Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.stack.nl!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Walter Banks Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Old Forth implementations Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:54:38 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 24 Message-ID: <5413335E.490C5A0B@bytecraft.com> References: <15cd8f91-915a-4241-acf3-5bf3d9708b93@googlegroups.com> <2IednaUdDZRooJLJnZ2dnUU7-b-dnZ2d@supernews.com> <8a84854b-1a5e-4b87-bf45-e25371a4850e@googlegroups.com> <7ae28fc2-7b67-430d-b931-32b8d9bd71b4@googlegroups.com> <5411D0A7.D25138A2@bytecraft.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: EpEeEyOw6cArmuxDttFbCw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD479 (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:33369 rickman wrote: > On 9/11/2014 12:41 PM, Walter Banks wrote: > > > > And the objective of this email is ? > > Are you happy with the response to your email? I'm curious about what > you expected him to write... > > I used to treat Hugh like a rational person. But eventually I realized > that he was never going to respond to reason. My inhibitors failed before I hit return. I wanted to see if there was a real thought in a disjointed post. The response was less rational than the original. If hugh wants to change the definition write a new standard and argue for its acceptance. Your point is well made. I need coffee. w..