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*`'-----'`