Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #19765 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-02-16 07:35 -0800 |
| Last post | 2013-03-15 21:13 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 105 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-16 07:35 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2013-02-17 13:57 +0200
Re: Integer cosine function Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-17 09:40 -0600
Re: Integer cosine function "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-02-17 07:51 -1000
Re: Integer cosine function mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2013-02-17 19:06 +0200
Re: Integer cosine function anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-02-18 14:46 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-02-19 20:01 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2013-02-19 21:34 +0200
Re: Integer cosine function Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-02-19 21:46 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-19 15:55 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2013-02-21 00:59 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-18 09:19 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-18 14:27 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-18 20:53 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-18 19:10 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-19 13:13 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-19 23:04 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-02-20 10:00 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-21 13:04 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-21 19:03 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 02:45 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-02-22 02:32 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 16:01 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-22 22:07 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-23 10:27 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-22 03:59 -0600
Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-02-22 02:30 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 15:56 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-02-22 16:13 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 17:45 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-02-22 18:44 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 19:19 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-22 14:43 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-23 01:30 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-22 21:51 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-24 01:43 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-02-25 17:55 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-25 21:01 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-25 23:22 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-26 15:11 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-27 08:05 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-27 22:14 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-27 22:56 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-01 21:37 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-03-07 13:12 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-28 08:00 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-01 21:38 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-02-28 16:55 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-01 21:38 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-04 11:08 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-04 03:39 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-04 20:49 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-03-05 10:20 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-07 00:12 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-03-08 04:21 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-04 20:50 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-05 07:16 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-03-06 17:56 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-07 00:24 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-07 07:34 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-02-28 12:57 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-28 17:07 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-28 19:37 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-03-01 10:56 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-01 13:52 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 17:48 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-03-13 17:44 -0400
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-01 21:36 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-01 19:14 -1000
Re: Integer cosine function mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2013-03-02 09:34 +0200
Re: Integer cosine function kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2013-03-02 09:06 -0600
Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-26 08:53 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-26 16:59 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-02-27 00:52 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-27 04:07 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 20:51 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 17:58 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-06 16:39 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-06 14:21 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-07 00:11 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-06 23:44 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-06 16:24 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-07 01:59 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-06 19:48 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-07 16:22 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-06 23:37 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-23 09:54 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 21:03 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 15:59 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 16:38 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-22 12:07 -0600
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 19:39 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-02-22 09:23 -1000
Re: Integer cosine function Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-23 04:44 -0600
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-22 13:00 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-23 01:09 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 21:16 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 20:28 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-02-27 07:59 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-27 08:48 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-02-27 10:23 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-03-15 10:14 -0700
Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-03-15 13:19 -0700
Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-03-15 13:28 -0700
Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-03-15 21:13 -0700
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-27 08:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgm0os$gk5$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #20036 |
On 2/26/2013 9:11 AM, Bernd Paysan wrote: > Hugh Aguilar wrote: ...nothing of value... > And so your rant turns against to Elizabeth Rather... come on, poor guy. It > helps to be nice to each others. I wouldn't dare drink a beer with you, > because I suppose it will soon end in a bar brawl. I really don't know what people continue to reply to this guy. Do you think your posts have any impact on him? Or are they to make yourself feel like you are at least trying? Rod is indeed another one. If I could I would killfile them both. As someone said, I should learn to use the filters in Thunderbird... -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-27 22:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgmhvs$f7b$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #20082 |
"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kgm0os$gk5$5@dont-email.me... > > [... would "killfile" Hugh...] > > Rod is indeed another one. > If I could I would killfile them both. Well, Mr. Collins, why wouldn't you "killfile" Bernd Paysan or John Passiniti or any of the other numerous hostile people who've posted here over the years? Bernd says stuff that is far more radical and wrong than anything Hugh has ever said. Hugh needs to stop attacking Ms. Rather even if she's a proxy for all "Forth experts". And, Hugh intends to incite on certain issues. I don't. I just tell the truth. Perhaps, you don't recognize that yet, or you'd prefer more tact sometimes since as a supposed adult you can't handle the truth yet. On the other hand, Bernd is always, incessantly talking politics and religion, EU is better than the US, blah, erroneous history, faulty logic, other garbage, etc. Bernd is always posting about ancient computer history instead of Forth, at any time he pleases, even in the rare c.l.f. threads where no one is off-topic. John said stuff that was just attrocious and vulgar and despicable, yet, a handful of people here would still defend him. He always wanted to discuss issues that no one else wanted even mentioned publicly, like homosexuality in-depth, but would become insanely offended and angry whenever anyone contradicted him, his opinions, or his perspective on any topic, especially his favorites, like Lua. I.e., no Forth. It didn't matter to him if they experienced or believed something completely different. You've read their c.l.f. posts for over a decade. So, why weren't you jumping up and down saying you'd use your "killfile" on people like them years ago?!? That last bit was just some "food" for thought for you from my perspective in regards to your character, or lack of. Odd, I just realized that I've never asked any of the ignorant assholes over the years who claimed they'd killfile me why they'd do so or thought they should. So, why is that? Why would _you_ "killfile" me? Hey, you know what? I'll even help you out. You don't even have to think up reply. Just pick one. Or, you can add your own... (multiple choice) 1) So, I LEGITIMATELY complained about your BLATANTLY off-topic thread ONCE. Therefore, I'm the problem since you rejected the truth and clearly weren't in a mental state suitable to actually comprehend my complaint. 2) You enjoy attempting to victimize others and also blame them for your victimization attempts instead of taking responsibility for your actions. 3) You HAD an interest in Forth many years ago. You USED to post to c.l.f. appropriately. You DON'T seem to have any interest in Forth today. So, you just see c.l.f. as just a place for you go to hang out and discuss anything you wish with old "friends". 4) You confuse comp.lang.forth for comp.arch.ga144. 5) You fail to recognize that nearly everyone here, including you, says the same things, does the same things, as I do, at various times. Yet, you still chose to single me out as your personal target, despite others here who've done far, far worse, repeatedly, for longer time periods, who you said nothing about. 6) You just don't like something else I said which I can't respond to since you didn't reply to it explaining YOUR hatred of what I said. So, you reluctantly choose to remain angry while insisting that I'm the problem. Well, something I said may be YOUR problem, but it's YOUR problem. I can't fix you without input from you. Was it in reply to someone else who posted off-topic after numerous others posted off-topic? Was it on politics, sex, religion, ... Forth? 7) You've got some unknown and unexpressed psychological problem, especially, in regards to me. 8) You weren't paying attention over the past decade of c.l.f. and overlooked the 99.98% of posts by me on c.l.f. that involve Forth. 9) You've got a drinking, drug, or impluse control problem that causes you to complain about others without any expressable reason for your contempt. 10) ___________ (fill in) Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-27 22:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgmken$5qn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #20089 |
On 2/27/2013 10:14 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > "rickman"<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:kgm0os$gk5$5@dont-email.me... > >>> [... would "killfile" Hugh...] >> >> Rod is indeed another one. >> If I could I would killfile them both. > > Well, Mr. Collins, why wouldn't you "killfile" Bernd Paysan or > John Passiniti or any of the other numerous hostile people who've > posted here over the years? Bernd says stuff that is far more > radical and wrong than anything Hugh has ever said. Hugh needs to > stop attacking Ms. Rather even if she's a proxy for all "Forth > experts". And, Hugh intends to incite on certain issues. I > don't. I just tell the truth. Perhaps, you don't recognize that > yet, or you'd prefer more tact sometimes since as a supposed adult > you can't handle the truth yet. On the other hand, Bernd is > always, incessantly talking politics and religion, EU is better > than the US, blah, erroneous history, faulty logic, other garbage, > etc. Bernd is always posting about ancient computer history > instead of Forth, at any time he pleases, even in the rare c.l.f. > threads where no one is off-topic. John said stuff that was just > attrocious and vulgar and despicable, yet, a handful of people > here would still defend him. He always wanted to discuss issues > that no one else wanted even mentioned publicly, like > homosexuality in-depth, but would become insanely offended and > angry whenever anyone contradicted him, his opinions, or his > perspective on any topic, especially his favorites, like Lua. > I.e., no Forth. It didn't matter to him if they experienced or > believed something completely different. You've read their c.l.f. > posts for over a decade. So, why weren't you jumping up and down > saying you'd use your "killfile" on people like them years ago?!? > That last bit was just some "food" for thought for you from my > perspective in regards to your character, or lack of. > > > Odd, I just realized that I've never asked any of the ignorant > assholes over the years who claimed they'd killfile me why they'd > do so or thought they should. > > So, why is that? Why would _you_ "killfile" me? > > Hey, you know what? I'll even help you out. You don't even have > to think up reply. Just pick one. Or, you can add your own... > (multiple choice) > > 1) So, I LEGITIMATELY complained about your BLATANTLY > off-topic thread ONCE. Therefore, I'm the problem since you > rejected the truth and clearly weren't in a mental state suitable > to actually comprehend my complaint. > 2) You enjoy attempting to victimize others and also blame them > for your victimization attempts instead of taking responsibility > for your actions. > 3) You HAD an interest in Forth many years ago. You USED to post > to c.l.f. appropriately. You DON'T seem to have any interest in > Forth today. So, you just see c.l.f. as just a place for you go > to hang out and discuss anything you wish with old "friends". > 4) You confuse comp.lang.forth for comp.arch.ga144. > 5) You fail to recognize that nearly everyone here, including you, > says the same things, does the same things, as I do, at various > times. Yet, you still chose to single me out as your personal > target, despite others here who've done far, far worse, > repeatedly, for longer time periods, who you said nothing about. > 6) You just don't like something else I said which I can't respond > to since you didn't reply to it explaining YOUR hatred of what I > said. So, you reluctantly choose to remain angry while insisting > that I'm the problem. Well, something I said may be YOUR problem, > but it's YOUR problem. I can't fix you without input from you. Was > it in reply to someone else who posted off-topic after numerous > others posted off-topic? Was it on politics, sex, religion, ... > Forth? > 7) You've got some unknown and unexpressed psychological problem, > especially, in regards to me. > 8) You weren't paying attention over the past decade of c.l.f. and > overlooked the 99.98% of posts by me on c.l.f. that involve Forth. > 9) You've got a drinking, drug, or impluse control problem that > causes you to complain about others without any expressable reason > for your contempt. > 10) ___________ (fill in) > > > Rod Pemberton > > > > > LOL! I don't even have to read it all. Just wafting a few of the vapors from this post is enough to put me in a state of convulsions! I'm just kidding Rod. I would never killfile either of you. I get too many laughs reading your material. I can't really be insulted by your post. Unlike many in the various discussion forums, you at least were polite enough to call me Mr. Collins! -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-01 21:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgrohr$j0s$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #20090 |
"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kgmken$5qn$1@dont-email.me... > On 2/27/2013 10:14 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > "rickman"<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:kgm0os$gk5$5@dont-email.me... > > > >>> [... would "killfile" Hugh...] > >> > >> Rod is indeed another one. > >> If I could I would killfile them both. > > > > [...] > > > > LOL! I don't even have to read it all. Just wafting a few of > the vapors from this post is enough to put me in a state of > convulsions! > > I'm just kidding Rod. I would never killfile either of you. I > get too many laughs reading your material. > > I can't really be insulted by your post. Unlike many in the > various discussion forums, you at least were polite enough > to call me Mr. Collins! Hey, I almost called you Mr. Hohensee ... > Even though, a) you did nothing to indicate you were kidding b) you never complained about others doing the same thing c) you still avoided answering why you complained about me I'll let it lie... Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-07 13:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <khala3$hni$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #20149 |
On 3/1/2013 9:37 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > "rickman"<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:kgmken$5qn$1@dont-email.me... >> On 2/27/2013 10:14 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> "rickman"<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:kgm0os$gk5$5@dont-email.me... >>> >>>>> [... would "killfile" Hugh...] >>>> >>>> Rod is indeed another one. >>>> If I could I would killfile them both. >>> >>> [...] >>> >> >> LOL! I don't even have to read it all. Just wafting a few of >> the vapors from this post is enough to put me in a state of >> convulsions! >> >> I'm just kidding Rod. I would never killfile either of you. I >> get too many laughs reading your material. >> >> I can't really be insulted by your post. Unlike many in the >> various discussion forums, you at least were polite enough >> to call me Mr. Collins! > > Hey, I almost called you Mr. Hohensee ... > >> > > Even though, > > a) you did nothing to indicate you were kidding > b) you never complained about others doing the same thing > c) you still avoided answering why you complained about me > > I'll let it lie... As opposed to what exactly??? -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-28 08:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a19ad603-a8d0-4d66-bc67-4aa51fbfa065@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #20089 |
Dude, you need a hug and a tall brewski.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-01 21:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgroiu$j25$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #20099 |
"Brad Eckert" <hwfwguy@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a19ad603-a8d0-4d66-bc67-4aa51fbfa065@googlegroups.com... > Dude, you need a hug and a tall brewski. Maybe, but I don't drink. What do you recommend? RP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-28 16:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kgo242$rhc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #20089 |
On 28/02/2013 03:14, Rod Pemberton wrote: [ rant snipped ] > > So, why is that? Why would _you_ "killfile" me? > > Hey, you know what? I'll even help you out. You don't even have > to think up reply. Just pick one. Or, you can add your own... > (multiple choice) > [ rudeness snipped ] > 10) ___________ (fill in) Some suggestions for Rickman's response (pick one or more): 10a) Your nonsense to nugget ratio is far too high 10b) Your inflated opinion of yourself, your capabilities and knowledge 10c) Your refusal to ever admit you might be wrong 10d) Your rudeness to/about anyone who contradicts or criticises you -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-01 21:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgrojb$j31$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #20104 |
"Gerry Jackson" <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:kgo242$rhc$1@dont-email.me... > On 28/02/2013 03:14, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > > > > So, why is that? Why would _you_ "killfile" me? > > > > > 10) ___________ (fill in) > > > Some suggestions for Rickman's response (pick one or more): > > 10a) Your nonsense to nugget ratio is far too high > So, you think it's acceptable to attack or provoke people in order to extract a "few [informative] nuggets" via an argument? That's what JP did. He thought that was just... Do you? I certainly hope not. That would *really* destroy my currently neutral/good opinion of you. But, if you want to rank people on that measure, I easily outrank all but a few long term contributors here. I far outrank you, although you do maintain useful Forth code elsewhere. Some of these few people once contributed alot to c.l.f, but do nothing much anymore. Some have left. Others have passed away. Others still contribute alot. Some can't contribute as much because of the commercial aspects of their Forth involvement. > 10b) Your inflated opinion of yourself, your capabilities and > knowledge > Well, I like helping people by sharing my knowledge and experience with them. So, when someone is doing something blantantly incorrect based on my knowledge and experience, which will lead them absolutely nowhere, I like to comment on that instead of holding my tongue and letting them waste more of their life or fail. That could lead to an argument. I guess you enjoy seeing people hit by the bus or train or smash their thumb with a hammer. Some people do. I think that's despicable. Personally, I don't see me, my capabilities, or my knowledge as inflated. Without being insulting, what I've found in life to be true is that people who think I'm somehow "inflated" and attack me on such grounds generally underestimate me and drastically overestimate themselves. Their perspective is distorted. I've rarely found the opposite to be true. Psychology tends to confirm this. E.g., putting "overstimate themselves" into Google or Yahoo pull up numerous articles, such as this one: http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=1309 Normally, especially with hostile and argumentative people, I'll tell them that they're "projecting" their own personality onto me. And, of course, that is true. Their perspective of others is filtered by their own personality: how they do things, how they lie, how they cheat, what they don't know, how they exaggerate, manipulate, etc. However, I haven't found you to be hostile yet, but you still are probably projecting. > 10c) Your refusal to ever admit you might be wrong > Have I ever gotten into an argument here with anyone regarding: *Forth programming* ? I might've, but don't think so, at least that's atypical. I do counter arguments of Forth as a language is better than XYZ or C or whatever language since that's simply untrue. So, a post by me in a thread that became argumentative would be in reply to someone else here posting off-topic. So, ISTM, you really should be complaining about other people posting off-topic in the first place. Shouldn't you be complaining to them directly instead of to my replies to them? Of course, you should, but you don't ... Why is that? > 10d) Your rudeness to/about anyone who contradicts > or criticises you > What about theirs? I'm not rude until someone else is to me, or until someone is attacked who shouldn't be. So, please, again, complain about the the instigator, not the defender or "defendee". Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-04 11:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kh1v9a$bct$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #20151 |
On 02/03/2013 02:38, Rod Pemberton wrote: > "Gerry Jackson" <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message > news:kgo242$rhc$1@dont-email.me... >> On 28/02/2013 03:14, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> >>> >>> So, why is that? Why would _you_ "killfile" me? >>> >> >>> 10) ___________ (fill in) >> >> >> Some suggestions for Rickman's response (pick one or more): >> >> 10a) Your nonsense to nugget ratio is far too high >> > > So, you think it's acceptable to attack or provoke people in order > to extract a "few [informative] nuggets" via an argument? That's > what JP did. He thought that was just... Do you? I certainly > hope not. That would *really* destroy my currently neutral/good > opinion of you. > > But, if you want to rank people on that measure, I easily outrank > all but a few long term contributors here. I far outrank you, > although you do maintain useful Forth code elsewhere. Some of > these few people once contributed alot to c.l.f, but do nothing > much anymore. Some have left. Others have passed away. Others > still contribute alot. Some can't contribute as much because of > the commercial aspects of their Forth involvement. > >> 10b) Your inflated opinion of yourself, your capabilities and >> knowledge >> > > Well, I like helping people by sharing my knowledge and experience > with them. So, when someone is doing something blantantly > incorrect based on my knowledge and experience, which will lead > them absolutely nowhere, I like to comment on that instead of > holding my tongue and letting them waste more of their life or > fail. That could lead to an argument. I guess you enjoy seeing > people hit by the bus or train or smash their thumb with a hammer. > Some people do. I think that's despicable. > > Personally, I don't see me, my capabilities, or my knowledge as > inflated. Without being insulting, what I've found in life to be > true is that people who think I'm somehow "inflated" and attack me > on such grounds generally underestimate me and drastically > overestimate themselves. Their perspective is distorted. I've > rarely found the opposite to be true. > > Psychology tends to confirm this. E.g., putting "overstimate > themselves" into Google or Yahoo pull up numerous articles, > such as this one: > http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=1309 > > Normally, especially with hostile and argumentative people, I'll > tell them that they're "projecting" their own personality onto me. > And, of course, that is true. Their perspective of others is > filtered by their own personality: how they do things, how they > lie, how they cheat, what they don't know, how they exaggerate, > manipulate, etc. However, I haven't found you to be hostile yet, > but you still are probably projecting. > >> 10c) Your refusal to ever admit you might be wrong >> > > Have I ever gotten into an argument here with anyone regarding: > *Forth programming* ? I might've, but don't think so, at least > that's atypical. I do counter arguments of Forth as a language is > better than XYZ or C or whatever language since that's simply > untrue. > > So, a post by me in a thread that became argumentative would be in > reply to someone else here posting off-topic. So, ISTM, you > really should be complaining about other people posting off-topic > in the first place. Shouldn't you be complaining to them directly > instead of to my replies to them? Of course, you should, but you > don't ... Why is that? > >> 10d) Your rudeness to/about anyone who contradicts >> or criticises you >> > > What about theirs? I'm not rude until someone else is to me, or > until someone is attacked who shouldn't be. So, please, again, > complain about the the instigator, not the defender or "defendee". > Thank you for amusing me with your false inferences and non sequiturs. I won't reply in detail as life is too short and I doubt that you would believe me anyway. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-04 03:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6c66f48f-b2d7-486d-966d-bebb94700241@i5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #20239 |
On Mar 4, 11:08 am, Gerry Jackson <ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > On 02/03/2013 02:38, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > > > > > > "Gerry Jackson" <ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message > >news:kgo242$rhc$1@dont-email.me... > >> On 28/02/2013 03:14, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > >>> So, why is that? Why would _you_ "killfile" me? > > >>> 10) ___________ (fill in) > > >> Some suggestions for Rickman's response (pick one or more): > > >> 10a) Your nonsense to nugget ratio is far too high > > > So, you think it's acceptable to attack or provoke people in order > > to extract a "few [informative] nuggets" via an argument? That's > > what JP did. He thought that was just... Do you? I certainly > > hope not. That would *really* destroy my currently neutral/good > > opinion of you. > > > But, if you want to rank people on that measure, I easily outrank > > all but a few long term contributors here. I far outrank you, > > although you do maintain useful Forth code elsewhere. Some of > > these few people once contributed alot to c.l.f, but do nothing > > much anymore. Some have left. Others have passed away. Others > > still contribute alot. Some can't contribute as much because of > > the commercial aspects of their Forth involvement. > > >> 10b) Your inflated opinion of yourself, your capabilities and > >> knowledge > > > Well, I like helping people by sharing my knowledge and experience > > with them. So, when someone is doing something blantantly > > incorrect based on my knowledge and experience, which will lead > > them absolutely nowhere, I like to comment on that instead of > > holding my tongue and letting them waste more of their life or > > fail. That could lead to an argument. I guess you enjoy seeing > > people hit by the bus or train or smash their thumb with a hammer. > > Some people do. I think that's despicable. > > > Personally, I don't see me, my capabilities, or my knowledge as > > inflated. Without being insulting, what I've found in life to be > > true is that people who think I'm somehow "inflated" and attack me > > on such grounds generally underestimate me and drastically > > overestimate themselves. Their perspective is distorted. I've > > rarely found the opposite to be true. > > > Psychology tends to confirm this. E.g., putting "overstimate > > themselves" into Google or Yahoo pull up numerous articles, > > such as this one: > >http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=1309 > > > Normally, especially with hostile and argumentative people, I'll > > tell them that they're "projecting" their own personality onto me. > > And, of course, that is true. Their perspective of others is > > filtered by their own personality: how they do things, how they > > lie, how they cheat, what they don't know, how they exaggerate, > > manipulate, etc. However, I haven't found you to be hostile yet, > > but you still are probably projecting. > > >> 10c) Your refusal to ever admit you might be wrong > > > Have I ever gotten into an argument here with anyone regarding: > > *Forth programming* ? I might've, but don't think so, at least > > that's atypical. I do counter arguments of Forth as a language is > > better than XYZ or C or whatever language since that's simply > > untrue. > > > So, a post by me in a thread that became argumentative would be in > > reply to someone else here posting off-topic. So, ISTM, you > > really should be complaining about other people posting off-topic > > in the first place. Shouldn't you be complaining to them directly > > instead of to my replies to them? Of course, you should, but you > > don't ... Why is that? > > >> 10d) Your rudeness to/about anyone who contradicts > >> or criticises you > > > What about theirs? I'm not rude until someone else is to me, or > > until someone is attacked who shouldn't be. So, please, again, > > complain about the the instigator, not the defender or "defendee". > > Thank you for amusing me with your false inferences and non sequiturs. I > won't reply in detail as life is too short and I doubt that you would > believe me anyway. > > -- > Gerry- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Indeed! <snip> Personally, I don't see me, my capabilities, or my knowledge as inflated. Without being insulting, what I've found in life to be true is that people who think I'm somehow "inflated" and attack me on such grounds generally underestimate me and drastically overestimate themselves. Their perspective is distorted. I've rarely found the opposite to be true. </snip> I don't know about you, but irony gauge is bouncing off the end-stops right now! I think he means well, but sometimes his fingers are faster than his brain! I'll give Rod the benefit of the doubt and assume that the paragraph snipped above was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-04 20:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kh3is0$aah$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #20240 |
"Mark Wills" <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:6c66f48f-b2d7-486d-966d-bebb94700241@i5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com... > [Gerry snipped] > On 02/03/2013 02:38, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > > Personally, I don't see me, my capabilities, or my knowledge > > as inflated. Without being insulting, what I've found in life > > to be true is that people who think I'm somehow "inflated" > > and attack me on such grounds generally underestimate me > > and drastically overestimate themselves. Their perspective is > > distorted. I've rarely found the opposite to be true. > > I'll give Rod the benefit of the doubt and assume that > the paragraph snipped above was written with tongue > firmly planted in cheek! No. It wasn't. It was a simply a statement of the truth. Well, now, I'm really curious as to why you think you should've commented. You, me, Hugh, and Andrew are all in the same "boat". All of us ask many of the same questions at about the same time. We're asking the few remaining, still living, still posting to c.l.f, Forth "experts" around: Rather, Pelc, and Ertl, what needs to be done to complete our Forth interpreters. Occasionally, a more informative reply from McDonald or McFarling comes through. Other times a trivial tidbit will come from: Haak, Hendrix, or Horst. Always, there is an irrelevant, off-topic, diatribe by the ever conceited Paysan in intentionally misspelled English that has nothing to do with the thread or contributes little or nothing to it. That's unfortunate since some of his archived posts from many years ago are actually useful. But, of course, we shouldn't rank people on what they provide or don't. That's what Passiniti did and was more than willing to anger people in order to get a "nugget"... From your posts, it's clear you don't know much about Forth either, although you do code in it. Even so, I would rank my Forth knowledge above yours, and I don't even code in Forth for the most part. Otherwise, you don't discuss much of anything else worthy of recollecting. I.e., as far as anyone could possibly determine from your posts, you're an empty vessel, an average person. I'm not saying that to be insulting, just summarizing what I recall reading from you. Outside the domain of Forth, you could be a genius, or self-made millionaire, or a one of the "stars", but no one knows that. You don't seem to be doing anything to disprove that either. For Gerry, it's even worse. He posts like four posts a month. I doubt anyone even realizes he is posting regularly. It's clear that even long term regulars don't know much of anything about him, except the fact he maintains some Forth tests. I've been reading c.l.f. for over six years and only recall a few of his posts. Half of those were archived. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-05 10:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5135c4c1.1752693509@news.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #20270 |
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 20:49:43 -0500, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: >We're >asking the few remaining, still living, still posting to c.l.f, >Forth "experts" around: Rather, Pelc, and Ertl, what needs to be >done to complete our Forth interpreters. Blush. Well, speaking for MPE and myself, don't ask a vendor for information about Forth kernels. Vendors write as few kernels as possible. When we find one that works, we stick with it. In the 30+ years we have been in business, I can remember MPE writing three kernels. As a result, if you want the details, you'll have to read the source code because we have probably forgotten most of what you are asking. In addition, we really are not interested in yet another Forth kernel design. We understand that writing your own Forth kernel is a fascinating project for you, but the world does not need another Forth kernel. What MPE and I want is more portable library code to improve the functionality of Forth in general. Writing those libraries may well reveal the need for some kernel hooks, but even then most kernels have lots of undocumented hooks. Most authors of such hooks bitterly regret having provided them. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-07 00:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b2f7a213-3ef6-41cc-96b0-5cd484ce4d5a@r8g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #20270 |
On Mar 5, 1:49 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: > "Mark Wills" <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:6c66f48f-b2d7-486d-966d-bebb94700241@i5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com... > > > [Gerry snipped] > > On 02/03/2013 02:38, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > > > Personally, I don't see me, my capabilities, or my knowledge > > > as inflated. Without being insulting, what I've found in life > > > to be true is that people who think I'm somehow "inflated" > > > and attack me on such grounds generally underestimate me > > > and drastically overestimate themselves. Their perspective is > > > distorted. I've rarely found the opposite to be true. > > > I'll give Rod the benefit of the doubt and assume that > > the paragraph snipped above was written with tongue > > firmly planted in cheek! > > No. It wasn't. It was a simply a statement of the truth. > > Well, now, I'm really curious as to why you think you should've > commented. > Well, I commented because I thought your statement was hilarious: [quote] Personally, I don't see me, my capabilities, or my knowledge as inflated. Without being insulting, what I've found in life to be true is that people who think I'm somehow "inflated" and attack me on such grounds generally underestimate me and drastically overestimate themselves. Their perspective is distorted. I've rarely found the opposite to be true. [/quote] You don't appear to see the irony in that statement. You don't appear to realise that you could equally apply that statement to you yourself, and maybe it's *you* that'w *over*-estimating yourself, and *under*-estimating others! I found that to be very very funny indeed. Then I thought, "Oh, he's being ironic! Okay, that's really clever (rather British, actually) humour, okay, round of applause! Brilliant!" I genuinely thought you were being ironic/humourous. That's why I said I "assume that the paragraph snipped above was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek!". If it was, then it truly was a "let me buy you beer" moment. If not, well, okay then. No big deal. > You, me, Hugh, and Andrew are all in the same "boat". Andrew Hayley? I don't think so. He's very experienced, and clearly knows what he's talking about. That he doesn't get drawn into flame- wars is also admirable. Apologies if you a referring to another Andrew. Hugh does not come across as a Forth novice in any way to me, either. > All of us > ask many of the same questions at about the same time. We're > asking the few remaining, still living, still posting to c.l.f, > Forth "experts" around: Rather, Pelc, and Ertl, what needs to be > done to complete our Forth interpreters. Well, I get the impression that my Forth system is significantly ahead of yours. Mine is finished, and I've sold lots of them (my system is based on a physical plug-in cartridge, an EPROM so I sell them, as it requires a circuit-board etc. However, downloads for emulators are free). In the early days when I was implementing it, there were many useful contributions from members of CLF. Advice on implementing DOES>, blocks etc. I don't need to ask such questions anymore since that phase of development is complete. V1.0 was released about 2 years ago, V1.1 is released and out there, and V1.2 is in development, which contains a couple of bug fixes (bugs are a PITA when your code is on a ROM) and many internal optimizations and general improvements/ consolidations. It's less than 16K and is written in a mixture of Forth and assembly language. All good stuff. > From your posts, it's clear you don't know much about Forth > either, although you do code in it. Even so, I would rank my > Forth knowledge above yours, and I don't even code in Forth for > the most part. Otherwise, you don't discuss much of anything else > worthy of recollecting. I.e., as far as anyone could possibly > determine from your posts, you're an empty vessel, an average > person. I'm not saying that to be insulting, just summarizing > what I recall reading from you. I'm sure that's true. I don't consider myself to be anything special, to be honest. I'm improving at Forth. I code in it most days. It's the *only* programming language that I can ever recollect getting excited about. I think it's a mixture of it's extreme simplicity, and the fact that it's physical implementation is within reach of mediocre individuals such as myself. I think when you implement a language yourself, your personal investment in it is much higher (obviously) and you tend to stick with it. Outside the domain of Forth, you > could be a genius, or self-made millionaire, or a one of the > "stars", but no one knows that. You don't seem to be doing > anything to disprove that either. I guess I am what one could consider to be wealthy, yes. I am not short of money. I am self-made, and have been working for myself since 2001. I do not make my money from writing software. Not any more, anyway. > > For Gerry, it's even worse. He posts like four posts a month. I > doubt anyone even realizes he is posting regularly. It's clear > that even long term regulars don't know much of anything about > him, except the fact he maintains some Forth tests. I've been > reading c.l.f. for over six years and only recall a few of his > posts. Half of those were archived. > > Rod Pemberton I get the impression he is also very knowledgeable. Thing with Forth is, it's a *language*, and just like English, or German, it takes a while to learn to use it effectively. I'm still learning. I'm enjoying it though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-08 04:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <khcafe$20v$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #20384 |
"Mark Wills" <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:b2f7a213-3ef6-41cc-96b0-5cd484ce4d5a@r8g2000vbj.googlegroups.com... > You don't appear to see the irony in that statement. > You don't appear to realise that you could equally > apply that statement to you yourself, and maybe it's > *you* that'w *over*-estimating yourself, and > *under*-estimating others! If I thought it applied to me, why would I have written it ... ? You are aware that when read in context it was a _rebuttal_ to Gerry saying I was just that: "inflated" - implying I was conceited - yes? How can you take it as anything other than a truthful statement (at least from my perspective...)? RP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-04 20:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kh3isv$abo$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #20239 |
"Gerry Jackson" <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:kh1v9a$bct$1@dont-email.me... > On 02/03/2013 02:38, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > [snip] > > Thank you for amusing me with your false inferences and non > sequiturs. I won't reply in detail as life is too short and I > doubt that you would believe me anyway. > Well, I'd definately tell you that you were wrong if you were, which is what you seem to avoid doing to others here when you know they're wrong, but seem to like to tease me with, much like a 4th grader would do... Gerry, do you have me confused with someone else? From my perspective, that seems to be the case. I've only personally had two or three conversations with you in c.l.f., which were all pleasant to my recollection, yet you seem to be hiding a secret grudge. So, so far, I've not found anything in your statements that remotely correlates with either who I am, or what I've stated in c.l.f, even if it was to someone else. With your insistence on not replying in detail, it's not possible to get to the truth, which I strongly suspect favors me. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-05 07:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kh460s$rqg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #20271 |
On 05/03/2013 01:50, Rod Pemberton wrote: > "Gerry Jackson" <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message > news:kh1v9a$bct$1@dont-email.me... >> On 02/03/2013 02:38, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >>> [snip] >> >> Thank you for amusing me with your false inferences and non >> sequiturs. I won't reply in detail as life is too short and I >> doubt that you would believe me anyway. >> > > Well, I'd definately tell you that you were wrong if you were, > which is what you seem to avoid doing to others here when you > know they're wrong, but seem to like to tease me with, much like a > 4th grader would do... > > Gerry, do you have me confused with someone else? From my > perspective, that seems to be the case. I've only personally had > two or three conversations with you in c.l.f., which were all > pleasant to my recollection, yet you seem to be hiding a secret > grudge. So, so far, I've not found anything in your statements > that remotely correlates with either who I am, or what I've stated > in c.l.f, even if it was to someone else. With your insistence on > not replying in detail, it's not possible to get to the truth, > which I strongly suspect favors me. > Some people on c.l.f and other usenet groups seem to get into long arguments that degenerate into futile exchanges. Why is this? ISTM that such people have a need to win and can't bear to lose. On past evidence you seem to be one of those e.g. see your last sentence above and the need to rank yourself above Mark Wills in your reply to him. I choose to not waste my time by continuing such exchanges. If you find that frustrating well sorry, that's too bad, console yourself by thinking you've won - I don't care. However, breaking my rule and this *will* be the last time, I will point out a couple of things. Your inference: <quote>I guess you enjoy seeing people hit by the bus or train or smash their thumb with a hammer.</quote> is just plain silly and laughable. You provided this link http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=1309, which may or may not apply to me - how can I tell? Ask yourself is it beyonds the bounds of possibility that it may also apply to you? You also mention the paucity of my posts, that is a deliberate policy on my part as I've found that c.l.f can be a dreadful time sink (look at the time I've wasted on this reply). After this and the recognizer exchanges I'll probably post even less frequently in future. Have a nice day. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 17:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kh8hei$up9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #20275 |
"Gerry Jackson" <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:kh460s$rqg$1@dont-email.me... ... > Some people on c.l.f and other usenet groups seem to get into > long arguments that degenerate into futile exchanges. > Why is this? That's true. I've complained about that, repeatedly. Where were you? Why don't you remember? I believe the problem is primarily due to just a few people who shouldn't be posting here. A secondary issue is people who don't post frequently joining the conversation, on the incorrect side, because they don't know anything about it, i.e., the "peanut" gallery. > ISTM that such people have a need to win and > can't bear to lose. That's true. Go lookup where I said that to the people who do that. > On past evidence you seem to be one of those [...] Was it someone who is repeatedly off-topic? Was it someone who is insistently inciteful? Just who were my comments in reply to? Again, you reply with non-descript vagaries... Either 1) you've confused me for someone else, i.e., recollection error, or 2) you can't distinquish the instigator from the victim or defender. I posited the 2nd first. However, it seems that maybe recollection errors on your part is the real issue here. AIR, those conversations seem to involve Bernd Paysan and John Passaniti, etc. We managed to get John to leave, at least for a while. We managed to get Bernd to "killfile" others, or to stop making intentionally inciteful comments, but he still incessantly posts off-topic. Personally, I got tired of ignoring people who shouldn't be posting here. Maybe sticking your head in the sand works for you in real life. That didn't seem to be working here. > [...] e.g. see your last sentence above and the > need to rank yourself above Mark Wills in your reply to him. Mark attempts to rank himself above me in his posts and replies. It's obvious to me that he isn't a knowledgeable and so I stated so. I don't hold that against him. He's generally a nice guy. We're both experiencing similar problems with our interpreters and with some people in this group. But, apparently, you're not familiar with the history of his posts to me. However, you've written your rebuttal without ANY reference to prior context, i.e., what Mark has said to me in the past. So, given your ignorance, why do you think you're qualified to comment on my statement to him? Yet, you claim that you used "past evidence" to classify me as one of the people I've decried. It's clear that your memory simply sucks or that you're instigating. A few years ago Paysan attacked me entirely out-of-blue. I'd never posted an off-topic post, off-topic reply, or angry response at all up to that point. I'd never gotten any reply from him at all to any of my posts. I had no idea he had some issue with me. His hostile posts weren't even related to the thread he posted into. I can find those posts and provide links to them. They're archived. I can find posts where Passiniti said vulgar things then later claimed he didn't. You can't seem to be able to find anything you think I said. That means you don't have any evidence of them. > I choose to not waste my time by continuing such exchanges. You should choose to not waste your time by continuing such exchanges since you apparently don't know what facts are in the first place. You seem to be responding to situations where you have zero knowledge and vague recollections. You're instigating. > If you find that frustrating well sorry, that's too bad, console > yourself by thinking you've won - I don't care. I'm not interested in winning. I'm only interested in correcting the mistakes by others, which now includes your statements about me. > Your inference: <quote>I guess you enjoy seeing people hit by > the bus or train or smash their thumb with a hammer.</quote> > is just plain silly and laughable. > Yes, it's an exaggeration. I'm sorry you missed the point, but the exaggeration was because you were missing the point. It was there to point out you had numerous opportunities over the years so defend other people posting here from verbal abuse and yet you chose to stand by and do nothing. That's a coward. I didn't want to call you that since you seem like a nice guy and there are numerous others here who deserve that label far more than you do. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-07 00:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8b05b15a-47d8-4c86-8b7e-71d97b8cec54@c10g2000vbt.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #20366 |
On Mar 6, 10:56 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotq.cpm> wrote: > > Mark attempts to rank himself above me in his posts and replies. > It's obvious to me that he isn't a knowledgeable and so I stated > so. I don't hold that against him. He's generally a nice guy. > We're both experiencing similar problems with our interpreters and > with some people in this group. I'm not aware that I attempt to rank me above you. If that's true then I owe you an apology. I'm really not like that, nor interested in that. If you were to know me in person you'd know that. That's not possible, of course, so it's okay. I'm very much aware of my 'place' in the Forth community. I'm a learner, who continues to improve (IMHO). I've yet to write any commercial Forth, though that may change if a private venture I am planning comes to fruition. > But, apparently, you're not > familiar with the history of his posts to me. However, you've > written your rebuttal without ANY reference to prior context, > i.e., what Mark has said to me in the past. So, given your > ignorance, why do you think you're qualified to comment on my > statement to him? Yet, you claim that you used "past evidence" to > classify me as one of the people I've decried. It's clear that > your memory simply sucks or that you're instigating. > Do we have much history? Have we had any run-ins with each another? I'm only aware of one, quite recently, where I posted an extremely sarcastic rant on a comment you made about bugs being neccessary in order to make code work properly. It was over the top, I admit that, but apart from that, I don't think we have any reason to be at each others throats, do we? Usenet is a strange environment. In real life, issues like these would be elevated into the big issues that they become. In real life it would be a beer and a laugh and a joke, and some friendly piss-taking (in English English, to "take the piss" is to "jibe" someone). Do you print out posts that you don't like and post them on your wall, or something? Am I going to wake up with a horses head in my bed?!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-07 07:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6178c79d-bafc-482f-91ad-bbf93076bd9e@w3g2000vba.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #20385 |
On Mar 7, 8:24 am, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Mar 6, 10:56 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotq.cpm> > wrote: > > > > > Mark attempts to rank himself above me in his posts and replies. > > It's obvious to me that he isn't a knowledgeable and so I stated > > so. I don't hold that against him. He's generally a nice guy. > > We're both experiencing similar problems with our interpreters and > > with some people in this group. > > I'm not aware that I attempt to rank me above you. If that's true then > I owe you an apology. I'm really not like that, nor interested in > that. If you were to know me in person you'd know that. That's not > possible, of course, so it's okay. I'm very much aware of my 'place' > in the Forth community. I'm a learner, who continues to improve > (IMHO). I've yet to write any commercial Forth, though that may change > if a private venture I am planning comes to fruition. > > > But, apparently, you're not > > familiar with the history of his posts to me. However, you've > > written your rebuttal without ANY reference to prior context, > > i.e., what Mark has said to me in the past. So, given your > > ignorance, why do you think you're qualified to comment on my > > statement to him? Yet, you claim that you used "past evidence" to > > classify me as one of the people I've decried. It's clear that > > your memory simply sucks or that you're instigating. > > Do we have much history? Have we had any run-ins with each another? > I'm only aware of one, quite recently, where I posted an extremely > sarcastic rant on a comment you made about bugs being neccessary in > order to make code work properly. It was over the top, I admit that, > but apart from that, I don't think we have any reason to be at each > others throats, do we? > > Usenet is a strange environment. In real life, issues like these would > be elevated into the big issues that they become. In real life it > would be a beer and a laugh and a joke, and some friendly piss-taking > (in English English, to "take the piss" is to "jibe" someone). > > Do you print out posts that you don't like and post them on your wall, > or something? Am I going to wake up with a horses head in my bed?! Correction: In real life, issues like these would be elevated into the big issues that they become. Should read: In real life, issues like these would **NOT** be elevated into the big issues that they become.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web