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

[Kali]

In <Xns98E512876463Epinkusenseinetcabalc@204.153.245. 131>,
Pinku-Sensei pinku-sensei@caballista.org said:
: "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?

Seconded. Hammer being short for sledgehammer, as it were.

Kali
--
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein

[Pinku-Sensei]

Kali <kali@powder.keg> wrote in
news:es3q83$5ao$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:

> In <Xns98E512876463Epinkusenseinetcabalc@204.153.245. 131>,
> Pinku-Sensei pinku-sensei@caballista.org said:

>: 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?
>
> Seconded. Hammer being short for sledgehammer, as it were.

Goddess, you've already seconded Charlotte's nom for HoT. Either someone
else will have to second K-Man's nom, or you'd have to withdraw your second
of Charlotte, in which case I'd move Chadwick Stone's third up to being the
second. It won't hurt Charlotte's nom one bit; she's been endorsed by
multiple HoT winners.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html

[Kali]

In <Xns98E54C47DCFA5pinkusenseinetcabalc@204.153.245. 131>,
Pinku-Sensei pinku-sensei@caballista.org said:
: Kali <kali@powder.keg> wrote in
: news:es3q83$5ao$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
:
: > In <Xns98E512876463Epinkusenseinetcabalc@204.153.245. 131>,
: > Pinku-Sensei pinku-sensei@caballista.org said:
:
: >: 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?
: >
: > Seconded. Hammer being short for sledgehammer, as it were.
:
: Goddess, you've already seconded Charlotte's nom for HoT. Either someone
: else will have to second K-Man's nom, or you'd have to withdraw your second
: of Charlotte, in which case I'd move Chadwick Stone's third up to being the
: second. It won't hurt Charlotte's nom one bit; she's been endorsed by
: multiple HoT winners.
:
Rules, damn rules!

Ok, Rhonda was second, but that's not a hammer second, I guess?
If Chad's second stands for Charlotte, then put my second on

"The ****er"

Thanks

Kali
--
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein

[miguel]

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> Pinku-Sensei

>> 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.

Nomination for nerd gimp award renders Kadaitcha Man speechless.

Precious.

[Bud]

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

Who gives a flying f**k? Go away with your inappropriate postings.

Plonk

[Flying Fuck]

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

> 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"?
>

nice meltdown! this usenet thang is apparently very important to you!

--
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*.-------.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*.'.-'''''-.'._
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*//`Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*`\\\
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*;;Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*;;'.__.===== ==========,
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*||Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*.Â*<-Â*Â*Â*||Â*Â*__Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*)
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*;:Â*Â*Â*Â*yourÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*;;.'Â*Â*'======= ========'
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*\\Â*Â*Â*penusÂ*Â*Â*///
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*':...___...:'~
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*`'-----'`

[The Demon Prince of Absurdity]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:09:36 -0500, Bud did the cha-cha, and screamed:
>
>> I'd say 4Q has gotten under dustfart's skin a triffle.
>
> Who gives a flying f**k? Go away with your inappropriate postings.
>
> Plonk

In what way were they inappropriate, and by what right do you declare
them so?

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition

WINNERS! Usenet Kook Awards, January 2007 MID:
<Xns98D232E44C01pinkusenseinetcabalc@204.153.244.1 70>

"Pot...kettle...so black it picks cotton." -- But Alex "Dink" Cain isn't
racist at all, oh no. Not him. Why, some of his best friends are porch
monkeys. I'll bet. Message-ID: <397FCBBB.1B35@hotmail.com>

"You think I don't know this? What gives you the right to speak as if
you have authority over me? You have none. I like his use of the words
'wanton woman'. They are biblical. Maybe there is some hope for k man
after all. You? There is no hope for you at all you freak of nature. Go
back to the hole you came out of." -- Atlanta Olympiada Kane "knows"
Kadaitcha Man was referring to me, but addressed him as though he was
referring to himself, then foamed all over me, in Message-ID:
<45e1f82a$0$16335$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>

"No effort at all c*cksucking you, b1tch." -- At last, the Monkey-man
comes out of the closet, in MID: <aXkth.3535$QE6.1902@trnddc02>

http://www6.kingdomofloathing.com/login.php

"This is a sandwich made by a Spam Witch. You know why Spam Witches
can't starve if they're at the beach? Because they can always eat the
sand which is there." -- Spam Witch sammich, from The Kingdom of
Loathing

http://www.runescape.com/
No one expects the Fannish Inquisition!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cabal_...y_Pretzel/join
Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet & Usenet Terrorist
Pretzel

"i have no need for sex; i'd rather tease you, honeybuns." -- Teh Mop
Jockey doesn't know the meaning of "TMI". MID:
<1253073.6W9sK7zyKL@unixd0rk.com>

"What are marijuana tablets?"

"When logic and proportion
Have fallen softly dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's 'off with her head!'
Remember what the dormouse said:
'Feed your head
Feed your head
Feed your head'"
-- "White Rabbit", Jefferson Airplane

I own "James C Cracked is God!!!":
MID: <1161060410.704020.285410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>

"Chips on you dud, you got bugged for being near me, Viruses transmit
that way you know." -- Blooey: Master of the Autoflame. Message-ID:
<4556A926.6F259DC9@pharae.org>

"The nonsense screeds you compose and post to usenet lack any kind of
coherent and rational meaning whatsoever, and are composed of random
bits and pieces stolen from mythology, science fiction, religion, comic
books, etc., placed into a blender, and the switch turned to the highest
setting.
About every other screed has droppings of death threats, racial
bigotry, laughably false prophesies of gloom and doom, and inane
attempts to extort money. These bland, meaningless, pulpy messes are
then trowled into usenet; identical or nearly identical screeds are
repeated ad nauseum." -- Art Deco had to clean up bits of Warhol for
days after using the Hammer on him

"Q: How many Bush administration officials does it take to change a
light bulb?
A: None. There is no need to change anything. We made the right decision
to stick with that light bulb. People who say that it is burned out are
giving aid and encouragement to the Forces of Darkness." -- Anon.

"Outlaw amateur assassins!" -- Chiun

"Property is theft."
-- P. J. Proudhon
"Property is liberty."
-- P. J. Proudhon
"Property is impossible."
-- P. J. Proudhon

"Etymology:
Argumentum ad Septicus : argument to putrefaction. Derived from Septicum
Argumentum : putrefaction of argument.

"Septic \Sep"tic\, Septical \Sep"tic*al\
a. [L. septicus to make putrid: cf. F. septique.]
Having power to promote putrefaction. Of or relating to or
caused by putrefaction." -- Kadaitcha Man, indirectly to
Donald "Skeptic"/"Septic" Alford, in MID: <a3svh.djj.19.1@news.alt.net>

"I never fail to be amazing" -- Looney Maroon for September 2006 nominee
William Barwell's ego knows no bounds. MID:
12ggt3q3uti3t52@corp.supernews.com

"Red meat won't hurt you. Fuzzy, blue-green meat will."
-- Zog the etc., in alt.discordia (correct
as needed)

"may you live to whatever age you'd like to." -- Dave Hillstrom,
in alt.discordia

"We are most nearly ourselves when we achieve the seriousness of the
child at play." -- Heraclitus

"And thats another mistake on your part. Your 'playing' games on usenet,
and I'm not playing...It has nothing to do with impressing you, it has
more to do with making sure you have the education you'll need to debate.
The debate is no fun for me if you are mentally incapable of it. I'm
giving you an opportunity to educate yourself. That's all." -- A trashy
former virus-writer turned Outer Filth doesn't know if he's playing or
working, in MID: <1159389579.179851.33970@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.c om>

"I am incapable of original thoughts" -- Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤ has an honest
moment, in MID: <0h59i25ejlthqeeitdp0hlk4kvo1ejpkt9@4ax.com>

"But now the end is near. Now Mark Foley comes along and is making
almost all liberal dreams come true and seriously, I'm sorry for it.
See, I believe in karma. I believe what comes around goes around and I
know full well that it's just bad juju to wish such a level of turmoil
and ill upon other humans, warmongering gay-hating maladroits or no, and
that the real path of enlightenment is paved with forgiveness and
progress and white-hot love and turning the other cheek and scotch.

"In fact, Jesus said something about that, I do believe. He said, "Knock
it off already with the warmongering and the hating of each other and
let's all get some wine and party like it's 2012." Then again, he never
saw Karl Rove stab the nation with the dull ice pick of bogus fear. He
never heard George W. Bush describe brutal war and the death of tens of
thousands as "just a comma" in world history.

"Check that. Maybe I'm not so sorry after all." -- Mark Morford,
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...ve/2006/10/11/
notes101106.DTL&nl=fix
http://************/kusmr

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Flying **** wrote:
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>
>> 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"?
>>
>
> nice meltdown! this usenet thang is apparently very important to you!

<snipped analysis>

> nice meltdown! this usenet thang is apparently very important to you!


Well, it's not so bad yet that he's started buying up domain names, so I
wouldn't get too excited if I were you.

I think it's sweet that you're taking Dustin:

http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=dustin

under your wing, Moppy:

http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=Wolfe

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

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

[Sean Monaghan]

Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in
news:l99bu2hksulqe19mm4dcr2milmjhebpcne@4ax.com:

> On 28 Feb 2007 06:49:16 GMT, "Pinku-Sensei"
> <pinku-sensei@caballista.org> wrote:
>
>>"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?
>
> Seconded.

<adds nod of endorsement>

:-)

> And may God bless all who sail in her^H^H^Hhim!


--
Official FAQ for Alt.Usenet.Kooks: http://www.caballista.org/auk

COOSN-266-06-58907
Skepticult: 618-90140-613
Hammer of Thor - August 2005
Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler

[Bud]

> In what way were they inappropriate,

They don't relate to the any of thge newsgroups to which they are
posted... except maybe alt.usenet.kooks.

> and by what right do you declare
> them so?

By right of Plonk. ;-)