Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 01:28:49 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <85ca46a5-03d8-41ad-ab7e-8e5c3b781e48@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:29900 On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 01:10:28 -0400, rickman wrote: > On 4/27/2014 12:18 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 21:52:39 -0400, rickman wrote: >>> On 4/22/2014 7:54 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:07:38 -0400, Andrew Haley >>>> wrote: > Yes, blame anyone but you, right? You claimed I pulled it out of my butt. Where exactly did I pull it out of my butt? If I had, then you could blame me, but it came from a respectable source, although I can't prove that nearly a decade later. >>> This is a perfect example. Yes, there was a District Court ruling >>> in this case in favor of Franklin saying the ROM code was not >>> copyrightable, but that was overruled in a separate case which was >>> then applied by the Court of Appeals in the Franklin case... >> >> Wikipedia is wrong. >> >> The actual events are documented here: >> [link] > > So what in this paper disagrees with the aspect we were discussing [...] Nothing disagrees with "the aspect we were discussing". It simply provides the actual events which are different from Wikipedia. Wikipedia's statements of the order of events and cases involved is not entirely correct. > This is exactly what I am talking about. You can't admit when > you are wrong. This conclusion is the result of a blatant and gross distortion of what I stated and a faulty assumption on your part. Nowhere did I state that the actual events in the pdf supported any of my original statements. That was simply a wrong assumption on your part. Re-read. Comprehend. From past discussions with you, you simply can't keep the facts straight. I only stated that the truth of the events was in the pdf and they differed from what Wikipedia says, which is true. You should be able to grasp that from reading the pdf and compariing with Wikipedia's timeline of events. Rod Pemberton