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