Betov Licencing System (BLS[tm])
hutch--
assembler community that he has never bothered to properly formulate
his views on software ownership, rights of use and reuse. Here is an
attempt to formulate the way Betov approaches other people's software.
1. All software is free for Betov to use.
2. Comercial software is subordinate to the Betov licencing
system[tm].
3. If you want software and you are Betov, just gain a copy of it and
its yours.
4. Matters of software ownership are determined by Betov on a needs
basis.
5. If software cannot be controlled by Betov, it has been "Legally
Stolen[tm]" by the user.
6. If software engineering is not understood by Betov, it is illegal
under the (BLS) licence.
7. GPL is not an authoritive licencing system if it conflicts with
Betov's requirement.
8. GPL may only be used to legitimise the use of commercial software
not written under the GPL.
If anyone else can add to this licencing system, please feel free to
make a contribution.
Regards,
hutch at movsd dot com
Beyond2000!
; --------------------------------------------------------------------
; --------------------------------------------------------------------
Hutch, i don't know where you took those ideas, but please, be aware
that who made the RosAsm's license was me. I worked on it, since last
week, adapting it to be coherent with the GPL movement.
Maybe you did not understood it, and i'll be glad to try to explain it
to you.
This was not an easy thing to do, because adapting a Free License,
like GNU GPL to any specific program (in case, RosAsm) requires some
adaptations in order to not harm the OpenSource and Free Software
movement.
If you didn't read it, and was talking about other thing...no problem,
read the new license, and i'll try to explain the better i can.
Best Regards,
Guga
Randall Hyde
Best way to fight ignorance is with knowledge, I always say.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
hutch--
I have no beef with you at all or the work you do, my comments here
were aimed directly at Betov based on what he has said in here and
many other places.
I would have no comments at all if Betov learnt to shut his mouth and
not criticise other people and their work but he will never shut up
and will keep treating every place he can post like his own personal
sh*t pit so he is a free kick as long as he is around.
Regards and keep up the good work.
hutch--
secret that Betov has shot off his mouth for years on the basis of his
crackpot political theory yet those who bother from time to time to
try and defend him have sat on their hands while Betov has been
abusing, lying and insulting his way through forum after forum and not
bothered to say anything about what he has contined to do for years.
Now on the basis of this rather obvious silence from the faithful, it
is reasonable to assume that at least some of those who still suffer
him support his approach of attacking other private individuals to
what he sees as his advantage and only bother to become vocal when
Betov is losing which he is clearly doing at the moment.
Now the cost is that by supporting Betov, any who do so will pick up
some of the flack that is flying in his direction and by association,
the work they contribute will be subject to criticism in the same way
that Betov has continued to criticise other people and their work.
The solution for those who still suffer him is to shut him up, one way
or another as he will continue to draw serious criticism as long as he
keeps flapping his mouth off. The alternative is to be seen as
supporting his abuse and crackpot political theory by association with
him.
I personally don't give a FLYING PHUK what Betov does except that he
continues to abuse and criticise other people and their work and that
is what I will continue to kick his arse for every time he opens his
mouth.
Betov could have done it a lot better and be accepted in the assembler
community but his actions are his own choice. His work, his
credibility, his lack of technical skills, his illegal use of
software, whatever comes to mind is a free kick as Betov is not as
clever as his smug postings of the past would indicate.
Regards,
Herbert Kleebauer
> The solution for those who still suffer him is to shut him up, one way
> or another as he will continue to draw serious criticism as long as he
> keeps flapping his mouth off. The alternative is to be seen as
> supporting his abuse and crackpot political theory by association with
> him.
I don't know about which "crackpot political theory" you are speaking,
but it can't be worse than the US politics.
- Most people with a crackpot "political theory" wish a better life for
all people, most of the US people are only interested in their own
profit. It doesn't matter at all whether Millions of people die because
they have no food or are killed by the high tech US weapons as long
as the USA can get cheap resources and "modern slaves" from all over
the world.
- Most people with a crackpot "political theory" only dream about their
theory. The USA doesn't hesitate to bomb any country on this planet
if they see any advantage for their own country.
God bless America (the rest of the world isn't even worth to have a god,
animals don't have a god).
> I personally don't give a FLYING PHUK what Betov does except that he
> continues to abuse and criticise other people and their work and that
> is what I will continue to kick his arse for every time he opens his
> mouth.
I can't remember that Rene ever criticized one of your programs.
I know, he would really like to do this, but it seems he never was
able to find an assembler program written by you. Maybe you can
give us a link to some of your assembler programs, so we can take
a look at them.
As far as I know, Rene also never criticized the code of HLA, but
the fact that the program is called an assembler by it's author
and not a (simple) HLL. The real bad thing is, that HLA is
characterized as an assembler for learning assembly programming.
I don't care about people who make and sell designer drugs.
If people think that their life is easier if they consume such
drugs, then this is their problem. But if somebody give away this
drugs to children and tells them, that they are just vitamin pills,
then we should be happy, if there is somebody who stands up
and tells the truth, even if he uses not the finest vocabulary.
And that and nothing else is it, what Rene does.
> Betov could have done it a lot better and be accepted in the assembler
> community but his actions are his own choice. His work, his
> credibility, his lack of technical skills, his illegal use of
> software
I suppose, you are again speaking about the use of asm32 in the
early stage of SpAsm. A week ago an email from Intelligent Firmware
was posted in this group, where clearly was stated, that it
was completely ok to use asm32 for that purpose. Instead of
making a formal excuse to Rene you are repeating the same blame.
Randall Hyde
"Herbert Kleebauer" <kl...@unibwm.de> wrote in message
news:4026B034...@unibwm.de...
> hutch-- wrote:
>
> > The solution for those who still suffer him is to shut him up, one way
> > or another as he will continue to draw serious criticism as long as he
> > keeps flapping his mouth off. The alternative is to be seen as
> > supporting his abuse and crackpot political theory by association with
> > him.
>
> I don't know about which "crackpot political theory" you are speaking,
> but it can't be worse than the US politics.
Try reading Rene manifesto.
If he were Palestinian, I'd bet money he'd wind up a suicide bomber
based on posts and mails he's made.
>
> - Most people with a crackpot "political theory" wish a better life for
> all people, most of the US people are only interested in their own
> profit. It doesn't matter at all whether Millions of people die because
> they have no food or are killed by the high tech US weapons as long
> as the USA can get cheap resources and "modern slaves" from all over
> the world.
Yes, Rene wishes lots of people would die. That sure sounds like a
better life to me.
>
> - Most people with a crackpot "political theory" only dream about their
> theory. The USA doesn't hesitate to bomb any country on this planet
> if they see any advantage for their own country.
Rene is verbally abusive. If he stuck to dreams, that would be one thing.
But he attacks individuals based on their nationality with no particular
concept of their political leanings.
>
> God bless America (the rest of the world isn't even worth to have a god,
> animals don't have a god).
Rene doesn't seem to believe in God, so I suspect this hardly matters to
him.
Not that the politics of any one given country have *anything* to do with
assembly language programming, mind you.
>
>
> > I personally don't give a FLYING PHUK what Betov does except that he
> > continues to abuse and criticise other people and their work and that
> > is what I will continue to kick his arse for every time he opens his
> > mouth.
>
> I can't remember that Rene ever criticized one of your programs.
> I know, he would really like to do this, but it seems he never was
> able to find an assembler program written by you. Maybe you can
> give us a link to some of your assembler programs, so we can take
> a look at them.
Either you don't read Rene's posts, or you don't know who he's
talking about most of the time. But you might try visiting the
MASM32 site to see the *excellent* package Hutch has put together
and maintains. The vast number of assembly programmers writing
applications for Win32 use the package that Hutch as assembled.
>
> As far as I know, Rene also never criticized the code of HLA,
He has.
That should have been a basic assumption.
> but
> the fact that the program is called an assembler by it's author
> and not a (simple) HLL.
Sorta like MASM, eh?
> The real bad thing is, that HLA is
> characterized as an assembler for learning assembly programming.
Yes. Everyone should be forced to write their own assembler.
That's the only way to learn assembly language, right?
> I don't care about people who make and sell designer drugs.
> If people think that their life is easier if they consume such
> drugs, then this is their problem. But if somebody give away this
> drugs to children and tells them, that they are just vitamin pills,
> then we should be happy, if there is somebody who stands up
> and tells the truth, even if he uses not the finest vocabulary.
> And that and nothing else is it, what Rene does.
That is not what Rene does.
Rene is just a tired, jealous, despot, who wishes that everyone
was flocking to his product instead of MASM32 or HLA.
He is an angry old man whose life, apparently, has not been
very satisfying and he probably had hoped to get the world to
love him when he released this "free" assembler for everyone
to use. When it turned out that people weren't lining up to use
his assembler, he felt it necessary to strike out at those who
were being marginally successful in this tiny corner of the
programming universe. What a shame. For his system *does*
have a few minor features that some people will find interesting.
And Rene is scaring those people away. In fact, what I'm
finding is that RosAsm seems to be attracting those people
who want to emulate Rene's caustic attitude with respect
to MASM, HLA, Microsoft, the United States, etc.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
qual1
BLS should stand for Betov's Lies and Swindles.
Remember we have to simplify so he can understand.
hahahahahaha. :)
qual1
>
>
> Try reading Rene manifesto.
> If he were Palestinian, I'd bet money he'd wind up a suicide bomber
> based on posts and mails he's made.
Randall,
The Palestinians have certain entrance requirements for suicide
bombers. Being able to know how to push the detonation button is
absolutely essential.
>
>
>>- Most people with a crackpot "political theory" wish a better life for
>> all people, most of the US people are only interested in their own
>> profit. It doesn't matter at all whether Millions of people die because
>> they have no food or are killed by the high tech US weapons as long
>> as the USA can get cheap resources and "modern slaves" from all over
>> the world.
>
>
> Yes, Rene wishes lots of people would die. That sure sounds like a
> better life to me.
If everyone else dies then Rene will finally have an assembler everone
can use. Then he will have beaten all the other assemblers out there.
Includeing MASM, and HLA.
Although he then could use them to write real apps as no one else would
know.
Better download a copy now Rene so you can learn how to use them instead
of wasteing your time with RosAsm.
>
hutch--
> BLS should stand for Betov's Lies and Swindles.
> Remember we have to simplify so he can understand.
Yes I like it, has a simplistic ring to it that even Betov may get the
swing of.
Herbet,
It seems you have spent the last few years with your head in the sand
as Betov has continued his crusade against anyone more successful than
him. Then there is the appalling behaviour in forum after forum until
he gets kicked out.
The licencing issue is one you have sufered some confusion over
already. It took a member of this news group to email the owners of
the software more than 5 years after Betov stole it to get permission
for him to use it as the licence that comes with it does not allow
distribution of the work or its derivations. I note that Betov has
still not contacted the owners.
He still is subject to the current conditions where it cannot be used
for commercial purposes and this extends to the derivations from it. I
wonder if Betov will come clean about the licence limitations that
folow from him writing his toy in stolen software.
Beyond2000!
I´m sorry, but i can´t watch silently you tells thinks that are not
true at all.
René didn´s stole anything, and RosAsm is fully able to any user build
his applications, either if they are "derivative works" either if they
are "based works"
For the user who are reading this things and eventually are thinking
in terms of legality of the use of RosAsm, allow me to explain a few
things.
When René 1st builded his assembler it was called Spasm. At that time
(1.998), he did it in 16 bits using an assembler called A86 from a
really nice person called Eric Isaacson.
In 1.998, the license to use A86 was completelly free, no needing for
payment of charges...Isaac let it free for the user pay or not.
The original license permission to copy/use his software was seeing in
the Chapter 01, that can be seeing at:
http://www.textfiles.com/new/20011005.html
and
http://www.textfiles.com/computers/DOCUMENTATION/a01.txt
The permission is stated as below:
"Introduction
A86 is the finest assembler available, at any cost under any
terms, for the 86-family of microprocessors (IBM-PC, compatibles,
and not-so-compatibles). In contrast to software firms who
attempt to restrict the distribution of their products via
protection-schemes, I encourage free distribution, and trust that
those who use my products will pay for them.
Please keep in mind the fundamental good spirit of
free-distribution software as you endure the following barrage of
legalities. Then evaluate the outstanding value that the A86
package offers you. I assure you that you will not be
disappointed.
Legal Terms and Conditions
This package is provided to you under the following conditions:
1. You may copy the A86Vxxx.ZIP and D86Vxxx.ZIP files, and give
them to anyone who accepts these terms. The copies you
distribute must be complete and unmodified. You do not have
to be registered to distribute this package.
2. Even if you have not yet obtained full execution rights, you
may execute the programs in this package, in order to evaluate
them. If you decide that any of this package is of use to
you, you must become a registered user by sending $50 US ($52
if you are outside North America) to:
Eric Isaacson
416 E. University Ave.
Bloomington, IN 47401-4739
(...)"
Isaac, nicelly let the user choose either he wants to pay for the app
or not. If the user choose to pay, he will have a registered product.
If not, he can freely use his app. (See Item 2)
René CHOOSE to not pay, and learned from it with TOTAL permission of
the author of the software.
Nowadays, the license changed a little bit, but still don´t make too
much restriction, you need to pay, when you are using the A386
package.
"You are allowed to use this package without any additional licensing
charges, beyond those that you pay for A386." (Awdoc.txt, from Isaac
site http://www.eji.com/a86/index.htm)
The package is a collection of free tools, added by some apps done by
Isaacson.
When René worked on the app (in 1.998), he was fully able to do so.
So, although Hutch keeps saying that René stole the software (which is
a real hard and unreal thing to say), he is just mistaken.
Hutch, my friend, you are abolutelly wrong when you say those
things...You don´t like of René is one thing, but say that he is a
thief and RosAsm is not allowed to build apps due to an stole that
never happened, then is another completelly different thing.
I also don´t have any beef with you or anybody else...as i always
told, i admire your work too, because all of you guys have skills that
i´m trying to learn, but you are not being accurated when say things
like that.
You may tell us that you are saying that because René once said that
you used the Eula in an improper way....but, the Eula inside masm is
dubious as far as i can remember. Dispites legal aspects of MS Eula,
the best way you tell others that René was mistaken when saying that
you used or distributed masm package improperly, is proving that he is
wrong, and never acusing him as the same way.
I´m proving to you the legal aspects since when RosAsm was builded (On
Spasm ages), and i´m not just telling you in vain, or saying things
that i have no idea about.
If you want, i can read the MS Eula and try to give to you a report of
their usage etc.....but please, don´t keep telling things that are not
true.
For the users you are totally permited to use RosAsm as you want (of
course, respecting the terms of it´s license)...There is nothing
illegal happening on the development of RosAsm, neither now, neither
never was.
Best Regards,
Guga
Roy Jones
>> ...his illegal use of software
[Herbert Kleebauer wrote]
> I suppose, you are again speaking about the use of asm32 in the
> early stage of SpAsm. A week ago an email from Intelligent Firmware
> was posted in this group, where clearly was stated, that it
> was completely ok to use asm32 for that purpose. Instead of
> making a formal excuse to Rene you are repeating the same blame.
Regarding the 32-bit code, apparently Rene is not infringing.
However Rene has mentioned that he wrote his 16-bit assembler(forgive me
the name slips my mind) with an unregistered copy of A86. Per the A86
license agreement Mr. Isaacson has used a special creative "footprint"
encoding for the opcodes in the object files produced by his assembler.
Mr. Issacson claims that this encoding is sufficiently unique and
creative that he would win if he sued someone for copyright infringment.
In this case, it would not be wise to state that one has used licensed
software in violation of the license agreement?
The A86 license agreement is quoted below
Roy
[relevant portion of A86 manual and license agreement]
------------------------------------------------------------
"5. Only permanent registered users can sell or distribute any
programs that you have written or modified using this
assembler. If you do sell or distribute such programs, you
must insure that your registered name (company or individual)
will always be distributed with the program, so that I can
verify your registration. Any individual or company found to
be violating these terms will be liable for triple
registration fees for every machine they own capable of
running my assembler (plus any legal and court costs).
NOTE that the only computers that need to be registered are
those executing the program A86.COM. The programs produced by
A86 are entirely yours -- there are no "run-time royalties".
6. A86 takes advantage of situations in which more than one set
of opcodes can be generated for the same instruction. (For
example, MOV AX,BX can be generated using either an 89 or 8B
opcode, by reversing fields in the following effective address
byte. Both forms are absolutely identical in functionality
and execution speed.) A86 adopts an unusual mix of choices in
such situations. This creates a code-generation "footprint"
that occupies no space in your program file, but will enable
me to tell, and to demonstrate in a court of law, if a
non-trivial object file has been produced by A86. The
specification for this "footprint" is sufficiently obscure and
complicated that it would be impossible to duplicate by
accident. I claim exclusive rights to the particular
"footprint" I have chosen, and prohibit anyone from
duplicating it. This has at least two specific implications:
a. Any assembler that duplicates the "footprint" is mine. If
it is not identified as mine and issued under these terms,
then those who sell or distribute the assembler will be
subject to prosecution.
b. Any program marked with the "footprint" has been produced
by my assembler. It is subject to condition 5 above.
Registration Benefits
Thank you for enduring the legalities. They are there to protect
me, and also to convince you that this is my business, from which
I make my living. I'll now return to a softer sell, to try to
make you want to register for my products."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
luvr
"Randall Hyde" <rand...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:G0zVb.20128$uM2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Try reading Rene manifesto.
> If he were Palestinian, I'd bet money he'd wind up a suicide bomber
> based on posts and mails he's made.
My thoughts exactly!
Hadn't brought up, though, since I didn't want to stir up an even uglier
fight... Things were getting more than ugly enough already...
--Luc.
Betov
news:opr2384z...@news.la.sbcglobal.net:
> However Rene has mentioned that he wrote his 16-bit assembler(forgive me
> the name slips my mind) with an unregistered copy of A86.
Unfortunately for you, fucky one, 1) i never distribute
any Application written with A86, 2) Eric had seemlingly
no problem sharing some of his (quite impressive) knowledge
with me, when i had some doubt about some details of x86
encodings.
Betov.
Roy Jones
> [snip] 1) i never distribute
> any Application written with A86, 2) Eric had seemlingly
> no problem sharing some of his (quite impressive) knowledge
> with me, when i had some doubt about some details of x86
> encodings.
>
Regarding point #1, then you have no problem legally. Chill out.:)
Regarding #2, that would be proof that Mr. Issacson has no problem with
you.
Mentioning these points rather than saying,
"By the way, all of the 16 Bits Developements of SpAsm that was
done for more than one year, before i ported it to 32 Bits,
was made with A86,... that i never payed either... :) as i do
not see any reason for encouraging ShareWare.",
would give more heft to your argument. The statement while in jest tends
to give newcomers to the discussion the wrong idea and lends greater
credence to your opponents.
Roy
Beyond2000!
Roy, even if he was using an unregistered versino, he was able to do
so.
Look at the note:
" NOTE that the only computers that need to be registered are
those executing the program A86.COM. The programs produced by
A86 are entirely yours-- there are no "run-time royalties"."
This note and what is said in section 5 , in addition to section 2,
means that you was able to build your own apps, registering or
not...What you was not able to do is distribute the A86.com file.
When it says that only permanet registers users can sell or distribute
the program, he was mentioning those ones who was running A86.com
file, of course, without distributing it. The "distribution" for what
the license means refers to the hole package.
The generated programs as stated belongs entirelly to the user,
without any royalties.
What René did was use the permited terms on sections 1 and 2.
1. You may copy the A86Vxxx.ZIP and D86Vxxx.ZIP files, and give
them to anyone who accepts these terms. The copies you
distribute must be complete and unmodified. "You do not have
to be registered to distribute this package." --> He didn´t
distributed the package at all.
2. Even if you have not yet obtained full execution rights, you
may execute the programs in this package, in order to evaluate
them. If you decide that any of this package is of use to
you, you must become a registered user by sending $50 US ($52
if you are outside North America) to: ---> He executed the programs
without permited as "when he has no full execution rights", and
decided to not register.
He was not using the full package wich contains A86LIB, exactly
because it was not fitting for Renés purpose, otherwise he would
registered it, if he choose to.
Other things:
"Also in practical reality, most users who ought to register haven't,
yet.
For most, it's not dishonesty but merely procrastination. So I
have provided some incentives, to prod you into registering.
One incentive is the printed manual, which only registered users
can purchase. I haven't left anything out of the disk version of
the manual, but the printed version is formatted and bound much
more nicely than if you print it yourself.
Another incentive is the tool A86LIB.COM, that lets you create
libraries of source files, to be automatically searched by A86
whenever your program has undefined symbols. This means you can
effectively add procedures of arbitrary power and complexity to
A86's language."
It´s not a obligation to register then. Isaac is incentivating the
user to do it, due to the features on his app, which seems to be
great, btw :)
I hope that those aspects are more clear now :)
There is nothing wrong with the usage of A86 by René, at all.
Best Regards,
Guga
Betov
news:opr24byx...@news.la.sbcglobal.net:
Sorry, but the "Legal Thematic" song is something that
makes me loose a lot my sense of humour, when facing
real fucky ones who re-distribute and promote a MicroSoft
Product against the Open Source Mouvement.
There should be some limit to indecency.
Betov.
Beyond2000!
Roy was not trying to tease..Calm down...he has a good point.
When he said
"would give more heft to your argument. The statement while in jest
tends
to give newcomers to the discussion the wrong idea and lends greater
credence to your opponents."
It seems to be a friendly advice and not a tease, because some people
can take the literal words you say against yourself, without even
knowing what happened. For newcomers, this can cause confusion,
because they don´t know what happened.
As i said ... you didn´t do anything wrong. All you did was use the
license in the exact terms they was written and focused to.
It doesn´t really matter if others will continue with this useless
debate, what matter is that there we no infringement at all.
Best Regards,
Guga
Roy Jones
> Sorry, but the "Legal Thematic" song is something that
> makes me loose a lot my sense of humour, when facing
> real fucky ones who re-distribute and promote a MicroSoft
> Product against the Open Source Mouvement.
>
> There should be some limit to indecency.
Regarding MASM redistribution, the Windows 98 ddk license probably
provides _the individual_ who downloads the DDK the right to use
MASM, but I don't see where it says that same indvidual can redistribute
the software. Also the Win 98 DDK is no longer distributed without a
subscription to MSDN($$$).
The platform sdk which does not contain MASM is still available but
completely irrelevant to the matter of redistribution of MASM.
Roy
Gerhard W. Gruber
alt.lang.asm with <opr2384z...@news.la.sbcglobal.net>
>"5. Only permanent registered users can sell or distribute any
[...]
> by my assembler. It is subject to condition 5 above.
Sounds like a very naive license to me. I doubt that the major points of these
paragraphs will ever stand up in court.
--
Gerhard Gruber
Maintainer of
SoftICE for Linux - http://pice.sourceforge.net/
Fast application launcher - http://sourceforge.net/projects/launchmenu
Roy Jones
>
> Roy, even if he was using an unregistered versino, he was able to do
> so.
>
Actually my misunderstanding was over distribution. As Rene never
distributed any programs he wrote with A86, he was never in violation of
the license agreement.
Roy
Beyond2000!
About
"Regarding MASM redistribution, the Windows 98 ddk license probably
provides _the individual_ who downloads the DDK the right to use
MASM, but I don't see where it says that same indvidual can
redistribute
the software. Also the Win 98 DDK is no longer distributed without a
subscription to MSDN($$$)."
Exactly....i don´t remember reading the redistribution of masm either.
Can someone, post the link to the licesen, so we can read it better ?
Best Regards,
Guga
Betov
news:99c1ddcc.04020...@posting.google.com:
> Ren‚,
>
>
> Roy was not trying to tease..Calm down...
Yes, my apologizes to Roy. This is a problem with my News
Viewer: I saw his Post as an isolated one (isolated from
this thread) and i though it was him who was runing this
thread again... If he is a big boy, he will survive... :))
Betov.
Betov
news:opr24hgz...@news.la.sbcglobal.net:
Though i have _heavy_ doubts the redistribution of MASM
could ever be legal, as long as MicroSoft does not seem
to care, i don't see why i would care either if legal or
not.
The real problem is ethical and political. Redistributing
a commercial Product like this one, against the Open Source
Mouvement, is, in any case, a pure scandal, and promoting
that thing, whereas it has been, since years, completly
outdated and overpassed by several much better and much more
powerfull Tools, is ultimately shocking.
All of this for the glory a Power Basic Programmer who
considers himself "The Author of MASM32", and who defends
that shiet as if he had really written it this his fingers
on the keyBoard. Pathetic.
Betov.
JohnFound
> it is not identified as mine and issued under these terms,
> then those who sell or distribute the assembler will be
> subject to prosecution.
>
> b. Any program marked with the "footprint" has been produced
> by my assembler. It is subject to condition 5 above.
Wow, it is amazing!!! Betov! And you claim that FASM and Fresh
licenses are strange!!! I only wonder how this assembler have even one
user, with this license agreement. Visibly no one read this kind of
documents before installing. I am simply... No, no, you only read
this: 'Any assembler that duplicates the "footprint" is MINE.', what a
impudence!
Betov
news:743c2fd9.04020...@posting.google.com:
Yes, John, it seems a bit demential nowadays, but, you
have to recall that A86 is a _very_ old Product. At
that time, Eric was releasing it under _ShareWare_ in
hope to make some real money. Nowadays, this would make
everybody laugh, but, at that time, it was quite usual.
And, by the way, in the good old DOS day, A86 was really
a very good Assembler. Some features of RosAsm, like,
for example, the way i implemented the reusable Local
Labels - that is way more powerfull and intelligent than
MASM one-, are nothing but a clone of A86 ones.
;)
Betov.
< http://betov.free.fr/RosAsm.html >
hutch--
licencing of ML.EXE from the Microsoft EULA. I neither started the
argument nor continued it but Betov has insisted on addressing the
Microsoft EULA that MASM users are protected by so Betov will keep
hearing what he has done with other people's commercial software until
he shuts up.
From the ASM32.TXT file dated 1999 is the licence for use of the
product that is formally offered as shareware.
========================================================================
This program is shareware, it may be used for an UNLIMITED period of
evaluation free of charge, by private users only. It is not Freeware
and
is not allowed to be used in a commercial or government environment.
If you like it you should register in order to gain all the benefits.
Please read BENEFITS.TXT .
ASM32 and CPL32 are created, owned and licensed exclusively by
IntelligentFirmware. Web: www.intelligentfirm.com, Email:
as...@intelligentfirm.com .
========================================================================
Now it seems that a few have missed the content of this licence.
1. The software is shareware.
2. It is not freeware.
3. It is available for an UNLIMITED period for evaluation for private
users only.
4. You need to register it to "gain all the benefits".
Now Betov fails by the conditions of the licence as he did not pay for
it and he distributed the derivation of software that he wrote in
violation of the picence for the software. To put it bluntly, he STOLE
the software and tried to bullsh*t his way through the licencing isue
by criticising others who did not STEAL their software.
If anyoe has any doubts to Betov's intention, he makes his intention
clear in relation to other people's commercial software with the
following requotation.
========================================================================
> "By the way, all of the 16 Bits Developements of SpAsm that was
> done for more than one year, before i ported it to 32 Bits,
> was made with A86,... that i never payed either... :) as i do
> not see any reason for encouraging ShareWare.",
========================================================================
He did not pay for the software here either but he still used it and
still distributes derivation of that software. When Betov says "as i
do not see any reason for encouraging ShareWare", he still uses it to
produce what he wants so it is not a misrepresentation to call him a
thief for stealing commercial software that he does not want to pay
for.
The email received back from IntelligentFirmware indicates that the
authors simply don't care if someone uses their software for freeware
projects but Betov never has the common decency to ask them in the
first place or tell them what he had in mind with their software. It
still places a limitation on the software derived from their original
and rewriting the BetovAsm licence under GPL does not fix that as GPL
does not give anyone the right to relicence software that was
distributed under a different licencing system.
Now the solution is for Betov to shut his mouth and stop criticising
other people and their work. As long as he continues he will be on the
chopping block as he is an easy free kick.
hutch--
I am sorry you have been dragged into this debacle as I have never had
any beef with you. I bother because Betov still think he can get away
with criticising other people and their work and with the licencing
issue and attack MASM users who use my MASM32 project because they are
protected by a Microsoft EULA.
I have addressed Betov's usage of the ASM32 assembler distributed by
Intelligent Firmware on the basis of the licence they publish in the
1999 text file ASM32.TXT.
There is another posting in this news group where I have addressed the
subject so I will not duplicate it here.
The solution to Betov being an endless free kick is for him to shut up
and stop criticising other people and their work. He cannot be
negotiated with and will keep regurgitating the same crap over and
over again so he is going to be a free kick as long as he keeps it up.
Maybe you have a way to civilise him as I know you are a reasonable
person but I have tried in the past and always had it spat back in my
face and I know that Randy Hyde has had much the same probem. Finally
you get tired of the invective and just do what you need to do to shut
him up.
hutch--
by a Microsoft EULA.
=====================================
1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following limited,
non-exclusive rights:
* SOFTWARE PRODUCT. You may make, install and use up to a maximum of
ten (10) copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on computers, including
workstations, terminals or other digital electronic devices, residing
on your premises, to design, develop, and test software products,
including but not limited to device drivers and other software
products ("Application(s)") for use with Microsoft Windows and/or
Windows NT.
=====================================
(a) GRANT OF LICENSE
(b) Right to install up to 10 copies.
(c) Right to design Applications.
(d) No restriction on where it is used. "including but not limited to"
Betov want to attack Microsoft any way he can but he has no chance in
terms of their EULA as Microsoft have protected their own users with
it.
Why would anyone take Betov's word on an issue where his motives are
clear and in a context where he STOLE the original assembler to write
his own. Even now he is restricted by the new licence so that anyone
foolish enough to develop with BetovAsm so they cannot write
commercial applications with it.
Roy Jones
> Why take the word of a liar like Betov when MASM users are protected
> by a Microsoft EULA.
>
> =====================================
> 1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following limited,
> non-exclusive rights:
> * SOFTWARE PRODUCT. You may make, install and use up to a maximum of
> ten (10) copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on computers, including
> workstations, terminals or other digital electronic devices, residing
> on your premises, to design, develop, and test software products,
> including but not limited to device drivers and other software
> products ("Application(s)") for use with Microsoft Windows and/or
> Windows NT.
> =====================================
>
> (a) GRANT OF LICENSE
> (b) Right to install up to 10 copies.
The 10 copies are of course installed only "on your premises". We don't
want to give the impression that its okay to give out up to 9 copies of
MASM to our friends if we're only using one. The license does not mention
giving us the right to redistribute. I still have a problem, as I have
never
purchased MASM at retail or even academically. And according to a Dr. GUI
article last year in MSDN Magazine, version 7 is bundled with Visual C++
.NET 2003. I am not planning on doing any .Net Framework development and
have
no need for Visual C++ .NET. I believe MASM ver. 7 is also available with
the Framework SDK which is a free download. The question still remains
whether I can legally use MASM without purchasing it or even originally
downloading it with the Win 98 DDK. It feels like "borrowing" it from a
friend who bought his legal copy.
> (c) Right to design Applications.
> (d) No restriction on where it is used. "including but not limited to"
Yes, MASM _licensed_ users are able to write commercial products. Like I
said
though does downloading the MASM32 package make me a licensed user of
MASM? The
license quoted above is from the Windows 98 DDK. I did not download the
DDK
while it was freely downloadbale. It is currently available as a
subscriber
download with MSDN. Hopefully you can ease my mind.
Roy
hutch--
I actually don't undertake to "ease your mind", I leave that to
Microsoft with their own EULA but you are still making assumptions
about how it has been made available. You have got so far that the
EULA does not address the issue of distribution or redistribution.
What you have failed to get the swing of is MASM32 has NEVER
redistributed the Microsoft binaries as that capacity is not contained
in the EULA, it has DISTRIBUTED them complete with the Microsoft EULA.
The win98ddk download was in a Microsoft newsletter that I receive
regularly from Microsoft.
Now given the fact that MASM32 has been a high profile assembler
package for over 6 years helping programmers to learn Microsoft
assembler, if there was in fact any conflict with Microsoft, it would
have surfaced many years ago as employees of Microsoft are among the
user base and have been members of assembler forums using MASM32 for
years.
How you access MASM is of course your own business, you can BUY it
like I did if you can still get your hands on it, you can get a later
version in the XP DDK for the price of the CD and shipping from
Microsoft as I have done also, you can upgrade your version of VC if
you own it to the processor pack that has version 6.15 of ML.EXE or
you can comply with the EULA from the win98ddk and use the version in
MASM32. If you need the subscription to MSDN and can afford it, good
luck to you but you can buy the current version in a DDK CD cheaper.
Owning it is the best option as you get the manuals as well but if you
don't want to pay for it or cannot afford it, a free download is
probably your best chance.
Even if you don't understand the implications of the EULA from
Microsoft, it affords you and anyone else who complies with the EULA,
the rights I have posted earlier.
Betov
@posting.google.com:
> How you access MASM is of course your own business, you can BUY it
Exactely. So said, even if it would be a rather strange
idea, given MASM "quality", why isn't there any ReadMe.txt
saying this, in your Redistribution of this MicroSoft Product?
How is it that Master Pdf, - seemligly a bit less stupid
than you are -, will now on distribute his Pre-Parser with...
FASM (whereas he also means to "sell" MASM32...), and will
keep carefully away from any possible legal sue, by letting
you assume alone the evident risks coming with such an action?
Betov.
Bo Persson
"Roy Jones" <mhc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote...
> I did not download the DDK
> while it was freely downloadbale.
Just don't tell anyone! :-)
If I were you, I would do a quick risk analysis:
MS used to give it away for free to anyone who bothered to download it from
their public web site. What are the odds that they will now sue a person
using a copy of this software, because this person didn't download it
personally?
Pretty low, I'd say!
The risk is MUCH lower than dying from falling out of bed, or being run over
by a bus.
Bo Persson
Roy Jones
> I actually don't undertake to "ease your mind", I leave that to
> Microsoft with their own EULA but you are still making assumptions
> about how it has been made available. You have got so far that the
> EULA does not address the issue of distribution or redistribution.
> What you have failed to get the swing of is MASM32 has NEVER
> redistributed the Microsoft binaries as that capacity is not contained
> in the EULA, it has DISTRIBUTED them complete with the Microsoft EULA.
> The win98ddk download was in a Microsoft newsletter that I receive
> regularly from Microsoft.
You are correct it is not your responsibility to ease my mind, it is
Microsoft's alone.
Regarding the interpretation of Redistribution maybe we should refer to
Microsoft's on their Permission:Use of Software page:
http://www.microsoft.com/permission/copyrgt/cop-soft.htm
Relevant Portions quoted below, see the site for full text.
-----------------
> Free-For-Download Software Microsoft makes available, free-for-download
> via the Internet, a number
> of its products and software deliverables, including portions of its
> software and/or system files (herein "Software"). Although you are free
> to download and use the Software, you are not free to reproduce and
> redistribute the Software. Please read the End User License Agreement
> (EULA) accompanying the Software to determine your redistribution
> rights. If you are not expressly granted the right to redistribute the
> Software under an accompanying EULA, redistribution of the Software is
> not permissible.
[...]
> Redistribute Files If you are interested in redistributing software
> files please first determine whether you are considering redistribution
> of data files (with file extensions like .doc, .xls, .mdb, etc.) or
> system files (with file extensions like .DLL, .EXE, .DVR, etc.
[...]
> system files - If you wish to redistribute system files, source code,
> controls, features, or other components or files that are shipped with
> Microsoft software applications or Microsoft programming software (for
> instance, files that have extensions like .DLL, .EXE., DRV, .LIB, etc.),
> please see Redistribute Portions. Redistribute Portions If you wish to
> redistribute system files, source code, controls, features, or other
> components or files that are shipped with Microsoft software
> applications or Microsoft programming software (for instance, files that
> have extensions like .DLL, .EXE., DRV, .LIB, etc.), you are required to
> read your End User License Agreement (EULA) and other product
> documentation
> to determine your redistribution rights. Requests to redistribute
> certain Microsoft files recur on a regular basis (like COMCTL32.DLL) so
> you may wish
> to check the Frequently Requested Files to see if your question is
> addressed here. If you have further questions regarding redistribution
> of portions of Microsoft software, please submit your request following
> the instructions on How to Submit a Request to Use Software.
MASM32 is a redistribution per Microsoft, but Microsoft seems to have
absolutely
no problem with it.
> Now given the fact that MASM32 has been a high profile assembler
> package for over 6 years [...], if there was in fact any conflict with
> Microsoft, it would have surfaced many years ago...
Probably so, for the moment. Microsoft has not given up their rights in
the
software. They have the ability to take this to court in the future.
Whether
they continue not do so is the question. Of course as you've mentioned
MASM32 is very good free advertising for Microsoft. :)
> How you access MASM is of course your own business, you can BUY it
> like I did if you can still get your hands on it, you can get a later
> version in the XP DDK for the price of the CD and shipping from
> Microsoft as I have done also, you can upgrade your version of VC if
> you own it to the processor pack that has version 6.15 of ML.EXE or
> you can comply with the EULA from the win98ddk and use the version in
> MASM32. If you need the subscription to MSDN and can afford it, good
> luck to you but you can buy the current version in a DDK CD cheaper.
>
> Owning it is the best option as you get the manuals as well but if you
> don't want to pay for it or cannot afford it, a free download is
> probably your best chance.
No disagreement here.
Roy
Beyond2000!
Roy, your interpretation of M$license is acurated. The problem inside
it is not so clear, but it´s there.
Hutch, it´s not a matter only of interpretation, although you
misunderstood some aspects of the license, i strongly suggest all of
us to let this subject just dies.
What i called a "legal trick" is, in fact a protection mechanism for
Microsoft products....It´s different then protecting or allowing the
users to use the product.
Anyway....now there are 02 different people telling you the very same
thing. Roy and i are only trying to advice you, nothing else :)
Concerning RosAsm license, you are completelly misunderstood it´s
purpose and what´s written.
The license don´t forbid the creation of commercial applicatinos at
all !!! The license allows the creation of what i called "work based
programs", no matter if the purpose is for commercial apps or
releasing them free.
I made clear the differences between all kinds of builded apps.
The point is, the license is for the usage of RosAsm, and applyes
while the user is building his apps.....When teh user finishes it, he
can do 02 things:
1 - If he builded an app and wants it to be used with RosAsm togheter
(derivated apps), he should provide the same License as RosAsm, if
it´s needed. (For example, if the user build feature for the usage of
RosAsm itself, allowing that it can be a part of RosAsm project, then,
it´called derivated works, and the license applyes to it. (If he wants
to release the same license, he can...but since there will already be
one, it´s just unecessary, not forbidden).
2 - If the user builds what i called "work based", it means, any app
builded with RosAsm, but not necessarily will integrate the holçe
project.
For example, if the user builds an separated and independent tutorial,
or demo, or nything else he wants...Then, of course, since it will
not be n integrated part of the project, the user is allowed to build
any license he wants that best fits to the purpose of his app.
If he build a free software (Independent project, not necessarily
related to RosAsm or a integrated prt of it), he can use GPL, or any
other free licenses, or he can even don´t use any.
If he build a commercial app, the process is the same. He i freely
allowed to build commercial apps (independent of RosAsm, as stated
above), and build his own license that best fits to his purpose.
The objective is grant to the user the feeling that he is free to USE
RosAsm, and build his apps no matter if they are to be released for
free, or for commercial purposes.
The license is applied while the user is building his app....If he
build an integrated feature, the same license is applyed, because his
project will be the same as rosasm. If not, i mean, if he builds an
independent projetc not related to rosasm, the license will only be
applied while he is building it (of course, the license is for the
usage of RosAsm)...when he finishes his app he can be fre to do
whatever he wants with it, and either build his own license (free or
not).
The only thing that matters is the user respect the license while he
is building it. There are one small limitatino for the usage for
governmental, military, or political purposes, and other like
thats...that in each case, may need to be adapted after approuval by
the original author (René).
This is a protection mechnism of the hole project and preventing bad
usage...All of the license has the purpose to improve the free
software movement, open source movement etc...but also makes no
restrictinos if the user wants to build commercial apps.
All of this was exactly to mainatin the sense of freedom.
I wrote the license, Hutch !!! There is no limitation to commercial
apps at all.
I took care to avoid write "legal trickage" that could confuse the
user, or make that he be in some kinda of risk.
You misunderstood both licenses....the problem is....RosAsm license,
has no legal arguments that can be used against the user, or faing him
in any risk - even the most remote possible. (While the M$.....:(
well...)
Read the links that Roy Jones posted, and do a open research on the
subject if you want. And pls,....no matter what...let this subject
just dies, ok ?
As i told you, i wont make any further comments on that, you know my
reasons and my concerns about it.
Best Regards,
Guga
hutch--
Herein lies the fundamental distinction between Betov and myself.
> > How you access MASM is of course your own business, you can BUY it
>
> Exactely. So said, even if it would be a rather strange
> idea, given MASM "quality"
Honest people PAY for their softweare, Thieves STEAL it. I own my copy
of MASM where you STOLE your copy of ASM32.
> why isn't there any ReadMe.txt
> saying this, in your Redistribution of this MicroSoft Product?
Microsoft named their file EULA.TXT, they did not have the
foreknowledge that Betov would require it to be named ReadMe.Txt.
Perhaps you could take up this matter with Bill Gates himself for
failing to comform to your viewpoint some years before you ever got
your assembler going.
Perhaps you could take some more tutoring from Guga in the Brasilian
interpretation of American law written in English quoted out of
context. :)
Regards,
hutchat movsd dot com
hutch--
I understand that you did not download the original 19 meg win98ddk
that I did on the basis of the Microsoft Newsletter I receive so you
are not properly informed in the area.
While you have titled this topic as REDISTRIBUTION, it appears to be a
matter of yur own personal ignorance in relation to Microsoft
licencing and how it works. Redistribution has a seperate licence that
is contained in different documents for various components that
Microsoft have made avalable at various times under certain
conditions.
MASM32 as a project has never redistributed Microsoft binaries, it
DISTRIBUTES them on the basis of the licence from the original
win98ddk.
Now even though you appear not to understand the legal implications, a
EULA is an agreement between two parties, the supplier and the end
user so even if the end user obtained their copy as a sattelite signal
bounce off the moon, they still have the same responsibility in
relation to the supplier as they would if they had obtained it by
subscription to MSDN.
When it comes to the legal implications of the win98ddk, I am more
inclined to listen to Microsoft that Betov or yourself. This is what
Microsoft say.
Microsoft EULA for win98ddk dated 14th November 1998.
======================================
1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following limited,
non-exclusive rights:
* SOFTWARE PRODUCT. You may make, install and use up to a maximum of
ten (10) copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on computers, including
workstations, terminals or other digital electronic devices, residing
on your premises, to design, develop, and test software products,
including but not limited to device drivers and other software
products ("Application(s)") for use with Microsoft Windows and/or
Windows NT.
======================================
(a) GRANT OF LICENSE.
(b) Right to install up to ten (10) copied.
(c) Right to produce Applications.
(d) No restrictions on use. "including but not limited to device
drivers and other software products".
When the end user has this level of legal protection directly from
Microsoft, why should they listen to either you or Betov ?
Now to share a little secret from back in those days, the WICKED ISP I
had at the time actually downloaded the file directly from Microsoft
and put it on his FTP server as my dialup at the time had problems
with downloads of that size.
Now WHO has the main liability under your theory, the company that
owns the routers from the US to Australia, the ISP who helped with the
download or the telecomunication company whose phone lines were used ?
Under your theory is Microsoft implicated in this conspiracy because
they also made the ML 6.14 patch available as an upgrade to authorised
MASM users ?
Forgive me if I don't take you all that seriously, the conditions you
are attempting to impose were neither contained in the win98ddk or its
EULA.
Beyond2000!
"Perhaps you could take some more tutoring from Guga in the Brasilian
interpretation of American law written in English quoted out of
context. :)"
Yeah, Hutch Tks....That was a nice thing to say :(
Anyway...perhaps you re forgetting that the license in english and in
portuguese are the same. So, it´s not a matter of brasilian
interpretation, but license usage and application, which is valid for
english an portuguese, btw.
Do whatever you want, my friend....it´w your own risk, anyway....I´m
sorry if i was stupid enough to try to help you, in something that
have the change to be a real life problem for you.
Btw: Again....René didn´t stole anything ! But, as an "brasilian
interpretation" don´t seems to make any difference ...at least i know
that rené has absolutelly done anything wrong (Also, he Knows that
without any margin of doubt).
Best Regards,
Guga
hutch--
I have no beef with you personally but with the legal issue you are
out of your depth here. I spent some time today on the phone with the
Microsoft Licencing Division going over the EULA in detail and I can
safely establish that all end users who are using the Microsoft
binaries are protected by Microsoft with their EULA.
After spending some time trying to explain the argument that Betov
through yourself and Roy have been extolling, i think I finally
communicated a point so obscure in the context of people who are
agressively anti-american, anti-Microsoft trying to get around the
conditions of a Microsoft EULA by attacking or redefining the method
of distribution.
Now while it took some convincing that there is anything to respond to
at all, I have asked the Microsoft Licencing Division to investigate
the nonsense about the distribution method used in MASM32 and I will
contribute some info to help them make sense of this nonsense.
In the mean time, the MASM32 package was downloaded and the Licencing
division have a copy of the complete software including the enclosed
EULA. Seems people in Microsoft like MASM as well, especially as MASM
is compatible with VC and can make bullet DLLs for VB.
> "Perhaps you could take some more tutoring from Guga in the Brasilian
> interpretation of American law written in English quoted out of
> context. :)"
>
> Yeah, Hutch Tks....That was a nice thing to say :(
Take the compliment, Betov has improved out of site with a bit of
coaching from you and Roy.
I would never have said anything against Betov or his project but he
has insisted on attacking people and their work for years and this
includes the licence issue when he is clearly a legal illiterate.
Years of bullsh*t about how you could not use it for this or that when
it will only work on MSDOS and Windows.
If you have some way of shutting him up, then there will be nothing to
argue about but as long as Betov thinks he is smart enough to
foulmouth other people, he will remain on the chopping block.
Betov
news:af910ce4.04021...@posting.google.com:
> After spending some time trying to explain the argument that Betov
> through yourself and Roy have been extolling, i think I finally
> communicated a point so obscure in the context of people who are
> agressively anti-american, anti-Microsoft trying to get around the
> conditions of a Microsoft EULA by attacking or redefining the method
> of distribution.
>
> Now while it took some convincing that there is anything to respond to
> at all, I have asked the Microsoft Licencing Division to investigate
> the nonsense about the distribution method used in MASM32 and I will
> contribute some info to help them make sense of this nonsense.
>
> In the mean time, the MASM32 package was downloaded and the Licencing
> division have a copy of the complete software including the enclosed
> EULA. Seems people in Microsoft like MASM as well, especially as MASM
> is compatible with VC and can make bullet DLLs for VB.
Many thanks for this Post, Hutch--, --, --.
Because, in case the MicroSoft boys would be stupid enough for sueing
a pathetic bastard redistributing an obsolete MicroSoft Product against
the Open Source Mouvement, you would only have to say that you fucked
yourself, without any help of mine.
Thanks again. Betov.
< http://betov.free.fr/RosAsm.html >
PS. By the way, if you get a written redistribution permission, do
not forget to forward it to Master Pdf, to make him free from the
pain of having to release his bullshits with an Open Source Assembler,
and to enable his users with the same high quality level protections
hopefully coming with MicroSoft EULA. :)) :)) :))
... Or might be, he would mean not consider degrading his Distro with
a much lesser capable Assembler like MASM...
... Who knows?... :D :D :D
... No fresh news? :D :D :D
Roy Jones
> [..} yourself and Roy have been extolling, i think I finally
> communicated a point so obscure in the context of people who are
> agressively anti-american, anti-Microsoft
Hutch,
I appreciate that you have contacted Microsoft Licensing, but you
obviously
didn't read my entire message. Especially the parts where I AGREED with you
regarding MS not caring and even being happy for the free advertising. I
didn't say anyone should contact MS. Even Guga said to let it drop.
That said, where does an Australian get off accusing an Amercian born
citizen
of being Anti-American. As a citizen in one of the most litigious countries
in the(yeah, I can say it cause I live here:)) world, you can understand I
like to be careful. I never said I was anti-Microsoft but I've got the
right
to say if I am, provided by the first amendment to my country's
constitution.
It also gives me the right to practice my religion whatever it is. Good
thing
I'm not a Texan or those words might have been "fightin' words".:)
You know, I once went to a pet store where they've got a rabbit petting
section.
So I went to touch one of the rabbits and the poor thing shyed away. Seems
they've been harassed too much by the constant flow of customers, its not
their
fault. Dude, you and Professor Hyde remind me of those rabbits. The world
is not
black and white and educated people should be able to discuss things in a
civilized manner.
Once again do not lump me in with Anti-American partisans. Like most real
Americans I've got my own mind.
Roy
hutch--
> Many thanks for this Post, Hutch--, --, --.
>
> Because, in case the MicroSoft boys would be stupid enough for sueing
> a pathetic bastard redistributing an obsolete MicroSoft Product against
> the Open Source Mouvement, you would only have to say that you fucked
> yourself, without any help of mine.
Another touch of sour grapes there Betov ? Did you think you ever had
a chance against a Microsoft EULA that protects it users and licences
them to use the most powerful assembler on ther planet for 32 bit
Windows assembler ?
> PS. By the way, if you get a written redistribution permission, do
> not forget to forward it to Master Pdf, to make him free from the
> pain of having to release his bullshits with an Open Source Assembler,
> and to enable his users with the same high quality level protections
> hopefully coming with MicroSoft EULA. :)) :)) :))
If you did not have tantrums on a regular basisa, HLA would support
BetovAsm as well but you don't have the technical skills to produce an
assembler that is good enough. MASM is good enough, FASM is good
enough and so are some of the linux assemblers, what happened to
BetovAsm ? Muhahahaha.
> ... Who knows?... :D :D :D
Apparently not you.
> ... No fresh news? :D :D :D
Certainly not from you.
Now if MASM users get a better deal after I make further negotiations
with Microsoft, they will have Betov to thank for the contribution he
has made. :)
hutch--
I have pointed my criticism directly at Betov and its based on what he
has said. Anti-American, Anti-Microsoft and said often in public. With
a man who has made the point that he would get a gun and KILL
Americans, I suggest that only his age and impotence protect the world
from him.
Now while I don't know you and I have no beef with Guga at all, anyone
who associates themselves with Betov and his interests will pick up
some of the flack that comes with what he says in public.
Like many around the world, its not hard to find something to
criticise with the current US administration but it is not an excuse
to attack and abuse every American or have a desire to start killing
them. If you wonder why I retaliate against Betov, what he says, what
he supports and what he continues to attack in public, you need do no
more than read what he as said over a number of years in a number of
different forums.
I am lucky that over time I have had a good relationship with
Microsoft and while like most people I can find things to criticise in
how they run their business, more often than not they have helped out
where they can, as long as they are not liable or vulnerable in doing
so.
What I am angling for while dealing with the Licencing division of
Microsoft is a better deal again for people who use MASM32. It may not
have been your intent to try and undermine the project but in the case
of Betov, his intent has been clear for years and he has attacked the
project many times.
He has deliberately lied about the rights afforded to end users in the
EULA and tried to drive people away from the project to prop up his
own and this is why I will raise the issue of Betov's own theft of
commercial software every time he opens his mouth because at the
bottom line, MASM users are protected by a Microsoft EULA where
BetovAsm users are using the derivation of stolen software.
Roy Jones
> I am lucky that over time I have had a good relationship with
> Microsoft and while like most people I can find things to criticise in
> how they run their business, more often than not they have helped out
> where they can, as long as they are not liable or vulnerable in doing
> so.
>
> What I am angling for while dealing with the Licencing division of
> Microsoft is a better deal again for people who use MASM32. It may not
> have been your intent to try and undermine the project but in the case
> of Betov, his intent has been clear for years and he has attacked the
> project many times.
Understood, no hard feelings, my misunderstanding. If not for your project,
I don't think there really would be any kind of win32 assembler movement.
Too many disparate sources.
I have no bone to pick with Microsoft and I wish you well in your dealing
with the Licensing division.
Roy
Ed Beroset
> bottom line, MASM users are protected by a Microsoft EULA where
> BetovAsm users are using the derivation of stolen software.
I have two comments.
1. The Microsoft EULA protects only Microsoft and not MASM users.
2. You and Betov and Hyde should take your problems to email or start
your own alt.asm.abuse group.
I'm pretty tired of this pettiness and bickering and would really
appreciate seeing actual CODE posted every once in a while. In case
you'd forgotten, here is what it looks like:
This is a MASM macro which I use for debugging system code (e.g. BIOS)
diag3 macro letter, color
pushf
push ax
push bx
ifdifi <letter>, <al>
mov al,letter
endif
mov ah,0eh
ifb <color>
mov bx,7
else
mov bh,0
mov bl,color
endif
int 10h
pop bx
pop ax
popf
endm
I put in code like this:
diag3 <'A'>
and optionally a color to display a letter or number on screen so that I
can see how far my program has gotten. This is useful when
troubleshooting things like bootloaders where there isn't any OS yet
running. On some BIOS, it can be issued even without interrupts turned
on, which makes it useful for doing things like troubleshooting
protected mode code which is running with few or no interrupts enabled.
Ed
Auric__
*****
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:24:14 GMT, Ed Beroset wrote:
>2. You and Betov and Hyde should take your problems to email or start
>your own alt.asm.abuse group.
>
>I'm pretty tired of this pettiness and bickering and would really
>appreciate seeing actual CODE posted every once in a while.
Well said! Although I'd suggest alt.religion.asm myself.
--
auric "underscore" "underscore" "at" hotmail "dot" com
*****
I didn't do it nobody saw me you can't prove anything!
Frank Kotler
> I'm pretty tired of this pettiness and bickering and would really
> appreciate seeing actual CODE posted every once in a while.
Okay...
;-----------------
; nasm -f elf myprog.asm
; ld -s -o myprog myprog.o
global _start
section .data
filename db '/usr/local/bin/nasm', 0
arg_array dd filename, outform, optim, dbg, outname, inname, 0
outform db '-felf', 0
optim db '-O999v', 0
dbg db '-g', 0
outname db '-o hello.o', 0
inname db 'hello.asm', 0
goodbye db 'goodbye cruel world'
goodbye_len equ $ - goodbye
section .text
_start:
; mov eax, 2 ; fork
; int 80h
mov eax, 11 ; execve
mov ebx, filename
mov ecx, arg_array
mov edx, 0 ; env_array
int 80h
or eax, eax
jns okex
; neg eax
; call showeax ; snipped for posting...
jmp short exit
okex:
mov eax, 4
mov ebx, 1
mov ecx, goodbye
mov edx, goodbye_len
int 80h
exit:
mov ebx, 0
mov eax, 1
int 80h
;---------------
This runs Nasm alright - if I uncomment sys_fork, it runs twice, but it
doesn't return and print my "goodbye" message. How can I get it to
behave like "system()"? If I run "strace" on "system()", it looks like
there's a "sys_wait4" involved, but I don't see where the new process is
being called (I don't really know how to interpret the output of
"strace", which may be part of the problem...)
Yes, this is an experiment for "LuxAsm" (though we're probably not going
to want to do it this way). You didn't think you were going to get away
from me *that* easy, did ya? :)
Best,
Frank
Betov
@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> I have two comments.
>
> 1. The Microsoft EULA protects only Microsoft and not MASM users.
> 2. You and Betov and Hyde should take your problems to email or start
> your own alt.asm.abuse group.
>
> I'm pretty tired of this pettiness and bickering and would really
> appreciate seeing actual CODE posted every once in a while.
The last time i did this, it was to answer to a post of Hutch
Showing _one_ MASM Statement:
______________________________________
> fn MessageBox(hWnd,"Betov is all bullsh*t","The Truth",MB_OK)
____________
Hear: "Hi Betov! Try to do this with your botique non-professional
toy"... So, i answered: RosAsm _COMPLETE_ Source:
_____________________________________
[push | push #1 | #+1]
[call | push #L>2 | call #1]
Main:
call 'USER32.MessageBoxA', 0, {'Fuck you!', 0}, {'Hutch,', 0}, &MB_OK
call 'Kernel32.ExitProcess' &NULL
---------------------------------------
Can you show everybody your _COMPLETE_ Source?
____________________________________
Meaning, of course, as i suppose anybody can understand,
"Could you provide the MASM complete Source equivalent to
this, and to your own Statement?".
As anyone can also guess, the MASM version is many times
more complicated and more difficult 1) to write 2) to
read, 3) to maintain...
So, hutch decided to not understand the question, whereas
_he_ was at the origine of the proposition...
I am yet waiting for an answer...
Betov.
< http://betov.free.fr/RosAsm.html >
Betov
@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
... and, if i may add...: Recently two RosAsm Users posted
right here:
* "A Sample RosAsm Macro"
* "First RosAsm App"
Can you re-read these threads a little bit, and tell me who
started the fights in both and why. (Unless you would be
considering that posting any RosAsm example, showing some
of the advantages coming with RosAsm usage, would be, per se,
a valid casus belli).
Betov.
hutch--
> > bottom line, MASM users are protected by a Microsoft EULA where
> > BetovAsm users are using the derivation of stolen software.
>
> I have two comments.
>
> 1. The Microsoft EULA protects only Microsoft and not MASM users.
> 2. You and Betov and Hyde should take your problems to email or start
> your own alt.asm.abuse group.
I can agree to disagree with you here as I have dealt with this style
of contract for many years and the protection offered to end users is
a legal right of use.
> I'm pretty tired of this pettiness and bickering and would really
> appreciate seeing actual CODE posted every once in a while.
Funny enough Ed I am of the same view but after some years of being
attacked by Betov, I am going to keep kicking his arse every time he
opens his mouth.
> This is a MASM macro which I use for debugging system code (e.g. BIOS)
Interesting enough macro Ed, have you ever got into 32 bit MASM as
your knowhow would be useful to many of the younger guys.
R.Wieser
Betov <be...@free.fr> schreef in berichtnieuws
XnF948E7AA47E...@212.27.42.67...
> Ed Beroset <ber...@mindspring.com> écrivait news:2HVWb.3199$W74.1948
> @newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> > I'm pretty tired of this pettiness and bickering and
> > would really appreciate seeing actual CODE
> > posted every once in a while.
May I second this.
> The last time i did this, it was to answer to a post of Hutch
> Showing _one_ MASM Statement:
Betov, don't be an ass. Your response is a response to his response, which
is a response to a response to a response, ad infinitum. You just point at
some random spot in that line while disregarding all your own replies in it.
> Can you re-read these threads a little bit, and tell
> me who started the fights in both and why.
Better yet : read the *whole* thread, and try to determine the how & why
this mess has come into existence.
I'm sure I can't, and I'm quite sure that all parties involved will point to
anyone, as long as it's not themselves.
So, please stop this ranting & raving, or move it to a more apropriate
group. *Please*
Although you both seem to be knowledgable, I'm close to kill-filing both of
you for a while. Even when this would mean I would lose some interresting
posts regarding assembly :-\
Is that what either of you guys want ?
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
The Half A Wannabee
"R.Wieser" <rwieser-...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:402cc022$0$151$e4fe...@dreader5.news.xs4all.nl...
>
> Betov <be...@free.fr> schreef in berichtnieuws
> XnF948E7AA47E...@212.27.42.67...
> > Ed Beroset <ber...@mindspring.com> écrivait news:2HVWb.3199$W74.1948
> > @newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> I'm close to kill-filing both of
> you for a while.
>
> Is that what either of you guys want ?
Oh I like to hear the follow up to this one. Please Wieser (Wise-r ;-) ) go
back and read the followups to this kind of threats in the
past.....hehe...to give you a hint...no...dont want to spoil the fun....
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
>
>
Andrew Kennedy
I don't know if this will work without alteration in Tasm, but
I'll look at it. It looks like it might be a better alterative
to those int 3s I am now using.
Thanks.
R.Wieser
(Live).mp3)_Hotmail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
402cf229$1...@news.broadpark.no...
Hello Half A Wannabee,
It's as much a threat as warning someone for possible consequences of trying
to take a mano-a-mano with an onstorming truck. You can ignore it, but you
won't win anything by it :-)
If there is no response ? Well, too bad. Than I will have to try to do
without the (acknowledged, large) expertise of these gentlemen. Who loses ?
All parties involved actually. :-\
So, let's repeat my question : Is that (replacing an Assembly-oriented
audience for a bickering-oriented one) what either of you guys want ? In
other words : please behave like you guys *care* about the existence of this
newsgroup.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
The Half A Wannabee
Yes. I love it deeply. Just as it is. Why dont you bring up the quality
while I try to remove the bugs I created last night ?
PS: My program posted earlier can be used as a tool to crash window 98 on
purpose ! :-) Sorry about that one. It (seems) runs so smoothly on WinXP
...so I kind of hoped it would work on 98 also. Guess what ? I does, but
only when used as a tool to crash it. Rudy, are you one of the guys on the
Delphi team ? Maybe you can determine the source of the bug ? And comment on
it ? The link is supplied in post from me dated today. Im to tired today, 24
hours straight, but I would guess the first problem is with the paths. Maybe
windows 98 do not like Skin1\*.bmp as a path? But fixed that, if trashed
win98 completely, try to find the errors tomorrow, good night Rudy. Please
dont put me in the killfile ? I promise to shape up the minute the Hyde gang
stop acting like a bunch of greenfaced misfits god forgot about. I got news
for you Randall. God doesnt care about HLA. She loves you anyhow. And when
you get to heaven, you will be apointed the biggest computer you will ever
have dreamed of, and it will bear the name LISA. And you can play with her
as much as you like.Theres only one catch. You need to write an assembler
first. (hmm...maybe its in the FileExists proc ? ) Whatever, I look at it
tomorrow. Initiate unwinding......
To those of you who wrote software for cachin' machines.....Today , the
power went all over my part of town. Security Guard told me : You cant shop
now. But I have cach ! Cach man. (in norway that doesnt yet mean you're a
criminal). -No way, he says : They cant open the registry boxes, they cant
give change. - But I pay handsomly! And I dont care about the change,
because my cat is screaming at me for food, allthough she just had a portion
of fish that would end two grown men ! - Doesnt help ! (he laughs) Not at
me, I realize that. He laughs at the whole situation. Look. The store is
steaming with people, and guess what ? They are not looking at the walls, or
the floor, deeply consentrating on getting out of there as soon as possible.
They actually talk to each other. I hear laughter inside the store. A good
vibration spreads. Hey, they are having fun! How wonderful ! Then I think.
Why cant every day be like that, or at least 2 of the weekdays ? Look at
them, they are existed and glad to meet each other, in a dark store, in the
middle of a buisness day. The lights are gone, and they are happy. No need
to hide. Someone makes a comment. A comedian is born inside the store, and
gets lots of friendly laughter. Can you picture it ? For a minute there, I
wanted to run into the store and join them. Beeing together with basically
alive people. If only for a few minutes. But I walk away. Running my errand
in the small shop in front of the center. I found they are also computers
and cards now. I just want sigarette paper now. My options have narrowed. I
go in. The small shop is empty. The lights starts blinking....-Hey get me
100 papers as fast as possible. I pay almost $3 or closer to £2. I get out
thinking, maybe the light should come off more often...its fun..or at least,
theese people, normally dead, think its great fun. I just shake my head. I
want to download alt.lang.asm and see who gets a point in the ongoing battle
between Randy and Betov. Of course the winner is allready settled, but the
fight is not over. Oh there is Randal; got an uppercut, by saying : RosAsm
has week handling of user equates over 50000 ? You dont know shit about
programming! Then Betov, shakes his head thinking (poor proffessor) and says
: So where is your 2 mega asm source ? And Randall is flattened for all
eternity, knowing he could never pull of that in such short time. So he
basically start arguing against assembly. Who needs assembly ? All you need
is http://...pdf The standard library have all you need and more, and if
that doesnt please you, look at my other Standard library....and if that
doesnt please you then look at my linus Standardlibrary...and if that doesnt
please you look at AoA. And if that doesnt please you. Start using 1000
levels of nested macros. HLA can do sleeping 8ts of nested macros, and can
compute 50000 user equates in 7.8 seconds...on a 2Giga herz machine. And it
can du nested inc like this
Sub ( inc ( call KillMeNow( ( mov edi 00_A0A rep scasb( shl (mov ( inc( inc
( inc ( inc (ebx) ))), edx, ecx, TrashMem32), 2)) ) ), 50000)
Dont worry. The parentesis will keep things in order. And if you dont like
verbose, and unessesary typing you can write :
Sub(inc(call KillMeAtOnce((mov edi, 00_A0A rep
scasb(shl(mov(inc(inc(inc(inc(ebx)))),edx,ecx,mem32), 2)))),50000)
and save a few chars in the source.
Please Rudy , not the killfile.
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
>
>
hutch--
You would need to be a historian to know where it started. It goes
back to the win32asm forum where Betov started his ranting and raving
against my MASM32 project, Microsoft and anyone who used it. He was
eventually banned from the forum for his behaviour.
When I set up the masmforum I made sure Betov could post in there but
he is subject to rules that are enforced in terms of abuse or insults.
I first came into this newsgroup on a needs basis to defend myself
against that same stuff that he tried in the win32asm forum. Apart
from some good programmers in here and a number of interesting people,
this newsgroup is unmoderated so it is one of the few places where
Betov can keep up his criticism of people and their work.
While there is nothing that Betov can do that effects me or the
project I maintain, I draw the line at him attacking the user base of
the MASM32 project and my response will continue to be one of
attacking Betov, his project, his lack of programming skills, his
illegal use of commercial software and anything else that appeals and
I will keep doing so until he shuts his mouth.
The endless attacks in this newsgroup are not good for it and it
pisses many people off but there are alternatives, you are welcome to
join the masmforum at www.masmforum.com and while it is dedicated to
32 bit windows programming, there is a section for 16 bit DOS
prgramming as well.
You can be assured that any debates there are confined to the
Colosseum subforum and we have a very good team of moderators to
ensure members are not hassled or abused at all.
R.Wieser
af910ce4.04021...@posting.google.com...
> Rudy,
Hello Hutch
> You would need to be a historian to know where it started.
Actually, it *does not matter*. This "discusson" should have left this
newsgroup long ago. Personal vendetta's ought not be batteled in this
newsgroup.
> It goes
> back to the win32asm forum where Betov started his ranting and raving
> against my MASM32 project, Microsoft and anyone who used it. He was
> eventually banned from the forum for his behaviour.
>
> When I set up the masmforum I made sure Betov could post in there but
> he is subject to rules that are enforced in terms of abuse or insults.
:-) Maybe these sorts of rules should be enforced (either by a moderator,
or the group) here too :-)
> I first came into this newsgroup on a needs basis to defend myself
> against that same stuff that he tried in the win32asm forum. Apart
> from some good programmers in here and a number of interesting people,
> this newsgroup is unmoderated so it is one of the few places where
> Betov can keep up his criticism of people and their work.
You mention betov, but *any* person that wants to battle some war can (and
obviously does) battle his grief here :-(( Tha's not funny for anyone who
wants to talk about Assembly (as pertaining the name of this group), or has
a question about it.
> While there is nothing that Betov can do that effects me or the
> project I maintain, I draw the line at him attacking the user base of
> the MASM32 project and my response will continue to be one of
> attacking Betov, his project, his lack of programming skills, his
> illegal use of commercial software and anything else that appeals and
> I will keep doing so until he shuts his mouth.
I have no beef one way or the other. What I *do* mind is that this group is
detoriarating to a "I've got a gay boyfriend, and I'm stil fucking my
girlfriend" kind of farce. I've got several Tv-channels that will play this
kind of (unnamable) stuf out 24-7, and I'm not watching that either ...
> The endless attacks in this newsgroup are not good for it and it
> pisses many people off but there are alternatives, you are welcome to
> join the masmforum at www.masmforum.com and while it is dedicated to
> 32 bit windows programming, there is a section for 16 bit DOS
> prgramming as well.
I'm sorry, but you're advocating the "if you do not like it, just
leave" -kind of option. If I would accept your proposition, I would be
fleeing this group, *and anyone that regards wherever I'm going as "his
turf"*. This would mean that I would be going to one spot to the other,
just because someone claims that wherever I wanted to stay was his/her's
....
This group is ment as a meeting-place between people that want to talk about
Assembly. Any *and everyone* that wants to transend beyond it should look
for another place to do it.
> You can be assured that any debates there are confined to the
> Colosseum subforum and we have a very good team of moderators to
> ensure members are not hassled or abused at all.
Sorry, but I like to hear from/about the "normal" inhabitants of this group
(including Randall & Betov (in no particular order) ), but do *not* like to
be involved in their continuing personal battle. They are *both* screaming
in a room containing (mostly) un-biased people, in search of anyone that
will support their stance. Alas, I do not support either one of them, and I
think that this personal battle has gone long enough. ENOUGH ALREADY !
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Randall Hyde
"hutch--" <hu...@movsd.com> wrote in message
news:af910ce4.04021...@posting.google.com...
> smile,
>
> If you did not have tantrums on a regular basisa, HLA would support
> BetovAsm as well but you don't have the technical skills to produce an
> assembler that is good enough. MASM is good enough, FASM is good
> enough and so are some of the linux assemblers, what happened to
> BetovAsm ? Muhahahaha.
RosAsm doesn't support displacement optimization, forward referenced
equates, the output of linkable code, and many other features that HLA
requires. Even if I *loved* Rene and was dying to make HLA support
RosAsm, it just couldn't be done because of the weaknesses in the
RosAsm product.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Ben Yates
<snip>
>
> The endless attacks in this newsgroup are not good for it and it
> pisses many people off but there are alternatives, you are welcome to
> join the masmforum at www.masmforum.com and while it is dedicated to
> 32 bit windows programming, there is a section for 16 bit DOS
> prgramming as well.
And the solution for those of us who don't give a damn about x86 architecture?
This is alt.lang.asm, NOT alt.lang.asm.x86 nor is it alt.lang.masm!
Ben
RoWsRaIrTiEo
wrote:
>This is a MASM macro which I use for debugging system code (e.g. BIOS)
>
>diag3 macro letter, color
> pushf
> push ax
> push bx
> ifdifi <letter>, <al>
> mov al,letter
> endif
> mov ah,0eh
> ifb <color>
> mov bx,7
> else
> mov bh,0
> mov bl,color
> endif
> int 10h
> pop bx
> pop ax
> popf
>endm
>
>I put in code like this:
>
> diag3 <'A'>
Why this nasm macro in windows-xp (a dos window)
print a<white> and not a<yellow> if i write "diag 'a', 0eh"
%macro diag 0-2
pushf
push ax
push bx
%if %0 = 2
mov al, %1
mov bh, 0
mov bl, %2
%elif %0 = 1
mov al, %1
mov bx, 7
%else
mov al, 'A'
mov bx, 7
%endif
mov ah, 0eh
int 10h
pop bx
pop ax
popf
%endmacro
or if you prefer
%macro diag 0-2
pushf \\ pu ax \\ pu bx
%if %0 = 2
al = %1
bh = 0
bl = %2
%elif %0 = 1
al = %1
bx = 7
%else
al = 'A'
bx = 7
%endif
ah=0eh \\ int 10h
po bx \\ po ax \\ popf
%endmacro
if I have a .com file
______________
CPU 8086
ORG 100h
inizio:
...
...
ret
_____________
if si=0, si point to &inizio:?
hutch--
> Actually, it *does not matter*. This "discusson" should have left this
> newsgroup long ago. Personal vendetta's ought not be batteled in this
> newsgroup.
I agree with you but I did not start it and it was rampant in this
newsgroup well before I had Betov's comments reported to me from a
forum member. When Betov shuts his mouth and stops criticising other
people and their work, I will have nothing to say about it but as long
as he is indulged, he will continue.
> :-) Maybe these sorts of rules should be enforced (either by a moderator,
> or the group) here too :-)
Yes, an excellent idea, if it cannot be used as Betov's sh*t pit, it
would return to normal where assembler programmers could discuss
assembler without the invective.
> I'm sorry, but you're advocating the "if you do not like it, just
> leave" -kind of option. If I would accept your proposition, I would be
> fleeing this group, *and anyone that regards wherever I'm going as "his
> turf"*. This would mean that I would be going to one spot to the other,
> just because someone claims that wherever I wanted to stay was his/her's
No, you read me incorrectly, what I suggested was there is an
alternative to unmoderated newsgroups with moderated ones and
moderated forums. Your suggestion of getting this group moderated is a
good one and it would protect the members from Betov's bad table
manners.
> This group is ment as a meeting-place between people that want to talk about
> Assembly. Any *and everyone* that wants to transend beyond it should look
> for another place to do it.
Yes, you would achieve this with moderation of this news group. In the
masmforum, we only allow debate in one forum, the rest will remove any
aggressive postings.
> Sorry, but I like to hear from/about the "normal" inhabitants of this group
> (including Randall & Betov (in no particular order) ), but do *not* like to
> be involved in their continuing personal battle.
I have this much in common with Randy Hyde that I have been targetted
in much the same way for much the same reason and eventually you get
tired of the noise when you did not do anything to anyone and you
retaliate. In the context of Betov raving in here for years, someone
needs to shut him up, either his colleagues or supporters or
preferably a moderator. I doubt you would hear an angry word if this
was done.
luvr
go on only as long as _both_ parties agree to continue arguing?
I mean, if you get fed up with Betov, then ignore him - just stop replying
to his posts. He may keep trying to get your attention for a short while
(most likely, your _negative_ attention - i.e., through some kind of
"abusive" terms, whatever that may mean), but once you decide that you have
done enough to make your points clear and understood, to anyone who is
willing to understand them, there's no point in staying involved in the
exchange of ever more nastiness.
If you know you're OK, and you have sufficiently made your point, then why
would you keep letting him get at you? (After all, this isn't a US
Presidential election campaign, where common knowledge has it that the best
mud-slinger stands the best chances of victory... And even _that_ remains to
be seen... :-)
You know, "I'm OK - You're OK (unless you _really_ want to insist on being
Not OK - but, hey, that doesn't make _me_ any less OK!)"
--Luc.
Randall Hyde
>
> :-) Maybe these sorts of rules should be enforced (either by a moderator,
> or the group) here too :-)
comp.lang.asm.x86
You won't find any of Rene's B.S. over there.
If the free wheelin' style of this newsgroup really bothers you, I'd
strongly
recommend that you stop reading this newsgroup and switch over to
c.l.a.x. No sense making yourself suffer if this newsgroup really bothers
you.
>
> I'm sorry, but you're advocating the "if you do not like it, just
> leave" -kind of option. If I would accept your proposition, I would be
> fleeing this group, *and anyone that regards wherever I'm going as "his
> turf"*. This would mean that I would be going to one spot to the other,
> just because someone claims that wherever I wanted to stay was his/her's
> ....
> This group is ment as a meeting-place between people that want to talk
about
> Assembly. Any *and everyone* that wants to transend beyond it should
look
> for another place to do it.
Welcome to alt.lang.assembly :-)
The way it is is the way it is and it has been this way for as long as I
remember.
Long before Rene Tournois came along, there were others who behaved this
way. Long after Rene Tournois leaves, there will be others taking his place
(in fact, he seems to be training several protoges today).
At one time, comp.lang.asm.x86 was unmoderated. A dude by the name
of Scot Nudds forced the change there. Will Rene force that here? No.
Those who want a moderated experience can always go to comp.lang.asm.x86
or start their own PHP based forum on the internet (which is making
newsgroups
a bit obsolete).
> Sorry, but I like to hear from/about the "normal" inhabitants of this
group
> (including Randall & Betov (in no particular order) ), but do *not* like
to
> be involved in their continuing personal battle. They are *both*
screaming
> in a room containing (mostly) un-biased people, in search of anyone that
> will support their stance. Alas, I do not support either one of them, and
I
> think that this personal battle has gone long enough. ENOUGH ALREADY !
When you see a subject line like "tiresome ranting" and you poke in
to read the posts or participate in the posts, that's your own decision.
I've yet to see one of these personal battles where it's not real obvious
from the subject line what you're going to find in the thread. You have
the power: JUST REFUSE TO READ THE POSTS!
Back in the days of 300 baud transmission of usenet newsgroups from
site to site, endless ranting like this could be argued against on the
grounds
of wasted money and bandwidth. Prior to the arrival of the world-wide
web, one could argue that the pollution of these newsgroups with
messages like this diluted the technical information you could find.
But the importance of these newsgroups has diminished tremendously
over the past decade.
BTW, you might want to check out the "kill file" feature in your newsreader.
Don't want to read posts by people who seem to be engaged on constant
personal vendettas? No sweat, add 'em to the kill file. End of problem. You
don't have to read their posts anymore (though you may have to browse
through secondary posts referencing them still, but once again, just read
the subject line and steer clear of those subjects you don't want to read
about)
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
"Ben Yates" <ano...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:8c160850.0402...@posting.google.com...
>
> And the solution for those of us who don't give a damn about x86
architecture?
> This is alt.lang.asm, NOT alt.lang.asm.x86 nor is it alt.lang.masm!
Easy. Start your own forum on the net (or find one for your particular
architecture).
I've found that the technical content in such forums to be *much* higher
than
even the moderated newsgroups; and much more focused, too.
The newsgroups *used* to be an important place to obtain technical
information.
The explosion of the world-wide web destroyed that. You can generally get
an answer to a technical question much more rapidly in other locations on
the
net.
Now the newsgroups are more of a social phenomenon rather than a good
source of technical information.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Ed Beroset
> "R.Wieser" <rwieser-...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:402d9f60$0$152$e4fe...@dreader5.news.xs4all.nl...
>
>>leave" -kind of option. If I would accept your proposition, I would be
>>fleeing this group, *and anyone that regards wherever I'm going as "his
>>turf"*.
> Welcome to alt.lang.assembly :-)
> The way it is is the way it is and it has been this way for as long as I
> remember.
> Long before Rene Tournois came along, there were others who behaved this
> way. Long after Rene Tournois leaves, there will be others taking his place
> (in fact, he seems to be training several protoges today).
If you would resolve to be part of the solution, instead of part of the
problem, it would help. Rather than having this strictly enforced by
some external authority (as on web-based boards or on moderated usenet
groups like ccomp.lang.x86), I have this odd, anachronistic belief that
human beings should be capable of regulating themselves. It's like
littering -- some people will still litter, but if enough of us DON'T,
then the world is still a cleaner better place.
Anyway, enough of that. Speaking of a cleaner, better place, I am
thinking about writing a reformatter for assembly language code. My
thought was to use something like Perl to reformat unformatted or
inconsistently formatted assembly language source -- in short to have
something like "indent" (which reformats C code) for assembly language.
Does anybody know if such a tool already exists? I'll be writing mine
soon, but I wanted to make sure that I haven't overlooked something that
might already exist that would do the job to my satisfaction.
Ed
Phil Carmody
> Randall Hyde wrote:
> > "R.Wieser" <rwieser-...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> > news:402d9f60$0$152$e4fe...@dreader5.news.xs4all.nl...
> >
> >>I'm sorry, but you're advocating the "if you do not like it, just
> >>leave" -kind of option. If I would accept your proposition, I would be
> >>fleeing this group, *and anyone that regards wherever I'm going as "his
> >> turf"*.
>
> > Welcome to alt.lang.assembly :-)
> > The way it is is the way it is and it has been this way for as long as I
> > remember.
> > Long before Rene Tournois came along, there were others who behaved this
> > way. Long after Rene Tournois leaves, there will be others taking his place
> > (in fact, he seems to be training several protoges today).
>
> If you would resolve to be part of the solution, instead of part of
> the problem, it would help. Rather than having this strictly enforced
> by some external authority (as on web-based boards or on moderated
> usenet groups like ccomp.lang.x86), I have this odd, anachronistic
> belief that human beings should be capable of regulating themselves.
> It's like littering -- some people will still litter, but if enough of
> us DON'T, then the world is still a cleaner better place.
Agreed. I can easily killfile Betov and Hutch, but Randy contributes
too much for me to killfile. Like flamenco guitar -- it's a shame about
the god-awful clapping and wailing. Fortunately none of the mud-slingers'
viewpoints are ones that press my buttons at all, so I'm not even tempted
to join in 99% of the time.
> Anyway, enough of that. Speaking of a cleaner, better place, I am
> thinking about writing a reformatter for assembly language code. My
> thought was to use something like Perl to reformat unformatted or
> inconsistently formatted assembly language source -- in short to have
> something like "indent" (which reformats C code) for assembly
> language. Does anybody know if such a tool already exists? I'll be
> writing mine soon, but I wanted to make sure that I haven't overlooked
> something that might already exist that would do the job to my
> satisfaction.
It's a good idea. All I know is that emacs' automatic indentation
for asm mode is so bad that I prefer to be in text mode.
Having said that, when I'm writing parallel intertwined code, I like
to lay out my code in multiple columns for the different processing
streams, and any beautifier would probably muck that up. Being able
to shift all comments into a common column would be useful though.
Phil
--
Unpatched IE vulnerability: XSS in Unparsable XML Files
Description: Cross-Site Scripting on any site hosting files that
can be misrendered in MSXML
Reference: http://sec.greymagic.com/adv/gm013-ie/
Exploit: http://sec.greymagic.com/adv/gm013-ie/
Randall Hyde
"Ed Beroset" <ber...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:IssXb.5302$hm4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Randall Hyde wrote:
>
> If you would resolve to be part of the solution, instead of part of the
> problem, it would help. Rather than having this strictly enforced by
> some external authority (as on web-based boards or on moderated usenet
> groups like ccomp.lang.x86), I have this odd, anachronistic belief that
> human beings should be capable of regulating themselves. It's like
> littering -- some people will still litter, but if enough of us DON'T,
> then the world is still a cleaner better place.
Unfortunately, that doesn't work.
While I'm not at all as aggressive as Steve on this matter, I tend to
agree with him - Rene is incapable of being a good net citizen
and there is no reason to continue take the abuse I have from him.
Experience *has* shown that when the collective individuals in a forum
gang up and tell him "enough is enough" he tends to go away. As long
as there are some defending him, he just keeps continuing on his way
with his "holy war". It would be nice to think that you could ignore him
and he would go away; but four year's experience with alt.lang.asm
(particularly the early years) simply demonstrate that this is not true.
It's a shame it's gotten really nasty the past several months, and I whole-
heartedly agree that I've made my contributions to the problem. But like
Steve (Hutch) says -- where were you guys when Rene was making all
his remarks over the past couple of years? Why is it considered worse
when a couple of people who've been fairly passive finally get fed up
and fight back?
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Ben Yates
funny that this comes from one of the main abusers of the newsgroup.
Take my ball and go play somewhere else?
Wouldn't your posts be more on-topic in one of the newsgroups others
have listed?
Ben
Randall Hyde
>
> funny that this comes from one of the main abusers of the newsgroup.
> Take my ball and go play somewhere else?
> Wouldn't your posts be more on-topic in one of the newsgroups others
> have listed?
Again, read the subject line. If you don't like the subject, move on.
Otherwise, you're just being hypocritical by making posts like this one.
Don't like people who abuse the newsgroups? That's what the kill file
is for. Feel free to add my name to yours.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
R.Wieser
BSCXb.4358$tL3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[Snip]
> Again, read the subject line. If you don't like the subject, move on.
No Randal, that's not the way to go. :-\
This is a newsgroup targetted, as the name allready indicates, to talk about
*Assembly*. This is *not* the place to battle your personal battles. If
anyone should "move on"(1), it's you. Your current messages are in no way
connected to what this newsgroup is intended for.
(1) I do not nessesarily mean fully leave, but I do ask you to now move your
battle to a more apropriate area, as there are several newsgroups erected
just for such a purpose :-)
You are advocating total anarchism, claim the right to do anything you want,
anywhere you want. You are effectivily claiming rights by denying others
theirs ...
How long is it ago that you would get upset by Spammers posting in this
newsgroup ? And now ... now you have effectivily become one yourself :-\
> Don't like people who abuse the newsgroups? That's what the
> kill file is for.
No, it's not. It's the only thing we, the inhabitants of any newsgroup
*can* do, but with it we would effectivily turn a blind eye to your actions,
leaving you (and others) to bother the people that stray onto *our* (yours
as well as mine) turf.
> The newsgroups *used* to be an important place to obtain
> technical information.
> The explosion of the world-wide web destroyed that. You
> can generally get an answer to a technical question much
> more rapidly in other locations on the net.
And what makes you think that those places will not (allready) be invaded by
people that claim rights to that turf, just like you are doing here ? That
would effectivily deny all searchers access to the sought data, or they
should accept to be unwilling spectators in whatever someone wants to do ?
Do you *really* advocate the bringing into life of some sort of "internet
police", that will track any abusers and punish them accordingly ?
Please, rethink what you're doing, and try to lift this group from the
shambles it is currently in. Creating havoc is easy, the opposite much more
difficult. Are you up to that ?
I hope I can address your better side as I ask you to stop.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
By the way : It's not only you I'm adressing here. I think that if/when I
would replace your name by your adversary (Betov, that's you :-) the above
would not need to be rewritten much, if at all (alas ....).
Randall Hyde
>
> > Again, read the subject line. If you don't like the subject, move on.
>
> No Randal, that's not the way to go. :-\
Yes, it is.
> This is a newsgroup targetted, as the name allready indicates, to talk
about
> *Assembly*. This is *not* the place to battle your personal battles. If
> anyone should "move on"(1), it's you. Your current messages are in no way
> connected to what this newsgroup is intended for.
Uh, you are confusing me with Rene. Rene is the one with the Holy War.
Direct your criticism more appropriately.
>
> (1) I do not nessesarily mean fully leave, but I do ask you to now move
your
> battle to a more apropriate area, as there are several newsgroups erected
> just for such a purpose :-)
Sorta like your post, eh?
It's okay for Rene, it's okay for you, but someone I'm guilty of misusing
this newsgroup?
Last time I checked, this *was* an assembly newsgroups. And comments
about RosAsm (an assembler), good or bad, do seem appropriate here.
> You are advocating total anarchism, claim the right to do anything you
want,
> anywhere you want. You are effectivily claiming rights by denying others
> theirs ...
How am I denying someone their "rights"?
Seems to me *you're* the one doing the denying here.
I'm saying that if someone wants to post something here, let 'em
have at it. Yes, I am actually *defending* Rene's right to criticize
me all he wants in this newsgroup. It's one of the few newsgroups
that is unmoderated where one can make such statements. In that
sense, it serves a useful purpose. As I am the one who is most often
the target of such criticism, you'd think that I would be the one
wanting others to shut up. But, frankly, I welcome it. Again,
if you don't want to read it, *don't*. No one is putting a gun to
your head and saying "read this or I'll pull the trigger." Rene,
H.A.W., Hutch, Beth, etc., all have as much of a right to discuss
the failings of RosAsm or any other product to their heart's content.
It *is* assembly-related, after all. You may not like it, but then,
you *don't* have to participate.
>
> How long is it ago that you would get upset by Spammers posting in this
> newsgroup ? And now ... now you have effectivily become one yourself :-\
First of all, you don't see me complaining about spammers to this newsgroup.
It's easy enough for me to pass over all the messages and ignore them.
Seconds, there is a big difference between spam and the typical vindictive
Rene/Betov thread.
It's a shame people can't be civil around here, but you're directing your
comments to the wrong person. It has been shown in other forums already
that the moment Rene no longer posts, things go back to normal. So consider
the source. As for my participation in these attacks, hey, when *you've* put
up with this nonsense for four years straight and *you* behave differently,
then you'll have a leg to stand on with your complaints.
>
> No, it's not. It's the only thing we, the inhabitants of any newsgroup
> *can* do, but with it we would effectivily turn a blind eye to your
actions,
> leaving you (and others) to bother the people that stray onto *our* (yours
> as well as mine) turf.
So IOW, this newsgroup belongs to *you* and only material *you* approve
of is valid here. I'm sorry, I didn't notice that you'd become the
moderator.
I'll begin to respect your new position as the "topic police" when I start
seeing
you dealing with Rene and H.A.W. in an appropriate fashion.
> > The newsgroups *used* to be an important place to obtain
> > technical information.
> > The explosion of the world-wide web destroyed that. You
> > can generally get an answer to a technical question much
> > more rapidly in other locations on the net.
>
> And what makes you think that those places will not (allready) be invaded
by
> people that claim rights to that turf, just like you are doing here ?
That
> would effectivily deny all searchers access to the sought data, or they
> should accept to be unwilling spectators in whatever someone wants to do ?
I've seen what happens when Rene leaves such forums. Things get peaceful
again. I've also seen what it takes to chase Rene away from such forums.
You should email Hutch directly and have this discussion with him.
> Do you *really* advocate the bringing into life of some sort of "internet
> police", that will track any abusers and punish them accordingly ?
You seem to be the one advocating such.
And, to be perfectly honest, you need to direct your tirades where they
will do some good -- specifically towards Rene Tournois.
> Please, rethink what you're doing, and try to lift this group from the
> shambles it is currently in. Creating havoc is easy, the opposite much
more
> difficult. Are you up to that ?
It will never happen as long as Rene Tournois is posting here.
When he's gone, it will go back to normal. That fact has been
proven in other forums already.
>
> I hope I can address your better side as I ask you to stop.
So the attacks can go back to being one-sided again?
Why should I have to put up with this anymore?
Frankly, I put up with it for about four years.
Where were you before?
>
> By the way : It's not only you I'm adressing here. I think that if/when
I
> would replace your name by your adversary (Betov, that's you :-) the
above
> would not need to be rewritten much, if at all (alas ....).
As I've said, past history demonstrates what happens when Rene
stops posting.
And if you really believe what you're saying, I'd expect no response
to this post or any like it, as then *you're* just part of the problem too.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
The Half A Wannabee
For once I am in full and complete agreement with Randall. And I basically
must say that for once he is making perfect sense ;-)
So R Wiser, cant you initiate a discussion about asm, and interesting one?
Show me by example what you are wanting this group to be about. I have
posted some code here, but I dont expect for real that anyone would care to
check it out, as theese people are way to busy on their own projects, and if
they just debug my code for me, what will I have learned ? I may not have
the hots for HLA, but I learn some bits and pieces from the mails in this
NG, nevertheless. Remeber what Betov said ? The other On-Topic groups about
asm, are basically empty. Asm must be revitalized, and a fresh discussion
might help, at least to focus on asm as a topic. So people dumping in to
this NG, see that asm programmers are pationate and dedicated people, with
strong beliefs. I ran into this NG, because I was courious about Politics
and Philosofy and Graphics programming! I probably wouldnt have started asm
for real if it wore not for one of Beth off-topic post that cauth my google
search. I read some of her post back then when she was more off topic than
theese later days, and subscribed because of those posts, which still is my
favorties, unless shes ranting about HLA, when she does that, I agree with
Annie. Whatever. But having off topic post, is actually a very good thing.
It can attract people to this NG and after a while they might download the
various assemblers and start experimenting for themself, maybe just to see
what all the fuss is about. And then maybe some of them will find that they
want to stick with it... So off topic can also be a good thing. And the
ongoing fight between HLA (randy) and asm only (betov, frank,ect) and hex
(wolf) might be sort of a headline to have people comming to this NG.
Anyway. If indeed people are scared away from this NG, then that would not
be to bad either, they will find they have more time left to their asm
programming. ;- )
Toby Thain
> Randall Hyde wrote:
>
> > Welcome to alt.lang.assembly :-)
> > The way it is is the way it is and it has been this way for as long as I
> > remember.
> > Long before Rene Tournois came along, there were others who behaved this
> > way. Long after Rene Tournois leaves, there will be others taking his place
> > (in fact, he seems to be training several protoges today).
>
> If you would resolve to be part of the solution, instead of part of the
> problem, it would help. Rather than having this strictly enforced by
> some external authority (as on web-based boards or on moderated usenet
> groups like ccomp.lang.x86), I have this odd, anachronistic belief that
> human beings should be capable of regulating themselves. It's like
> littering -- some people will still litter, but if enough of us DON'T,
> then the world is still a cleaner better place.
Ed,
I agree with & fully support this stance as per my earlier complaint
about the ruination of this ng by some users. A non-x86 assembler
newsgroup could be a wonderful thing. Not all unmoderated groups are
as clogged with nonsense as this one. Let's hope they can clean up
their acts.
Toby
R.Wieser
(Live).mp3)_Hotmail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
Hello The Half A Wannabee,
> "Randall Hyde" <rand...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:PpUXb.5204$tL3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "R.Wieser" <rwieser-...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> > news:402ff1eb$0$147
>
> For once I am in full and complete agreement with Randall. And I basically
> must say that for once he is making perfect sense ;-)
Yes, he does. But than, about halfway in his message, he informs me that
the battle has been going on for over four years and several newsgroups now
...
At that moment his "it's about Assembly" does not stick anymore.
> So R Wiser, cant you initiate a discussion about asm, and interesting one?
Actually, I have not got much to talk about. But I will respond to a
question/discussion if I think I've got something to say. Don't you have
one that you could start ?
> Show me by example what you are wanting this group to be about.
Sorry ? You must be mistaking me with somebody else. It's not the lack
of input into this group I'm worried about. Currently it's the abundance of,
in my eyes unrelated, input that bothers me.
> I have posted some code here, but I dont expect for real
> that anyone would care to check it out, as theese people
> are way to busy on their own projects, and if they just
> debug my code for me, what will I have learned ?
Nothing.
Provided that they just dump the results of their observations in your lap,
instead of using those to try to steer you to where you can find the problem
yourself.
> I may not have the hots for HLA, but I learn some bits
> and pieces from the mails in this NG, nevertheless.
> Remeber what Betov said ? The other On-Topic groups
> about asm, are basically empty.
I do not remember him having said it (maybe because I just pick a message
here-and-there outof those threads, to see if the conversation has come back
to a discussion about Assembly, instead of one about personal
differences/preferences), but I can understand him, from his POV. However,
from the POV of other (starting ? hobby ?) Assembly-programmers there is a
lot interrest to be found in those newsgroups. It would be nice if both
groups could find something of interrest.
> Asm must be revitalized, and a fresh discussion might
> help, at least to focus on asm as a topic.
And you think that a thread that's all about personal differences is the
right one to interrest people about Assembly ? For some reason I doubt
that will work ...
> So people dumping in to this NG, see that asm programmers
> are pationate and dedicated people, with strong beliefs. I ran
> into this NG, because I was courious about Politics and
> Philosofy and Graphics programming!
:-) The first two are quite hard to combine. But to combine those with the
latter ... (which does not mean I cannot imagine that one person has a
affinity to all three of them. Just how you *combine* them.)
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
R.Wieser
Hello Randall,
> "R.Wieser" <rwieser-...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:402ff1eb$0$147
> >
> > > Again, read the subject line. If you don't like the subject, move on.
> >
> > No Randal, that's not the way to go. :-\
>
> Yes, it is.
Alas, A difference in viewpoints.
> > This is a newsgroup targetted, as the name allready indicates,
> > to talk about *Assembly*. This is *not* the place to battle
> > your personal battles. If anyone should "move on"(1), it's you.
> > Your current messages are in no way connected to what this
> > newsgroup is intended for.
>
> Uh, you are confusing me with Rene. Rene is the one with the
> Holy War.
> Direct your criticism more appropriately.
Am I misdirecting ? There seems to be a "multi-user" battle at play, in
which you play a role too (remember "Rene is a hypocrite (OK, what else is
new?)" ?) But you're right. I mistaked your name for Rene's, maybe
because you both are players in that battle.
> > (1) I do not nessesarily mean fully leave, but I do ask you to
> > now move your battle to a more apropriate area, as there are
> > several newsgroups erected just for such a purpose :-)
>
> Sorta like your post, eh?
> It's okay for Rene, it's okay for you, but someone I'm guilty of
> misusing this newsgroup?
I'm sorry, you're now going to tell me that you can go on stretching a
personal-battle -thread for weeks, but noone is permitted to ask you to stop
?
> Last time I checked, this *was* an assembly newsgroups.
> And comments about RosAsm (an assembler), good or bad,
> do seem appropriate here.
You're right, this *was* an Assembly newsgroup. Currently it's, as far as I
can see/tell, something quite different ...
Comments are apropriate here. Using those to attack a person is not.
> > You are advocating total anarchism, claim the right to do
> anything you want, anywhere you want. You are effectivily
> claiming rights by denying others theirs ...
>
> How am I denying someone their "rights"?
What about their right to use this group *as indicated*, for Assembly
regarded questions ?
> Seems to me *you're* the one doing the denying here.
Yes, I am. I'm denying others the right to dump fully unrelated (personal)
messages here. I allso deny people to, among others, advertize here, or to
post porn.
Are you advocating that it's anyone's right to post such/any material here ?
If so, why does this group have a name indicating a specialisation ? Be
carefull now, you're opening pandora's box ...
> I'm saying that if someone wants to post something here,
> let 'em have at it.
You're right. But only upto a point. That point has been passed, so I/we
ask you, and your opponent(s) to take your grieves somewhere else.
> Yes, I am actually *defending* Rene's right to criticize
> me all he wants in this newsgroup.
I'm defending *anyones* right to do such a thing. But I allso defend
anyones right to not sit in the middle of a mud-slinging contest. That
means that there are rights, and duties. The right is that you are allowed
to criticize, your duty is to keep it clean. One can't live without the
other.
> It's one of the few newsgroups that is unmoderated where
> one can make such statements. In that sense, it serves a
> useful purpose. As I am the one who is most often
> the target of such criticism, you'd think that I would be the
> one wanting others to shut up. But, frankly, I welcome it.
That's O.k. Any response posted here, either from you or from anybody else,
is read, and not everybody thinks the same about something (and that's apart
from making a mistake in an answer :-). So critique can be expected.
Strangely enough most of that critique dies out within a few day's ...
> Again, if you don't want to read it, *don't*. No one is
> putting a gun to your head and saying "read this or I'll
> pull the trigger."
Do you dislike Spam ? Why ? Noone is forcing you to read it :-)
> Rene, H.A.W., Hutch, Beth, etc., all have as much of
> a right to discuss the failings of RosAsm or any other
> product to their heart's content.
Yes, you have that right. But forgive me if I might seem blunt, your and
other responses are aiming at the person, not at his/her product.
> It *is* assembly-related, after all.
Is it ? For some reason I get the idea that the "discussion" has become a
battle in which Assembly is used as an excuse. And that's outside of the
fact that you guys/girls have been "at it" for quite some time now ...
> You may not like it, but then, you *don't* have to
> participate.
Some more of the "if you don't like it, just leave" kind of stuff ?
> > How long is it ago that you would get upset by Spammers
> > posting in this newsgroup ? And now ... now you have
> > effectivily become one yourself :-\
>
> First of all, you don't see me complaining about spammers
> to this newsgroup.
> It's easy enough for me to pass over all the messages and
> ignore them. Seconds, there is a big difference between
> spam and the typical vindictive Rene/Betov thread.
For you it might. For others it's different.
By the way : Thanks for calling the exchange between Rene & Betov
"vindictive". Do you *really* think that such "vindictive" conversations
should take place here ?
Sorry, you allready answered that. You really think that such stuff should
be batteled here/where-ever it takes place :-(
> It's a shame people can't be civil around here, but you're
> directing your comments to the wrong person.
Not quite, but you're could be right in that my message would maybe have
been better at it's place with either Betov or Rene.
> It has been shown in other forums already that the
> moment Rene no longer posts, things go back to normal.
You know, it's funny : I've tried, in the thread you started with the name
"Rene is a hypocrite (OK, what else is new?)", to find *any* response from
Rene Tournois. None found. Also, it seems that noone is posting here by
that name ...
> So consider the source. As for my participation in these
> attacks, hey, when *you've* put up with this nonsense
> for four years straight and *you* behave differently,
> then you'll have a leg to stand on with your complaints.
:-) I will never suggest that I could withstand such a pressure. I would
probably allso buckle under the strain. But I can try to get you back from
that place where you are now. You've shown yourself to be knowledgable
person, with a lot of good idea's.
> > No, it's not. It's the only thing we, the inhabitants of
> > any newsgroup *can* do, but with it we would
> > effectivily turn a blind eye to your actions, leaving
> > you (and others) to bother the people that stray onto
> > *our* (yours as well as mine) turf.
>
> So IOW, this newsgroup belongs to *you* and only
> material *you* approve of is valid here.
That's not what I tried to say in the above. I can't even imagine how
you did read that in there ... It's *our* turf, your's as well as mine.
*We* should make sure that *everyone* can "play" here, without creating too
much disturbance for the others. You know, rights & duties ?
> I'm sorry, I didn't notice that you'd become the
> moderator. I'll begin to respect your new position as
> the "topic police" when I start seeing you dealing with
> Rene and H.A.W. in an appropriate fashion.
You're right ofcourse.
You : "Deal with Rene & H.A.W. first"
The response from Renee : "Deal with Randall & H.A.W first".
The response from H.A.W : "Deal with Rene & Randal first".
And together it creates a nice dead-lock, and nothing will change. Sorry,
but you are far too clever not to realize that (actually, I'm getting the
notion I'm being "had" by a Troll ...)
> > > The newsgroups *used* to be an important place to
> > > obtain technical information.
> > > The explosion of the world-wide web destroyed that.
> > > You can generally get an answer to a technical question
> > > much more rapidly in other locations on the net.
> >
> > And what makes you think that those places will not (allready)
> > be invaded by people that claim rights to that turf, just like you
> > are doing here ?
> > That would effectivily deny all searchers access to the sought
> > data, or they should accept to be unwilling spectators in
> > whatever someone wants to do ?
>
> I've seen what happens when Rene leaves such forums. Things get peaceful
> again. I've also seen what it takes to chase Rene away from such forums.
> You should email Hutch directly and have this discussion with him.
>
> > Do you *really* advocate the bringing into life of some
> > sort of "internet police", that will track any abusers and
> > punish them accordingly ?
>
> You seem to be the one advocating such.
Not really. But it will happen when enough people will get fed up by
having to experience fights in their "streets". They want to be able to
walk thru their environment without being continuously carefull not
walking/being sucked into arguments they have got nothing to do with.
> And, to be perfectly honest, you need to direct your tirades where
> they will do some good -- specifically towards Rene Tournois.
I've directed my message at one of the players in this battle. If I could
find Rene, I maybe would send him the same sort of message too. A message
in which I'm trying to appell to your/his "better" side, and *ask* you/him
to stop this battle (or to move it to a more apropriate place)
> > Please, rethink what you're doing, and try to lift this group
> > from the shambles it is currently in. Creating havoc is easy,
> > the opposite much more difficult. Are you up to that ?
>
> It will never happen as long as Rene Tournois is posting here.
> When he's gone, it will go back to normal. That fact has been
> proven in other forums already.
>
> > I hope I can address your better side as I ask you to stop.
>
> So the attacks can go back to being one-sided again?
You claim that if we do not like it we should just ignore it. Why don't you
take your own advice to heart ?
> Why should I have to put up with this anymore?
> Frankly, I put up with it for about four years.
> Where were you before?
Not where you or Rene where obviously (lucky me !) :-)
But you're making it abundantly clear that your battle has got allmost
nothing to do with this newsgroup, but is, for over four years now, an
ongoing, personal battle. Why did you try to convince me otherwise ?
> > By the way : It's not only you I'm adressing here. I think that
> > if/when I would replace your name by your adversary (Betov,
> > that's you :-) the above would not need to be rewritten much,
> > if at all (alas ....).
>
> As I've said, past history demonstrates what happens when Rene
> stops posting.
I have no recollection of the history you and Rene share. What I do know is
that you two have, without regard to the inhabitants allready here, elected
to continue your battle in this group.
> And if you really believe what you're saying, I'd expect no
> response to this post or any like it, as then *you're* just
> part of the problem too.
Classic : Ye olde "if you're not for me, you're against me" response. Not
funny at all.
Maybe you did not notice, but I have no beef with you personally. But I do
have a problem with the group of people you're in which is, in my eyes,
abusing this newsgroup. As I allready mentioned, my message is as much
directed at other people of that group as it is at you.
You know, the above is so out-of-character to the Randall Hyde I have come
to know and respect, that I have the idea that 'm talking with a
impersonator, or a Troll. I certainly hope so ....
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Ben Yates
banned.
If that were the case, we'd have to ask Beth to leave :) (Just
kidding, but we wouldn't hear from her very often)
However, Randall, you _have_ brought yourself down to the level that
you suggest Rene is at. You _have_ launched multiple messages
attacking Rene. As a matter of fact, I don't recall those messages
being provoked. Perhaps they were, in some little reply by him, but it
looked more like a pre-emptory strike to me.
You haven't yet proved your claim that Betov has WMD.
And Rudy is correct when he says that those message that are off-topic
don't belong here. They wouldn't be called "off-topic" if they did
belong here.
And I would suggest you take a serious look at yourself and how you
have been acting. You are not acting like the professional you
supposedly are. Perhaps it is time to seek professional help?
Especially when one like the pathetic, wishy-washy "Half-a-Wannabee"
actually agrees with you on something.
Ben
qual1
Rene is Betov.
Look at what Randall is saying. Take his circumstance and put yourself
in his shoes? after turning your cheek so long you get tired of it, and
you have to fight to defend yourself. This is Randall's response.
While it may not be what you want or any of us want it must take place.
Otherwise people like Rene can do whatever they want.
Newsgroups and print give you the ability to censor what you want to
read. If you don't like a certain article or stance you do not have to
read these articles. That is what freedom is about. While I disagree
with Rene, Half a wannabe, and others of Rene's group, in an unmoderated
newsgroup they can express their opinions and ideas.
That doesn't mean I always agree or that I have to be quiet about them.
So how do you get two parties to quit fighting without getting yourself
involved when you have no ability to stop the fighting? What strategy
would work? Change the fight? Change the arguement? Change the rules?
How when everything is complete Chaos? Self Defense by a group? That is
a great idea. However you have to choose a side. Rene, Randall, neither.
Each one of these requires a choice and convition to see it through.
If I'm not in the mood to listen to people i just ignore their post for
awhile. Then I check in and see if anything has changed, post an
opinion, read some programming examples, listen to arguments that is the
freedom of this newsgroup.
Regards,
John
qual1
> I really don't think Rudy is suggesting that all off-topic messages be
> banned.
> If that were the case, we'd have to ask Beth to leave :) (Just
> kidding, but we wouldn't hear from her very often)
>
Ben,
How come everyone wants people to be moral and ethical, yet not stand up
for their rights?
> However, Randall, you _have_ brought yourself down to the level that
> you suggest Rene is at. You _have_ launched multiple messages
> attacking Rene. As a matter of fact, I don't recall those messages
> being provoked. Perhaps they were, in some little reply by him, but it
> looked more like a pre-emptory strike to me.
>
Just because they were not provoked in a post a few minutes or days
before doesn't mean they were not provoked way before this time.
> You haven't yet proved your claim that Betov has WMD.
>
What planet are you on? Just cause in the last couple of days Betov
hasn't opened his trap doesn't mean that he has never done anything.
> And Rudy is correct when he says that those message that are off-topic
> don't belong here. They wouldn't be called "off-topic" if they did
> belong here.
>
I agree it would be nice if reality conformed to this assumption. How do
you enforce it? Without going to a lower level?
> And I would suggest you take a serious look at yourself and how you
> have been acting. You are not acting like the professional you
> supposedly are. Perhaps it is time to seek professional help?
Yes a professional that has to endure years of abuse sounds like a good
argument for someone who beats their wife. Its the wifes fault because
she shouldn't fight back. Or when bullies gang up on someone the little
nerd should keep getting his ass kicked as it is much better to take the
high ground than to defend your-self against cowards and bullies.
>
> Especially when one like the pathetic, wishy-washy "Half-a-Wannabee"
> actually agrees with you on something.
>
Glad to see your not involved in this conflict.
> Be
If you look to world war II history, appeasement never works on this
mentality. Only overwhelming force. So Betov deserves and requires an
opposeing argument. Otherwise people only hear his bullshit and start to
believe it.
R.Wieser
c0qug0$29t$1...@news.netins.net...
Hello qual1,
> Rudy,
> Rene is Betov.
Somewhere I got the notion that would be the case. I took a quick peek on
Betov's site, but not confirm it.
I've read the arguments in your message, and think I've allready responded
to most, if not all of them (in other messages in this thread), so I'm going
to keep this message short.
My message was a request to Randall to stop, at least in this newsgroup,
this/his battle, nothing more.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Beth
> R.Wieser wrote:
> > I'm close to kill-filing both of
> > you for a while.
> >
> > Is that what either of you guys want ?
>
> Oh I like to hear the follow up to this one. Please Wieser (Wise-r
;-) )
Actually, it's said more like "vee-zer" and describes someone who
lives near a patch of meadowland, coming from the Old High German of
"wisa = meadow"...
You see, the concept of a "surname" is of Germanic origin and actually
stems from actual descriptions of people or what their occupation is
(e.g. "Meyer" apparently means "chicken farmer"...you can see this
Germanic influence come over into English surnames such as "Baker" or
"Smith" (though people tend to only remember "blacksmiths" as an
occupation these days, the actual job was "smithing" and a
"blacksmith" was a particular type that dealt with iron...the black
coming from the black smoke of the furnace because of the additional
heat and materials being burnt to get enough heat out of the forge for
their particular brand of "smithing"...but, yes, there were also
"whitesmiths" and such, which did other types of smithing works at
their respectively different types of forges :)...
For example, people say "Leonardo Da Vinci" but, in fact, he was just
"Leonardo" ("Da Vinci" is easily explained as the modern thing to call
him when you realise that he was born in the town of "Vinci"...yup, it
just means "from Vinci" :)...you'll also note that all the names in
the Bibles are without surnames too: Peter, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke,
Mary, Jospeh, etc....and, of course, "Christ" is not a surname but a
description meaning "Saviour" (hence, why the name of that new Mel
Gibson film has "the Christ" in the title - "the Passion of the
Christ" rather than just "the Passion of Christ"...although, to most
people - certainly Christians - there is only one "Christ" so the
definite article of "the" is usually redundent that it's
dropped...which interestingly suggests that the name "the Passion of
the Christ" has been chosen, as they always select film names with
unbelievable amounts of care that there is no such thing as an
"accident" with these things, to delibrately appeal the film to
non-Christians in a small way by not presuming "the" as all Christians
would because there's only one Christ but have put the "the" back in
as if to _emphasise_ to non-believers that Jesus was _the_ Christ or
"Saviour" or "Messiah"...kind of lets you know what angle the movie is
taking that, yes, it's choosing to account for non-believers too, but,
yeah, expect it to be _evangelising_ as it tells the story...it's like
the very title itself is saying that the film is trying to make the
case that Jesus was _the_ Christ :)...
Also, names like "McDonald" actually means "son of Donald" (Scottish
way) or "O'Reilly" is "(son / daughter) of Reilly" (this Irish one is
more clear because only the "f" is missing from it literally being "of
Reilly", which is what the apostrophe is standing for ;) and "Davies"
is the Welsh way...the Celts actually used a different system
originally...people would only have one actual name but you would call
them "Paul son of Donald"...but when the Germanic influence came over
with the Anglo-Saxons - who turned into the English later on - all
that stuff got "standardised" into the Germanic way of having
"surnames"...so, if someone was "McDonald" (son of Donald) then it was
_fixed_ at that point and the new "surname" system (a family name that
passes down the male branch of the family) was adopted from then
on...interestingly, though, the different Celtic nations were all
"fixed" to use the new system using different methods...hence,
"McSomething" is the Scottish way, "O'Something" is the Irish way and
the Welsh way is "Something-es" (such as "Jones = Son of John",
"Davies = Son of David", etc....Germans should recognise the practice
of sticking "-s" or "-es" at the end to show possession directly but
English speakers can recognise this if they swap the names around and
make it "apostrophe ess"...e.g. "James Earl Jones = John's James Earl"
:)...so, what's interesting to note is how many Black Americans seem
to use the Welsh encoding system of "Jones", "Davies", etc. which
suggests - as it was common practice that slaves were simply given the
surname of their slave masters (because, again, didn't originally have
surnames until it was forced upon them under the Germanic / English
system) - that the Welsh were often involved with the slave trade in
America...they won't thank me for pointing that out but, well, it's
the most obvious explanation for names like "James Earl Jones"...on
the other hand, it wasn't all them because we see names like "Johnson"
(again, almost a literal "son of John" there...this is the more
Scandinavian way of encoding things...Icelanders still more or less
use the "-son" or "-dottir" (daughter) system, as is :)...
Surnames (also known as "family names"...the reason for the different
terms is because of some "bias" in the original terms...for example,
it's often referred to as "Christian name / surname" and the
"Christian" part is clearly biased to Christianity that to be more
"multi-cultural", the more modern terms are "first name / family name"
which refers to what they are directly without the cultural or
religious biases ;) are actually a somewhat "recent" invention...I
suppose, when people lived in smaller villages and things, it wasn't
particularly difficult to keep track of which "John" was which and
there weren't any great governmental records recording this
information...but as things went "city sized" and there was more
formal organisation and records on people and stuff, you did basically
need a way to tell which "John" was which...and this system we know
now grew out of people colloquially saying things like "John the
Baker" (because everyone in a village would know who the baker was
that this name tells "John the Baker" apart from "John the Smith" :)
or "Rudy the meadow-dweller" or "Richard the chicken farmer"...these
turned into shortened versions like "John Baker" / "John Smith" /
"Rudy Wieser" / "Richard Meyer" and so on...and then this "family
name" system has slowly spread all over the world (not a difficult
transition, in fact, because it was pretty common pretty much
everywhere to use some kind of "son of..." / "daugher of..." naming
system to tell people apart, anyway...the Celtic "McDonald" is an
obvious example but this practice - because it's kind of an "obvious"
way to tell the difference: "Which John do you mean?" / "You know,
John son of David son of Peter" (_very unlikely_ that the names would
be "coincidental" for too many generations that this method was a good
_practical_ method :) / "Oh, _that_ John...yeah, I know him!" - was
quite usual all over the world...that wasn't really any
"standardisation", though...it was just the most obvious way to tell
people apart...just say who their parents were and it's pretty
unlikely that every "John" had a father called "David", especially
when, simply, there were less people and smaller towns, villages and
cities back then, with people not travelling very far from their home,
that this was almost always a good enough "natural" system to
use...also, it wasn't only the Germanic influence that used _jobs_ and
_occupations_ or other descriptions to tell people apart...as I'm sure
you know, the Native Americans also would use very descriptive names
about the way people looked or the place they were born or the
tradition of naming a child after the first thing you saw after they
were born, which kind of eliminated the chance of too many
"coincidental" names like "dead bull next to running water" or
whatever...quite an ingenious solution there, to be honest...simply
widen the scope of possible names that "coincidences" are less likely
than to work out some "system" of telling a hundred people called
"John" apart by other means ;)...
Anyway, "Weiser" ("ei" rather than "ie"...pronounced something like
"vice-er" in English :) would be the "wise person" name you're looking
for...although, you have to be careful here because it could also be a
contraction of "Weiss" (another common surname in its own right :),
which means "white", not "wise"...the surname "white" simply referring
to someone with white hair or pale skin or something else literally
referring to the colour white...
[ What does "Stone" refer to? Apparently, it's a bit on the literal
side, meaning that the person was born next to some famous
stone...say, around Britain here - because, as far as I know about the
history, my family doesn't come from anywhere else (unlike, say,
Americans, where ultimately everyone - except the Native Americans -
actually comes from elsewhere in the not-that-distant past ;) - an
ancestor was born near some standing stones (something like Stonehenge
:) somewhere...or perhaps some mountain that was always locally
referred to as a "stone" or whatever...obviously, there's no point
looking up "Wannabee", though, as it's not a proper name and we
already know what it refers to and means in this context...someone who
"wants to be" something or another ;) ]
Beth :)
qual1
However reality doesn't seem to conform to this, and I am also adding to
this bull. So I apologize for the people who unintentionally read it.
Those who are hope you have some fun with it.
To each their own. So long as you don't force it on me.Which is what
Rene does.
Regards,
John
Beth
> Rudy wrote:
> > :-) Maybe these sorts of rules should be enforced (either by a
moderator,
> > or the group) here too :-)
>
> comp.lang.asm.x86
> You won't find any of Rene's B.S. over there.
> If the free wheelin' style of this newsgroup really bothers you, I'd
> strongly
> recommend that you stop reading this newsgroup and switch over to
> c.l.a.x. No sense making yourself suffer if this newsgroup really
bothers
> you.
Presuming, of course - though, it's pretty likely because it dominates
in the 90% range - that the poster is interested in _x86_
assembly...because, technically, CLAX is only x86 while this group is
(supposedly) about any assembly language on any platform...
But, yeah, in practice, everyone here presumes x86 and it's usually a
99% "safe" presumption, as 99% of the time that's exactly what someone
_is_, indeed, interested in...just being "pedantic" to remind that ALA
is technically not only x86 assembly language (even though, looking at
the group, you could be here for years without seeing anything but x86
assembly mentioned...and, in responses, most people jump immediately
to presuming an x86 PC because the odds that you're wrong are very low
;)...
Actually, this reminds me of a series of articles I read about whether
books and magazines should come under the same kind of "censorship"
rules as movies...you know, a kid gets "carded" about his / her age
when s/he wants to take out "Lady Chatterley's Lover" or something
else "inappropriate" from the public library...
And various authors wrote in the articles their opinion...which
broadly fell into two categories: "Yes, there should be an 'authority'
to censor things" (though _few_ actually subscribed to this because
authors are very cautious in remembering Nazi book burning and other
things throughout history where such "censorship" was simply used to
bully and oppress people...people might sometimes think that the
internet invented the notion of "all information should be free as in
freedom", as GNU and FSF promote today...but, if you consider what a
public library does - allows people to loan books for free (you only
pay when you're late returning the book, as an "inconvenience" charge
and to basically put people off the idea of simply stealing the
books...you get charged "late fees" and if you still don't return it
then you'll simply be asked to pay for a replacement book to re-stock
the library ;) - then it has been advocating "information is free (as
in freedom)" for years...as does the idea in Western nations that
_everyone_ deserves an education...which, in fact, goes to the
opposite extreme of it being _illegal_ to try to deny a child this
"right" to education...well, it wasn't that long ago when children
were sent down coalmines or up chimneys and the _money_ the kids
brought in was often so important to a poor family that, without
making it illegal not to send a kid to school, then practically
everyone would send them off to make more money for the family than
give them an education) and "No, there should be NO censorship at
all...the discretion for censorship should rest on the reader"...
The argument is very compelling but I whole-heartedly side, in fact,
with _self-censorship_...when an "authority" does this stuff, we find
things like films which highlight something anti-government or voicing
some political protest or whatever suddenly get "banned"...indeed, we
don't want people thinking any "ThoughtCrimes", do we?
And there's a simple _practical_ problem here, anyway: You're a vegan,
for example, and there's a film featuring people eating animals...this
could very well offend someone who's "devout" in their vegetarianism
for _ethical_ reasons...they may find the very sight of meat - a dead
carcass, after all - to be vile to their tastes and political
views...but what authority is going to "ban" or "censor" a film which
features, say, people eating chicken drumsticks, biting the meat off
the bone directly? Yet, if you think these people are being "too
sensitive", then the sight of a dead _human_ carcass - especially if
being eaten away by vultures - would almost certainly come under
strict censorship...so, really, the only difference here is that they
feel the same way about animals as most people would feel about the
sight of human flesh being ripped apart and eaten...to such people, a
simple film featuring a big "feast" - say, a film about Robin Hood and
we're watching the Sheriff of Nottingham have a big feast, where the
table manners are medieval so a completely recognisable pig carcass is
brought in and bits of flesh are just ripped off and eaten using teeth
and hands in what might be considered a "barbaric" fashion to modern
"table manners" (but was perfectly normally and natural then that this
film is simply trying to be more "accurate" to historical facts :) -
is as much a "horror movie" to their sensibilities as watching some
"explicit violence" Jack the Ripper movie...
And, for example, something like "The Exorcist" was completely
_banned_...not just given an "adult" rating but prohibited from being
shown at all...this, undoubtedly, was because it was not only a
"horror movie" but was one with a "religious" theme and "devils and
demons" and possession, so you can understand this being particularly
sensitive to religious people (more than that, Christians mainly
because of the use of cruxafixes and the devil and so forth)...but
what about some aethist or agnostic or someone who has a completely
different religion without "devils" or "demons" or any significance to
cruxafixes at all (such as, say, Buddhism or Shintoism...which might
not be the biggest but aren't "minority" religions at all that they
should be ignored in a "multi-cultural society")? To such people,
isn't it just an ordinary "horror movie" with some Christian
references in it but, like, that doesn't bother them too much...in
fact, though many Christian people might have walked out of the cinema
rushing to see their priest and demanding that it's banned forever,
these other people - a perfectly valid audience for the film - simply
see it in the same "tacky special effects" way that the film is now
seen in modern times by everyone when it was "un-banned" eventually...
A "Clockwork Orange" was also originally completely banned...and
though it does have violence in it, one really, really has to question
whether it was this violence (there's worse in Platoon or some of the
older Arnie or Sly movies by far...there was a period of time - late
80s or so - when they practically delighted in having special effects
to show every single bullet from a machine gun explode into tons of
blood spewing out of a body jumping around from the force of all the
bullets landing in them...I mean, literal _glorification_ and
_titilation_ from totally explicit violence and that stuff passes by
with just a comparatively minor rating ;) or the fact that the "hero"
is basically _politically_ objectionable to those in power...the
actual worry that got it banned being more about young people copying
the anarchy and anti-establishment ways of the "hero"...oh, indeed,
many films are "banned" not on the strength of the content
specifically but on the worries those in power have about it perhaps
putting the wrong thoughts - Orwell's "ThoughtCrimes" - into ordinary
docile citizens' heads...
And the argument boiled down to considering what benefits the two
acrue...if an authority censors things then the advantage is that you
never risk seeing anything you don't want to see (e.g. the film
censors watching "The Exorcist" on your behalf and deem it
"inappropriate" so that you don't have to watch even a frame of the
film to be "protected" from its contents)...the disadvantages are that
it can be used as a tool to control people and what the film censors
reckon is "inappropriate", you might not agree with (for example, I am
personally a pacifist...I don't agree with violence at all...but, on
the other hand, I Love things like "Kill Bill" or "The Last Samurai"
or martial arts movies...that whole "Bushido" (way of the warrior)
thing about "honour" and "self-discipline" is kind of like a modern
version of "knights and damsels in distress" chivalry...just that the
women are permitted to kick butt as much as the men with Uma waving
here Katana sword around...there's a distinction with me between real
violence and movie violence...even the actually historical stuff in
"The Last Samurai" is different because it's happened already so
nothing can be done about it...and the fictious stuff is, well,
fictious...it's not actually real and if there really are stupid
people out there who think it's supposed to be some kind of "role
model" then, sorry, such people have _already_ got a screw loose and a
detachment from reality...that is, if someone watches some movie then
goes on a shotgun rampage then it's silly to blame the movie because
if this person is so easily spurred on to grab a shotgun and doesn't
hesitate to blow people up with it, then they were _already_ a
danger...if not this movie then they'd be "pushed over the edge" by a
particularly annoying post office queue or someone parking their car
in the wrong place...and we basically _know_ that's true because the
ones that aren't connected to "watching a violent movie" are almost
always about someone getting "road rage" in a big traffic jam and
_that_ is the thing that pushes them over the edge...the "source" is
inside these psychopathic minds, not on any reels of celluloid...
Anyway, one way to understand my perspective is to consider the guy
slipping on the banana skin...the comic slips and actually lands hard
on his butt, which has got to hurt...or when the comedian Vic Reeves
pulls out a really big "comedy frying pan" and pretends to smack his
side-kick Bob Mortimer on the head with it (and you hear a suitably
"comic" cartoon "clang!" sound effect :) then that's hilariously
funny...but, of course, it would be completely different if that was a
_real_ frying pan and it was _real_ violence and we were forced to
watch someone being beaten to death with unrestrained violence, which
is _actually happening_...
There's a _clear distinction_ between "escapism" and factual
accounting..."Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is simply humourous escapism
(the creators don't take themselves seriously, let alone the audience
;)...documentary footage of Nazis throwing dead bodies into a mass
grave or the mountain of spectacles they collected off their victims,
on the other hand, is footage that is literally engraved into my brain
as a kind of "waking nightmare" whenever I think about it...
It's actually kind of worrying to hear some people talk about "censor
Buffy!" or whatever, because that kind of suggests they _can't_
distinguish between humour and simple escapism with actual
reality...sounds, ironically, like exactly the kind of people who
might one day go on that "shotgun rampage" through a shopping
centre...because they have a strange thing in their minds - because
they are voicing this when they condemn movies for being "poor role
models" - that you're supposed to emulate everything you see a main
character do accurately...who the fudge put this weird idea in their
heads that characters in a movie must always be "role models" and
"heroes"? Exactly...I'd suggest, therefore, that it's actually safer
for society to _show more_ main characters in movies who are clearly
NOT "role models" at all so that these people get the message that
movies are NOT automatically meant to be "role models" and that they
_DON'T_ have to be about giving a "moral message"...Hollywoods being
doing that crap so long that many people simply believe it's not
possible to be any other way...so, in fact, let's have some movies
about Jack the Ripper or terrorists or other things that clearly
_AREN'T_ "role models" so that people get the point that they are NOT
supposed to automatically copy whatever they see on the screen...
Whereas, the sole disadvantage of "self-censorship" is that you might
have to watch a little of "The Exorcist" to realise that you don't
want to see it...you might, indeed, catch a glimpse of a nude body
because you didn't realise that the movie had some mildly pornographic
"sex scenes" in it...yes, you _might_ catch a glimpse of something you
didn't want to see...and, yeah, it might be offensive and it might
give you a nightmare...but, then again, it's the _news_ that frightens
me more than anything...that stuff is _actually happening_ out
there...that's very frightening and, hey, they show that at any time
of the day because such "factual reporting" is partially excused the
usual rules about what can and can't be shown...
You may disagree but I think "Freedom of Speech" ranks as a far higher
priority than some short, mild things you didn't like flashing up on
the screen before you _choose_ - with "self-censorship" - to walk
away...and, you know, there's something more to this...because one of
the actual reasons many people call for censorship by authorities is
they know they are too weak to resist themselves...yes,
really...because isn't the "delight" on something like "the Weakest
Link" all about how Anne Robinson insults the contestants and forces
them to make harsh judgements on each other? Isn't "Big Brother"
delibrately about causing problems amongst "house mates" so we can all
stare at the "car crash" of them crying all upset in the diary room?
Because the truth that these people know deep down is that were it
legal and socially acceptable to still "throw Christians to the lions"
in a gladiator's arena, they'd go and watch...and probably cheer along
even...these modern game shows are merely as close as is legally
possible to such a situation...as Ben Elton's novel delibrately plays
on by setting a murder mystery inside a "Big Brother"-like house, that
is ultimately what people are watching in their millions to Hopefully
see...
In this context, censorship is _WRONG_...when people are "nanny'd"
like this, then, yes, some people start getting the weird idea that
every movie they see is meant to be a "role model" of perfect
behaviour to them...when people are "nanny'd" like this, then they
don't develop the restraint and self-control to simply walk away
(there was a TV documentary programme on before that was clearly, to
my mind, all about exploiting people's _real_ suffering for
ratings...I was offended by that notion and I walked out...but what
was interesting was that the other people around me agreed with my
point but still watched, saying "oh, we have to look at it to see if
it's really as bad as that"...total "car crash staring" TV...I was
having none of it and if it gets some millions of viewers rating then
I was NOT going to be among that number...but I was actually amazed at
how people - people I know - simply couldn't do it...like: "Are you
actually enjoying this? Do you agree with it? If not, _SWITCH OFF THE
TV_!" and they would say "Yes, it's terrible" but could not somehow
bring themselves to look away or press the "off" button...hey, I've
stared at car crashes myself and I Love watching TV but, this time,
being on the "outside", it was actually frightening to see the hold it
could have on people...and I think "censorship" from "authority"
actually _steals_ people's abilities to do so...they get so "nanny'd"
by it all that when the responsibility is squarely on their own
shoulders, people often simply _lack_ the necessary skills to actually
do this...that, to my mind, does more harm than good)...
So, all in all, I believe squarely in the "self-censorship" side of
this argument...totally...even if, indeed, I get exposed to some
neo-Nazi ranting away..."Freedom of Speech" is a far higher
priority...and we only _learn_ the necessary skills of
"self-censorship" by doing it...so, again, I DO NOT use a
"killfile"...I rely on _myself_ to ignore what I do not want to
read...it's also why, when posting to multiple groups was simply
overwhelming me because I like to read everything and make lots of
responses, it was this _unmoderated_ group I settled with...and, oh
yeah, I'm regularly offended and insulted and goodness knows what
here, where in CLAX I'd basically be "safe" as Chuck would never
approve of such nonsense...but, then again, Chuck would also not
approve my posts on occasion either (he actually tends to usually let
me through automatically because he knows I contribute well when
on-topic...but he has stopped things that went totally off the point
and, as moderator - the "official" censor - then, in his shoes, I'd be
less tolerant of what I post than he is...contradictory? Not at
all...I don't believe in censorship BUT if I was made a censor myself
then I would fully respect the responsibilities of that duty...much
like I generally avoid any great amount of swearing on this
group...when I'm annoyed, I let it slip and, indeed, I can swear like
a troop, lest you think me some "innocent angel" or something because
I ain't, I guarantee you...but, simply, I started programming at a
young age and some other kid might be here...mind you, then again, I'm
also not quite so brain-dead as to actually believe that kids don't
swear or don't try to get alcohol underage or watch movies they're not
supposed to...if I did swear, the truth is, I'd hardly be teaching
anyone in this day and age any word they don't already know
themselves...it's just a question of not encouraging that or making it
"acceptable" or whatever...which is actually more a thing to "protect"
parents and older folk rather than the kids...because the kids don't
give a flying fudge about this at all, as we all _know_...but, well,
parents and older folk would not approve so, as it isn't actually ever
"necessary" to swear, then there's no problems adhering to those
social conventions...personally, I honestly don't give a **** but
others do, so I can respect that for their benefit ;)...
And, really, it's a bit of "nanny state" and an avoidance of parental
duties to kind of say: "oh, so long as some 'authority' approves of
this as being for kids then I don't need to verify this myself and can
just leave the kids in front of the TV"...it actually kind of
"encourages" many parents to NOT be interested in their kids but plonk
them down in front of the TV and so long as the "rating" says
"approved for children" then they let them watch any old crap...after
all, that purple "Barney the dinosaur"? Pure evil...and you know what
is one of the most frightening images I've ever seen on a TV screen in
the past few years? No, nothing out of any "horror movie" or "war
film" but actually that incredibly spooky "Sun with a baby's face"
thing on the Teletubbies that giggles and stares at you...and the
strange Orwellian speakers that rise out of the ground to tell the
Teletubbies what "orders" they must fulfill...and the eerie
"perfectness" of that bizarre world they live in...it scares me rigid
does that "Teletubbies"...I'm sure it's neo-Nazi propoganda or
something in disguise...well, perhaps not, if that purple one with the
handbag is actually supposed to be gay...but something strange is
going on with that programme...there's some "hidden agenda" to
it...perhaps there's some subliminal messages or something in
it...whatever it is, that supposedly "for small kids" TV show is one
of the most frightening things I've seen for a long while...hey, don't
laugh...watch it yourself once to see exactly what I mean...I don't
know exactly what it is but it really does feel as if it's some "Nazi
youth" propoganda film or something...
Brrr *shiver*
Beth ;)
T.M. Sommers
>
> Also, names like "McDonald" actually means "son of Donald" (Scottish
> way)
The 'Scottish way' is 'MacDonald'.
> or "O'Reilly" is "(son / daughter) of Reilly"
The feminine form is 'na' or 'ni', I forget which, or maybe both.
Alex McDonald
news:oYicnYTBQuw...@ptd.net...
> Beth wrote:
> >
> > Also, names like "McDonald" actually means "son of Donald" (Scottish
> > way)
>
> The 'Scottish way' is 'MacDonald'.
Either is acceptable; it's common to find family switches between Mac and Mc
especially in the 18th & 19th centuries, and switches between MacDonald,
McDonald and McDonnell, with variants Macdonald, Mcdonald etc.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
hutch--
I well understand why members interested in writing assembler don't
want this newsgroup turned into a circus but it was already a circus
before either Randy or myself started to respond to the criticism and
abuse coming from Betov. In my own case, it was members of another
forum that pointed me here because of the stuff that Betov was
posting.
It is an unfortunate phenomenon that working systems of people
interacting are subject to damage and interference but it is an
internet wide problem that requires a different method to deal with
it. I used to support assembler using the IRC medium and it used to
work well where you could directly deal with programmers from around
the world but over time you started to get another class of members
turning up that andlessly argued and fought and did not care what the
effect was on other members.
The result was most of the decent people left and the idiots took
over. The problem is in fact that on the internet, any open medium is
subject to abuse as the people who make the trouble are not
accountable and can just keep hammering away with no regard for any
others.
I tolerated the nonsense that came out of Betov for some years but
eventually I got tired of the abuse and the other nonsense so I took
the battle directly to where Betov has been let loose the longest and
returned the attack as it is the only way to shut him up. The bottom
line with Betov is that I don't agree with his crackpot political
theory, his views on software development, his views on software
ownership and licencing and his views on his right to repeatedly
criticise other people and their work.
I don't personally give a stuff what he does as long as he does not
keep inflicting an insignificant pile of crap on other people by
weight of endless abuse and criticism. He was let loose in this
newsgroup for years without anyone stopping him yet when the targets
of his abuse eventually respond, he is the offended champion suffering
at the hands of the wicked oppressors who have the audacity to defend
themselves.
While I respect you desire to speak in the open about any assembler,
unless you wish to suffer the type of conduct that open newsgroups and
forums suffer, eventually you will have to look around for a properly
moderated system that excludes the arguments and abuse.
I also like an open sensible world where people can speak openly
without the garbage that end up flying around but I have been shot at
so many times that I shoot back, with or without the approval of the
people who start it.
It has been the case for some years that if a programmer uses MASM,
NASM, TASM, FASM, GAS, HLA, VC inline, basic inline or any other
assembler than his own pile of crippleware, they get abused for not
choosing his work and agreeing with his crackpot political theory.
Annie
On 2004-02-16 BethS...@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com said:
> [ snip ]
>
> What does "Stone" refer to? Apparently, it's a bit on the literal
> side, meaning that the person was born next to some famous
> stone...say, around Britain here - because, as far as I know about
> the history, my family doesn't come from anywhere else...
> ...an ancestor was born near some standing stones (something like
> Stonehenge :) somewhere...or perhaps some mountain that was always
> locally referred to as a "stone" or whatever...
_____
Or maybe your distant ancestors ((( `\
had the physical dimensions of _ _`\ )
a rock. Or perhaps they had the (^ ) )
intelligence of a rock. Or maybe ~-( )
they were chronic abusers of _'((,,,)))
mind-altering substances. Hehe! ,-' \_/ `\
( , |
`-.-'`-.-'/|_|
\ / | |
=()=: / ,' aa
Randall Hyde
Read his little manifesto sometime.
B_U_Assembly...
> And Rudy is correct when he says that those message that are off-topic
> don't belong here. They wouldn't be called "off-topic" if they did
> belong here.
Off topic in who's opinion?
"The Case Against RosAsm" is about an assembler and why an
assembly programmer should avoid using that assembler.
"Rene is a hypocrite" is in direct response to Rene's rantings
about how wonderful RosAsm is because it's GPL and then
how it's so terrible that certain other assembly authors might
take advantage of that code in their assembly projects.
I can't control what these things morph into, but they definitely
started out assembly related.
> And I would suggest you take a serious look at yourself and how you
> have been acting. You are not acting like the professional you
> supposedly are. Perhaps it is time to seek professional help?
Why?
When I need some sort of release, I can always post a message here :-)
> Especially when one like the pathetic, wishy-washy "Half-a-Wannabee"
> actually agrees with you on something.
Yeah, that was a first.
But as I said, I will defned his right to post what he wishes here, just
as I will defend *your* right to be as hypocritical as you like here.
However, as Rene/Betov has discovered, you will have to take
responsibility for your posts. If you keep attacking people, sooner or
later they're going to fight back.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
T.M. Sommers
My understanding, which may be faulty, is that the Mac form is
more common in Scotland, and the Mc form in Ireland. But since
the Scots came initially from Ireland, and many Irish in the
north came from Scotland (having, of course, earlier come from
Ireland), it gets confusing.
The Half A Wannabee
"Beth" <BethS...@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> wrote in message
news:AedYb.377$oK2...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> Randy wrote:
> > Rudy wrote:
(*
and you know what
is one of the most frightening images I've ever seen on a TV screen in
the past few years? No, nothing out of any "horror movie" or "war
film" but actually that incredibly spooky "Sun with a baby's face"
thing on the Teletubbies that giggles and stares at you...and the
strange Orwellian speakers that rise out of the ground to tell the
Teletubbies what "orders" they must fulfill...
*)
Fully agree with you Beth. Teletubbies (watched it once) is REALLY scary.
But the fact is, that even some parents like it. I dont know if children
likes it. Personally I dont like any children programs I dont like.......I
mean. A good program for children is a program that is also interesting for
grown ups. Watching together is more fun, for the child too. That how I
basically judge children TV. Theese days I dont watch TV. Nothing but "Team
Antonsen", a norwegian comedy show, that is amazingly funny. Theese guys are
taken over the inheritage of Monty python, and does it with style. One of
the scetches is where they make food. Two people, in the kitchen. One cook,
and one TV host, like in any cooking show. You dont really get the joke
until they start pooring say milk in a bole and the milk doesnt hit the
bole, but lands "horizontally" in the face of the "TV host". The cook just
continues as if nothing spesial has happend, and the "TV host" is keeping on
asking all the interesting question about the dish they are making. - So why
do we need so much milk ?. Do we really need Sirup ? Do we really need 1
whole can of sirup ? (He is about to have gravity throw it into his face).
They pull it off. Its very funny. Or the scetch were they have one of the
actors impersonating a man beeing interviewed for a job at NRK (BBC) as a
news reporter....(they should always be serious). The test, that NRK
"allways" do with theese reporters is that they are beeing tested, by doing
an intervjue with some famous people, like say a popsinger, while the crew,
is under the table, trying to get the "reporter" to stop consentrating and
begin laughing, or in any other way losing his serious look when he does the
interview. The "crew" under the table tries *everything* to get him off
balance. One of the things they do is : Taking his yes, yes yes Beth out of
its hiding place and grease it in with something a dog would just love to
lick on...and then they bring in the dog. And they do this on live
television, and there is no cheating. If you cant laugh at theese guys, then
you might as well go buy a rope. Oh its not that their style is allways like
this, not only jackassing. In another scetch they are interviewing the
members of "Team Antonsen" using a real Lie-detector. The man doing the lie
detector test is behind a sealed off area, and gives thumbs up if the
interviewee is speaking the truth, and thumbs down if his lying. Then they
ask, the actor, as himself, questions. The first time they did this was with
Antonsen himself. The first questions was, from the rest of the crew : Atle
...(his name) Does it bother you that we think you are fat ? ...(pause) Atle
is consentrating.. - No...... The guys behind the lie-detector shows Thumbs
up. Meaning Atle is speaking the truth. Then the panel is thinking....and
one of them asks : Atle, do you _know_ that you are fat ?
Atle....consentrating real hard....as if his is trying to confuse the lie
detector. - Yes ...he answers (pause as the man behind the liedetector is
watching the graph) Then he goes Thumbs down. I mean it is a _real_ lie
detector test. Its not fake. Its live audience watching and they ask him
several other questions as well. In another show its Bård turn. He is a
christian and they ask him : - Bård, you are a christian. I am not. Do you
belive you are better than me ? Bård answer : No..... Thumbs down. Next
question. - Bård do you belive that I will go to hell since I dont belive.
Now Bård is looking like an angel, his childish faith is showing through.
The audience picture him as a (at least in Norway) line stretching comedian,
amazed that he is a beliver, with all the things he have done. He answer :
No ! Everyone is looking at the man behind the lie-detector
machine.....Thumbs down. This christian angel is lying...again....and at the
same time....is showing us his absolute true self....its genious....
Ops. Yet another warm topic about asm.. ;- ) Sorry, got carried away. I am
currently having some difficulty getting to the next level with my asm code.
When I have cleared away the current errors and gotten it working, and
gotten strings to work perfectly, then I post a link to that code. Bye now.
>
> Brrr *shiver*
>
> Beth ;)
>
>
The Half A Wannabee
Hi Beth !.
I was sometimes thinking Stone would be something to do with a state of mind
;-)
Please, just kidding love. But Beth Stone, is a bit amusing.
>
> Beth :)
>
>
R.Wieser
zIbYb.306$oK2...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Hello Beth,
> > Oh I like to hear the follow up to this one.
> > Please Wieser (Wise-r ;-) )
> Actually, it's said more like "vee-zer" and describes someone who
> lives near a patch of meadowland, coming from the Old High German of
> "wisa = meadow"...
Thanks. I allways wondered where my sirname came from. It looks like I was
not far from the truth when I thought it had something to do with
"wiese(n)", which allso means, as far as I can tell, "meadow" (patch of
grassland for sheep or cows to graze upon). Your explanation goes even
further back in time :-)
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> > Also, names like "McDonald" actually means "son of Donald"
(Scottish
> > way)
>
> The 'Scottish way' is 'MacDonald'.
As a McDonald themselves has now told you, this is merely a spelling
alternative (remembering that, at this time, there was no "standard"
spellings...like Shakespeare's "MacBeth" (oh dear, Wannabee's going to
find that funny...I can tell ;) yet Mr.Shaekspeer himself spelt his
own name in dozens of different ways :)...
But it is a common "urban myth" that "Mc" is Irish and "Mac" is
Scottish, which isn't actually true...just spelling variations of the
same thing...note, also, that in the original Scottish Gaelic the "c"
sound is actually like "ch" in "loch" or German "Ach" (a throaty sound
:)...the Welsh and Irish (and the Scots but not so much) still keep
their Celtic tongues alive and it's interesting to compare that the
Welsh word for "son" is "mab", which is close to "mac"...though the
languages have separated out over time, there's still many words
similar and common between them (such as the one mentioned below)...
> > or "O'Reilly" is "(son / daughter) of Reilly"
>
> The feminine form is 'na' or 'ni', I forget which, or maybe both.
"Na" would be my guess from the Irish mythical place name: "Tir Na
Nog" which means "Land of Eternal Youth" and "tir" means "land" in
both Welsh and Irish Gaelic (remembering that, long ago, Welsh, Irish
Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic and Manx Gaelic were really all one
language...I also noticed - when researching up where the computing
term "bug" might come from (because it's actually a very old word:
Shakespeare used it in one of his plays!! And it was "old" even then
;) - that Manx Gaelic and Welsh have another common word "bwgan" (said
something like "boo-gah-nn") which is like a ghost or spirit or
presence...this is also where "bogeyman" comes from too...and, before
computers, "bug" was commonly used in electrical engineering (the term
was most probably borrowed directly, due to the ancestry of how
electrical engineering gradually turned into computing as it got more
complicated ;)...and it goes further back to Shakespeare's time when
he uses "bug" in the "I've caught an illness" kind of way ("I think
I've caught a bug")...and seems to go right back to this Celtic word
for ghost or spirit...so, "bug" doesn't actually relate to insects, as
is commonly believed (because, yup, "bug" is also a word for
insect...must check if this is "coincidence" or that word comes from
the same origin ;) but actually is about ghosts and malicious spirits
and that kind of thing...hence, "I've caught a bug" actually refers to
being possessed of an evil spirit making you ill (which was a commonly
held belief in the Dark Ages that all illness was to do with "evil
spirits" controlling people and they even had a charming medical
procedure which involved trepanning - that is, drilling a big hole in
someone's head(!!) - as a kind of way of "releasing" the evil spirit
out of a person's body...and when you're program has "bugs", this is
actually similar to saying "there's gremlins in the machine"...like
there's a malicious "ghost in the machine" that's making things go all
wrong :)...
Of course, the names always pass down the male side of the family so,
in fact, be it "na" or "ni" it would never actually be used as a
family name...which is why there's no "NaReilly" names to be found
anywhere...you kind of got the wrong end of the stick because I kind
of meant "if you're name is O'Reilly then this means you're a great,
great, great, etc. grandson / granddaughter of someone who was called
Reilly" at that point...
Also, it would be interesting to find out if it's _really_ "na"
because, of course, the Romans put things like "-na" or "-ia" or "-a"
at the end of names to signify femininity..."Claudius" vs.
"Claudia"..."Victor(ius)" vs. "Victoria"...the Romans, of course, used
Latin where gender, number and pronouns were not separate but implied
by suffixes throughout, such as "Video" meaning "I see" (the "-(e)o"
ending being first-person "I" in the present tense...like "Audio" (I
hear) too...becoming "-i" in the past tense for things like "Veni,
Vidi, Vici" (I came, I saw, I conquered)...note "vidi" for "I saw" but
"Video" for "I see"...and how "Vic-" in conquer / conquered is also
the start of "Victor", which still has the meaning of "winner" or,
more rightly, "conquerer" :)...hence, really, with Latin names, the
"-ius" or "-ia" is strictly a _grammatical thing_ applied onto a name
rather than part of the name itself...many people - even the odd
historian - forgets this when looking back on names from Roman or
post-Roman periods...and, certainly, the old Celtic languages were
"Romanised" when Britain was conquered by the Romans...so, one wonders
how much is actually "original" and how much came about through
"influence"...which isn't a strange idea at all because guess what
we're speaking when we're speaking English? Basically, an _entire
language_ that was born that way...a mish-mash patchwork quilt of a
language that came about as a "common tongue" between all the
different peoples of Britain at the time, who all spoke different
things: Anglo-Saxons with a Germanic edge, French was there, some
Viking stuff, the Celts (and though the Celts of Britain like to
sometimes think they were the "originals" on this small island, they
were _invaders_ too...just the oldest ones we actually know anything
about...Stonehenge isn't actually Celtic...it's _OLDER_ than
that...because those stones are actually older than the Pyramids of
Giza, amazingly...quite funny, really, the English steal King Arthur
as "the King of England" but England didn't even exist at the time so
he _must_ have been Celtic...and the Celts like to think of Stonehenge
as "theirs" - getting annoyed it's now in England when it's "theirs" -
but, actually, it's older than that still so if the Celts feel it's
"theirs" then they are stealing the credit there too...so, it's
actually a touch _inaccurate_ for those mad people who dress up as
"druids" to go to Stonehenge, thinking they are enacting some ritual
from the past because "druids" were Celtic but Stonehenge is even
older still...it's a similar thing to those people today who call
themselves "Wicca" and suggest they are copying the old ways of
"witches" when half of the stuff they do in rituals and so forth are
actually known to be historically inaccurate...basically, someone
liked the idea of being a "Wicca" and "retro-invented" some history
for it, which is actually a _modern_ invention but so few people know
enough history they actually think all that stuff is "carrying on an
ancient tradition" when it isn't really...
It's amazing how much "retro-inventing" actually happens in
history...there was actually a TV programme on today - hosted by none
other than Terry Jones of Monty Python fame (he has other interests in
history as well as being a comedian...that's actually why Monty Python
did that "Jabbawocky" film, as it was his idea to actually do a film
set in the past so he could combine both his interests at the same
time :) - where Terry Jones is actually doing a series of programmes
"correcting" all the misconceptions people have of the past...
For example, in medieval times, people didn't live as long? I bet
you've all been told this...but it's actually a
_misunderstanding_...the "average life expectancy" was shorter, yes,
because more people died in childbirth or got childhood diseases (not
as good medicine back then :)...but if you survived that, then you
actually stood a pretty good chance of living just as long as today to
a ripe old age...the misunderstanding, of course, is that an "average"
is NOT an actual age...all the zero years and one year old and two
year old deaths in childhood are actually dragging the "average" down
there...if you didn't die at that point, though, people actually lived
to rather respectable ages...
Pure virginal "damsels in distress"? Totally invented nonsense...it
was actually a _Victorian_ idea that women should be "kept" away from
doing work or whatever...the _Victorians_ invented this idea because
being rich and socially acceptable was a big thing at the time...so,
this oppression of women stuff stems from _them_, not the distant
past...the idea the Victorians had basically worked like this: If you
were poor then you needed all the money you could get so _both_ the
man and woman worked to scrape a living...well, the rich people wanted
to show just how rich they were and the women would stay at home, as
if to say "look, we're so rich that only one of us needs to do
work"...the original "trophe wives", basically...if you go back
further in the past, then you see Boudicea leading troops into battle,
prostitution everywhere and so forth...in fact, in medieval times,
women were considered in much the _opposite_ way...as being the
"sexual" ones and the stereotype was reversed that it was women who
were always thinking and wanting sex, annoying the men with this all
the time who had battles and work and things to be doing...plus,
sorry, but the women did work just as much as the men...the only kinds
of exceptions to this was a practical thing...women have the children
so, yeah, for _practical_ reasons of making sure the next generation
actually gets born, you don't put a pregnant woman into
battle..."Women's Lib" and femininism is actually just women
re-asserting their position they had before this Victorian "social
class" nonsense got in the way...
People were stupider in the past? Total nonsense again...this is a
distortion of Darwinism (actually, not really...because that's one of
the big components here: Darwin _himself_ got it wrong and he actually
supported ideas like the "Poor Law" as a kind of "survival of the
fittest" between rich and poor, actually believing that poor people
were "lesser"...he also had contempt for the "natives" he met on his
Beagle voyage as being "lesser" too...the point to remember here is
that Darwin discovered the process of evolution but had not a clue
about the _mechanism_ of evolution - genes and DNA - so, to him, if he
observed poor people, he wasn't thinking in "genetic" terms but just
in terms of "oh, look, they aren't doing as well as me...this must be
just like those birds I saw on the islands where the 'lesser' ones
died off because they had shorter beaks")...we _know_ the mechanism by
which these things work: genetics...and this _has not changed_ since
the first "Homo Sapiens"...another common misconception is that
evolution is "gradual"...not at all! Things actually carry on much the
same until there's "mutation" and it actually works in "jumps", like a
very shallow staircase if plotted on a graph...
Of course, in the past, there was less _knowledge_...for example,
medieval people didn't watch TV...but this wasn't because they were
"stupid" but because, to make a cathode ray tube and broadcast TV, you
need: electricity, atomic theory (a cathode ray tube is basically an
electron gun so you need to know about electrons to work out why you
need to make a "gun" for them ;), glass-making of good quality, how to
create a vacuum, magnetism (to go along with your atomic theory, to
"bend" the paths of the electrons to hit different parts of the
phospor to light up the picture :), data storage, radio waves (if
broadcasting via a normal aerial :), etc., etc....there's an awful lot
of technologies and knowledge that had to be _invented first_ before a
TV was possible...the technologies all depend on one another so you
couldn't really do any of this stuff "out of order"...
They weren't "stupider" - if you could travel in time then you'd find
them roughly as _intelligent_ as people today, just they wouldn't have
the same _knowledge_ about electricity, physics and all the rest of
it - and proof of this was Leonardo Da Vinci, an exceptional thinker
way ahead of his time, who worked out aerodynamics (while others still
weren't sure what wind was...Leonardo had the "Faith" to realise that
there was actually something there - air - but you just can't see it
directly ;) and, from that, invented parachutes (tested recently and
worked perfectly...it, in fact, stunned the parachutist who tested it
in just how good it was, comparing favourably to modern versions...not
bad for a first attempt that Leonardo could only plan but didn't have
the means to actually test :)...and, of course, was _500 years_ ahead
of the game in inventing a helicopter (the science was correct, it was
only the materials and a bit of "refining" of the design - something
you could only reasonably expect from being able to play around with
the idea pragmatically with actual observation, like the Wright
Brothers themselves had to do 500 years later - that needed to be done
:)...
You do have to be careful of this "retro-invention" of history when
looking back on things...for example, the Romans basically called
_everyone_ "barbarians" regardless...so, though it was a rural rather
than city existence, archeology has uncovered irrigation and mining
that's thousands of years old plus many other things showing that the
Celts of Britain weren't really so "barbarian" as the Romans and then
later the English liked to paint them...indeed, the victors always
write the history books...so, what's the common perception of these
people today? Why, barbaric warriors just chopping people's heads off
all the time..."Braveheart" and all that jazz...doesn't actually fit
much of the picture that _forensic archeology_ has uncovered but,
nevermind, because it gave the Romans and English an excuse to "cull"
their enemies in war by painting them as "lesser" or "animals"...
Which is why we must be very careful with the Iraqi museums and
history being wiped out in looting and patronising talk about
"teaching the Iraqis how to run a police force" or the phrase that
knocked me sideways when, Geoff Hoon - the UK's defence secretary -
actually voiced on a political debate show that the British were
showing the Iraqis how to irrigate and pipe water to their homes in
Basra(!!)...for people who might fall for this propoganda about the
West "teaching" these poor "barbarians" and "animals" how to do these
things, let's just look at the logic that Iraq is basically one big
sandy desert with a few rivers running through it and there's no way
this _cradle of civilisation_ (on the journey from that African valley
to now, humanity passed through that general region and much of the
"civilisation" we now today had origins there...for example, the name
for "0123456789"? The generally curvy nature of the numerals -
compared to the curvy arabic script - should give a clue...they are
the "Arabic numerals" and much of mathematics comes from there...the
Romans didn't have any zero but the arabs taught the Western world
about that stuff :) could have survived for thousands of years if none
of them knew how to distribute water...truth is, _they_ taught _us_
originally...
This is the "re-writing of history" that conquerors always do...much
like all the fuss about WMD before the war - and we were _all_ there
so if your memory is working well, you'll remember that it _wasn't_
any "minor trivial issue" at that time - but it's now trying to be
"brushed over" as "trivial" once they've been found out to have either
1. lied delibrately 2. got their intelligence so wrong, it means they
are incredibly _incompetent_...hence, whatever the truth, they can't
really get away from it...either someone was lying or someone was
grossly incompentent to the tune of all those _tens of thousands_ of
deaths...yes, intelligence can never be perfect...but that's why the
sensible thing is to _resist_ going to war until you're absolutely
100% certain of the conclusions of your intelligence...you certainly
don't go on the word of a single exile with a grudge against
Saddam...I mean, come on, he made it up to get revenge on Saddam!
Nah, the truth here is they either did this _delibrately_ and are
making lies and excuses...or, to give the benefit of the doubt, they
already had plans to go into Iraq (a "known known" because it's on
record that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were part of a "PNAC" organisation
about creating an "American empire" in order to basically delibrately
maintain military advantage...as they themselves explain, the Soviets
kept the Americans from "world domination" but now that the Cold War
is over, Rumsfeld's friends have plans to do the old "New Roman
Empire" thing that Mussolini was also all about...ideas like
delibrately attacking a country to keep it "lesser" and "behind"
America - you know, exactly like how Microsoft attacks smaller
companies and makes sure that they never encounter any "threats" by
killing them off before they get too big to deal with - so that
America is always "King of the World"...and this is not
"interpretation" or a big secret, the word "empire" _is_ used by these
PNAC people and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush _are_ members of
this...so, sure, it's technically "civilian" but if all the people on
this group just so happen to be in positions of power, are we really
suggesting that they won't be tempted to use that power to get their
"agenda"? If there's any doubts about this then it has to be noted
that the PNAC "recommended" a specific defence increase...which,
"coincidentally", was _exactly the sum_ Mr.Walker Bush asked Congress
to grant him recently)...they already had plans to do these things and
we have a case of subconscious self-delusion...that is, they wanted to
kick Saddam's arse so, "coincidentally", all the evidence to support
doing that were things that they saw and anything that suggested
otherwise was something their subconscious minds "blocked out"...so,
basically, they _didn't_ do their jobs properly and let their
prejudiced plans effect their judgements and decisions...and that's
the _polite_ version, presuming they did this _accidentally_...it's
also quite possible that it was completely _conscious_ and not
subconscious...that it was _lying_ rather than simply
_incompetence_...though, either way, these aren't people to have in
power...at worst, they delibrately lied and deceived...at best, they
were massively incompetent and didn't do their jobs properly...NOT
people to have in power, even when we give them the benefit of the
doubt that it wasn't a delibrate thing...
Listening to Tony Blair the other day, I can kind of see where the
problem might come from with him...as is usual here, a "committee" of
MPs interviewed the Prime Minister about policies and practices and
things...and a couple of interesting things were said...Tony pointed
out that he'd _never held any position of power_ prior to being Prime
Minister (he joked: "Hey, this is the only job I've ever done"...in
government, of course, he means...he was a lawyer - a trained liar,
like actors are - prior to this...but no position in the Cabinet or
even as "shadow home secretary" (British terminology there...the
"opposition" to the government - the other main party who didn't win -
also set up their own "shadow" cabinet like the government so that the
"shadow home secretary" deals with the same things as the _actual_
"home secretary" so that they are literally put head-to-head...the
"shadow" versions come up with the opposition party's alternative
policies and put the government to direct scrutiny on their facts and
figures :) when Labour were in opposition)...and there was talk
amongst the MPs about "why are doing things this way? It's not
traditional in this country for the Prime Minister to do
everything...that's a Presidential system, which we don't have"...and
Tony's replies kind of highlighted that he was basically "making it up
as he goes along" because he'd never done any job like this before and
didn't really know how it was done before...so, he was probably
copying the American Presidential system because he had no idea how
the British system is supposed to work differently...or how Tony
suddenly announced _changes to the Constitution_, of all things,
overnight without any consultation and now confesses "okay, that was
done in the wrong way...I made a mistake there"...blah-blah-blah...
In short, Tony was heralded because he was a young Prime
Minister...you know, "Hey, Tony likes the rock band Oasis!" / "Hey,
Tony plays rock 'n roll on his electric guitar!"...the old "he's a
fresh face with new ideas" thing...but on the flip side of this coin
is that he was actually so young and relatively new to the game that
he'd never picked up what exactly a government was supposed to do, how
things traditionally worked and all that stuff...young can, indeed,
mean "fresh" and "new" but it can also mean "brash", "naive",
"inexperienced"...and this kind of describes his Prime Ministership
thus far...always wanting to "reform" practically everything, coming
up with bold new ideas and stuff...some of which, to be fair, weren't
all bad (the House of Lords _does_ need "reform" - that "inheritance"
thing literally is centuries out of date - although I'm not sure that
Tony's actually come up with an idea that's any better than what's
there already)...but there's been an awful lot - especially recently -
of Tony making "dumb mistakes"..."naive" mistakes, really...showing
his inexperience...rushing off convinced that he can just talk to a
couple of other countries and achieve "world peace" single-handedly
overnight...that is, still with youthful exuberance at the idea - hey,
who doesn't want world peace and didn't think it was "easy" when
younger? - but is falling afoul of those political things that have,
indeed, kept it from happening...he's gaining the experience that it
wasn't achieved before because of _problems_ with getting it to work,
not with there not being a consensus all over the world for "World
Peace"...I suppose as long as he doesn't put his foot in it too
badly - though, arguably, he's already done so with Iraq and so
forth - then you can tolerate a bit of "learning on the job" because
even the most experienced need to do a little of that...try things out
to see if, indeed, they work or not...but if he does too much of that
then he could stuff things up big-time...he needs to learn a bit of
mature restraint and not get so "youthfully" excited by everything all
the time...needs to learn about delegating power (number ten at the
moment basically insists on the Prime Minister doing everything, which
isn't actually how it's supposed to work over here...Tony watched too
many American films with the American President who does that kind of
thing and thought the British Prime Minister was supposed to just be a
counterpart to that...but, actually, the system _is_ different, which
is why the "job title" is different...he's just another
"Minister"...the "Prime" or most important one, yes, but just another
"Minister", not a "supreme ruler" or anything ;)...
I guess Bush's excuse is that he's a rich kid so doesn't have much
contact with reality...I mean, certainly no idea of what an average
American experiences because he might not understand that most
Americans don't get given baseball teams and oil companies for free
and, you know, actually have to _do work_ and stuff like that...made
worse when he was an alcoholic that he was completely detached from
_any_ reality for a while and that may have caused some permanent
"slow thinking", which the way he speaks with made-up words and really
slowly kind of supports that hypothesis...he also probably doesn't
understand too many things that when someone tells him to say this or
do that, he just follows along...much like that address he made to the
nation about the "Niger documents" and about "Terrorist links", which
he's later had to retract and blames on his speech writer putting
inaccurate information into the speech (but, just to remind you,
Commander-in-chief, it's still your responsibility to _make sure_ that
what you're told to pass onto the American people is _accurate_...it's
not like you have an excuse...as American President, what you say goes
so if you'd insisted "actually, I want to see the evidence of this",
then they'd have to comply...when addressing the nation about
something so serious as war, you have a duty and responsibility to the
American people to get it 100% right as far as is humanly possible, so
it's _NOT_ good enough to simply say: "Hey, he told me to say it!" and
think that lets you off the hook...you are President and it's _your
job_ to keep things in order and if you say "get me _proof_" / "_show
me_ how this intelligence clearly demonstrates intent", they've _got
to_ do it for you...let me guess, Dubya, you thought this was another
one of those "jobs" where someone else does all the work and you just
sit around watching baseball all day long? ;)...
Beth :)
Beth
> If you would resolve to be part of the solution, instead of part of
the
> problem, it would help. Rather than having this strictly enforced
by
> some external authority (as on web-based boards or on moderated
usenet
> groups like ccomp.lang.x86), I have this odd, anachronistic belief
that
> human beings should be capable of regulating themselves. It's like
> littering -- some people will still litter, but if enough of us
DON'T,
> then the world is still a cleaner better place.
I agree; And would even stress that if there was some "litter police"
going around picking up the litter after people automatically then
they'd _never learn_ not to litter...which I can say with a touch of
experience at cleaning up after a boyfriend who just got _worse_
because he took for granted that I'd just come along and clean up
after him...he only got better when I put my foot down and got the
lazy bugger to start doing it himself ;)
Beth :)
Herbert Kleebauer
>
> here, where in CLAX I'd basically be "safe" as Chuck would never
> approve of such nonsense...but, then again, Chuck would also not
> approve my posts on occasion either
What's all about this moderated newsgroups? I normally don't post
to moderated groups, but a few weeks ago there was a cross post
to comp.lang.asm.x86. I noticed it only, because my second post
didn't show up on the server (the first one had no problem).
In the remaining posts I inserted the "Approved" line myself
(see below) and the post was propagated through the news server
directly, without going first to the moderator. All you
have to do, is to insert the Approved line? No digital
signature?
From: Herbert Kleebauer <kl...@unibwm.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.asm.x86,alt.lang.asm
Subject: Re: input & output in assembly
Approved: CLAX86 Moderators <ccr...@crayne.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:00:59 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Crayne Consulting
Message-ID: <4012326...@unibwm.de>
Sender: cla...@wotan.crayne.org
References: <476dbfa6.04012...@posting.google.com> <busgep$l3sf7$1...@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CLAX86-Policy: http://www.pacificsites.com/~ccrayne/clax86.html
X-CLAX86-Faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/comp/comp.lang.asm.x86.html
X-CLAX86-Info-1: Send submissions to comp-lan...@moderators.isc.org
X-CLAX86-Info-2: Send technical complaints to ccr...@crayne.org
X-CLAX86-Info-3: Send complaints about policy to ccr...@crayne.org
X-Comment: moderators do not necessarily agree or disagree with this article.
User-Agent: Hamster/1.3.22.103
X-Accept-Language: en
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-UIDL: (L*#!+H!#!Ca>!!jL-"!
X-Complaints-To: ab...@supernews.com
Lines: 626
Path: news.unibw-muenchen.de!lrz.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!news.csl-gmbh.net!feed.news.tiscali.de!
news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-06!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!
corp.supernews.com!news.crayne.org!clax86!robomod!not-for-mail
Xref: news.unibw-muenchen.de comp.lang.asm.x86:123579 alt.lang.asm:59232
User-Agent: Hamster/1.3.22.103
Message-ID: <4012E254...@unibwm.de>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:23:32 +0100
From: Herbert Kleebauer <kl...@unibwm.de>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.asm.x86,alt.lang.asm
Subject: Re: input & output in assembly
Approved: CLAX86 Reader <kl...@unibwm.de>
Sender: kl...@unibwm.de
References: <476dbfa6.04012...@posting.google.com> <busgep$l3sf7$1...@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de> <4012326...@unibwm.de>
<Xns947A6E71A4940...@127.0.0.1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.184.117.63
X-Trace: 1074979768 news.freenet.de 9783 80.184.117.63:1050
X-Complaints-To: ab...@freenet.de
Path: news.unibw-muenchen.de!lrz.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!news.csl-gmbh.net!newsfeed.r-kom.de!
newsfeed.freenet.de!news.freenet.de!not-for-mail
Xref: news.unibw-muenchen.de comp.lang.asm.x86:123584 alt.lang.asm:59257
Alex McDonald
> Also, names like "McDonald" actually means "son of Donald" (Scottish
> way) or "O'Reilly" is "(son / daughter) of Reilly" (this Irish one is
> more clear because only the "f" is missing from it literally being "of
> Reilly", which is what the apostrophe is standing for ;) and "Davies"
> is the Welsh way...the Celts actually used a different system
> originally...people would only have one actual name but you would call
> them "Paul son of Donald"...but when the Germanic influence came over
> with the Anglo-Saxons - who turned into the English later on - all
> that stuff got "standardised" into the Germanic way of having
> "surnames"...so, if someone was "McDonald" (son of Donald) then it was
> _fixed_ at that point and the new "surname" system (a family name that
> passes down the male branch of the family) was adopted from then
> on...interestingly, though, the different Celtic nations were all
> "fixed" to use the new system using different methods...hence,
> "McSomething" is the Scottish way, "O'Something" is the Irish way and
> the Welsh way is "Something-es" (such as "Jones = Son of John",
> "Davies = Son of David",
In Scotland, the practice of taking the clan chief's name related to a
geographical territory resulted in large numbers of, for instance,
MacDonalds; very few would have had fathers named Donald (or have been
named Paul!).
"[son] of" in Welsh is "ap" (or the older "mab"), as in ap Rhys,
contracted to the modern Price; ap Richard to Pritchard; ap Owen to
Bowen. ("vetch/fetch" was used for daughters.) The habit of naming
several generations was common, as in David ap Rhys ap Llewelyn, where
Rhys was the father and Llewelyn the grandfather. Davies and Jones are
from a period around the 16th century when naming after the father
(patronyms) with "ap" was abandoned in favour of fixed surnames in the
English style, normally by dropping the "ap". The addition of "s" was
only common where the father's name alone was used as a patronym.
Early spellings indicate this Anglicisation -- Johnes for Jones/Johns.
The number of Welsh surnames is remarkably small.
The Irish "O'" (earlier, "Ua'") indicates grandson, or an earlier
ancestor or clan, not the father; the Irish used Mac for "son of".
"Ni" was used for daughters. There's no missing "f" in "O'"; it's
_not_ short for the English "of". The ' is a modern simplified
notation for the letter O with a diacratic mark above.
The Germanic peoples used patronyms. The Normans started the process
of familial surnames during the 13th century by passing laws banning
patronymic naming conventions. It took several centuries for the
practice to die out.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Alex McDonald
> T.M. Sommers wrote:
> > Beth wrote:
> > > Also, names like "McDonald" actually means "son of Donald"
> (Scottish
> > > way)
> >
> > The 'Scottish way' is 'MacDonald'.
>
> As a McDonald themselves has now told you, this is merely a spelling
> alternative (remembering that, at this time, there was no "standard"
> spellings...like Shakespeare's "MacBeth" (oh dear, Wannabee's going to
> find that funny...I can tell ;) yet Mr.Shaekspeer himself spelt his
> own name in dozens of different ways :)...
>
> But it is a common "urban myth" that "Mc" is Irish and "Mac" is
> Scottish, which isn't actually true...just spelling variations of the
> same thing...note, also, that in the original Scottish Gaelic the "c"
> sound is actually like "ch" in "loch" or German "Ach" (a throaty sound
> :)...the Welsh and Irish (and the Scots but not so much) still keep
> their Celtic tongues alive and it's interesting to compare that the
> Welsh word for "son" is "mab", which is close to "mac"...though the
> languages have separated out over time, there's still many words
> similar and common between them (such as the one mentioned below)...
Beth, please stop speculating! Mc/Mac is pronounced with a hard K
sound, not "-ch" as in loch. Otherwise it would be spelled Mach or
Magh; spelling in Gaelic is pretty tortuous, but very rigorous as to
the sounds produced.
==snipped
> and, certainly, the old Celtic languages were
> "Romanised" when Britain was conquered by the Romans...so, one wonders
> how much is actually "original" and how much came about through
> "influence"...
Welsh and Gaelic are two variants of root Celtic language that split
around 700-800 BC. Welsh was most influenced by Germanic invasions of
the 500-600 AD. The main split between Irish and Scottish Gaelic was
around the time of the Norse invasions of Scotland, around the 1300AD.
To paraphrase Monty Python; "What did the Romans ever do for us?"
Nothing. The Romans did not get far into present day Wales, nor
Scotland; and as far as I know, they never settled anywhere in
Ireland.
> which isn't a strange idea at all because guess what
> we're speaking when we're speaking English? Basically, an _entire
> language_ that was born that way...a mish-mash patchwork quilt of a
> language that came about as a "common tongue" between all the
> different peoples of Britain at the time, who all spoke different
> things: Anglo-Saxons with a Germanic edge, French was there, some
> Viking stuff, the Celts (and though the Celts of Britain like to
> sometimes think they were the "originals" on this small island, they
> were _invaders_ too...just the oldest ones we actually know anything
> about...
Not including the Picts, of course... You're woefully missing the mark
on this subject.
==snipped
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Phil Carmody
> What's all about this moderated newsgroups? I normally don't post
> to moderated groups, but a few weeks ago there was a cross post
> to comp.lang.asm.x86. I noticed it only, because my second post
> didn't show up on the server (the first one had no problem).
> In the remaining posts I inserted the "Approved" line myself
If you do not like the moderation policy, take it up with the
moderator, do not try to circumvent it.
Don't complain if you get robo-cancelled.
Phil
--
Unpatched IE vulnerability: DNSError folder disclosure
Description: Gaining access to local security zones
Reference: http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/bugtraq0306/52.html
Nathan C. Baker
> dropped...which interestingly suggests that the name "the Passion of
> the Christ" has been chosen, as they always select film names with
> unbelievable amounts of care that there is no such thing as an
> "accident" with these things, to delibrately appeal the film to
> non-Christians in a small way by not presuming "the" as all Christians
> would because there's only one Christ but have put the "the" back in
> as if to _emphasise_ to non-believers that Jesus was _the_ Christ or
> "Saviour" or "Messiah"...kind of lets you know what angle the movie is
> taking that, yes, it's choosing to account for non-believers too, but,
Yeah, we are not even clued-in that it will be about Jesus, son of Joseph.
It could just as easily be a story about one of the other dozen Jewish
messiah's of that time period.
> "McSomething" is the Scottish way, "O'Something" is the Irish way and
Now I know what that strange goo is on my Big Mac. ;-)
Anyone doing geneaology research here in the US soon learns that family
names don't always have a direct and logical relation to their European
counterparts. Many names were mis-translated (i.e. the famous Sci-Fi
author, Isaac Asimov, whose Russian family name would have a 'z' in it).
Others were changed so the bearers could escape persecution (i.e. German
immigrants after WWII).
Nathan C. Baker
"Alex McDonald" <alex...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:b57b10b6.04021...@posting.google.com...
> "Beth" <BethS...@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> wrote in message
news:<LGlYb.104$Zs...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> > T.M. Sommers wrote:
> > > Beth wrote:
> Welsh and Gaelic are two variants of root Celtic language that split
> around 700-800 BC. Welsh was most influenced by Germanic invasions of
> the 500-600 AD. The main split between Irish and Scottish Gaelic was
> around the time of the Norse invasions of Scotland, around the 1300AD.
> To paraphrase Monty Python; "What did the Romans ever do for us?"
> Nothing. The Romans did not get far into present day Wales, nor
> Scotland; and as far as I know, they never settled anywhere in
> Ireland.
>
> > which isn't a strange idea at all because guess what
> > we're speaking when we're speaking English? Basically, an _entire
> > language_ that was born that way...a mish-mash patchwork quilt of a
> > language that came about as a "common tongue" between all the
> > different peoples of Britain at the time, who all spoke different
> > things: Anglo-Saxons with a Germanic edge, French was there, some
> > Viking stuff, the Celts (and though the Celts of Britain like to
> > sometimes think they were the "originals" on this small island, they
> > were _invaders_ too...just the oldest ones we actually know anything
> > about...
>
> Not including the Picts, of course... You're woefully missing the mark
> on this subject.
>
It is evident that the French had the most influence on Modern English
(though you'd not expect a British Royal subject to admit it). After all,
Old English works (like Beowulf) have to be "translated" in order to be read
and understood by modern folk. Do the following words --
axode, nama, geandwyrd, genemnode, sind, wlite, swilcum, heofonum, geferan
-- make sense to anyone? They are the Anglo-Saxon/German/Celtic/Viking
heritage that made up "Old English" which really only holds that designation
because, guess what, it was spoken in England [that is like saying that
Neale Armstrong spoke "Lunarish" while on the moon].
Andrew Kennedy
I hear you.
My ex-wife got tired of our kids not cleaning up their room, so she bagged
up what was on the floor and threw them in the attic.
Years later my oldest daughter said they just went in the attic
and got out just what they wanted. :-)
Go girl. :-)