Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #48645 > unrolled thread
| Started by | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-01 16:10 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-08-12 11:05 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 151 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
3rd RfD: Quotations anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-01 16:10 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-01 11:21 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 11:58 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-01 12:53 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 16:05 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-01 19:00 -0500
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-01 18:22 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-01 21:16 -0500
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Wasell <from_usenet@wasell.eu> - 2016-07-02 13:04 +0200
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-02 09:39 -0500
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-07-02 16:33 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-02 11:50 -0500
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 10:45 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 19:24 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-07-03 11:48 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-03 07:08 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 11:49 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-04 08:25 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-04 16:57 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-07-05 07:40 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-05 01:38 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations alex@rivadpm.com - 2016-07-05 01:33 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-05 02:28 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 10:06 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-07-05 20:57 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 00:12 +0300
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-07-05 22:45 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 10:50 +0300
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-06 03:31 -0500
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-08 09:07 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-07-04 21:08 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-04 09:10 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-07-02 19:24 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 16:19 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 23:18 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 21:54 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 03:10 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-07-03 09:35 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 19:19 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-03 01:45 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 11:52 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 19:10 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-07-02 13:27 -1000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 16:54 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 23:27 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-08-05 00:30 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-07-08 21:15 +1000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-08 07:39 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-07-09 17:08 +1000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-07-08 23:22 -1000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-07-08 20:42 +1000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-07-01 21:51 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-01 17:57 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-01 18:47 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 07:55 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-04 17:03 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations alex@rivadpm.com - 2016-07-05 01:38 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 10:16 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-05 10:48 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2016-07-05 20:18 +0200
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-08-05 00:42 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2016-08-04 19:44 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-06 21:01 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-07 07:54 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-08 08:17 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-08 08:41 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 10:21 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-08 14:29 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-08 22:28 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-09 03:56 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-09 09:51 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-13 01:25 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-13 01:56 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-13 02:09 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-13 14:04 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 00:32 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 01:25 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:52 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 20:25 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 12:46 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 14:38 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 16:03 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 17:27 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-14 02:46 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 08:33 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 16:59 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 23:30 -0700
Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-16 02:42 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 05:47 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2016-07-16 15:41 +0200
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-16 07:16 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-16 07:27 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 09:52 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-16 11:46 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 03:11 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 03:18 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 03:47 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-17 05:43 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 06:00 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 08:32 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 23:49 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 00:39 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 07:57 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2016-07-18 12:18 +0200
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 04:04 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-10 21:23 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-07-09 14:30 +0200
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations mhx@iae.nl - 2016-07-09 05:51 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-09 09:01 -0500
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-09 07:40 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-09 12:27 -0500
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-09 11:24 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-30 02:03 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-09 14:36 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Håkan Thörngren <hth313@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 12:58 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 21:59 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-09 23:11 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 00:14 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 01:06 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-12 05:31 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 09:00 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-13 03:44 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-13 11:36 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-13 23:03 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 01:23 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-07-12 08:57 -1000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 22:53 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 01:09 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-10 18:18 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-11 01:35 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 18:18 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 08:24 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-10 06:53 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Håkan Thörngren <hth313@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 00:53 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-10 16:57 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2016-07-10 02:26 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-10 06:49 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-10 11:04 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-10 12:51 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2016-07-10 13:21 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 13:23 -0700
3rd RfD: Quotations anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-28 16:56 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-28 16:29 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-29 00:50 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-11 12:15 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:25 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-11 20:57 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:59 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-11 21:11 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 00:30 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 11:05 -0700
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 01:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66c39c13-a03d-4bb1-a85b-935738edac1b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48797 |
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 11:40:41 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > On 05/07/2016 00:57, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > So, this is why you said "That is true" when Julian Fondren described me as: "Bum mad. Ranting naked and throwing himself from buildings mad." > > > > I'm gobsmacked that you can state that. Where in my first post did those > words appear? I quoted the bit that I said was true, that doesn't mean I > agree with everything Julian Fondren wrote. Well, I assumed that because you responded favorably to his post, you agreed with the whole post --- you didn't explicitly disagree with any of it --- editing his post down for brevity isn't really the same as disagreeing with it. > > Everybody who supports ANS-Forth is a brown-noser of Elizabeth Rather. > > That's your definition. I doubt that anyone else agrees with it. Anyway > there's quite a bit in ANS Forth I don't like - there I've said it, by > your definition that must rule me out of her 'circle of sychophants'. > There's also a lot that's good in ANS Forth - whoops does that rule me > back in? I would assume that if you respond favorably to ANS-Forth, you agree with the entirety of ANS-Forth. It is not actually possible to disagree with parts of ANS-Forth. You are either ANS-Forth compliant or you aren't ANS-Forth compliant. You can't be compliant with the parts that you like and not compliant with the parts you don't like. ANS-Forth is the Standard with a capital 'S' --- it is utter nonsense to say that you like some parts and don't like others --- you can't change any parts of ANS-Forth, so your opinion about the different parts is worth nothing to Elizabeth Rather. You remind me of people who say that they like some parts of the Bible (typically the Jesus stuff) but don't like other parts of the Bible (the wrathful Old Testament God is pretty disturbing) --- that is not the way it works though --- you have to swallow the whole burrito, not just particular beans. Switching analogies yet again, you remind me of Bill Clinton who said that he smoked marijuana but didn't inhale --- well, aah, that is not really the definition of "smoking" --- when you smoke the ANS-Forth bong, you have to inhale deeply and fill your lungs completely (you can't smoke with one lung and leave the other smoke-free). ANS-Forth is purely Elizabeth Rather's work. If you accept ANS-Forth, then you brown-nose Elizabeth Rather --- you get the whole package --- there is no way to disentangle ANS-Forth from Elizabeth Rather. I mean, you either drink the Kool-Aid or you don't --- you can't partially drink the Kool-Aid --- after you accept ANS-Forth, you can't work to improve ANS-Forth, but you have to agree with ANS-Forth entirely. > Don't you realise that your post proves the point I originally made. I > politely replied to your last post and you responded with insults and > repeated stuff you've written many times before. What upset you? Was it > me reporting via email a couple of bugs in your string stack? What upset me? It was all that talk about me being mentally ill and "ranting naked" --- I know that accusing everybody else of being crazy is typical of cults --- it is still upsetting to be the target though. I want people to tell me about any bugs they find in my software. I already fixed those bugs that you told me about and I sent you an update. I will also send the update to anybody who is using the string-stack.4th package. I don't think the bugs imply incompetence on my part. I didn't test the package as thoroughly as I should have --- it is pretty big though --- it takes time to go through so much code with a fine-toothed comb.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alex@rivadpm.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 01:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb0804b5-2cf0-4c80-877c-619f9c3fd7a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48780 |
On 05/07/16 00:57, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > This RfD promotes the "quotations" that Bernd Paysan wrote the code for. Bernd Paysan was unwilling to put his name on the RfD however, presumably because he was ashamed of having faked the quotations (he knows as well as everybody else that quotations need to have access to the parent function's local variables). So, Alex McDonald put his name on the RfD. This was supposed to be a slam-dunk from a ladder for Alex McDonald as the RfD was pre-approved by Leon Wagner and was guaranteed to be accepted into Forth-200x. Then suddenly, at the height of his glory, Alex McDonald disappeared. For several months we didn't hear anything from him, but now suddenly he has reappeared again. Most likely he was in jail; that is the obvious explanation. Now Anton Ertl has taken over the RfD and won't give it back to Alex McDonald again. > Unlike your piggy squealing about your name being on something you don't like being libelous, the above *is* defamation. Please withdraw it immediately, and do not repeat it. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 02:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a03f8e6f-be44-4816-b9f2-cb4fc40ba1fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48798 |
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:33:45 AM UTC-7, al...@rivadpm.com wrote: > On 05/07/16 00:57, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > > This RfD promotes the "quotations" that Bernd Paysan wrote the code for. Bernd Paysan was unwilling to put his name on the RfD however, presumably because he was ashamed of having faked the quotations (he knows as well as everybody else that quotations need to have access to the parent function's local variables). So, Alex McDonald put his name on the RfD. This was supposed to be a slam-dunk from a ladder for Alex McDonald as the RfD was pre-approved by Leon Wagner and was guaranteed to be accepted into Forth-200x. Then suddenly, at the height of his glory, Alex McDonald disappeared. For several months we didn't hear anything from him, but now suddenly he has reappeared again. Most likely he was in jail; that is the obvious explanation. Now Anton Ertl has taken over the RfD and won't give it back to Alex McDonald again. > > > > Unlike your piggy squealing about your name being on something you don't like being libelous, the above *is* defamation. Please withdraw it immediately, and do not repeat it. > > -- > Alex All of this is true: 1.) The quotation code (lacking access to the parent function's locals) was written by Bernd Paysan (Forth-200x committee member). 2.) The RfD was pretty much a word-by-word copy of the article written by Stephen Pelc (Forth-200x committee member). 3.) The author of the RfD was Alex McDonald, representing himself as a member of the Forth community for the obvious purpose of enhancing the grass-roots image of Forth-200x. 4.) Given the total support of the Forth-200x committee (Bernd Paysan, Stephen Pelc and Anton Ertl), the RfD was guaranteed to be accepted (a "slam-dunk from a ladder"). 5.) Alex McDonald suddenly disappeared for several months, leaving the RfD in limbo. 6.) Alex McDonald suddenly reappeared and simultaneously Anton Ertl (Forth-200x committee chair-person) said that he would take over the RfD himself. As for whether you were in jail during those several months, that is just speculation, but it seems like an obvious explanation. Where else could you have been that didn't provide you with internet access? Of course, there are other explanations for where you disappeared to --- maybe you went to Barsoom to rescue John Carter and the princess --- there is no internet on Barsoom. Why are you in this thread devoted to the quotations RfD when you are no longer the author of the RfD? If you don't say where you disappeared to, Anton Ertl is not going to give you back your RfD --- just forget about the RfD --- go back to telling me that I'm incompetent as a Forth programmer, as that seems to be your favorite sport. If you admit that you were in jail, Anton Ertl will likely give you back the RfD. If you refuse to say where you where, then this is the same as saying that you simply got bored with Forth-200x and pursued another hobby for a while. In this case, Anton Ertl is certainly not going to give you your RfD back --- he needs somebody to be the author of the RfD who is committed to supporting Forth-200x and who won't wander off to pursue another hobby. Anton Ertl can forgive you for getting thrown in jail --- I mean, who among us has never been in jail? --- but Anton Ertl can't forgive you for being uncommitted to Forth-200x.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 10:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nlgesm$2ni$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48802 |
On 7/5/2016 5:28 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:33:45 AM UTC-7, al...@rivadpm.com wrote: >> On 05/07/16 00:57, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> This RfD promotes the "quotations" that Bernd Paysan wrote the code for. Bernd Paysan was unwilling to put his name on the RfD however, presumably because he was ashamed of having faked the quotations (he knows as well as everybody else that quotations need to have access to the parent function's local variables). So, Alex McDonald put his name on the RfD. This was supposed to be a slam-dunk from a ladder for Alex McDonald as the RfD was pre-approved by Leon Wagner and was guaranteed to be accepted into Forth-200x. Then suddenly, at the height of his glory, Alex McDonald disappeared. For several months we didn't hear anything from him, but now suddenly he has reappeared again. Most likely he was in jail; that is the obvious explanation. Now Anton Ertl has taken over the RfD and won't give it back to Alex McDonald again. >>> >> >> Unlike your piggy squealing about your name being on something you don't like being libelous, the above *is* defamation. Please withdraw it immediately, and do not repeat it. >> >> -- >> Alex > > All of this is true: > 1.) The quotation code (lacking access to the parent function's locals) was written by Bernd Paysan (Forth-200x committee member). > 2.) The RfD was pretty much a word-by-word copy of the article written by Stephen Pelc (Forth-200x committee member). > 3.) The author of the RfD was Alex McDonald, representing himself as a member of the Forth community for the obvious purpose of enhancing the grass-roots image of Forth-200x. > 4.) Given the total support of the Forth-200x committee (Bernd Paysan, Stephen Pelc and Anton Ertl), the RfD was guaranteed to be accepted (a "slam-dunk from a ladder"). > 5.) Alex McDonald suddenly disappeared for several months, leaving the RfD in limbo. > 6.) Alex McDonald suddenly reappeared and simultaneously Anton Ertl (Forth-200x committee chair-person) said that he would take over the RfD himself. > > As for whether you were in jail during those several months, that is just speculation, but it seems like an obvious explanation. Where else could you have been that didn't provide you with internet access? Of course, there are other explanations for where you disappeared to --- maybe you went to Barsoom to rescue John Carter and the princess --- there is no internet on Barsoom. > > Why are you in this thread devoted to the quotations RfD when you are no longer the author of the RfD? If you don't say where you disappeared to, Anton Ertl is not going to give you back your RfD --- just forget about the RfD --- go back to telling me that I'm incompetent as a Forth programmer, as that seems to be your favorite sport. > > If you admit that you were in jail, Anton Ertl will likely give you back the RfD. If you refuse to say where you where, then this is the same as saying that you simply got bored with Forth-200x and pursued another hobby for a while. In this case, Anton Ertl is certainly not going to give you your RfD back --- he needs somebody to be the author of the RfD who is committed to supporting Forth-200x and who won't wander off to pursue another hobby. Anton Ertl can forgive you for getting thrown in jail --- I mean, who among us has never been in jail? --- but Anton Ertl can't forgive you for being uncommitted to Forth-200x. Wow! Not only does he not make a simple retraction, he repeats the claim! High drama in c.l.f... -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 20:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nlh3f2$kjd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48802 |
On 05/07/16 10:28, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:33:45 AM UTC-7, al...@rivadpm.com wrote: >> On 05/07/16 00:57, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> This RfD promotes the "quotations" that Bernd Paysan wrote the code for.. Bernd Paysan was unwilling to put his name on the RfD however, presumably because he was ashamed of having faked the quotations (he knows as well as everybody else that quotations need to have access to the parent function's local variables). So, Alex McDonald put his name on the RfD. This was supposed to be a slam-dunk from a ladder for Alex McDonald as the RfD was pre-approved by Leon Wagner and was guaranteed to be accepted into Forth-200x. Then suddenly, at the height of his glory, Alex McDonald disappeared. For several months we didn't hear anything from him, but now suddenly he has reappeared again. Most likely he was in jail; that is the obvious explanation. Now Anton Ertl has taken over the RfD and won't give it back to Alex McDonald again. >>> >> >> Unlike your piggy squealing about your name being on something you don't like being libelous, the above *is* defamation. Please withdraw it immediately, and do not repeat it. >> >> -- >> Alex > > All of this is true: > 1.) The quotation code (lacking access to the parent function's locals) was written by Bernd Paysan (Forth-200x committee member). > 2.) The RfD was pretty much a word-by-word copy of the article written by Stephen Pelc (Forth-200x committee member). > 3.) The author of the RfD was Alex McDonald, representing himself as a member of the Forth community for the obvious purpose of enhancing the grass-roots image of Forth-200x. > 4.) Given the total support of the Forth-200x committee (Bernd Paysan, Stephen Pelc and Anton Ertl), the RfD was guaranteed to be accepted (a "slam-dunk from a ladder"). > 5.) Alex McDonald suddenly disappeared for several months, leaving the RfD in limbo. > 6.) Alex McDonald suddenly reappeared and simultaneously Anton Ertl (Forth-200x committee chair-person) said that he would take over the RfD himself. > > As for whether you were in jail during those several months, that is just speculation, but it seems like an obvious explanation. Where else could you have been that didn't provide you with internet access? Of course, there are other explanations for where you disappeared to --- maybe you went to Barsoom to rescue John Carter and the princess --- there is no internet on Barsoom. > > Why are you in this thread devoted to the quotations RfD when you are no longer the author of the RfD? If you don't say where you disappeared to, Anton Ertl is not going to give you back your RfD --- just forget about the RfD --- go back to telling me that I'm incompetent as a Forth programmer, as that seems to be your favorite sport. > > If you admit that you were in jail, Anton Ertl will likely give you back the RfD. If you refuse to say where you where, then this is the same as saying that you simply got bored with Forth-200x and pursued another hobby for a while. In this case, Anton Ertl is certainly not going to give you your RfD back --- he needs somebody to be the author of the RfD who is committed to supporting Forth-200x and who won't wander off to pursue another hobby. Anton Ertl can forgive you for getting thrown in jail --- I mean, who among us has never been in jail? --- but Anton Ertl can't forgive you for being uncommitted to Forth-200x. > I lost sight in my left eye. Thanks for asking. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 00:12 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <nlh7rv$53u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48813 |
On 05/07/2016 22:57, Alex McDonald wrote: > I lost sight in my left eye. Thanks for asking. Sorry to hear that. Why do you engage with ugh?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 22:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nlh9qd$c4q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48814 |
On 05/07/16 22:12, Ron Aaron wrote: > > > On 05/07/2016 22:57, Alex McDonald wrote: > >> I lost sight in my left eye. Thanks for asking. > > Sorry to hear that. Why do you engage with ugh? > I never intend to, but I can't and won't leave Hugh's offensive and untrue remarks unchallenged. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 10:50 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <nlid79$9dc$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48815 |
On 06/07/2016 00:45, Alex McDonald wrote: > > I never intend to, but I can't and won't leave Hugh's offensive and > untrue remarks unchallenged. I've found that a shot or two of vodka (insert your drink of choice) helps, somewhat, to curb the urge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 03:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-fudnQocRJdUXOHKnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #48815 |
Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On 05/07/16 22:12, Ron Aaron wrote: >> On 05/07/2016 22:57, Alex McDonald wrote: >> >>> I lost sight in my left eye. Thanks for asking. >> >> Sorry to hear that. Why do you engage with ugh? > > I never intend to, but I can't and won't leave Hugh's offensive and > untrue remarks unchallenged. But there's no need to quote the whole bloody thing. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 09:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b5556e2-52b2-4ce1-b13e-5a945800c7fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48813 |
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 12:57:24 PM UTC-7, Alex McDonald wrote: > On 05/07/16 10:28, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > As for whether you were in jail during those several months, that is just speculation, but it seems like an obvious explanation. Where else could you have been that didn't provide you with internet access? Of course, there are other explanations for where you disappeared to --- maybe you went to Barsoom to rescue John Carter and the princess --- there is no internet on Barsoom. > > > > Why are you in this thread devoted to the quotations RfD when you are no longer the author of the RfD? If you don't say where you disappeared to, Anton Ertl is not going to give you back your RfD --- just forget about the RfD --- go back to telling me that I'm incompetent as a Forth programmer, as that seems to be your favorite sport. > > > > If you admit that you were in jail, Anton Ertl will likely give you back the RfD. If you refuse to say where you where, then this is the same as saying that you simply got bored with Forth-200x and pursued another hobby for a while. In this case, Anton Ertl is certainly not going to give you your RfD back --- he needs somebody to be the author of the RfD who is committed to supporting Forth-200x and who won't wander off to pursue another hobby. Anton Ertl can forgive you for getting thrown in jail --- I mean, who among us has never been in jail? --- but Anton Ertl can't forgive you for being uncommitted to Forth-200x. > I lost sight in my left eye. Thanks for asking. > > -- > Alex On June 8 I received an email out of the blue from Alex McDonald. This was the first I knew that he was making a reappearance on comp.lang.forth (in the email he says that he lurks on comp.lang.forth). In that email he cited my "continued existence" as being the reason why he left comp.lang.forth.. The email was basically a death threat. So, I had no indication that he had left comp.lang.forth due to health problems. This is the email in its entirety: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 01/06/16 16:20, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > The RfD was going to be a slam-dunk from a ladder for Alex McDonald > --- but then Alex McDonald disappeared --- now the RfD is left in > limbo while Anton and Bernd search for a new pocket-boy who will put > his name on the RfD. > ... > Then [after Passaniti disappeared] the Forth-200x committee had Alex McDonald pretending to represent >the "Forth community," but Alex "I do standards for a living" McDonald > disappeared. This is a chronic problem for the Forth-200x committee > --- their pocket boys disappear --- then they have to find new > pocket boys to put their names on the RfDs. Unfortunately, you're still here, and I suspect you won't do me the tremendous favour of fucking off or dieing any time soon. Ah well. I still occasionally read clf. Personal reasons and your continued existence have stopped me being an active contributor. I'll continue to lurk for the moment. -- Alex "I still do standards for a living" McDonald
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 21:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nlefnv$ptt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48779 |
On 04/07/2016 16:25, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 3:47:19 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: >> On 02/07/2016 18:45, Julian Fondren wrote: >>> Maybe before you >>> sign up as a permanent member of the Hugh Internet Defense Force, you >>> might consider that the reason you're not seeing point-by-point >>> rebuttals of Hugh's rants against Forth Inc and Forth 200x and ANS Forth >>> is that we're all fucking tired of it and many of us are also unwilling >>> to quote them and thereby make Hugh's targets more likely to read them. >> >> THat is true. Arguing with Hugh either leads to a never ending argument >> where we give up because it's a waste of time or abuse. Whenever Hugh's >> posts mention Elizabeth Rather, Anton Ertl etc I stop reading as a >> repetitive rant invariably follows. > > You are criticizing me because I never give up when I know that I'm right. Not quite, I've had a few discussions with you where neither of us will ever convince the other, rather than continue I give up to avoid wasting my time - life's too short. > When has Elizabeth Rather ever backed down though? I don't know but that's a different matter as she never enters an argument/discussion with you. Given the abuse you throw at her she probably ignores your posts. She has been arguing against general-purpose data-structures for 40 years now. No matter how many times the foolishness of this position is pointed out, she just stands her ground. Here is an example: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/Ts2pToYJO2A%5B76-100%5D > > Notice the recent date on this thread, despite the fact that this topic has been discussed repeatedly in the past decade that I've been on c.l.f.: > > On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 7:40:12 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 6/18/16 9:09 AM, lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 5:57:46 PM UTC+12, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>>> >>>> On 6/18/16 2:28 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:04:35 AM UTC+12, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> But it's rarely used unchanged, because *this* application needed somewhat >>>>>> different constraints, interface, units, ... and it was quick and easy >>>>>> to pull something out of that back pocket and adapt it. Formal libraries >>>>>> aren't that flexible. >>>>> >>>>> Isn’t that a criticism of the language, rather than the library concept? >>>>> Because other languages can implement amazingly flexible libraries. >>>>> >>>> No, it's a testament to the flexibility of Forth. As someone else said, >>>> it means that rather than adapt your program to the library, you can >>>> select the specific features you need and have them operate exactly the >>>> way you want, with great ease. >>> >>> So you never copy and paste code from one project to the next? You always start with a clean slate? >> >> Not at all. I start with useful code from the last project, take useful >> functions, and modify it as necessary. Sometimes that's not at all, but >> often there are tweaks needed. What I *don't* do is try to regard it as >> a black box not to be touched, which seems to be the idea behind >> "standard libraries". >> >> Cheers, >> Elizabeth I don't understand why people are so dogmatic about using standard libraries, sometimes using them is appropriate, sometimes not. Probably not when programming a resource limited system where the overhead of a library can't be tolerated. I have my own library files that I use when I need to but I don't develop embedded software so I don't worry about size, efficiency etc. > > Also, btw, when have I ever abused you? You haven't and I didn't mean to imply you had (if that's the way you read my comment). But you have regularly abused several other people and, to be fair to you some return the abuse. As most regulars on c.l.f probably ignore the abuse why waste your time writing it, do something productive with your time - you're certainly capable of doing so. Provide a link and a quotation from me in which I abused you or offended you. I don't recall ever arguing with you --- I had been thinking of you as being one of the few people on c.l.f. who know what general-purpose data-structures are. Well I do use my version of them and I am looking at your string stack. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 09:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <003ca746-cd1f-44f9-887f-d52ca2dd1b58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48708 |
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 10:45:19 AM UTC-7, Julian Fondren wrote: > On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 11:50:45 AM UTC-5, Cecil - k5nwa wrote: > > I would highly recommend to anyone before they pass harsh judgement on > > someone that they make sure that they are based on all the facts. > ... > You're not the first person cry that we should "leave Hugh alone" when > nearly every post of his is a renewed unprovoked attack on someone, or > to try and beg that his targets engage him and thereby solve some > pressing social issue. Hugh is mad. Bum mad. Ranting naked and > throwing himself from buildings mad. If you have trouble grasping that, > you should at least grasp that *we* all see him that way and that your > various appeals are totally pointless. I had not been paying much attention to Julian Fondren in the the past. Now that I see him saying things like this about me though, I felt inspired to look up some of his posts. Here is one: On Monday, June 2, 2014 at 10:28:10 PM UTC-7, Julian Fondren wrote: > There's no point in being nice to him. Look up the thread "LC53, a > respectable random generator?" You can search by 'congratufuckulations'. He is referring to this thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/LC53/comp.lang.forth/qqlp1gZnVic/kjeAwWCaR1MJ Julian Fondren is defending Albert v.d.Horst who was bored one day and wanted some entertainment, so he started a thread on c.l.f. attacking me. Albert said this: On Saturday, November 23, 2013 at 9:25:28 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst wrote: > In the wikipedia entry about Linear congruential generators there > is an entry with a Forth implementation : LC53. > > There is no theoretical motivation or testresults behind it, > except a statement of Hugh Aguilar: > " invented it". > and > " > \ PRNG is not suitable for encryption; it is intended to be used in games and simulations. > " > > It has nothing to offer over the first generator mentioned (from > Numerical Recipees) : less trusted source, slower implementation, > smaller period. It has with a high probability, never been used in > a program with some notoriety. > > This may be a very poor generator, and it may reflect poorly on the > reputation of the Forth community. It may give a wrong impression about > the standing of Hugh's novice package in the Forth community. > > I ask Hugh to remove the LC53 from the wikipedia entry, until such > time he has more explanation on his website about the quality of the > generator. > > N.B. Numerical Recipees amounts to > : RAND SEED @ 1664525 * 1013904223 + DUP SEED ! ; > If you need a simple generator for games or graphics, why bother? > > Groetjes Albert This is not the only thread on c.l.f. discussing my LC53. We also have this thread in which Marcel Hendrix posted my LC53 encryption-cracking code with my name removed from the copyright notice: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/LC53/comp.lang.forth/wP5nw1ClzsM/E-TV9v2y9RoJ Later in the thread, Marcel said this: On Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 2:48:13 AM UTC-7, Marcel Hendrix wrote: > My point is not that the algorithm does not do what it is designed to do > (I don't know what it is designed to do), only that a straightforward and > vastly simpler approach delivers better results. Note that I have never started a thread on c.l.f. discussing my LC53 --- both of these threads were started by other people. BTW: I would recommend reading this last thread all the way through. In this thread Anton Ertl invents disambiguifiers --- now he refuses to accept disambiguifiers, or even admit that they work --- the disambiguifiers allow FIND to work properly, which is necessary in order for an ANS-Forth programmer to write a custom outer-interpreter, which is necessary in order for an ANS-Forth programmer to write a cross-compiler in competition with Forth Inc. and MPE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 19:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nl90sv$pqh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48706 |
On 02/07/16 17:50, Cecil Bayona wrote: >> > I would highly recommend to anyone before they pass harsh judgement on > someone that they make sure that they are based on all the facts. As > such I would recommend that you search through the archives yourself and > see what the background is before passing harsh judgement. But if you > are happy to pass judgement without all the facts, go for it then, soak > in it until your fingers are all pruny. I don't need to search the archives. I read nearly all of them in real time, and personally received a fair percentage of his truly bonkers abuse. You're welcome to defend him; just don't expect to get much support for your position.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 16:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <112168a9-9872-448d-abdb-0483fef62a82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48710 |
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 11:24:32 AM UTC-7, Alex McDonald wrote:
> On 02/07/16 17:50, Cecil Bayona wrote:
>
> >>
> > I would highly recommend to anyone before they pass harsh judgement on
> > someone that they make sure that they are based on all the facts. As
> > such I would recommend that you search through the archives yourself and
> > see what the background is before passing harsh judgement. But if you
> > are happy to pass judgement without all the facts, go for it then, soak
> > in it until your fingers are all pruny.
>
> I don't need to search the archives. I read nearly all of them in real
> time, and personally received a fair percentage of his truly bonkers
> abuse. You're welcome to defend him; just don't expect to get much
> support for your position.
For over 20 years, Forth programmers have had a reputation of being profoundly incompetent. For example, the only reference to Forth in Abrash's Zen book was to somebody writing a Forth compiler who didn't know that the data-stack should be word-aligned, so Abrash had to tell him. Apparently the guy felt qualified to write a Forth compiler, but he didn't know assembly-language at even the most rudimentary level.
Note that in SwiftForth version-2 we had this code:
ICODE ALIGNED ( a -- a )
RET END-CODE \ aligned is noop, no alignment
enforced
ICODE ALIGN ( -- )
RET END-CODE \ align is noop, no alignment
enforced
When I pointed this out, all of the ANS-Forth cult members said that my code is "crappy" and that I'm totally incompetent, etc.. Elizabeth Rather said in this thread that my novice-package was written "by a novice." Why not just admit that they are wrong? Well, they don't have the courage or self-confidence to do that --- they would rather defend SwiftForth for not aligning data --- they would rather say that I'm incompetent.
Programmers of other languages such as C and Lisp etc. say that Forth programmers don't know what local variables are and don't understand the concept of reentrancy. Recently on comp.lang.lisp I was asked to write a Forth program for comparison, so I did. Of course, I had to explain that the reason I wasn't using local variables is that ANS-Forth doesn't have local variables for floats, and not because I'm too dumb to know what local variables are. Of course, the fact that I'm programming in ANS-Forth seems like good evidence that I really am too dumb to know what locals are --- otherwise I would program in a different language, such as C or Lisp etc., which is what they do.
The reason why Forth programmers have a reputation in the real world of being totally incompetent is that Forth Inc. code really is written by incompetents. They have that old code written by Charles Moore in the 1970s, and they just keep it going year after year, but none of them can write a program from scratch; all they can do is cut-and-paste code from old programs written by somebody who knew how to program, but who abandoned them decades ago.
Now here we have Alex McDonald acting like an innocent victim. This is the guy who said that I have a "serious misunderstanding of how pointers work" and that I "really don't understand how CREATE DOES> works" etc.. I could go on and on with this; there are an endless stream of similar accusations from him of total incompetence on my part.
Whenever anybody criticizes ANS-Forth, the ANS-Forth cult members fall back on their standard tactic which is to accuse the person of being totally incompetent (not know how pointers work, etc.), plus they just throw vulgar insults at his code ("crap," "sucks," etc.). They believe that by denouncing the critic as totally incompetent they are proving to the world that they themselves are competent --- this doesn't actually work --- this instead tends to convinces everybody in the real world that *all* Forth programmers are incompetent.
It is politically-incorrect to make "Pollack" jokes, but "Forth programmer" jokes are still good for a laugh. The Polish people became the butt of jokes because most of the immigrants who came to America around 1900--1910 were uneducated farm laborers who suffered from a serious lack of sophistication, but they got over this problem within a couple of decades --- Forth programmers still suffer from a serious lack of sophistication, but more than a couple of decades have passed and we haven't gotten over the problem --- ANS-Forth caused our lack of sophistication to be written in stone such that it can never be changed. Right now on the Forth-200x mailing list Anton Ertl is struggling to fix the problem in ANS-Forth of 1,234.56 and .123456 and 123.456 all equaling the same number, which is surprisingly an integer. Charles Moore invented this stuff in the 1970s at a time when it seemed reasonable to assume that Forth would never have floating-point, but that was just a mistake on his part; the mistake can be forgiven because it was reasonable for the time period, but to perpetuate the mistake into the 21st century can not be forgiven. The bottom line here is that Forth-200x is mandated to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth --- Anton Ertl should know this --- Anton Ertl is making a fool of himself by striving at an heroic task that has zero chance of success.
It gets really annoying to be a member of a society that is widely considered to be just plain stupid. How did Forth come to this sad pass? I remember a time in the 1980s when Forth was still being taken seriously --- now Forth is the epitome of incompetence --- am I to blame for this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 23:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nla069$q4u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48721 |
On 7/2/2016 7:19 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 11:24:32 AM UTC-7, Alex McDonald wrote:
>> On 02/07/16 17:50, Cecil Bayona wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> I would highly recommend to anyone before they pass harsh judgement on
>>> someone that they make sure that they are based on all the facts. As
>>> such I would recommend that you search through the archives yourself and
>>> see what the background is before passing harsh judgement. But if you
>>> are happy to pass judgement without all the facts, go for it then, soak
>>> in it until your fingers are all pruny.
>>
>> I don't need to search the archives. I read nearly all of them in real
>> time, and personally received a fair percentage of his truly bonkers
>> abuse. You're welcome to defend him; just don't expect to get much
>> support for your position.
>
> For over 20 years, Forth programmers have had a reputation of being profoundly incompetent. For example, the only reference to Forth in Abrash's Zen book was to somebody writing a Forth compiler who didn't know that the data-stack should be word-aligned, so Abrash had to tell him. Apparently the guy felt qualified to write a Forth compiler, but he didn't know assembly-language at even the most rudimentary level.
>
> Note that in SwiftForth version-2 we had this code:
>
> ICODE ALIGNED ( a -- a )
> RET END-CODE \ aligned is noop, no alignment
> enforced
>
> ICODE ALIGN ( -- )
> RET END-CODE \ align is noop, no alignment
> enforced
>
> When I pointed this out, all of the ANS-Forth cult members said that my code is "crappy" and that I'm totally incompetent, etc.. Elizabeth Rather said in this thread that my novice-package was written "by a novice." Why not just admit that they are wrong? Well, they don't have the courage or self-confidence to do that --- they would rather defend SwiftForth for not aligning data --- they would rather say that I'm incompetent.
>
> Programmers of other languages such as C and Lisp etc. say that Forth programmers don't know what local variables are and don't understand the concept of reentrancy. Recently on comp.lang.lisp I was asked to write a Forth program for comparison, so I did. Of course, I had to explain that the reason I wasn't using local variables is that ANS-Forth doesn't have local variables for floats, and not because I'm too dumb to know what local variables are. Of course, the fact that I'm programming in ANS-Forth seems like good evidence that I really am too dumb to know what locals are --- otherwise I would program in a different language, such as C or Lisp etc., which is what they do.
>
> The reason why Forth programmers have a reputation in the real world of being totally incompetent is that Forth Inc. code really is written by incompetents. They have that old code written by Charles Moore in the 1970s, and they just keep it going year after year, but none of them can write a program from scratch; all they can do is cut-and-paste code from old programs written by somebody who knew how to program, but who abandoned them decades ago.
>
> Now here we have Alex McDonald acting like an innocent victim. This is the guy who said that I have a "serious misunderstanding of how pointers work" and that I "really don't understand how CREATE DOES> works" etc.. I could go on and on with this; there are an endless stream of similar accusations from him of total incompetence on my part.
>
> Whenever anybody criticizes ANS-Forth, the ANS-Forth cult members fall back on their standard tactic which is to accuse the person of being totally incompetent (not know how pointers work, etc.), plus they just throw vulgar insults at his code ("crap," "sucks," etc.). They believe that by denouncing the critic as totally incompetent they are proving to the world that they themselves are competent --- this doesn't actually work --- this instead tends to convinces everybody in the real world that *all* Forth programmers are incompetent.
>
> It is politically-incorrect to make "Pollack" jokes, but "Forth programmer" jokes are still good for a laugh. The Polish people became the butt of jokes because most of the immigrants who came to America around 1900--1910 were uneducated farm laborers who suffered from a serious lack of sophistication, but they got over this problem within a couple of decades --- Forth programmers still suffer from a serious lack of sophistication, but more than a couple of decades have passed and we haven't gotten over the problem --- ANS-Forth caused our lack of sophistication to be written in stone such that it can never be changed. Right now on the Forth-200x mailing list Anton Ertl is struggling to fix the problem in ANS-Forth of 1,234.56 and .123456 and 123.456 all equaling the same number, which is surprisingly an integer. Charles Moore invented this stuff in the 1970s at a time when it seemed reasonable to assume that Forth would never have floating-point, but that was just a mistake on his part; the mistake can be forgiven because it was reasonable for the time period, but to perpetuate the mistake into the 21st century can not be forgiven. The bottom line here is that Forth-200x is mandated to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth --- Anton Ertl should know this --- Anton Ertl is making a fool of himself by striving at an heroic task that has zero chance of success.
>
> It gets really annoying to be a member of a society that is widely considered to be just plain stupid. How did Forth come to this sad pass? I remember a time in the 1980s when Forth was still being taken seriously --- now Forth is the epitome of incompetence --- am I to blame for this?
I've always wondered if Hugh had a manefesto... this is getting close!
--
Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 21:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4a06119-4d8e-4d2d-a2b2-467e84f94d2e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48726 |
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 8:18:34 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: > On 7/2/2016 7:19 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > It gets really annoying to be a member of a society that is widely considered to be just plain stupid. How did Forth come to this sad pass? I remember a time in the 1980s when Forth was still being taken seriously --- now Forth is the epitome of incompetence --- am I to blame for this? > > I've always wondered if Hugh had a manefesto... this is getting close! Rickman has been saying for many years that I'm going to have a manifesto. I don't know what he is talking about. A manifesto??? This thread, in which I describe Straight Forth, is the only time that I've presented anything like a manifesto: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/EuroForth$202016/comp.lang.forth/D0PmblPgthM/iyZvwPgoDwAJ This is what I said: > I said earlier that I would be the "chief" and I would appoint the committee members (similar to how Elizabeth Rather appoints the committee members for Forth-200x). I'm not going to be like Leon Wagner though and tell everybody exactly what to believe, give them assignments, and write the specs for them (basically, treat them like code-monkeys). I just want to appoint the members so I can weed out people like Alex McDonald who claimed to "do standards for a living" (whatever the hell that means) and who knew very little about Forth. People can do whatever they want, so long as they adhere to the basic principles: > > 1.) Minimalism. All that cruft in ANS-Forth will be discarded (for example: DO loops will go). I would expect the language to be less than half the size of ANS-Forth. As for the extension code-libraries, they will make the language bigger, but they are optional. They are containers (my list.4th and association.4th) or they are associated with a particular data-type (my string-stack.4th). The emphasis here should be on usefulness --- I was impressed by how Factor used "sequences" as a standard data-type, and this was my inspiration for list.4th --- also, almost all programs for desktop-computers are going to use strings, so having a standard library such as string-stack.4th is going to make the programs easy to read, rather than everybody doing something different in every program. > > 2.) Behavior. The focus should be on standardizing behavior rather than implementation. One of the problems with ANS-Forth was that it standardized implementation. For example, ANS-Forth assumes that the >R data and the DO loops use the same stack, so they were standardizing on the PDP-11 implementation that had to do this because of a shortage of registers. Quite a lot of ANS-Forth assumes that the target processor is a PDP-11, apparently because that is the only processor that Elizabeth Rather is familiar with. > > 3.) Quotations. My system with the fat-xt will be used to allow quotations to access the parent function's local variables. This is trivial to implement! This is the foundation to writing general-purpose data-structures --- I really see this as bring Forth into the 21st century --- make it comparable to the other desktop-computer language such as Lisp --- unlike Lisp though, we will not have garbage-collection or tagged data (we will not have Dynamic-OOP). The emphasis will still be on speed, and Dynamic-OOP is a dog, so leave that to the script kiddies. > > 4.) Numerical. The 64-bit cell with the Fixed or Float data-type is fundamental to the language. I think this makes the language much simpler than ANS-Forth where integers and floats are distinct (so, this fits in with the minimalism idea). The "killer app" is CAM, but most machinists have experience primarily with using pocket calculators for figuring out gcode, and pocket calculators don't consider integers and floats to be distinct data-types. Also, it is important to define what the precision of the numbers is in the standard so the programmer knows what the results of numerical calculations are going to be and can expect the same results on every compliant compiler (so long as he sticks with either the Fixed or Float version, as they give different results from each other). I originally was only going to have the Fixed version, but Ilya Vasilyev convinced me to have a Float version also and to make them compatible with each other (except for a slight difference in the numeric results in some cases). This was here: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/ilya%7Csort:date/comp.lang.forth/R7K3FWXnyKE/0_LJ13ZfBQAJ > > 5.) Cross-Compilation. The compiler should have all the necessary features for writing a cross-compiler. This is actually pretty easy --- it is amazing that ANS-Forth failed at such a simple task (I'm highly suspicious that ANS-Forth was purposely sabotaged to make cross-compilation difficult in order to prevent common users from writing a cross-compiler in competition with Forth Inc. and MPE who make most of their money selling vendor-specific cross-compilers) --- I know how to write a cross-compiler, so I will make sure that this is supported. > > These are the 5 principles of Straight-Forth. Who disagrees with any of these principles? Which ones? Why? > > Note that LFTforth is for micro-controllers and would have different principles that it is based on --- that is really Raimond's thing, not mine. I think that for a Standard to be successful, it needs to have principles that everybody agrees on. ANS-Forth didn't have any principles. ANS-Forth was all about compromise. Every Forth compiler-writer wanted to be Standard (with a capital 'S'), but none of them were compatible with each other. This is why there is so much ambiguity in ANS-Forth. For example, section 3.2.3.2 says: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The control-flow stack may, but need not, physically exist in an implementation. If it does exist, it may be, but need not be, implemented using the data stack. The format of the control-flow stack is implementation defined. Since the control-flow stack may be implemented using the data stack, items placed on the data stack are unavailable to a program after items are placed on the control-flow stack and remain unavailable until the control-flow stack items are removed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is obvious that some committee members had the control-flow stack distinct from the data-stack (this makes sense because meta-compiling words can use the data-stack for data) and Forth Inc. had the control-flow stack the same as the data-stack (this is stupid!). Everybody wanted to be ANS-Forth compliant, so Elizabeth Rather said that the control-flow stack may or may not be the data-stack. Of course, the problem is that programs that assume that the control-flow stack is distinct from the data-stack won't compiler correctly on systems (SwiftForth) that assume the control-flow stack is the data-stack. Elizabeth Rather doesn't care though! She just wanted to get as many people to sign on to ANS-Forth as she could, because ANSI won't accept her standard-document if it comes from a single corporation. She definitely needed Charles Moore to sign on, because he is the inventor of Forth and ANSI won't accept a Forth standard without the inventor's sign-on --- she just faked that one by putting Charles Moore's name on the document without his permission --- Charles Moore has actually never supported ANS-Forth. She also put Ray Duncan's name on the document --- his UR/Forth was the primary professional Forth system available in the early 1990s --- Ray Duncan doesn't support ANS-Forth either, but he described it on comp.lang.forth in 1993 as being "brain-damaged," and he gave up on Forth after ANS-Forth became the Standard. Like I said, for Straight Forth to be successful, it needs to have principles that everybody agrees on. I provided the 5 principles above. I would be willing to let the Forth community define Straight Forth on their own, so long as they stick to the 5 principles. I wouldn't be like Leon Wagner and micro-manage them. Everybody can do what they want to do --- just stick to the 5 principles --- I want Straight Forth to be a true grass-roots project, not an astro-turf project micro-managed by a principal. Is it "totally bug fucking nuts" to have principles that the Standard adheres to? --- no --- this is the only way that a workable Standard can be developed (I would expect Straight Forth to be completed before the year is out, if everybody works together on it). The lack of principles is why Forth-200x is now Forth-2010x and will soon be Forth-2020x, and will likely be Forth-2030x before it is completed --- those idiots are just wandering around without any goal in mind --- their only practical goal is to please Leon Wagner, but Leon Wagner is willing to let them continue to pursue this goal for decades.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 03:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nladq0$p9a$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48728 |
On 7/3/2016 12:54 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 8:18:34 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: >> On 7/2/2016 7:19 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >>> It gets really annoying to be a member of a society that is widely considered to be just plain stupid. How did Forth come to this sad pass? I remember a time in the 1980s when Forth was still being taken seriously --- now Forth is the epitome of incompetence --- am I to blame for this? >> >> I've always wondered if Hugh had a manefesto... this is getting close! > > Rickman has been saying for many years that I'm going to have a manifesto. I don't know what he is talking about. A manifesto??? > > This thread, in which I describe Straight Forth, is the only time that I've presented anything like a manifesto: > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/EuroForth$202016/comp.lang.forth/D0PmblPgthM/iyZvwPgoDwAJ > > This is what I said: > >> I said earlier that I would be the "chief" and I would appoint the committee members (similar to how Elizabeth Rather appoints the committee members for Forth-200x). I'm not going to be like Leon Wagner though and tell everybody exactly what to believe, give them assignments, and write the specs for them (basically, treat them like code-monkeys). I just want to appoint the members so I can weed out people like Alex McDonald who claimed to "do standards for a living" (whatever the hell that means) and who knew very little about Forth. People can do whatever they want, so long as they adhere to the basic principles: >> >> 1.) Minimalism. All that cruft in ANS-Forth will be discarded (for example: DO loops will go). I would expect the language to be less than half the size of ANS-Forth. As for the extension code-libraries, they will make the language bigger, but they are optional. They are containers (my list.4th and association.4th) or they are associated with a particular data-type (my string-stack.4th). The emphasis here should be on usefulness --- I was impressed by how Factor used "sequences" as a standard data-type, and this was my inspiration for list.4th --- also, almost all programs for desktop-computers are going to use strings, so having a standard library such as string-stack.4th is going to make the programs easy to read, rather than everybody doing something different in every program. >> >> 2.) Behavior. The focus should be on standardizing behavior rather than implementation. One of the problems with ANS-Forth was that it standardized implementation. For example, ANS-Forth assumes that the >R data and the DO loops use the same stack, so they were standardizing on the PDP-11 implementation that had to do this because of a shortage of registers. Quite a lot of ANS-Forth assumes that the target processor is a PDP-11, apparently because that is the only processor that Elizabeth Rather is familiar with. >> >> 3.) Quotations. My system with the fat-xt will be used to allow quotations to access the parent function's local variables. This is trivial to implement! This is the foundation to writing general-purpose data-structures --- I really see this as bring Forth into the 21st century --- make it comparable to the other desktop-computer language such as Lisp --- unlike Lisp though, we will not have garbage-collection or tagged data (we will not have Dynamic-OOP). The emphasis will still be on speed, and Dynamic-OOP is a dog, so leave that to the script kiddies. >> >> 4.) Numerical. The 64-bit cell with the Fixed or Float data-type is fundamental to the language. I think this makes the language much simpler than ANS-Forth where integers and floats are distinct (so, this fits in with the minimalism idea). The "killer app" is CAM, but most machinists have experience primarily with using pocket calculators for figuring out gcode, and pocket calculators don't consider integers and floats to be distinct data-types. Also, it is important to define what the precision of the numbers is in the standard so the programmer knows what the results of numerical calculations are going to be and can expect the same results on every compliant compiler (so long as he sticks with either the Fixed or Float version, as they give different results from each other). I originally was only going to have the Fixed version, but Ilya Vasilyev convinced me to have a Float version also and to make them compatible with each other (except for a slight difference in the numeric results in some cases). This was here: >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/ilya%7Csort:date/comp.lang.forth/R7K3FWXnyKE/0_LJ13ZfBQAJ >> >> 5.) Cross-Compilation. The compiler should have all the necessary features for writing a cross-compiler. This is actually pretty easy --- it is amazing that ANS-Forth failed at such a simple task (I'm highly suspicious that ANS-Forth was purposely sabotaged to make cross-compilation difficult in order to prevent common users from writing a cross-compiler in competition with Forth Inc. and MPE who make most of their money selling vendor-specific cross-compilers) --- I know how to write a cross-compiler, so I will make sure that this is supported. >> >> These are the 5 principles of Straight-Forth. Who disagrees with any of these principles? Which ones? Why? >> >> Note that LFTforth is for micro-controllers and would have different principles that it is based on --- that is really Raimond's thing, not mine. > > I think that for a Standard to be successful, it needs to have principles that everybody agrees on. > > ANS-Forth didn't have any principles. ANS-Forth was all about compromise. Every Forth compiler-writer wanted to be Standard (with a capital 'S'), but none of them were compatible with each other. This is why there is so much ambiguity in ANS-Forth. For example, section 3.2.3.2 says: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The control-flow stack may, but need not, physically exist in an implementation. If it does exist, it may > be, but need not be, implemented using the data stack. The format of the control-flow stack is > implementation defined. Since the control-flow stack may be implemented using the data stack, items > placed on the data stack are unavailable to a program after items are placed on the control-flow stack and > remain unavailable until the control-flow stack items are removed. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > It is obvious that some committee members had the control-flow stack distinct from the data-stack (this makes sense because meta-compiling words can use the data-stack for data) and Forth Inc. had the control-flow stack the same as the data-stack (this is stupid!). Everybody wanted to be ANS-Forth compliant, so Elizabeth Rather said that the control-flow stack may or may not be the data-stack. Of course, the problem is that programs that assume that the control-flow stack is distinct from the data-stack won't compiler correctly on systems (SwiftForth) that assume the control-flow stack is the data-stack. Elizabeth Rather doesn't care though! She just wanted to get as many people to sign on to ANS-Forth as she could, because ANSI won't accept her standard-document if it comes from a single corporation. She definitely needed Charles Moore to sign on, because he is the inventor of Forth and ANSI won't accept a Forth standard without the inventor's sign-on --- she just faked that one by putting Charles Moore's name on the document without his permission --- Charles Moore has actually never supported ANS-Forth. She also put Ray Duncan's name on the document --- his UR/Forth was the primary professional Forth system available in the early 1990s --- Ray Duncan doesn't support ANS-Forth either, but he described it on comp.lang.forth in 1993 as being "brain-damaged," and he gave up on Forth after ANS-Forth became the Standard. > > Like I said, for Straight Forth to be successful, it needs to have principles that everybody agrees on. I provided the 5 principles above. I would be willing to let the Forth community define Straight Forth on their own, so long as they stick to the 5 principles. I wouldn't be like Leon Wagner and micro-manage them. Everybody can do what they want to do --- just stick to the 5 principles --- I want Straight Forth to be a true grass-roots project, not an astro-turf project micro-managed by a principal. > > Is it "totally bug fucking nuts" to have principles that the Standard adheres to? --- no --- this is the only way that a workable Standard can be developed (I would expect Straight Forth to be completed before the year is out, if everybody works together on it). > > The lack of principles is why Forth-200x is now Forth-2010x and will soon be Forth-2020x, and will likely be Forth-2030x before it is completed --- those idiots are just wandering around without any goal in mind --- their only practical goal is to please Leon Wagner, but Leon Wagner is willing to let them continue to pursue this goal for decades. Yes, Hugh is getting closer and closer... Who else had a manifesto? I recall one some years ago that got published in major newspapers. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 09:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nlaio2$77k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48728 |
On 03/07/16 05:54, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 8:18:34 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: >> On 7/2/2016 7:19 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >>> It gets really annoying to be a member of a society that is widely considered to be just plain stupid. How did Forth come to this sad pass? I remember a time in the 1980s when Forth was still being taken seriously --- now Forth is the epitome of incompetence --- am I to blame for this? >> >> I've always wondered if Hugh had a manefesto... this is getting close! > > Rickman has been saying for many years that I'm going to have a manifesto. I don't know what he is talking about. A manifesto??? > > This thread, in which I describe Straight Forth, is the only time that I've presented anything like a manifesto: > Not this manifesto then. The Rosy Crew of the Three Spirits I, Hugo Aguilar, am using this website to found a secret society. The full name of our secret society is: The Rosy Crew of the Three Spirits. A shorter name is: Triadism. A member is called a Triadist or, as slang: a Trey. Like most secret societies, our goal is to take over the world. To a large extent, the Rosy Crew is competing against the Brotherhood of Death for control of America — and the entire world. http://web.archive.org/web/20091002213401/http://www.rosycrew.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 19:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nl9i5f$ngc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48706 |
On 7/2/2016 12:50 PM, Cecil Bayona wrote: > On 7/2/2016 10:33 AM, Alex McDonald wrote: >> On 02/07/16 15:39, Cecil Bayona wrote: >>> On 7/2/2016 6:04 AM, Wasell wrote: >>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:22:47 -0700 (PDT), in article >>>> <4f522a11-969d-4667-aa5e- >>>> d73b38398e31@googlegroups.com>, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 5:00:52 PM UTC-7, Cecil - k5nwa wrote: >>>>>> On 7/1/2016 3:05 PM, rickman wrote: >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>>>> I don't know much about psychology really, but I know Hugh is >>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>> off the tracks. I wonder if there is a medication that might help >>>>>>> him? >>>>>>> I bet there is no way he could ever be convinced to get help though. >>>>>>> >>>>>> So how about you explain what he said that is crazy? No free passes, >>>>>> give the details. >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>> ANS-Forth is a cult! The only way that Forth programmers can >>>>> appreciate >>>>> ANS-Forth and consider Elizabeth Rather to be a "leading expert" on >>>>> Forth, >>>>> is if they are first given a lobotomy. >>>> >>>> Does this answer your question, Cesil? >>>> >>> My name is Cecil by the way. >>> >>> Just for fun I went back a bunch of years looking at this issue, what >>> I saw did not endear me to many Forth greats here. I saw comments by >>> Hugh, both rational and calm, followed by gross personal insults from >>> others here that were personal assaults and not logical arguments on the >>> subject, after a while he started down his present path of retaliating >>> against those that kept personally insulting him. So I concluded that >>> Hugh developed a massive dislike for some persons here based on how he >>> was treated, so as far as I saw he has an excuse for his venting his >>> anger at some here, I rather he did not but I see that there is a valid >>> reason. >> >> You have evidence for this? It's a strange reading of what I've read and >> experienced. I've come in for some pretty unpleasant personal attacks >> over the years. >> >> If you like homophobia, Hugh's got some helpful advice. >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.forth/w3tHPsTaZvE/zs_ag6dWIyEJ >> > I would highly recommend to anyone before they pass harsh judgement on > someone that they make sure that they are based on all the facts. As > such I would recommend that you search through the archives yourself and > see what the background is before passing harsh judgement. But if you > are happy to pass judgement without all the facts, go for it then, soak > in it until your fingers are all pruny. > > Homophobia? I am against all phobias but I make sure that it's there > first, the accusation is not a fact. The post you pointed at shows Hugh > complaining about vulgar language, and I see a bunch of people jumping > to conclusions that were not supported by his comments. When one is > looking for insults, it's not hard to find them even when they are not > there. > > Anyway, I'm not Hugh defense attorney, but it seems a little uneven the > comments I see, specially after looking at the past. Like I mentioned I > wish Hugh would not retort in a personal way but I'm afraid he is a > monster of his enemies creation. It's just like a dog, that gets > beaten, after a while if it chooses to bite back, then the abuser says > see, he is a violent dog. > > An interesting thing is that I see one person here with horrible anti > Jew, and anti Catholic reotheric here, and not one comment about about > it, choosy are we? Just as you are not Hugh's defense lawyer, we are not the police. I agree with Alex. I don't need to review archives as I have been here reading nearly all of Hugh's rantings for years. When you talk about the "uneven" comments, I think you must have missed quite a few. Hugh has a very hard time discussing any topic without eventually blaming nearly everything he doesn't like on Ms Rather. The guy is seriously deranged. I don't think he is dangerous, but if I were Ms Rather, I would avoid getting within a hundred miles of his home town. She has already been attacked by one loony and doesn't need to be harassed by another. BTW, when the attack was reported here I seem to recall Hugh rejoicing in the news. Or maybe he made a comment that the attacker should have been more successful? I don't recall the details, but his response showed how Hugh is off his nut. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 01:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d8a66f9-10ac-43f5-9024-927afba777dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48720 |
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:19:12 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: > The guy is seriously deranged. I don't think he is dangerous, but if I > were Ms Rather, I would avoid getting within a hundred miles of his home > town. She has already been attacked by one loony and doesn't need to be > harassed by another. BTW, when the attack was reported here I seem to > recall Hugh rejoicing in the news. Or maybe he made a comment that the > attacker should have been more successful? I don't recall the details, > but his response showed how Hugh is off his nut. Rickman is lying --- I did not rejoice in the news of the assassination attempt on Elizabeth Rather --- he is hedging by saying that he doesn't recall the details, but that doesn't change the fact that he is lying. What happened is that Elizabeth Rather was on comp.lang.forth bragging about how she was suing Apple Computer because they used the name "Swift" for their new language (is is Apple's answer to Google's Go language, with support for multi-core computers). Soon thereafter, there was an assassination attempt on Elizabeth Rather at her condo in Oahu Hawaii. It was obviously a professional job, as the would-be assassin got paid to do it. Elizabeth Rather left Hawaii immediately afterward. Most likely the police told her that she had to leave because they couldn't protect her from further assassination attempts, and because assassination attempts are a public-relations disaster for Hawaii. Also, Elizabeth Rather stopped bragging about her lawsuit against Apple Computer --- we haven't heard any more about that since then! I certainly wasn't rejoicing over what happened --- I don't want to see anybody get killed --- also, what happened was a huge embarrassment for the Forth community. I was trying to save Elizabeth Rather's life by encouraging her to drop the lawsuit. It seems like easy money, but there are risks involved. She most likely was suing for some huge sum, such as a million dollars, and was hoping that Apple Computer would settle out of court for a small sum, such as $10,000, because their legal fees would be over $10,000 if they took it to court so it would be less expensive to just pay her off. What she wasn't considering is that Apple Computer can have her killed for $10,000 --- that is another option for them. Realistically, Apple Computer can't pay off a bogus lawsuit such as this because doing so sets a precedent, and pretty soon every sociopath in America is filing a million-dollar lawsuit against Apple Computer expecting to get $10,000 apiece. It is more monetarily efficient for Apple Computer to kill the first sociopath who tries this lawsuit stunt, and let that be a warning to all of the other sociopaths in America who are thinking about filing a bogus lawsuit. I don't actually know that it was Apple Computer who paid for the assassination attempt on Elizabeth Rather. It is possible that Elizabeth Rather has multiple lawsuits going on simultaneously against multiple deep-pocket targets. Also, Forth Inc. sells bug-ridden code and they don't give the customer a refund when the customer complains. There may be dozens of people around who have a motivation to kill Elizabeth Rather --- so, I wouldn't say that it necessarily was Apple Computer --- it just seems likely because she was bragging about the lawsuit against Apple Computer just prior to the assassination attempt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web