloons like you know as much about their mothers.
>
> Ever heard of Oedipus? Hmmm?
>
>>> It is the height of narcissism for you to think you are so much
>>> smarter than the rest of us, when you continue to demonstrate you
>>> are so much stupider than most of us.
>>
>> You don't speak for anyone but yourself, dear.
>
> Said the Oedipian who speaks for his mother.
>
>> and yes, I'm alot smarter than you.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And don't forget your uberprogrammer status,
> Dustfart.
>
>> You had to have hitcounters explained to you, You
>> had to have the concept of a LAN explained to you, and you can't even
>> read simple ****ing english.
>
> And yet, your stinking, fat, ulcerating mother needs "usenet, ftp,
> mp3s, [and] xvid/divx" explained to her.
>
>> You probably can't understand what I wrote for the majority of this
>> reply... the reason being is because... *drumroll* you have to be one
>> of the dumbest ****ing people on usenet. I swear licenses should be
>> required before people like you, and people like my mom are even
>> allowed near one.
>
> Your mother is a $2 ***** and your father was one of a multitude of
> johns she had on any given day.
>
> Tell me, Dustfart, how do you feel when you imagine gallons of slimy
> sperm from a hundred different men flowing down the insides of your
> mother's fat thighs?
>
>> 4Q, our fighting aside, you really picked one dumb **** for an ally.
>
> "BRING ON THE CAVALRY!!!!1!"


I'd say 4Q has gotten under dustfart's skin a triffle.

[Kadaitcha Man]

relic <nospam.nospam@relic211.cjb.net> Thou demi-wolf. Thou blasted,
dismal-dreaming drone. Thou cheater. Thou creeping venomed thing. Ye
dispensed and ye asserted:

> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> Dustin Cook <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> Thou wanton boy that swims
>> on bladders. Thou mechanic slave. Thou balloon-headed graceless. Thou
>> weedy base pander. Ye disputed and ye hung crepe:
>>
>>> On Feb 27, 12:47 pm, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> *yawn*. Keep running that mouth 4Q.
>>>>> maybe you'll get a taste of the available bandwidth, just not as
>>>>> you had hoped. Remember the email?
>>>>
>>>>> If all this is true, we have alot of network resources at our
>>>>> disposal. In theory if your sites administrator isn't willing to
>>>>> deal with you, I suspect we'd have enough resources to show a hand
>>>>> of force... Getting my drift?
>>>>
>>>> Apparently you just threatened his hosting company with a denial of
>>>> service attack.
>>>
>>> Did I? I don't believe I did.
>>
>> Don't lose sight of the fact that you do believe you're a programmer.
>>
>> "If all this is true, we have alot of network resources at our
>> disposal. In theory if your sites administrator isn't willing to
>> deal with you, I suspect we'd have enough resources to show a hand
>> of force..."
>>
>> That is not, by any stretch of the reasonable imagination, any kind
>> of "get my drift", side-ways looking hint, hint, nudge, nudge, wink,
>> wink statement, Dustfart. It is one shade off being an outright
>> threat.
>>
>>> Why the hell would I have my mom post on my behalf, or better yet,
>>> stupid one, why would I create supportive posts from my OWN
>>> ****ING IP ADDRESS.
>>
>> Because you're a 100% certifiable k0oK.
>>
>>>> No one believes you, Dustin, because you've pissed on your own
>>>> credibility.
>>>
>>> Oh, I must disagree.
>>
>> It's either that or agree with every word that has been said against
>> you, eh.
>>
>>>> I looked at the Yahoo profile for "strawberrydamsel."
>>>>
>>>> http://profiles.yahoo.com/strawberrydamsel
>>>
>>> You stupid ****. I already explained this.. My mom did not (still
>>> doesn't) understand usenet, she had no ****ing clue about any of it.
>>> She plays on neopets you stupid ****. She followed google's
>>> instructions, created an account and posted. She thought she was
>>> helping me out, She and I have already been over this, and I've
>>> already told her she did more harm than good. You'll just crack on
>>> her like you've tried doing to me.
>>>
>>> I repeat, you stupid ****, My mom has NO CLUE about usenet, ftp,
>>> mp3s, xvid/divx, nothing, nada, zip, zilch. She knows even less than
>>> you, and you don't exactly know very much if you catch my meaning.
>>
>> Do pigs fly, Dustin?
>>
>>>> It's completely blank but for the update line. What I'm sure you
>>>> don't realize is that until the account is actually updated, the
>>>> update line reflects the date the account was opened. In this case,
>>>> that was 2/25/2007.
>>>
>>> Christ, your really bright /sarcasm. The account was created minutes
>>> before she posted, you ignoramous.
>>
>> On the subject of being really bright, it seems that is exactly what
>> Rhonda was telling you.
>>
>>>> What you have asked us all to believe is that you left google open,
>>>> and when your mother saw the posts, she became so incensed, she
>>>> logged out of your account, opened both a yahoo account and a
>>>> google account,
>>>
>>> logged out of my account? Ehm, ignorant ****, I wasn't logged in. I
>>> was reading usenet articles in date order with the words bughunter.
>>> She had no way to post aside from creating her own account; which
>>> was not a bright thing for her to do.
>>
>> Correction: It was not a bright thing for you to do.
>>
>>> My mom knows how to surf neopets and do some very simple html for
>>> her webpage there. I thought she posted from her yahoo account via
>>> google?
>>>
>>>> logged into the google account, found the group again and made
>>>> those posts.
>>>
>>> Found the group again? What the **** are you smoking? I have start
>>> icons all over the place, she knows the browser can be used more
>>> than once. IE: you don't have to close what your viewing to goto
>>> another site.
>>
>> You're very good at knowing precisely what your crippled, bed-ridden
>> mother does and does not know, Dustfart. I wonder how many other
>> seriously obsessed netloons like you know as much about their
>> mothers. Ever heard of Oedipus? Hmmm?
>>
>>>> It is the height of narcissism for you to think you are so much
>>>> smarter than the rest of us, when you continue to demonstrate you
>>>> are so much stupider than most of us.
>>>
>>> You don't speak for anyone but yourself, dear.
>>
>> Said the Oedipian who speaks for his mother.
>>
>>> and yes, I'm alot smarter than you.
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And don't forget your uberprogrammer status,
>> Dustfart.
>>
>>> You had to have hitcounters explained to you, You
>>> had to have the concept of a LAN explained to you, and you can't
>>> even read simple ****ing english.
>>
>> And yet, your stinking, fat, ulcerating mother needs "usenet, ftp,
>> mp3s, [and] xvid/divx" explained to her.
>>
>>> You probably can't understand what I wrote for the majority of this
>>> reply... the reason being is because... *drumroll* you have to be
>>> one of the dumbest ****ing people on usenet. I swear licenses
>>> should be required before people like you, and people like my mom
>>> are even allowed near one.
>>
>> Your mother is a $2 ***** and your father was one of a multitude of
>> johns she had on any given day.
>>
>> Tell me, Dustfart, how do you feel when you imagine gallons of slimy
>> sperm from a hundred different men flowing down the insides of your
>> mother's fat thighs?
>>
>>> 4Q, our fighting aside, you really picked one dumb **** for an ally.
>>
>> "BRING ON THE CAVALRY!!!!1!"
>
>
> I'd say 4Q has gotten under dustfart's skin a triffle.

You're an evil ****, you that, relic? Dustfart's dying mother will now have
to haul her rotting, crippled, jizz-filled carcass out of its death-bed and
into a wheelchair to post in his defence. Dustfart is a 1337 ubercoder with
superior intellect and who writes viruses in BASIC that print "teehehee!
this is quiet a virus sucker!! pick a number...", which promptly exits
without doing anything, no matter what number you choose. And you're an evil
**** for not reckoning his l337 skillz too. He's been around the VX and
cracking scenes, you know!

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

Vescere puter subgalia meis.

"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 27, 7:44 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't lose sight of the fact that you do believe you're a programmer.

Hey, have you learned asics simple syntax yet? Do you have any further
suggestions regarding how to improve the code I presented? *snicker*

Will you try and twist it again? haha.

> "If all this is true, we have alot of network resources at our
> disposal. In theory if your sites administrator isn't willing to
> deal with you, I suspect we'd have enough resources to show a hand
> of force..."
>
> That is not, by any stretch of the reasonable imagination, any kind of "get
> my drift", side-ways looking hint, hint, nudge, nudge, wink, wink statement,
> Dustfart. It is one shade off being an outright threat.

I don't see any threats man. I was simply stating facts. 4Q has a good
idea of just what we could do, remember twit, he was begging (I have
the emails if you'd like them) us for a couple of shells to host him.
He's already posted why he's even started this fight, you can't defend
him anymore than you can correct my asic code.

> Because you're a 100% certifiable k0oK.

Says the dickless wonder.

> >> No one believes you, Dustin, because you've pissed on your own
> >> credibility.
>
> > Oh, I must disagree.
>
> It's either that or agree with every word that has been said against you,
> eh.

Don't assume because others refuse to feed you or your ilk, that they
are in agreement with you.

> > logged out of my account? Ehm, ignorant ****, I wasn't logged in. I
> > was reading usenet articles in date order with the wordsbughunter.
> > She had no way to post aside from creating her own account; which was
> > not a bright thing for her to do.
>
> Correction: It was not a bright thing for you to do.

Another twist. Do you really think anyone with half a working brain
cell would actually believe I posted defending my self under account?
Why in the hell would I give you anything else to throw at me? Someone
as an intelligent as you lead people to believe sure isn't using it
today...

But then again, I did show you up with your asic corrections.. You
don't have that happen often do you?
I mean, you literally trolled yourself and tried to say code that is
written in proper asic syntax could be improved, yet, your code was
invalid asic syntax and would have done absolutely nothing but
generate an error. You tried to say I had to have tried to compile it
to know that, No stupid, I know asic... You know, programming. Helps
to know your tools well. Oh wait, you claim I'm not a programmer.
Funny, my code is all over the world.

> > Found the group again? What the **** are you smoking? I have start
> > icons all over the place, she knows the browser can be used more than
> > once. IE: you don't have to close what your viewing to goto another
> > site.
>
> You're very good at knowing precisely what your crippled, bed-ridden mother
> does and does not know, Dustfart. I wonder how many other seriously obsessed
> netloons like you know as much about their mothers.

She is disabled, she is not bed-ridden. I know what she can and can't
do on my LAN, yes. I know this because I actually talk to her on
occasion. Computers are not something she's ever really had an
interest in. You can try and twist what I said to mean anything you
like, but only a gobstopping ****ing moron is going to believe any of
it.

> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And don't forget your uberprogrammer status,
> Dustfart.

And your asic syntax, how's it coming along exactly? "BAWAHAH"
Will you dazzle us with any more non functional code to replace
functional code?

> And yet, your stinking, fat, ulcerating mother needs "usenet, ftp, mp3s,
> [and] xvid/divx" explained to her.

Yep, she sure does. Just like rhonda needed hit counters explained to
her, LAN's explained to her, and god knows what else you've had to
brush her up on so she can continue the troll fight.

> Your mother is a $2 ***** and your father was one of a multitude of johns
> she had on any given day.

That's not very impressive, children are more creative. On another
note, something real and true is the fact you ARE a dickless wonder.
You piss into a bag?

Tell me, K-man, how does it feel knowing even when you had a dick you
couldn't satisfy a woman? Has any woman really lost anything since you
lost your ahem, manhood?

> "BRING ON THE CAVALRY!!!!1!"

He might as well go ahead and shoot himself if your his cavalry.

[Kadaitcha Man]

bughunter.dustin@gmail.com Thou gadfly. Why, thou clay brained guts,
thou knotty pated fool, thou *****son obscene greasy tallow catch. Thou
hag of hell. Whose horrible image doth unfix my hair and make my seated
heart knock at my ribs. Ye gnawed and ye hissed:

> On Feb 27, 7:44 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Don't lose sight of the fact that you do believe you're a programmer.
>
> Hey<*****SLAP>

Horses it eat. And there is also the small matter of you not having replied
to the post below yet. Attend to it, official net coward. And make sure you
answer all of the question you keep snipping and ignoring, net coward.

In news:1172461993.044537.234810@a75g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com,
bughunter.dustin@gmail.com <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> typed:

> On Feb 25, 10:23 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>> Monkey see, monkey do.
>
> So you are a monkey? Can I train you to do more tricks then?
>
>> 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.
>
> Your primary existance on usenet is alt.usenet.kooks, who are you to
> make statements with regard to anyone else?
>
>> You incompetent ****head. Code is what you write; or in your case,
>> scribble. Instructions are what compilers produce.
>
> You somehow think symantics is going to save you now?

Dustfart, programming is a precise science, an art even. If you cannot line
up your ducks to support your scurrilous claim to be a programmer then that
is entirely your problem.

The fact remains, no programmer that I have ever worked with or known since
I started in the computer industry in 1976 has ever, read that again, no
programmer that I have ever worked with or known since I started in the
computer industry in 1976, and actively work in to this very day, has ever,
ever, not even once, 1. Confused input with output, 2. Confused code with
instructions, 3. Confused assembly mnemonics with binary data. Yet there you
are, claiming to be a 1337 uberprogrammer of great repute and awesome fame,
and in post after post after post you persistently do all three and all at
****ing once.

Semantics has nothing to do with you being a worthless, over-inflated bag of
gas, Dusftart.

>>> 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".
>
> If you think not being able to get an asic syntax correct is a
> demonstration of highly skilled programming, I have some nice ocean
> front property in arizona I'd like to sell you.

That straw-man was burnt alive some time ago, Dustfart. You cannot ressurect
it...

Quick critique <> correction.

>> Oh, someone else wrote a program that displays "Hello, ****Nuts
>> Dusfart!"?
>
> Are you intentionally evading the point? Are we going to get so
> nitpicky that were going to ***** if asicc strings are different?
> Geeze..

Again, you context snipped so I'll take that your question as being
rhetorical, albeit inadvertant on your part.

>> <snippage of stuff you ignored and did not reply to, yet again>
>
> That seems to be something we're both guilty of. Lets face it, some
> things you comment on aren't worth a response.

Don't try and drag me into your quagmire, Dustfart. It won't work. Now,
please point to one solitary example of ignoring and not replying. Thank
you.

>>> 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
>
> You don't know the cracking scene either? It's a rhetorical question.
> If you had, you'd already know i'm not bad at reverse engineering. Oh
> wait, doh, I am supporting a malware removal tool, of course I can
> reverse engineer... Silly me.

<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>

>> 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
>
> I've done alot of diassemblies from HLL compilers, and yes, many of
> them produce p-code. Asic doesn't.

<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>

> I'm getting bored with defending the reasons I write software

Consistent failure will do that, Dustin.

> in asic
> tho... It reminds me of the av/vx wars of yesteryear. Only, they
> understood eventually.

<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>

>> certainty that all native compilers produce binary files that are not
>> interpreted and are not p-code?
>
> What are you calling a native compiler in this aspect?

Results 1 - 100 of about 1,150,000 English pages for native compiler. (0.26
seconds)

Pardon me for a moment please...

1. Confuses Assembly with "assembler" [sic]

2. Confuses code with instructions

3. Confuses input with output

4. Maintians that ASIC BASIC is close to "assembler" [sic]

5. Asserts that a$=string$(24,"+-") does something in ASIC BASIC
that it does not do...

6. Tacitly admits to having less foresight than a squirrel

7. Uses shifty dodging, weaving and ducking to disguise his
complete lack of all capability and sense.

[scribbles...]

8. Has no idea what native compiler means.

>> 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.
>
> The alert reader already knows I'm just feeding trolls at this point.
> I'm basically screwing off killing a little bit of time, and smashing
> on you here in usenet. But at the end of the day, I know that you
> don't personally give a rats ass what I say anymore than I do about
> what you say. It's for the audience that we even bother trading shots.

<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>

> One of us has to get the last word in...
>
>>> 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?
>
> Admission of the fact accepted.

I already told you. That straw-man was set alight a long time ago. You
cannot now try to ressurect it. I can understand you fooling yourself into
believeing you can get away with it once in a post, but twice? Pffft.

Quick critique <> correction.

The question stands. Answer it.

Your delusional opinion counts for what, exactly, Dustfart?

>> 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]"...
>
> you already know what i meant by the statement, we're simply going
> round and round now.
>>>> 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...
>
> Backing up...
>
>> Who made any claim even remotely resembling "writing everything in
>> machine language, you can't actually claim anybody has authored
>> anything original"?
>
> Do you have trouble reading what you wrote or something?

The question stands, like all rest of the unanswered questions. Answer it.

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

>>>> That would be assembler [sic] code put there by the compiler, yes?
>>>> You know, "code" that you did not actually write.
>
> Your breaking little twigs at this point, but I'll bite. You made the
> statement that the compiler makes code I didn't write, I responded by
> saying unless you do everything by hand in pure machine language, your
> statement claims nobody's code is their own, it's the work of the
> programmers who wrote the compiler. We seem to have a chicken and egg
> problem if that's the case.

There is no chicken and egg, Dustfart. All there is is yet another one of
your immolated straw-men lying in a forlorn pile of carbon giving off smoke.

The record clearly shows that you set out from the claim of 'asic is like
assembler' and then proceeded to take the input of ASIC BASIC and fool
yourself into believing that the compiled output somehow proved your utterly
****witted position that a brick is like a nerf ball.

I have news for you, Dustfart. You can try that pathetic Svengali card trick
of yours on any native compiler, not just ASIC BASIC, and still draw the
same ****witted and completely wrong conclusion. So, to extrapolate the
demented idiocy of your ****witted notions to their logical conclusion...

'asic is like assembler'
'APL is like assembler'
'Forth is like assembler'
'Algol is like assembler'
'C is like assembler'
'Java is like assembler'
'Pascal is like assembler'
'FORTRAN is like assembler'
'PL/1 is like assembler'
'asic is like assembler'
'Smalltalk is like assembler'
'Postscript is like assembler'

So, ****tard, why doesn't everyone just use "assembler" [sic]?

>> 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.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^
>
> You are beating a dead horse dude.

Yeah, you.

> The resulting binary is close to what you would have gotten in
> assembly<*****SLAP>

<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>

>, is what I meant,

I repeat: Programming is a precise science.

> and it's what you knew I meant.

Salve your battered conscience in whatever manner you like, Dustfart, I will
merely point to the mounting pile of evidence to your delusional state and
ask you to cough up some proof to support your claim that a highly skilled
software developer might actually be able to make sense out of the
discombobulated balderdash you toss about.

> Now, can you find something that's
> actually worth trading shots over?

Not so fast, dustfart. I'm not letting you off until I see coffin maggots
emerge from your decrepit corpse.

You have claimed to be a programmer of great repute and fame and you persist
in claiming to be a programmer when the truth is you are nothing of the
sort. There are unanswered questions that you must attend to. get to them.
All of them.

>> 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
>
> It's a desperate attempt to save face on your part, actually.
>
>> established that, following on from your failure to understand the
>> difference between code and instructions, that you believe machine
>> instructions are code.
>
> Assembly languages use mnemonic codes to refer to machine code
> instructions. Such a more readable rendition of the machine language
> is called an assembly language and consists of both numbers and simple
> words whereas machine code is composed only of numbers, usually
> represented in either binary or hexadecimal.
>
> For example, on the Zilog Z80 processor, the machine code 00000101
> causes the CPU to decrement the B processor register. In assembly
> language this would be written as DEC B.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_code

ALL HAIL TEH WIKI!!!, eh, Dustfart. So, I guess that settles it then, eh.
You can post quotes from the wiki therefore you are a programmer of great
fame and exceeding repute. FNAR! You blithering ****stick; you've shot
yourself in the head, yet again...

> Still want to debate over symantics? Or will you try to spin what you
> said?

<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>

Read the first sentence of your precious wiki extract, Dustfart.

Now read this:

> Well anyways, when
> asic compiles the binary, the resulting assembler code assigns

No, Dustfart. The assembler [sic] code is the input to the compiler, not the
output.

And this:

> Actually, it won't. The assembler code is referenced via jmp
> statements in the executable.

lol - so what exactly do you think a JMP is? Something other than "assembler
code" [sic] referenced in the executable?

And since when has any assembler [sic] statement been referenceable in an
executable, Dustfart?

JMP <--- That, Dustfart, is the mnemonic for an assembler [sic] JMP
statement.

E9 <--- That, Dustfart, is unsigned hexadecimal opcode, which is
the result of compiling an assembler [sic] JMP statement.

And this:

CODE <> INSTRUCTIONS

And _especially_ this:

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

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

<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>

Not your decision. That straw-man was turned to carbon a long time ago,
Dustfart.

>> 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.
>>
>
> Well, I do know the common term, machine code.

Well, you do now. I should bill you for all the lessons.

Oh, btw, you seem to have fooled yourself into believing you actually stood
a chance of getting away with hacking out bits you don't like so I'll just
make sure you're aware that you can't. Like I said, you can only fool
yourself all of the time, Dustin. You snipped and did not reply to any of
the following from the post you replied to. Please attend to it; there's a
jolly good chap...

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.

Vescere puter subgalia meis.

"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

[Pinku-Sensei]

"Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in
news:gun8p5$p5p$t@diminutive-knobbers.net.nz:

> bughunter.dustin@gmail.com Thou gadfly. Why, thou clay brained guts,
> thou knotty pated fool, thou *****son obscene greasy tallow catch.
> Thou hag of hell. Whose horrible image doth unfix my hair and make my
> seated heart knock at my ribs. Ye gnawed and ye hissed:
>
>> On Feb 27, 7:44 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Don't lose sight of the fact that you do believe you're a
>>> programmer.
>>
>> Hey<*****SLAP>

<Massive LARTing of Dustbin Kook skimmed, appreciated, and snipped>

For demonstration of superior LART strength beyond his already superior
trolling, development of AI that analyzes kooks and using it in service to
kookology, bringing in multiple new kooks from the programming groups, and
showing incredible progress on his way to becoming a widely accepted
kookologist, I nominate Kadaitcha Man for the Hammer of Thor.

Seconds?
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html

[Kadaitcha Man]

Pinku-Sensei <pinku-sensei@caballista.org> Thou misshapen dick. The
wicked fire of lust have melted thou in thine own grease. Thou tike. It
offends me to the soul to hear a robustious periwig pated fellow tear a
passion to tatters, to very rags. Ye chatted and ye wailed:

> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:gun8p5$p5p$t@diminutive-knobbers.net.nz:
>
>> bughunter.dustin@gmail.com Thou gadfly. Why, thou clay brained guts,
>> thou knotty pated fool, thou *****son obscene greasy tallow catch.
>> Thou hag of hell. Whose horrible image doth unfix my hair and make my
>> seated heart knock at my ribs. Ye gnawed and ye hissed:
>>
>>> On Feb 27, 7:44 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Don't lose sight of the fact that you do believe you're a
>>>> programmer.
>>>
>>> Hey<*****SLAP>
>
> <Massive LARTing of Dustbin Kook skimmed, appreciated, and snipped>
>
> For demonstration of superior LART strength beyond his already
> superior trolling, development of AI that analyzes kooks and using it
> in service to kookology, bringing in multiple new kooks from the
> programming groups, and showing incredible progress on his way to
> becoming a widely accepted kookologist, I nominate Kadaitcha Man for
> the Hammer of Thor.
>
> Seconds?

Crikey.

<humbled>

Not that I know what humility is, mind you.

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

Vescere puter subgalia meis.

"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