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:
And 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 _especially_ this:CODE <> INSTRUCTIONS
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.
>> 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.
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
Reply With Quote