International Peace March (19th / 20th March 2005)

Betov

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 2:41:04 AM3/18/05

to

"A. Ascii" <a_a...@privacy.net> écrivait news:d1ddrq$nsn$1
@domitilla.aioe.org:

> [...]

Hi.

You cannot fight against Randall Hyde and defend Bush.

Frank Kotler

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 3:22:01 AM3/18/05

to

Betov wrote:

> You cannot fight against Bush and defend Randall Hyde.
> This is utterly incoherent.

AFAIK, Randy hasn't killed anybody.

AFAIK, Bush hasn't taught anybody asm.

Coherent enough?

Best,
Frank

Annie

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 4:43:21 AM3/18/05

to

On 2005-03-18 fbko...@comcast.net said:

> AFAIK, Randy hasn't killed anybody.

Obviously, you haven't tried slogging through Randy's
entire multi-gigabyte collection of PDF (Painful
Document Format) files.

> AFAIK, Bush hasn't taught anybody asm.

Since the advent of 'HLA,' neither has Randy.
_____
> Coherent enough? ((( `\
_ _`\ )
Not for a Frenchman. But then, (^ ) )
he eats frogs and snails. How ~-( )
'coherent' is THAT? Hehehe! _'((,,,)))
,-' \_/ `\
( , |
`-.-'`-.-'/|_|
\ / | |
=()=: / ,' aa

Annie

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 4:43:26 AM3/18/05

to

On 2005-03-18 be...@free.fr said:

> You cannot fight against Randall Hyde and defend Bush.

_____
I can do anything I want, mon cher. ((( `\
And I don't need permission from you _ _`\ )
or the European Union. Hehe! (^ ) )
~-( )
> This is utterly incoherent. _'((,,,)))
> ,-' \_/ `\
> Betov. ( , |
`-.-'`-.-'/|_|
Alors! Do you remember reading \ / | |
about a historical event which, =()=: / ,' aa
in English, is called 'The Crusades?'

Be honest, Rene: you are not overly thrilled
about the millions of towelheads which already
infest La Belle France.

Well, if we followed your leftist philosophy,
La Belle France soon would be La Belle Irak.
And NOBODY wants THAT. Hehehe!

Betov

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 4:46:45 AM3/18/05

to

Frank Kotler <fbko...@comcast.net> écrivait
news:423A8FA9...@comcast.net:

> Betov wrote:
>
>> You cannot fight against Bush and defend Randall Hyde.
>> This is utterly incoherent.
>
> AFAIK, Randy hasn't killed anybody.

Oh yes: He kills me... :)) :)) :))

All US "Christian Conservators" _are_ criminals
reponsible of millions of crimes, all over the world.

Bush is nothing but a standard mafioso, and no mafia
can exist in a country that does not submit to mafia
when _voting_. Now, you can go and play the fool in
the towns streets, aside Beth and Co, just because
the new US Nazism is way more sophisticated than the
historical original was. This will not change a thing
to anything. Nothing can be modified, but what you
can modify in your immediate neighbourhood. If you
are unable to detect the faults and to correct the
situation in your immediate neighbourhood, there
is no chance you will ever have any impact at a wider
scope. Here, the immediate neighbourhood is the defense
of Assembly against individuals like Randall Hyde, Hutch
and friends. Not Bush, Blair and friends. Bush, Blair
and friends are nothing but an image of what _you_
create, right here, by defending these ass-holes.

> AFAIK, Bush hasn't taught anybody asm.

Where did Randall Hyde taught asm? He should first
have to _learn_ Asm.

> Coherent enough?

In matter of coherency, you are not on any better land
than Beth and Annie, when welcoming the individuals
you welcome in the LuxAsm Dev Group, and when posting
that actual post.

Betov.

Betov

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 4:53:42 AM3/18/05

to

"Annie" <m...@privacy.net> écrivait news:d1e7rr$b1f$2...@domitilla.aioe.org:

>
> On 2005-03-18 be...@free.fr said:
>
> > You cannot fight against Randall Hyde and defend Bush.
> _____
> I can do anything I want, mon cher. ((( `\
> And I don't need permission from you _ _`\ )
> or the European Union. Hehe! (^ ) )
> ~-( )
> > This is utterly incoherent. _'((,,,)))
> > ,-' \_/ `\
> > Betov. ( , |
> `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
> Alors! Do you remember reading \ / | |
> about a historical event which, =()=: / ,' aa
> in English, is called 'The Crusades?'

The crimes of the past do not justify the today crimes.

> Be honest, Rene: you are not overly thrilled
> about the millions of towelheads which already
> infest La Belle France.

I cannot answer to this question, because, if i would
do so, i could go in jail. My own opinions on that
subject are illegal, in France.

> Well, if we followed your leftist philosophy,
> La Belle France soon would be La Belle Irak.
> And NOBODY wants THAT. Hehehe!

I am not that naively leftist. :))

Betov.

Beth

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 5:45:25 AM3/18/05

to

A. Ascii wrote:

> Beth wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Just a little "public information message"... <* SNIP *>
>

> Hehe! More leftist nuttiness from our newsgroup's resident peace-nik
k00k.

Easy to throw stones, Annie...put your money exactly where your mouth is:
If it is "leftist" as you claim, then _EXPLAIN_, in sufficient detail, what
_MAKES_ it "leftist"?

Because, implicitly, you seem to be suggesting that anyone who wants peace
is a "commie"...this will undoubtedly be news to many reading here, how you
have determined their "leftist-ness" from a simple, basic desire for a
world with less death in it...

As this is the modus operandi of your kind: It's all "rumour"...just say
"leftist" often enough and Hope that it sticks...no actual evidence, no
actual justification...no actual WMD...no actual terrorist threats...just a
whole lot of empty "rumour" - FUD tactics - that such things are there,
when they aren't, to try to scare and dupe everyone into complying with
your essential fascist "model" of the world...

If you have something _CONCRETE_ to say then say it, miss ASCII, stop
messing around with "rumour mongering"...or are you going to continue? To
"imply" - against clear and obvious evidence in reality - that I'm on
medication for mental retardation? I might not be the brightest spark
there's ever been but you are clearly opposing the REALITY that anyone can
see...indeed, it is, in fact, you who seems the more mentally disturbed:
"Crikey! Get over it! Take your medication! hehe Crikey! Get over it! Take
your medication! hehe Crikey! Get over it! Take your medication! hehe
Crikey! Get over it! Take your medication! hehe Crikey! Get over it! Take
your medication! hehe"...like a fracking deranged Dalek...

> I propose that we take up a collection, and send Beth to Iraq.
> Because (as every good leftist knows) if we can JUST SIT DOWN
> AND -TALK- with the towelheads...why, all the problems can be
> solved.

On the contrary, needless Western intervention and occupation is exactly
what the Iraqis have been "insurgent" about...take up a collection to get
Bush _OUT_ of there...to keep him _OUT_ of other people's countries...

Oh, wait...they already _did_ take a collection...that would be where all
your tax dollars are disappearing to...being spent on this rather than on
you and America: Their original intended purpose for collection...

And, xenophobe, you contradict your own President...why, yes, Bush says we
_DO_ make them sit down and talk...that would be the very _definition_ of
the "democratic parliament" that he wants set up in Iraq, surely? Or are
you so blinded by "all arabs are animals" black propoganda to believe the
Iraqis are incapable of instituting a democratic parliament? If so, then
I'm _STILL_ right because that means Bush's "spread of democracy" is
_DOOMED TO FAILURE_...

Ah, I see...you cannot differentiate between the Iraqi people and the
terrorists because Bush's black propoganda has run you into a mental
contradiction...we cannot sit down and talk to the "towelheads" yet the
entire purpose of the mission currently is to get the "towelheads" to sit
down and talk to each other...to institute a democratic parliament which is
_NOTHING BUT_ sitting down and talking to each other to solve
problems...that's what fracking "democracy" is, Annie...

So, you're saying "democracy" cannot ever work - which would contradict the
entire raison d'etre that Bush has now given for why the troops are still
in Iraq - or you're saying that "democracy" can work but that the
"towelheads" are incapable of it...again, contradicts the entire raison
d'etre of the occupation...so, then the "towelheads" _are_ capable of
solving their problems by sitting down and talking? But then this would
mean I'm right and you can't have that...so, if I'm wrong then a
"democratic parliament" cannot work in Iraq and Bush is a liar instead...

Oh dear, oh dear...you've got yourself into a logical paradox, Annie...

Either the "towelheads" are capable of sitting down and talking to solve
their problems - as is the entire definition of what a "democratic
parliament" does - but this contradicts what you've just said (with
unbelievable ignorant racism) that all arabs are inherently incapable of
doing so...or they can't do it and, thus, Bush's "spread of democracy" in
the Middle-East is an inherently flawed plan because "towelheads" are, so
you tell us, incapable of ever sitting down and talking, as is the
democratic way...

Which is it, Annie? Ah, there's no point asking...you don't know...you just
shouted racist abuse as a "knee-jerk" reaction...you have no idea what
you're really talking about at all...

Getting everyone to sit down and talk to solve problems is _EXACTLY_ what
"democracy" is...if that's impossible then what Bush is saying about "the
spread of democracy" in the "towelhead" countries cannot possibly succeed
because you tell us that "towelheads" - being "animals" or something, it
seems - are physically incapable of doing such...so, Bush should pull out,
not wage any more wars and stop wasting American tax money and lives on a
"mission" that you've just declared to be an _IMPOSSIBLE_ task...

"And he's the one
Who likes all our pretty songs
And he likes to sing along
And he likes to shoot his gun

But he don't know what it means
Don't know what it means

And I say:

He's the one
Who likes all our pretty songs
And he likes to sing along
And he likes to shoot his gun

But he don't know what it means
Don't know what it means"

[ "In Bloom", Nirvana, Nevermind (hmmm, doesn't "and he" sound a little
like "Annie"? "Annie's the one who likes our pretty songs, Annie likes to
sing along, Annie likes to shoot [her] gun...but [she] don't know what it
means, don't know what it means") ]

Indeed...Annie, get your gun...make yourself feel big and powerful and in
control...if I'm such a problem for you, then you know what to do, right?
Point your gun at my forehead and squeeze the trigger...what are you
waiting for? If "leftists" are the problem and sitting down to talk with
them democratically is just "never going to work" then you'll have to just
shoot your way out of there, Annie...paranoid "seige mentality"...line up
all the leftists, the towelheads and everyone else you don't like much,
then shoot them dead one by one...what are you waiting for? You've told us
that no other solution works, Annie...and you're not a hypocrite or
contradictory, are you?

Line us all up behind the chemical sheds and shoot us dead, one by
one...this _IS_ the "solution" you propose, is it not? You're telling us
that resolving things any other way cannot ever possibly work, aren't you?
So, what are you waiting for? Annie, get your gun...shoot us all dead one
by one...it's the only option you've given yourself...you've decided it's
quite impossible to talk this through or anything...thus, it's going to
have be a fight for the death...well, it'll be easy with me, as I won't put
up any defence...just point your gun and pull the trigger...

Is this not what you're saying? Is this not what you want? Then _DO
IT_...put your money where your mouth is, fascist...

There is no "dealing" with these towelheads and their lie of a supposed
"religion"...just like those Jewish animals, eh? Animals that cannot engage
at our "civilised" level...there's no other options...line them up against
the wall and a single bullet each...

Turn on FOX TV and then sit back, as you put them out of their misery:

"So ya,
Thought ya,
Might like to go to the show?

To feel the warm thrill of confusion...
...that 'space cadet' glow?

Tell me...is something eluding you, sunshine?

Is this not what you expected to see?

If you wanna find out what's behind these cold eyes
You'll just have to claw your way through this disguise

'Lights! Turn on the sound effects! Action!'
'Drop it, drop it on 'em! Drop it on them!!!!!'

I got me some bad news for you, Sunshine.

Pink isn't well, he stayed back at the hotel,
And he sent us along as a surrogate band.

We're gonna find out where you fans _REALLY_ stand...

Are there any QUEERS in the theatre tonight?

GET 'EM UP AGAINST THE WALL!
'GAINST...THE...WALL!

And that one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me...

GET HIM UP AGAINST THE WALL!
'GAINST...THE...WALL!

And that one looks JEWISH! And that one's a COON!
Who let all this 'riff-raff' into the room?

There's one smoking a joint, and another with spots!

If I had my way...

...I'D HAVE THE LOT OF YA SHOT!!"

[ "In the Flesh", Pink Floyd, The Wall ]

> Yeah. Riiiiight.

Yeah, there's no way this "democracy" thing could ever work, right? I mean,
what a retarded notion! People sitting down and talking through their
problems to solve them in a parliament building, rather than blowing each
other's brains with heavy weaponry...

Yeah, riiiiight...it couldn't possibly work...

How "naive" I must be to believe such a thing...

How "wishy-washy" I am to believe that any of Gandhi's "non-violent"
clap-trap could ever have worked against an aggressive empire that could
lead to the world's largest democracy...that couldn't possibly have
happened! Everyone knows "niggers" and "animals" have no capability of our
supreme white "civilisation"...as they are all barbarians...

It was on TV...they said that the Americans and British had to teach Iraq
how to be "civilised"...how to irrigate and pipe water (quite
true)...because these barbaric "towelheads" couldn't know anything about
"civilisation" or "irrigation"...they live in mud huts, you know?

Yes, I must be "gullible"...I must believe that the very start of all
civilisation - Babylon - which _INVENTED_ it all and exported it to the
rest of us...present day Iraq is where ancient Babylon was situated...that
they couldn't be "civilised"...that people who built cities the size of
London in the middle of a country that's mostly desert have no idea how to
irrigate or pipe water...

Yeah, I'm the "naive" one...the "gullible" one...you, Annie, are so
civilised...so powerful...we all are jealous of your "elephant" size
(literally, with your country's orgy of chronic obesity)...it's got to be
true that we're so much "better" because we have all those tens of
thousands of WMD, that no-one would dare to attack us...

We, of the "free nations", who have our indistinguishable two-party systems
that are really the same party - the "everything must go" party - split in
two, to make it appear that there's some kind of choice and democracy...

Spoilt? Arrogant? Fat? Lazy? How dare you! Who said that? We're going to
nuke whoever said that...we, the "free nations", shall brook no opposition!
Shoot the fucking lot of 'em!!

New Roman Empire? Yeah, right down to the last detail...and I mean the
_LAST_ - as in "final" - detail of spoilt, arrogant self-implosion...

> And, boy...can Beth TALK.

What's wrong? Jealous?

> BTW, I've officially submitted Beth's name for the 2005
> Neville Chamberlain 'Peace In Our Time' Award. Hehehe!

Chamberlain was wrong because, unlike Churchill, Chamberlain did not see
that he was dealing with fascists and realise that your kind are the only
"animals" that cannot be negotiated with...you were correct to call bin
Laden and his Islamists "12th century fascists"...but "fascist" is the
problematic word there that being a "21st century fascist" in return makes
you just as equal a "threat" to true civilisation...

And, boy...could Churchill TALK too...he won a Nobel Prize for Literature
for it...

And he could tell who he was dealing with in the Nazi threat when they
built a bonfire of books to destroy all learning, all knowledge, all
"thoughtcrimes" that could pose an "opposition" to their fascist dominance
to control the civilised German people into sanctioning their
Holocaust...Churchill would be as equally disturbed by the "bonfire" upon
which all learning, all knowledge has been burnt with the Fox "news
bulletins" you watch and believe...and how you also attempt to burn and
silence all opposition: "get 'em up against the wall!"...

"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak;
Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."
[ Winston Churchill ]

Beth :|

Betov

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 6:10:42 AM3/18/05

to

"A. Ascii" <a_a...@privacy.net> écrivait news:d1ddrq$nsn$1
@domitilla.aioe.org:

> I propose that we take up a collection, and send Beth to
> Iraq. Because (as every good leftist knows) if we can JUST
> SIT DOWN AND -TALK- with the towelheads...why, all the
> problems can be solved.

Ah! I just understood what the word "towelhead" ment, by
reading Beth answer.

Mind you, the ones who really did - and will have to - sit
and talk with the towelheads, are exactely the opposite ones.

The ones who gave weapons to the Talibans where the US Nazi,
not the European "leftist". And the ones who will have also
to talk with them are nobody else but the US Nazis when they
will have no choice but to run out of Irack.

Before the US aggression for oil, Irack was a country on
the way of developement (like all the other arabian countries
the US Nazi destroyed). Dispiting the evident fact that it
was a dictature, the status of women, the health system quality,
and so on, where really on the way for a modern democratie,
because there has never been any example of dictatures that
could have survived, in the long term, in the human history.
Even the US Nazism will die.

Now, when the US Nazy will leave this country, it will be
1) destoyed economicaly, 2) back to the 17th Century, at a
women status point of view, 3) confronted to the Islamist
terrorism, 4) much probably driven by towelheads.

Any better? :)) Oh! Yes! >>> Afgahnistan. :)) :)) :))

Betov.

< http://roasm.org/ >

Beth

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 8:45:58 AM3/18/05

to

Evenbit wrote:

> Beth wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just a little "public information message"...there's going to be
> > another international peace march on the Saturday, 19th March,
> > 2005...organised by the international Stop the War
> > Coalition...everyone, of all political stripes, are welcome, who
> > wish to stand up and march for peace...
>

> NOTE -- 1500 US Service Personel killed during the two years of the
> Iraq war.

Yes; As well as a minimum of 17,053 Iraq civilians*, 13,500-45,000 Iraqi
troops** in the conflict, 86 UK troops***, 89 "other" coalition troops***,
one of the leading experts on chemical and biological weapons who had been
involved in Iraqi weapons inspections (suicide, assumed to be due to
political pressure, as a "whistle blower" to journalists about government
manipulation of the so-called "dodgy dossier", Dr.David Kelly)****...the
Department of Defence also confirms 11,200 US Service Personnel "wounded in
action"***** (as injury is a "casualty of war" as well as just death)...

"We don't do body counts"
[ General Tommy Franks, US Central Command ]

At the time of writing, Bush still has yet to attend a single funeral of
any of those 1,500 US Service Personnel he sent to Iraq...

Though, he has found sufficient time to attend many hundreds of
fund-raising events - amassing the all-time election campaign record of
fund-rasing - including enjoying the entertainment of watching a rodeo...he
apparently also enjoys playing golf in his "spare" time too...

"All attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail. It must be
business as usual."
[ Margaret Thatcher, regarding the IRA's assassination attempt on her and
her cabinet ]

Beth :|

* Source: IraqBodyCount
** Source: British Medact
*** Source: Iraq Coalition Casualty Count
**** Source: Common knowledge; Lord Hutton's inquiry
***** Source: US Department of Defence

LGC

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 8:58:52 AM3/18/05

to

<SNIP>

> This is our world...time to stand up and defend our freedom (as the
> generations before us did that we enjoy our freedoms in the first place:
It
> was people who stood up that ended slavery, gained equal sufferage, gained
> civil rights, ended the Vietnam war, etc....all the greatest achievements
> of humanity have started with people willing to stand up and fight for
> what's right)...time to say that the WAR LIES were NOT accepted by the
> people and they will NOT be accepted again for more wars...

<SNIP>

There were no "WAR LIES". The 'lies' were made up by the liberal media to
support their anti-American agenda. The US was attacked by terrorists and
is now defending her freedom by going after them where they are, not waiting
for them to come to us.

I'm all for peace and freedom. (Who isn't, other than the terrorists.) In
order to maintain the peace, those who threaten it must be dealt with.

Annie

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 9:04:05 AM3/18/05

to

On 2005-03-18 BethS...@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com said:

> Easy to throw stones, Annie... <* SLAP *>
_____
We've been through all this ((( `\
before, Beth. I'm not gonna _ _`\ )
discuss it with you...because, (^ ) )
quite frankly, you're a k00k ~-( )
and a nutter. _'((,,,)))
,-' \_/ `\
You clearly have no real know- ( , |
ledge or insight about Islam. `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
And no, the 'civilized' Brit \ / | |
towelheads which the BBC trots =()=: / ,' aa
out for periodic TV interviews
don't count. They're Islamic 'Uncle Toms' who are put on
display for the purpose of manipulating the gullible, and
advancing the 'politically correct' leftist agenda.

Radical Islamist believers cannot be talked to or reasoned
with. The teachings of Islam are very clear: the 'infidels'
(that's YOU, Honey) must either be converted, or killed.

Get a copy of the Koran in English, and read it for yourself.

To an Islamist, it's a religious issue...and as such, Allah
allows no compromise.

If you believe otherwise, you're extremely naive, at best.
At worst, your ignorance is a danger to yourself and others.

All of Bush's talk about "the religion of peace," and about
"establishing a free democracy" in Towelhead-Land, is merely
'window dressing'...designed to partially mollify the wacko-
left of Europe.

None of it is true. Bush knows that, and Blair knows that.
Naturally, Bush can't SAY it. But -I- can.

There are only three possible solutions to the problem of
radical Islamists:

1. Kill'em. (This is one method that Saddam Hussein used).
2. Keep'em tightly repressed so that they can't become a
major danger to anyone (this is another method that
Saddam Hussein used).
3. Hope for a general, Islam-wide 'reformation' that
will drag the religion into 21st century 'enlighten-
ment.' (Impractical. Even if it happened [which is
unlikely], it would take centuries.)

So go and join your little peace march, if you wish; have a
good time...but don't be foolish enough to think that it'll
make even one iota of difference. It won't.

Islam is what it is: it's a 12th-century gutter religion
that understands only intimidation and force. There's no
provision in Islam for 'compromise,' or for 'tolerance,'
or for 'peace.' That's the reality. And wishing it were
different won't change a thing.

Much as you'd like to believe that "we're all the same,"
it simply ain't true. We're NOT "all the same;" we've
NEVER BEEN "all the same," and we'll NEVER BE "all the
same."

Oh...while you're at it, do a bit of research, and find out
who the organizing forces are behind this 'International
Peace March.' Then dig a little deeper, and discover where
the FUNDING for these forces comes from. You might find it
interesting and/or enlightening.

Reply to this post if you want to, but don't bother direct-
ing your reply at ME. Just address the general audience. I
have no intention of entering into a dialog with you.

I mean, like, how seriously can I take someone who's almost
30 years old, and uses SONG LYRICS BY FREAKY ROCK GROUPS as
validation for her views? Gawhh! Get real.

If your balloon ever lands, let me know. Hehehe!

Annie

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 9:03:59 AM3/18/05

to

On 2005-03-18 be...@free.fr said:

> Annie wrote:
>
> > Be honest, Rene: you are not overly thrilled
> > about the millions of towelheads which already
> > infest La Belle France.
>
> I cannot answer to this question, because, if i would
> do so, i could go in jail. My own opinions on that
> subject are illegal, in France.

That's a terrible situation. 'Political correctness' has
so run amuck in Europe that you now have to worry about
the Speech Police. Disgusting!

Well, -I- am under no such constraint...and I say, "TEAR
DOWN THE MOSQUES! THROW THE TOWELHEADS OUT OF FRANCE -NOW!"-
Hehe!

Annie

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 9:04:09 AM3/18/05

to

On 2005-03-18 be...@free.fr said:

> Ah! I just understood what the word "towelhead" ment, by
> reading Beth answer.
>
> Mind you, the ones who really did - and will have to - sit
> and talk with the towelheads, are exactely the opposite ones.
>
> The ones who gave weapons to the Talibans where the US Nazi,
> not the European "leftist". And the ones who will have also
> to talk with them are nobody else but the US Nazis when they
> will have no choice but to run out of Irack.
>
> Before the US aggression for oil, Irack was a country on
> the way of developement (like all the other arabian countries
> the US Nazi destroyed). Dispiting the evident fact that it
> was a dictature, the status of women, the health system quality,
> and so on, where really on the way for a modern democratie,
> because there has never been any example of dictatures that
> could have survived, in the long term, in the human history.
> Even the US Nazism will die.
>
> Now, when the US Nazy will leave this country, it will be
> 1) destoyed economicaly, 2) back to the 17th Century, at a
> women status point of view, 3) confronted to the Islamist
> terrorism, 4) much probably driven by towelheads.
>
> Any better? :)) Oh! Yes! >>> Afgahnistan. :)) :)) :))

> _____
> Betov. ((( `\
_ _`\ )
[* sigh *] Betov, vous savez que (^ ) )
je t'aime...mais vous etes le plus ~-( )
fou. Vraiment. Et vieux, aussi. _'((,,,)))
Comment allez vos dents? Hehehe! ,-' \_/ `\

( , |
`-.-'`-.-'/|_|

LGC

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 9:27:54 AM3/18/05

to

<SNIP>

> On the contrary, needless Western intervention and occupation is exactly
> what the Iraqis have been "insurgent" about...take up a collection to get
> Bush _OUT_ of there...to keep him _OUT_ of other people's countries...

Defending our country is not a 'needless' intervention. It is about
liberation and defense, not occupation. You are so strongly opposed to
keeping the US out of other people's countries, but have seemingly no
oppostion to keeping terrorists out of other people's countries.

<SNIP>

> And, xenophobe, you contradict your own President...why, yes, Bush says we
> _DO_ make them sit down and talk...that would be the very _definition_ of
> the "democratic parliament" that he wants set up in Iraq, surely? Or are
> you so blinded by "all arabs are animals" black propoganda to believe the
> Iraqis are incapable of instituting a democratic parliament? If so, then
> I'm _STILL_ right because that means Bush's "spread of democracy" is
> _DOOMED TO FAILURE_...

It is impossible to have a rational discussion with irrational terrorists.
The Iraqi people were being held hostage in their own country by a ruthless
dictator who held on to power by murdering anyone who opposed him. The
spread of democracy is not "DOOMED TO FAILURE". It has already been a
humungous success. The terrorists have not had any more successful attackes
on the US since 911 and are streaming into Iraq where we are able to
concentrate our fight against them. The *ONLY* way to rid the world of
terrorism is to kill the terrorists.

> Ah, I see...you cannot differentiate between the Iraqi people and the
> terrorists because Bush's black propoganda has run you into a mental
> contradiction...we cannot sit down and talk to the "towelheads" yet the
> entire purpose of the mission currently is to get the "towelheads" to sit
> down and talk to each other...to institute a democratic parliament which
is
> _NOTHING BUT_ sitting down and talking to each other to solve
> problems...that's what fracking "democracy" is, Annie...

YOU cannot seem to differentiate between the Iraqi people and the
terrorists.

<SELF-CONTRADICTORY DIATRABE SNIPPED>

> Getting everyone to sit down and talk to solve problems is _EXACTLY_ what
> "democracy" is...if that's impossible then what Bush is saying about "the
> spread of democracy" in the "towelhead" countries cannot possibly succeed
> because you tell us that "towelheads" - being "animals" or something, it
> seems - are physically incapable of doing such...so, Bush should pull out,
> not wage any more wars and stop wasting American tax money and lives on a
> "mission" that you've just declared to be an _IMPOSSIBLE_ task...

The US intervention is what is making democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan
possible.

> Yeah, there's no way this "democracy" thing could ever work, right? I
mean,
> what a retarded notion! People sitting down and talking through their
> problems to solve them in a parliament building, rather than blowing each
> other's brains with heavy weaponry...

Do you really believe that terrorists will set down and 'resolve' there
problems in a meeting? The only way they solve their 'problems' is by
killing them.

<SNIP>

Annie

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 9:27:19 AM3/18/05

to

On 2005-03-18 Nate Baker said:

> NOTE -- 1500 US Service Personel killed during the two years
> of the Iraq war.

> _____
> Nathan. ((( `\
_ _`\ )
Duhhh! It's a WAR, Nate-d00d. (^ ) )
~-( )
The purpose of a war is to _'((,,,)))
kill people and break things. ,-' \_/ `\
( , |
"The object of war is not to `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
die for your country, but to \ / | |
make the OTHER bastard die =()=: / ,' aa
for HIS."
- General George Patton

LGC

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 9:33:06 AM3/18/05

to

> Before the US aggression for oil, Irack was a country on
> the way of developement (like all the other arabian countries
> the US Nazi destroyed). Dispiting the evident fact that it
> was a dictature, the status of women, the health system quality,
> and so on, where really on the way for a modern democratie,
> because there has never been any example of dictatures that
> could have survived, in the long term, in the human history.
> Even the US Nazism will die.

You call the millions of murdered Iraqis development? You are dillusional.

> Now, when the US Nazy will leave this country, it will be
> 1) destoyed economicaly, 2) back to the 17th Century, at a
> women status point of view, 3) confronted to the Islamist
> terrorism, 4) much probably driven by towelheads.

The US is rebuilding Iraq just like they rebuilt Japan and Europe after they
saved the world in WWII.

Betov

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 10:02:41 AM3/18/05

to

"Annie" <m...@privacy.net> écrivait news:d1en4m$nh9$3...@domitilla.aioe.org:

> Comment allez vos dents? Hehehe! ,-' \_/ `\
> ( , |
> `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
>

Don't let my teeth in aside this, please!

Let the old set of artificial teeth rest
in peace!

:)

Betov.

Annie

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 10:13:45 AM3/18/05

to

On 2005-03-18 be...@free.fr said:

> Annie wrote:
>
> > Comment allez vos dents? Hehehe!
>

> Don't let my teeth in aside this, please!
>
> Let the old set of artificial teeth rest
> in peace!
>

> :) _____
> ((( `\
> Betov. _ _`\ )
(^ ) )
Hehe! Mais pourquoi? Vos ~-( )
dents sont beaux. Vieux, _'((,,,)))
oui...mais beaux. Hehehe! ,-' \_/ `\

( , |
`-.-'`-.-'/|_|

Frank Kotler

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 10:07:52 AM3/18/05

to

Beth wrote:

...

> Yes, I must be "gullible"...I must believe that the very start of all
> civilisation - Babylon - which _INVENTED_ it all and exported it to the
> rest of us...present day Iraq is where ancient Babylon was situated...

Yeah, but different people. The folks who invented all that
good stuff were invaded and conquered by Islam.

Best,
Frank

Betov

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 10:21:54 AM3/18/05

to

"LGC" <pro3...@yahoo.com> écrivait
news:3a0753F...@individual.net:

>> Before the US aggression for oil, Irack was a country on
>> the way of developement (like all the other arabian countries
>> the US Nazi destroyed). Dispiting the evident fact that it
>> was a dictature, the status of women, the health system quality,
>> and so on, where really on the way for a modern democratie,
>> because there has never been any example of dictatures that
>> could have survived, in the long term, in the human history.
>> Even the US Nazism will die.
>
> You call the millions of murdered Iraqis development? You are
> dillusional.

What millions of murdered Iraquis? The ones of Saddam
or the ones of Bush?

The ones of Saddam where the usual ones of a dictature
history. No relationship with developement, as dictature
is compatible with some kind of developement. By the way,
the _developement_, under dictatures is always the first
reason why the dictatures can have no future, and why the
US Nazism had to go another (more sophisticated) way.

The ones of Bush are the usual ones of colonialism. These
ones are in negative relationship with developement. This
is clear, here, that killing people for taking their oil,
and destroying all of the economical infra-structure of
the country can go nowhere but under-developement, for
many, many years.

>> Now, when the US Nazy will leave this country, it will be
>> 1) destoyed economicaly, 2) back to the 17th Century, at a
>> women status point of view, 3) confronted to the Islamist
>> terrorism, 4) much probably driven by towelheads.
>
> The US is rebuilding Iraq just like they rebuilt Japan and Europe
> after they saved the world in WWII.

:)) :)) :))

For your information, Europe and Japon had hard time re-bulding
themselves after WWII, for the very simple reason that _any_
developement, on earth, is by definition, a developement
_against_ the America. What the US Nazism calls "Help to
rebuild" is submission and/or destruction of the possible
competitors.

The re-built of Irak will begin after the Irakian heroes will
have kicked the US killers out. This will be a very long and
very painfull task for this people, because their geo-political
situation has been destroyed: They are now _3_ countries, that
CANNOT live together, with a serious Islamic terrorism problem
introduced artificially by the US Nazism, and with all of the
economical structures completly destroyed: Water, Electricity,
Industry, and so on... all destroyed.

In case you would be as stupid as for believing in the bullshits
of the Nazi Propaganda, the very first targets of the US Aviation,
when attacking such a country, are, in _order_: 1) The water (!!!),
2) the electricity production, 3) the phone communications.

Betov.

Betov

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 10:29:12 AM3/18/05

to

"Evenbit" <nbake...@charter.net> écrivait news:1111151204.447159.299600
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

>
> Beth wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just a little "public information message"...there's going to be
>> another international peace march on the Saturday, 19th March,
>> 2005...organised by the international Stop the War
> Coalition...everyone, of
>> all political stripes, are welcome, who wish to stand up and march
> for
>> peace...
>

> NOTE -- 1500 US Service Personel killed during the two years of the
> Iraq war.

Might be a bit more, but halas, not much more.

Too bad that the Arabian resistance heroes do
not seem to have any atomic bomb on the land of
the United Stated... or not better rockets to
defend against the Nazi Air Forces aggressions.

May be you could help them by writting a Program
for enabling the "Green Rocket" with locking on
planes targets, after visual recognition. Even
written with HLA, this would be much fun.

:)

Betov.

LGC

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 1:11:36 PM3/18/05

to

> What millions of murdered Iraquis? The ones of Saddam
> or the ones of Bush?

Saying that Bush murdered millions of Iraqis is insane.

> The ones of Saddam where the usual ones of a dictature
> history. No relationship with developement, as dictature
> is compatible with some kind of developement. By the way,
> the _developement_, under dictatures is always the first
> reason why the dictatures can have no future, and why the
> US Nazism had to go another (more sophisticated) way.

The above makes no sense. Development does not overthrow a dictator as the
controlling regime controls the development.

> The ones of Bush are the usual ones of colonialism. These
> ones are in negative relationship with developement. This
> is clear, here, that killing people for taking their oil,
> and destroying all of the economical infra-structure of
> the country can go nowhere but under-developement, for
> many, many years.

The colonialism statement is ludicrous. The US involvement in Iraq is a
part of our effort to rid the world of terrorism. The US has taken (stolen)
no oil, which is another ludicrous assertion. (Oil prices are higher now
than they have been in decades.) The US is building the economic
infra-structure of Iraq, virtually which did not exist under terrorist rule.

> For your information, Europe and Japon had hard time re-bulding
> themselves after WWII, for the very simple reason that _any_
> developement, on earth, is by definition, a developement
> _against_ the America. What the US Nazism calls "Help to
> rebuild" is submission and/or destruction of the possible
> competitors.

Your definition is in no way related to the facts of history.

> The re-built of Irak will begin after the Irakian heroes will
> have kicked the US killers out. This will be a very long and
> very painfull task for this people, because their geo-political
> situation has been destroyed: They are now _3_ countries, that
> CANNOT live together, with a serious Islamic terrorism problem
> introduced artificially by the US Nazism, and with all of the
> economical structures completly destroyed: Water, Electricity,
> Industry, and so on... all destroyed.

Pure hogwash.

> In case you would be as stupid as for believing in the bullshits
> of the Nazi Propaganda, the very first targets of the US Aviation,
> when attacking such a country, are, in _order_: 1) The water (!!!),
> 2) the electricity production, 3) the phone communications.

Any military strike against these facilities was only for the purpose of
winning the war. Since then, the US has rebuilt what was damaged and has
raised the infrastructure to a level exceeding that to which it was before
the war.

Your beliefs are based on fallacy. It would behoove you to lose the hate
you have for freedom loving people and get a grip on reality.

Betov

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 1:58:41 PM3/18/05

to

"LGC" <pro3...@yahoo.com> écrivait
news:3a0jupF...@individual.net:

>> What millions of murdered Iraquis? The ones of Saddam
>> or the ones of Bush?
>
> Saying that Bush murdered millions of Iraqis is insane.

? And saying that Saddam murdered millions of Iraqis is
"sane"?

Mind you, 1) the simple evaluation of the deaths number,
caused by the USA, in Irak, in between the two aggressions
is above 1 Million, only for the children, and 2) the Irak
whole population is not that big to enable a dictator with
killing them by _millions_.

>> The ones of Saddam where the usual ones of a dictature
>> history. No relationship with developement, as dictature
>> is compatible with some kind of developement. By the way,
>> the _developement_, under dictatures is always the first
>> reason why the dictatures can have no future, and why the
>> US Nazism had to go another (more sophisticated) way.
>
> The above makes no sense. Development does not overthrow a dictator
> as the controlling regime controls the development.

Learn a bit of history.

By the way, if you do not attack Iran, the towelheads
have no chance for still ruling this country in, say,
20 years, whereas, if you attack them, they will still
be there in one 60 years.

>> The ones of Bush are the usual ones of colonialism. These
>> ones are in negative relationship with developement. This
>> is clear, here, that killing people for taking their oil,
>> and destroying all of the economical infra-structure of
>> the country can go nowhere but under-developement, for
>> many, many years.
>
> The colonialism statement is ludicrous. The US involvement in Iraq is
> a part of our effort to rid the world of terrorism. The US has taken
> (stolen) no oil, which is another ludicrous assertion. (Oil prices
> are higher now than they have been in decades.) The US is building
> the economic infra-structure of Iraq, virtually which did not exist
> under terrorist rule.

You are a dement. Aren't you?

1) What you call "terrorism" has been create from scratch by
_you_, and the 11th of September that bothers you was a minor
revenge against your crimes. You'd deserved this XXXX times.

2) The only reason for your aggression against Irak is the
oil.

3) The general reason of the aggression of US Nazism against
all the Arabian Countries is the exact same one as it has
always been since the US occupy the Mediterranean sea, that
is, so to say, since the USA do exist, and that is to cut,
divide and dominate the relationship between Europe and these
arabian countries. This is why, as soon as an Arabian country
developement comes up to a modern state, it is immidiatly
destroyed by the USA. This is what you did with Egypte, with
Libia, with Irak, and, by systematic corruption, against all
the other ones.

4) The fact that your Nazy Army has been unable to _take_
effectively the oil, (because the Irakian resistance does
its job pretty well), does not prove, in any way, that your
target is not the oil. Simply that you have failed to take
it.

5) "economic infra-structure of Iraq" existed before your
aggression, and this is exactly the reason of the aggression.
It is now utterly destroyed, and nothing is rebuilt, but some
Oil equipements that you would like to _use_ for yourself.

>> [...]

>
>> In case you would be as stupid as for believing in the bullshits
>> of the Nazi Propaganda, the very first targets of the US Aviation,
>> when attacking such a country, are, in _order_: 1) The water (!!!),
>> 2) the electricity production, 3) the phone communications.
>
> Any military strike against these facilities was only for the purpose
> of winning the war.

You did not won the war, and you never will.

Plus, anyway, even if you could stay in Irak for, say one
century, until there would be no more anybody to kill, at
that time, we will no more need that oil. So... you loose
in all cases. You had lost in advance.

> Since then, the US has rebuilt what was damaged
> and has raised the infrastructure to a level exceeding that to which
> it was before the war.

You are completely crazy, aren't you?

> Your beliefs are based on fallacy.

In case you would not know, as opposed to your Nazi country,
the European countries tend to have, at least, partially,
something that is called "informations". Too bad you seem
to have access to none.

> It would behoove you to lose the
> hate you have for freedom loving people and get a grip on reality.

After several readings of this sentence, i think i have to
hear: "The US Nazi are loving people fighting for freedom".

Not sure... Maybe Beth could understand better than me:

She is pretty good at surrealism... :)

Betov.

Herbert Kleebauer

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 2:22:33 PM3/18/05

to

LGC wrote:

> There were no "WAR LIES". The 'lies' were made up by the liberal media to
> support their anti-American agenda. The US was attacked by terrorists and
> is now defending her freedom by going after them where they are, not waiting
> for them to come to us.

I know that there are many people without a cerebrum who
only can think with their cerebellum, but I always thought,
that such people don't read an assembly newsgroup. Or are
you also just an ASCII figure from which we all know, that
they don't have a brain at all?

NoDot

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 4:44:54 PM3/18/05

to

Annie wrote:
> Much as you'd like to believe that "we're all the same,"
> it simply ain't true. We're NOT "all the same;" we've
> NEVER BEEN "all the same," and we'll NEVER BE "all the
> same."

As much as I'd like to disagree, I can't. Every person is unique. This
is true in personality, in experiences, and in genetics. Each person has
different experiences, and, as such, is different in that regard. Need I
mention the genetic case?

What *IS* true, however, is that all people deserve equal treatment,
regardless of differences. We're all human, and deserve human treatment.

--
The above was written by NoDot.

Visit the Website of NoDot:
<www.geocities.com/nodot1989/>

NoDot

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 5:07:20 PM3/18/05

to

LGC wrote:
> [snip]

Let me give you a but of advise: don't waste your breath of Betov. He
has a problem with Randall Hyde, Christians, HLA Users, Americans, and
probably many others too. The best plan of action is to ignore him.

\o//annabee

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 6:20:01 PM3/18/05

to

På Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:07:20 -0500, skrev NoDot
<no_...@msn.remove_this.com>:

> LGC wrote:
>> [snip]
>
> Let me give you a but of advise: don't waste your breath of Betov. He
> has a problem with Randall Hyde, Christians, HLA Users, Americans, and
> probably many others too. The best plan of action is to ignore him.

Yeah, Betov made a proffesional quality Development suit, and is an idiot,
while you made a fool of yourself with that streaming dementia, and is a
genious.

Guess who I'd listen too ?

My comment about this LGC gay is that there are no grounds for asking him
if he is dement.
That is *painfully* obvious.

Your stream "idea" is was so crap, that its only place would be in a comic
strip.

NoDot

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 11:57:15 PM3/18/05

to

\\o//annabee wrote:
> Your stream "idea" is was so crap, that its only place would be in a
> comic strip.

Then post that opinion in a response to my stream idea post, instead of
here in another thread.

\o//annabee

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 12:25:07 AM3/19/05

to

På Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:57:15 -0500, skrev NoDot
<no_...@msn.remove_this.com>:

> \\o//annabee wrote:
>> Your stream "idea" is was so crap, that its only place would be in a
>> comic strip.

> Then post that opinion in a response to my stream idea post, instead of
> here in another thread.

You talk shit of decent people, who do decent work. I was in a bad mode.
So you got it.
Anyway. The way you presented the idea was crap. Because I cannot see how
your idea is
anything more than what we call opening a file, writing something to it,
and have
another program, who understands the format, reading it.

You sounded like you thought a stream was something arbitrary, some
allready existing entity, like some (??? what, ??? thats the question ?)
one could just "put" something on.
"Stream.putz" maybe :) And then it would just hang around all by itself,
and do whatever the hell some program wanted it to do. Theres was no
thought to what it would mean, or even what purpose it would serve.... and
no explaination to what it was, at all, so then yes, absolutly, it was a
crap idea. It was not even an idea, it was something you pulled out of
your ass.

The more thing to add here, is that you are the Troll, not me. Its
obvious, that since you dont know crap about what a stream is, and have no
idea what you are going to use it for : --> the thing you dont know
anything about -- then you must have just invented some words on the spot.
Pretending to actually have an idea. If this aint trolling, then what is ?

So, consider this + plus you taking shit of Betov, then you dont look like
anything but utterly patetic.

Sevag Krikorian

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 12:41:15 AM3/19/05

to

\\o//annabee wrote:
> På Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:57:15 -0500, skrev NoDot
> <no_...@msn.remove_this.com>:
>

> So, consider this + plus you taking shit of Betov, then you dont look
> like anything but utterly patetic.
>

What is truly pathetic is you going nutty on anyone who
criticizes Rene. What are you, his mother?

Betov

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 4:13:33 AM3/19/05

to

NoDot <no_...@msn.remove_this.com> écrivait news:3a115oF65aa1nU2
@individual.net:

> LGC wrote:
>> [snip]
>
> Let me give you a but of advise: don't waste your breath of Betov. He
> has a problem with Randall Hyde, Christians, HLA Users, Americans, and
> probably many others too. The best plan of action is to ignore him.

:))

.. and this is where the discussion becomes really
interresting.

:))

At least, you, small head, are 100% coherent:

HLA victim >>> Definitive Idiot >>> Nazism defender.

Perfect.

Where it becomes less coherent is when a so called
GPLed Assembler Project seems to have no problem
with admitting such individuals in the "Team", and
where the circle of incoherency is closed is when
Beth, who choosed deliberately to dishonor herself
by compromissing with ass-holes, like Randall Hyde
and you, fire a Thread devoted to the left-Wing
resistance to nazism.

Ridiculous.

Betov.

Frank Kotler

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 6:47:33 AM3/19/05

to

Betov wrote:

...

> Where it becomes less coherent is when a so called
> GPLed Assembler Project seems to have no problem
> with admitting such individuals in the "Team",

I'd find it pretty astonishing if a GPLed project *excluded*
anyone based on their political leanings, or with whom they
chose to associate. Are you sure you haven't got GPL
confused with RLA?

Best,
Frank

Betov

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 7:32:40 AM3/19/05

to

Frank Kotler <fbko...@comcast.net> écrivait news:423C1155.770FFDE7
@comcast.net:

I don't know what RLA is, but i know, for sure, that
the GPL mouvement is not an "ethical free" Mouvement.
The GPL Mouvement is a Political Mouvement, that is
part, - and full rights part, as a precursor -, of
the whole Anti-Globalization Mouvement.

Usually, those Right-Wing ass-holes are nice enough
for excluding themselves from the GPL Mouvement. When
they are not, this is our _due_ to exclude them, 1)
because of the evident ethical requirements, 2) because
Programming requires having a working brain.

A GPL Project Team is not a trash-Bin where any idiot
can come in. A serious team must have serious members,
having not only the required technical competencies
(that are not that much important, as anybody can learn
by doing, when the "good-will" is there...), but; first,
having some common-agreament on what they are doing,
why they are doing it, and for what final target they
are doing so, in the given context.

This is why i regulary insist on the political and
ethical points. Before welcoming some fellow in the
RosAsm team, i test this problem, _first_. Even with
no technical competency, at all, a volunteer may be
welcomed (he can learn later, and be usefull at a lot
of things, would it only be as a tester...), but when
not matching ethical and political requirements, this
is not possible, because there is no known way to become
intelligent, honnest, volunteer, good willing, and so
on.

In the times of SpAsm i did not do this, and this has
been a major fault of mines, that did cost an high price
to the Project. I was in the illusion that the Political
and Ethical requirements were far too evident for taking
much care of this. An error that i will not do twice.

Nowadays, thanks to Master Randall Hyde, the decisions
are way easier taken:

Defender of the ass-hole <=> Ass-hole. Period.

:)

Betov.

Frank Kotler

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 7:56:57 AM3/19/05

to

Betov wrote:

> I don't know what RLA is,

RosAsm License Agreement... I *knew* you were making that
too hard to find!

-----------------------------------------
...
20 - The License does not apply and the Program and all it's
'derivative works', 'works based on the Program' and
documents,
tutorials, demos and all related material, are forbidden to
be
used, copied, distributed, translated, analyzed, modified,
and
perform any of the acts described on this License, by
military,
Para-military, political, or any Governmental Agencies,
Organizations,
Institutes and related personal/staff of any Country,
especially
when the purpose of the usage of the Program is related to
them.
The personal and organizations, institutes and anyone
described
on this section 20, should only use this License and the
program,
related materials and described works, upon request, and
only after
express authorization of the original author, which will
analyze
the purpose of the requested License in each specific
situation,
rebuilding or adapting this License when it's needed.
-----------------------------------------------------

...

> The GPL Mouvement is a Political Mouvement,

So they need special permission to run RosAsm, is that
right?

Best,
Frank

Betov

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 8:13:12 AM3/19/05

to

Frank Kotler <fbko...@comcast.net> écrivait
news:423C2199...@comcast.net:

>> The GPL Mouvement is a Political Mouvement,
>
> So they need special permission to run RosAsm, is that
> right?

No, that would be too easy: They need to deliver
a copy of an official sueing decree from the FBI.

Betov.

NoDot

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 8:54:43 AM3/19/05

to

\\o//annabee wrote:
> You talk shit of decent people, who do decent work. I was in a bad mode.
> So you got it.
> Anyway. The way you presented the idea was crap. Because I cannot see
> how your idea is
> anything more than what we call opening a file, writing something to it,
> and have
> another program, who understands the format, reading it.

[Yawn] Perhaps it would help you if you understood that the idea is
intended to be used in Operating Systems, not normal programs operating
under other OSs (as it wouldn't be possible to impliment the idea
without a lot of work). You also seem to not grasp that it's not like a
file or surface: you never lock the object. It's a method of program
communication in Real-Time.

IF you don't like it, then you can say so. I presented an idea, which I
thought was interesting, and expected to be full of holes. If you have a
hole, say so.

\o//annabee

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 9:51:24 AM3/19/05

to

På Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:41:15 -0500, skrev Sevag Krikorian
<kahl...@nop.yahoo.com>:

> \\o//annabee wrote:
>> På Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:57:15 -0500, skrev NoDot
>> <no_...@msn.remove_this.com>:
>>
>> So, consider this + plus you taking shit of Betov, then you dont look
>> like anything but utterly patetic.
>>
>
> What is truly pathetic is you going nutty on anyone who
> criticizes Rene. What are you, his mother?

Yes.

:-) I dont go nutty on anyone critisizing Rene, I go nutty, when
pupped-sized shit, critizie decent and honest work, just to be cruel, when
they have &NULL and 00_0 reason or background for doing so.
People who make fun of hard work, esesially when its free, should hang by
their neck.

The only one in this NG, remotly capable of commenting on RosAsm is
Wolfgang. None of the other partisipants, save octavio and maybe some of
the lurkers, have anything but butsized butbrains, and should seriously
shut up.

>

Herbert Kleebauer

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 10:35:30 AM3/19/05

to

Frank Kotler wrote:

> RosAsm License Agreement... I *knew* you were making that
> too hard to find!
>
> -----------------------------------------
> ...
> 20 - The License does not apply and the Program and all it's
> 'derivative works', 'works based on the Program' and documents,
> tutorials, demos and all related material, are forbidden to be
> used, copied, distributed, translated, analyzed, modified, and
> perform any of the acts described on this License, by military,
> Para-military, political, or any Governmental Agencies, Organizations,
> Institutes and related personal/staff of any Country, especially
> when the purpose of the usage of the Program is related to them.
> The personal and organizations, institutes and anyone described
> on this section 20, should only use this License and the program,
> related materials and described works, upon request, and only after
> express authorization of the original author, which will analyze
> the purpose of the requested License in each specific situation,
> rebuilding or adapting this License when it's needed.
> -----------------------------------------------------

Is this a joke? Does "Governmental .... Organizations,
Institutes" mean, that no public university is allowed
to use RosAsm? Seems you want to support the use of HLA
at universities.

\o//annabee

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 10:34:59 AM3/19/05

to

På Sat, 19 Mar 2005 08:54:43 -0500, skrev NoDot
<no_...@msn.remove_this.com>:

> \\o//annabee wrote:
>> You talk shit of decent people, who do decent work. I was in a bad
>> mode. So you got it.
>> Anyway. The way you presented the idea was crap. Because I cannot see
>> how your idea is
>> anything more than what we call opening a file, writing something to
>> it, and have
>> another program, who understands the format, reading it.
>
> [Yawn] Perhaps it would help you if you understood that the idea is
> intended to be used in Operating Systems, not normal programs operating
> under other OSs (as it wouldn't be possible to impliment the idea
> without a lot of work). You also seem to not grasp that it's not like a
> file or surface: you never lock the object. It's a method of program
> communication in Real-Time.

??? How so ? Having a common memory area between two processes ? In
windows, it is called a filemapping. Across networks its called UDP, and
it is certainly not "real time", while this is simply impossible, as even
light speed isnt fast enough to cross the globe, in real time.

> IF you don't like it, then you can say so. I presented an idea, which I
> thought was interesting, and expected to be full of holes. If you have a
> hole, say so.

Ok. This is the holes :

You havent presented an idea at all, just a few words, its seems you dont
know what mean.
There are no grounds for evaluating you "idea", as there no scenario yet,
for imagining what it is :))) And what make it diffrent from what we
allready got. "real time" communication, isnt less possible, with the
tools we allready got.

You have failed to explain what problem it would solve, and how, and why.
Its actually, from your outline of your idea, impossible to even begin to
imagine what it could be used for.

This is more like dark matter :)))))))))) then a hole, if you ask me.

So, you need to put some more work on your idea, and present a scenario
where the idea might have some purpose, some usage, and explain why it
will be better, using your idea, then using what we allready got.

Maybe you really got a good idea :) And you just didn't manage to
communicate it so that we would understand. So then, maybe you should pull
your brain hard together, and try again. :))) I have to do this many many
times with my ideas.... its the way things are. Thats where the work is.

Good luck. I am not out to get you or anything, its just that I find it
very strange for someone to say that a man like Betov is not worth
listenting to, when Betov has actually implemented a WHOLE RANGE, of
beautiful, simple AWSOME ideas into his Development tools, while the
person doing the critic, failed to even communicate the first reason for
his ideas.

Betov

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 11:10:05 AM3/19/05

to

Herbert Kleebauer <kl...@unibwm.de> écrivait
news:423C46C2...@unibwm.de:

:)) :)) :))

It depends: If this is a US University working for the
CIA, with money from Coca-Cola... Yes, they _have_ to
use HLA. HLA _only_.

:)) :)) :))

Betov.

Frank Kotler

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 11:12:17 AM3/19/05

to

Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
>
> Frank Kotler wrote:
>
> > RosAsm License Agreement...

> Is this a joke? Does "Governmental .... Organizations,

> Institutes" mean, that no public university is allowed
> to use RosAsm? Seems you want to support the use of HLA
> at universities.

Well, I quoted that out of context. The RLA makes
clear(?)...

-----------------------------
19 - Anyone is free to use, distribute and perform the acts
of the
Program according to the terms of this License, either if
the
Licensee is a single person, or civil organization or
institute,
like schools, universities, research centers, hospitals,
health centers,
engineering or computer companies, non-governmental
organizations, and
all others related to the civil and humanitarian purposes.
-------------------------------

So I would assume that teaching RosAsm at a government
sponsored university would be okay... Teaching asm is a
humanitarian purpose... unless you ask the students who have
to take it :)

Best,
Frank

Betov

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 11:55:16 AM3/19/05

to

Frank Kotler <fbko...@comcast.net> écrivait news:423C4F61.1C0DED51
@comcast.net:

> Well, I quoted that out of context. The RLA makes
> clear(?)...
>
> -----------------------------
> 19 - Anyone is free to use, distribute and perform the acts
> of the
> Program according to the terms of this License, either if
> the
> Licensee is a single person, or civil organization or
> institute,
> like schools, universities, research centers, hospitals,
> health centers,
> engineering or computer companies, non-governmental
> organizations, and
> all others related to the civil and humanitarian purposes.
> -------------------------------
>
> So I would assume that teaching RosAsm at a government
> sponsored university would be okay... Teaching asm is a
> humanitarian purpose... unless you ask the students who have
> to take it :)

Must depends on what 'teacher' they got. Imagine the
poor guys having to suffer master Pdf Bullshits. They
could only regret not having taken the Java course,
instead.

:))

Anyway, RosAsm is _not_ a "teaching Tool". It is a
"learning Tool". Such Tools are not the ones that
could have success in the Universities. When they
"have to take it", the best Tool is HLA, because
this is the only Tool, claiming to be an "Assembler",
that could save them from having to learn anything,
and that could save the so called "Teacher" to have
to teach anything relative to Assembly.

Let me close the fun circle with a citation from the
Author of a new Debugger thingie:

"Debugging with only forward execution will become as
obsolete as assembly language debugging, once source-
level debuggers were available."

:)

Betov.

\o//annabee

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 12:24:42 PM3/19/05

to

På 19 Mar 2005 16:55:16 GMT, skrev Betov <be...@free.fr>:

>
> Let me close the fun circle with a citation from the
> Author of a new Debugger thingie:
>
> "Debugging with only forward execution will become as
> obsolete as assembly language debugging, once source-
> level debuggers were available."

Thats sound like KetMan ?

Actually, I think the RosAsm source level debugger is very useful for
learning,
as it provides more _visibility_ It shortens debugging time, I am pretty
sure.

Feedback is to me very important.

For instance the BINARY output of registers is very nice.
Have it understand "custom formats" as well. Thats nice

Popup Rosy dialog : Add custom type :

press add
name : MyString
format : D$ + 0 = D$Pchar
D$ + 4 = D$Length
_________________________
press add

Name: MyBitmaps
format : D$ + 0 = D$Handle
D$ + 4 = D$RefCount
D$ + 8 = D$Bitmap.MemDC
.... etc
press OK

Now one could select theese types in the debugger.

If backtraceing is of any use I cant say.
Seems more like implementing something not heard of
for no exceptionally good reason.

But it could allow you to go back,instead of rerunning
if you forgot a state. So its not 100% useless.

> :)
>
> Betov.
>
> < http://rosasm.org/ >

< http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/10/1731230&from=rss >

Betov

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 1:31:24 PM3/19/05

to

"\\\\o//annabee" <http://TheWannabee.org> écrivait
news:opsnwang...@news.braodpark.no:

>> "Debugging with only forward execution will become as
>> obsolete as assembly language debugging, once source-
>> level debuggers were available."
>
> Thats sound like KetMan ?
>

It is from and Link:

Betov.

Sevag Krikorian

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 6:22:29 PM3/19/05

to

\\o//annabee wrote:
> På Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:41:15 -0500, skrev Sevag Krikorian
> <kahl...@nop.yahoo.com>:
>
>> \\o//annabee wrote:
>>
>>> På Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:57:15 -0500, skrev NoDot
>>> <no_...@msn.remove_this.com>:
>>>
>>> So, consider this + plus you taking shit of Betov, then you dont look
>>> like anything but utterly patetic.
>>>
>>
>> What is truly pathetic is you going nutty on anyone who
>> criticizes Rene. What are you, his mother?
>
>
> Yes.
>
> :-) I dont go nutty on anyone critisizing Rene, I go nutty, when
> pupped-sized shit, critizie decent and honest work, just to be cruel,
> when they have &NULL and 00_0 reason or background for doing so.
> People who make fun of hard work, esesially when its free, should hang
> by their neck.
>

Ok then stop being a hypocrite: Go hang Rene and when your done, hang
yourself. You both fit in the category you describe above.

> The only one in this NG, remotly capable of commenting on RosAsm is
> Wolfgang. None of the other partisipants, save octavio and maybe some of
> the lurkers, have anything but butsized butbrains, and should seriously
> shut up.

So the only participants in this news group who don't have "butsized
butbrains" are you, Rene, Octavio and Wolfgang?

\o//annabee

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 9:26:52 PM3/19/05

to

På Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:22:29 -0500, skrev Sevag Krikorian
<kahl...@nop.yahoo.com>:

>> People who make fun of hard work, esesially when its free, should hang
>> by their neck.

> Ok then stop being a hypocrite: Go hang Rene and when your done, hang
> yourself. You both fit in the category you describe above.

You better update yourself, seriously fast. Master PDF has a sinlist, the
length of the DARK-BIBLE of lies and Trollposts, pretending that he got a
clue, where he concludes that RosAsm is this, it cant do that and bla bla
bla. ALL lies. Randy post them in long posts, that otherwise could have
some interesst to a newbie programmer, and thus while sometimes telling
the truth, and sometimes acting like he words are for real, he stabs the
works or RosAsm, again and again. This is a snake.

If you have never seen him do this, you are BLIND.

In return, Rene has simply told people the truth about Randall Hyde. That
the MAN randall hyde is a swindler and visious lier. That he is dement,
and that he is praying on young heads, playing the dancing master, not
knowing shit. All true.

I hope you are not the same as he. I have a strong feeling you have more
brains, and you will find out the hard way, that Betov has been telling
the truth, all the time, and that Randall really _is_ a swindler.

I will try offer you a logical proof: It simply cant be a matematic proof
because, this one need for you to have certain experience and
understandings, and eyesight to confirm (also the reason why Randall is so
dangerous to beginners).

Its the nature of the truthseekers to dig and dig until he find the
bottom, the truth, the realities. This is the nature of asmers as well.
And when they find it, they tell it. They all tell how easy it is, how
wonderful it is compared to HLLs. Not that it shouldnt be used. Randall
Hyde, the demented swindler and patetic impotent lier, does this. HE have
discouraged asm in THIS VERY NG.

Why would Randy, after his 30 years of "intimate assmembly experience"
(Randalls own words), create a blackbox syntax the likes of C and Pascal
??? A syntax, much harder and dement than both C and Pascal, and
espesially asm. And why would he use C ??? for this ?

Why would he want to prevent users from learning the true things, and
confusing them with his pendatic fogtalk for miles and miles of BS in AOA
?

Why would he have a hitcounter in Webster showing 4,5 million hits, for
his tool, when we all know there are at most 10 users, on a shiny bright
day, with wind from behind ?

Why would he need to use a third party assembler to assemble the output of
HLA ?

Why would his HLL be the slowest HLL in existence ? Taking 20 seconds for
compiling HIDE ? About 500K? when I tried it ? Is this the fruits of 30
years ? This is making mock of even HLLers.

The more abstractions we lay over the real thing, the more lies to
uncover, and the longer the path to become a programmer.

Do you really need more then this ?

If so, then its true, you have fallen in to his trap, and you will have to
pay the costs. The cost of compromise is the cost of your programming
soul.

Sevag Krikorian

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 10:38:57 PM3/19/05

to

\\o//annabee wrote:
> På Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:22:29 -0500, skrev Sevag Krikorian
> <kahl...@nop.yahoo.com>:
>
>>> People who make fun of hard work, esesially when its free, should
>>> hang by their neck.
>
>
>> Ok then stop being a hypocrite: Go hang Rene and when your done, hang
>> yourself. You both fit in the category you describe above.
>
>
> You better update yourself, seriously fast. Master PDF has a sinlist,
> the length of the DARK-BIBLE of lies and Trollposts, pretending that he
> got a clue, where he concludes that RosAsm is this, it cant do that and
> bla bla bla. ALL lies. Randy post them in long posts, that otherwise
> could have some interesst to a newbie programmer, and thus while
> sometimes telling the truth, and sometimes acting like he words are for
> real, he stabs the works or RosAsm, again and again. This is a snake.
>
> If you have never seen him do this, you are BLIND.
>

Yes, it is evident that you have bought into Rene's bullshit hook, line
and sinker.

What I have seen Randall do are ligitimate integrity tests, and
bring up some genuine criticisms of RosAsm. Some of which Rene
quietly implemented over the months, though you will never hear
him give Randall any credit for them.

On the other hand, while Randall does ligitimate benchmarks, Rene's
criticisms are, with the exception of the speed issue, based on smoke.

> In return, Rene has simply told people the truth about Randall Hyde.
> That the MAN randall hyde is a swindler and visious lier. That he is
> dement, and that he is praying on young heads, playing the dancing
> master, not knowing shit. All true.
>

Yet, he has never been able to produce any evidence. His claims are
nothing but the personal opinions of a demented mind. When you get on
Rene's shit-list, he'll stop at nothing to smear your name.

> I hope you are not the same as he. I have a strong feeling you have more
> brains, and you will find out the hard way, that Betov has been telling
> the truth, all the time, and that Randall really _is_ a swindler.
>

It's a really hard task to squeese truth from anything Betov says. The
man is full of envy and rage, mostly directed at the wrong entities.

> I will try offer you a logical proof: It simply cant be a matematic
> proof because, this one need for you to have certain experience and
> understandings, and eyesight to confirm (also the reason why Randall is
> so dangerous to beginners).
>

Okay, let's hear the logic.

> Its the nature of the truthseekers to dig and dig until he find the
> bottom, the truth, the realities. This is the nature of asmers as well.
> And when they find it, they tell it. They all tell how easy it is, how
> wonderful it is compared to HLLs. Not that it shouldnt be used. Randall
> Hyde, the demented swindler and patetic impotent lier, does this. HE
> have discouraged asm in THIS VERY NG.
>

I certianly hope this isn't the logic you were talking about. All I
read above is a parroting of the same bullshit Rene spurts.

> Why would Randy, after his 30 years of "intimate assmembly experience"
> (Randalls own words), create a blackbox syntax the likes of C and Pascal
> ??? A syntax, much harder and dement than both C and Pascal, and
> espesially asm. And why would he use C ??? for this ?
>

This has been answered before. You simply refuse to accept the answer.
That is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but I still don't see
that 'logical' proof you touted earlier.

> Why would he want to prevent users from learning the true things, and
> confusing them with his pendatic fogtalk for miles and miles of BS in AOA ?
>

He does not block users from learning the 'true things.' Read AoA for
proof of that. You will find that he describes each HLLism in low-
level assembly. Because of that, I now understand HLL's in a way I
never did before.

> Why would he have a hitcounter in Webster showing 4,5 million hits, for
> his tool, when we all know there are at most 10 users, on a shiny bright
> day, with wind from behind ?
>

That's only the picture of users active on these forums.
The large part of HLA's audience are HLL users. Most are not into
assembly for life or as a replacement for their HLL's, they are into it
as an enhancement of their HLL experience.

Some are under the impression that a processer-specific assembler may
one day replace or compete with HLL's. This is a pipe-dream. It will
never happen, especially as the future outlook indicates that there
will be more processor architectures. People will want to continue
coding in easily portable HLL's (as they do now).

> Why would he need to use a third party assembler to assemble the output
> of HLA ?

Another thing already covered. Such a dependence will vanish in HLA2.0

>
> Why would his HLL be the slowest HLL in existence ? Taking 20 seconds
> for compiling HIDE ? About 500K? when I tried it ? Is this the fruits of
> 30 years ? This is making mock of even HLLers.

Another thing we've been over before, yet you skew the truth here to
make HLA look bad. That time is for a *full rebuild* of HIDE and the
actual code processed is about 9 megas (due to the include files for
each unit). The fault for that is my lazyness. I can easily
grab just the prototypes that I actually use and shrink the size down
to 1 mega. But as HIDE full rebuild on my computer is under 6s, and
the fact that I rarely do a full rebuild, my average build time is under
1s, I have no motivation to speed up the compiling time.

>
> The more abstractions we lay over the real thing, the more lies to
> uncover, and the longer the path to become a programmer.
>

Use of abstractions in HLA is optional, just as in Rosasm.

> Do you really need more then this ?
>

I was hoping for that logical proof you mentioned. You have
disappointed me.

> If so, then its true, you have fallen in to his trap, and you will have
> to pay the costs. The cost of compromise is the cost of your programming
> soul.

What trap is that? From what I learned from Randall, I can program
assembly using:
HLA, FASM, MASM, GOASM, ROSASM, NASM and probably more.
In the end, I chose as my main environment, the tool I consider the
best one. Sure, HLA has some quirks that annoy me, but so do all
the tools.

In the end, once again you have presented opinions and character attacks
on Randall to press a point with no substance. Your attack of Randall
and HLA is just as baseless as you consider someone else's attacks on
Rene and Rosasm. After reading this responce, I feel comfortable that
my initial assessment of your hipocracy is accurate:

"People who make fun of hard work, esesially when its free, should
hang by their neck."

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=no&lr=&threadm=4TFFc.3886%24R36.2442%40newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net&rnum=11&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DRosAsm%2Bgroup:alt.lang.asm%2Bauthor:Randall%2Bauthor:Hyde%26start%3D10%26hl%3Dno%26lr%3D%26selm%3D4TFFc.3886%2524R36.2442%2540newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net%26rnum%3D11

\o//annabee

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 2:03:44 AM3/20/05

to

På Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:38:57 -0500, skrev Sevag Krikorian
<kahl...@nop.yahoo.com>:

>> If you have never seen him do this, you are BLIND.

> Yes, it is evident that you have bought into Rene's bullshit hook, line
> and sinker.

What bullshit ? What line, what sinker ? Please stop phrasing me, in a
post adressed at me. Try finding your own style.

> What I have seen Randall do are ligitimate integrity tests,

Randy :
"
To make RosAsm crash (losing all your work, of course),
just put the label back and hit the compile button.
"

Theese test would make any half competent programmer die laughing.
It has just been shown that RosAsm symbolmanagement is close to the best !

> and
> bring up some genuine criticisms of RosAsm. Some of which Rene
> quietly implemented over the months, though you will never hear
> him give Randall any credit for them.

This quiet implementation, based on Randall advice, that you claim, how
could that be so, when Randall
have CRITIZED RosAsms actuall implementation several times ? But he has
_never_ - the 100s of post or so I have read, in the past, seen him pose
the actuall solution. On the contrary, he has critized the _actuall_
solution. So why dont we see Randall praise the actuall solution. Do I
have to go back on goggle and locate some of Randalls post on the topic ?

Betov:
"
> Good luck and courage. May be one other day, you
> will understand where the "problem" lives.

Randy :
I have no desire to understand where the problem lies.
It is *your* product, not mine. *You* should be the
one concerned about where the problem lies and you
should be the one concerned about fixing it. Relying on
your users to understand these problems and correct
them is, shall we say, a bit unprofessional.
"

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=RosAsm+group:alt.lang.asm+author:Randall+author:Hyde&hl=no&lr=&selm=JXwHc.9903%24R36.2240%40newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net&rnum=9

Here, Randall admit, he doesnt have a clue what the problem even is, and
this was posted way after the implementation, so how the hell could RosAsm
havce learned something of this phony teacher ?

> On the other hand, while Randall does ligitimate benchmarks, Rene's
> criticisms are, with the exception of the speed issue, based on smoke.

No, on 30 years of experience, on 6+ years of developing a open source
increadible assembler that makes asm programming almost as easy as making
a cup of coffie.

>> In return, Rene has simply told people the truth about Randall Hyde.

> Yet, he has never been able to produce any evidence. His claims are

> nothing but the personal opinions of a demented mind. When you get on
> Rene's shit-list, he'll stop at nothing to smear your name.

If he does this to save assembly, and the programming art, as an example
of saving some of whats left of a culture in the process of
self-destruction, he has my full permission !!

>> I hope you are not the same as he. I have a strong feeling you have
>> more brains, and you will find out the hard way, that Betov has been
>> telling the truth, all the time, and that Randall really _is_ a
>> swindler.

> It's a really hard task to squeese truth from anything Betov says. The
> man is full of envy and rage, mostly directed at the wrong entities.

(Shaking head) Envy ??? Are you mad? I am 100% convinced, its an inner
knowing, that if Betov had created HLA, he would have killed himself in
shame years ago. RosAsm is a 100% unique codepiece. Its like drinking
wine, browsing down the pages, looking for the checksum64 implementation.

>> I will try offer you a logical proof: It simply cant be a matematic
>> proof because, this one need for you to have certain experience and
>> understandings, and eyesight to confirm (also the reason why Randall is
>> so dangerous to beginners).
>
> Okay, let's hear the logic.

Its a logic only visible to the once who can see.

>> Its the nature of the truthseekers to dig and dig until he find the
>> bottom, the truth, the realities. This is the nature of asmers as well.
>> And when they find it, they tell it. They all tell how easy it is, how
>> wonderful it is compared to HLLs. Not that it shouldnt be used. Randall
>> Hyde, the demented swindler and patetic impotent lier, does this. HE
>> have discouraged asm in THIS VERY NG.

> I certianly hope this isn't the logic you were talking about. All I
> read above is a parroting of the same bullshit Rene spurts.

This is actually parroting / rephrasing myself, from a post written ages
ago.

>> Why would Randy, after his 30 years of "intimate assmembly experience"
>> (Randalls own words), create a blackbox syntax the likes of C and
>> Pascal ??? A syntax, much harder and dement than both C and Pascal, and
>> espesially asm. And why would he use C ??? for this ?
>
> This has been answered before. You simply refuse to accept the answer.

There can be no other answer : He lies.

> That is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but I still don't see
> that 'logical' proof you touted earlier.

You glasses are dirty. Thats the best solution I have to offer. The other
solutions I have for you are insulting, to say the least.

>> Why would he want to prevent users from learning the true things, and
>> confusing them with his pendatic fogtalk for miles and miles of BS in
>> AOA ?
>>
>
> He does not block users from learning the 'true things.' Read AoA for
> proof of that.

AoA _is_ the proof. Programming is learned by _doing_. It is much to
complicated to learn from a manual, except for the "keyword" and spesial
syntax. But learning the syntax or memonics, has NJET to do with
programming. Programming is an artform, it required both brainhalfs
working. And years of experience. And LOTS AND LOTS of rewriting. Anyone
telling you diffrently is nothing but a lier.

> You will find that he describes each HLLism in low-
> level assembly. Because of that, I now understand HLL's in a way I
> never did before.

As you have no idea of the extreme advantage of RosAsm styled programming,
I bet you have &NULL competance in HLLs either. The fact is, for instance,
that when you people trumpet the "victory" of having support for
"structures" this is so hollow and bogus that it would make an asmer cry.
Because asm support it all, by default, whereas HLL, allmost _unsupport_
the conseption of the true structures, and make sure that it takes years
for any beginner do debunk what a structure really is, if his first tool
is an HLL. A structure is an ABSTRACT. A rule for how to interpret a chunk
of memory. Thats ALL it is. In fact, in reality there are asbolutly no
stuctures at all. Structure support is an oxymoron. Theres no need for
support of structures, as they can be used in all their invisible pride,
without ever thinking about them as such. Without having any knowledge of
the term at all. I didnt know this until I started reading some of the
RosAsm user demos. Because I was also fed up with the "structure"
bullshits.

>> Why would he have a hitcounter in Webster showing 4,5 million hits, for
>> his tool, when we all know there are at most 10 users, on a shiny
>> bright day, with wind from behind ?

> That's only the picture of users active on these forums.
> The large part of HLA's audience are HLL users. Most are not into
> assembly for life or as a replacement for their HLL's, they are into it
> as an enhancement of their HLL experience.

Do you think this is news ? HLA is not an assmebler. It can never be an
assembler, and it is a suck HLL as well. In fact, it is hard to imagine,
that there could be any reason for HLA to be, at all.

> Some are under the impression that a processer-specific assembler may
> one day replace or compete with HLL's. This is a pipe-dream. It will
> never happen, especially as the future outlook indicates that there
> will be more processor architectures. People will want to continue
> coding in easily portable HLL's (as they do now).

What "people" in general do or not, is not interessting. "People" voted
for Bush. So "people" in general is simply a non -referance for what is
accurate. Last night I saw this program, where a scientist working with
COWS, and studying COWS, closely for years, had found remarkable
similarites between COWS and people. COWS are exactly like many people.
They follow a leader, they go with the mainflow, they ask for permission
to stear the flock, and if no permission they obey. They have certain cows
that they prefer to chat with, while they are having their grass, they
prefer to lie on soft ground, they get frustrated if you toy with them,
and the best place to be in a flock is in the middle, and not on the
outside, as there is not safe, etc etc. This is how most people think as
well. And this is in THE ESSENCE exactly of what an asmer is NOT. A asmer
is an ANARKIST. He only follows if it suit his own needs and inner
visions. His visions are simply to find the truth and to stick with truth,
and to learn even more of truth, to become familiar with it, to play with
it, to own it, and to evolve it, and then even to give something back to
the people who helped him find it. And to kill all illusions as soon as he
sees them for what they are.

99% of people will try prevent it, only 1% of people will help you find
it. This is the asmer way.

>> Why would he need to use a third party assembler to assemble the output
>> of HLA ?
>
> Another thing already covered. Such a dependence will vanish in HLA2.0

I cant wait....

>> Why would his HLL be the slowest HLL in existence ? Taking 20 seconds
>> for compiling HIDE ? About 500K? when I tried it ? Is this the fruits
>> of 30 years ? This is making mock of even HLLers.
>
> Another thing we've been over before, yet you skew the truth here to
> make HLA look bad.

Not at all. HLA looks bad, all by itself.

> That time is for a *full rebuild* of HIDE and the
> actual code processed is about 9 megas (due to the include files for
> each unit).

Thats insane. 9 megas of code for HIDE ? How is that possible ?

> The fault for that is my lazyness. I can easily
> grab just the prototypes that I actually use and shrink the size down
> to 1 mega.

So HLA processes the full Win32 prototypes each rebuild, and this account
for the 8 megas ?
A masterpiece indeed :)))

> But as HIDE full rebuild on my computer is under 6s, and
> the fact that I rarely do a full rebuild, my average build time is under
> 1s, I have no motivation to speed up the compiling time.

Ok. But it still seems like quite an amount of time for someone whos been
working in asm for 30 years, (like Randall Hide) dont you think ? RosAsm
really do a FULL rebuild in less <1 sec on a much slower machine than
yours.

>> The more abstractions we lay over the real thing, the more lies to
>> uncover, and the longer the path to become a programmer.

> Use of abstractions in HLA is optional, just as in Rosasm.

Completly false. RosAsm code doesnt contain a single keyword abstraction.
Any abstractions must be built by the users, or by borrowing code from
another project. But RosAsm code, can be a little as on single line.
call 'Kernel32.ExitProcess' &NULL

The autocreation of the data and code sections, are one of the things that
make RosAsm superior, both for beginners, and makes annoying things go
away for experienced users.

>> Do you really need more then this ?
>
> I was hoping for that logical proof you mentioned. You have
> disappointed me.

Well, likewise. I told you it needed a pair of working eyes and some
experience. Even with one year of it I can easily see what you probably
just refuse to see.

>> If so, then its true, you have fallen in to his trap, and you will have
>> to pay the costs. The cost of compromise is the cost of your
>> programming soul.
>
> What trap is that? From what I learned from Randall, I can program
> assembly using:
> HLA, FASM, MASM, GOASM, ROSASM, NASM and probably more.

Of course. Why would he need to tell you this :
Answer : to ease your natural nervousity, when trying something "new". To
help you make the dessision to lock you in. Telling you this is just to
lure you, by "offering" you an easy way out. Its a bluff.

Once you have written something involving, getting out can be a hard
dessision to make. Took me quite some time to finally leave Delphi. I am
glad I did.

> In the end, I chose as my main environment, the tool I consider the
> best one. Sure, HLA has some quirks that annoy me, but so do all
> the tools.

- Intelligent ErrorMessage near ")" ? :)))

> In the end, once again you have presented opinions and character attacks
> on Randall to press a point with no substance.

No, theese are very much real points, and the reason I am so hard pressing
them, is because, in a world with only teachers like Randall Hide, asm
would long be dead, same with truth, culture, and prinisples. And decency
and honesty along with it. It would all disappear with such people as
Randall at the head of things. You cannot argument with a brick wall, and
that is exactly what Randall is. A leaky sement wall.

> Your attack of Randall
> and HLA is just as baseless as you consider someone else's attacks on
> Rene and Rosasm.

Nope. RosAsm is proven to have close to the best symbolmangement, whereas
Randall says it has catastropic symbolmanagement. Beth, the phony cow,
said, some time back it had a showstopper bug, so did Randy. But theres no
showstopper bug, and there never was, and the ONLY trouble I have, in 99%
of cases, is with my OWN design dessisions, not with RosAsm, in any of the
significant cases.

> After reading this responce, I feel comfortable that
> my initial assessment of your hipocracy is accurate:
>
> "People who make fun of hard work, esesially when its free, should
> hang by their neck."

First, if you think HLA is slow, because its hard work, then you know
nothing.
Hard work, in programming, does not produse slow. And if you cant spot the
logic
in the fact that Randall has "30 years intimate asm knowledege" (his own
words), and still producing
eceptionally slow running code....... Not poorly running, but
EXCEPTIONALLY SLOW, then I have no grounds
for estimating if your logic device are even working.

Betov

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 3:18:48 AM3/20/05

to

Sevag Krikorian <kahl...@nop.yahoo.com> écrivait
news:3a49iiF...@individual.net:

> [...]

>
> That time is for a *full rebuild* of HIDE and the
> actual code processed is about 9 megas (due to the include files for
> each unit). The fault for that is my lazyness.

Mind you, pathetic ass-hole we have never seen any RosAsm
user processing a 9 megas Sources, for a trivial window with
Menu. Not even by lazyness.

When you will feel tired of your own lies and swindlings
echoing the Randall Hyde ones, and of making by yourself
the final demonstration that your ridicoulous HLL Pre-
Parser is not an Assembler, let us know...

Betov.

Beth

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 6:42:15 AM3/20/05

to

Annie wrote:
> Well, -I- am under no such constraint...and I say, "TEAR
> DOWN THE MOSQUES! THROW THE TOWELHEADS OUT OF FRANCE -NOW!"-

Neither am I; But I simply would not choose to say such things...

Note: Even if it were made illegal, were I to truly believe it warranted,
then I would speak it anyway...if arrested for it, then I'd make use of
that, as far as is possible, to draw attention to the unjust law to fight
for its abolition...

"An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is
more so."
[ Mahattma Ghandi ]

On the point that such a law upon Rene is wholly unjust and a gross
violation of a fundamental right that people may have freedom of speech -
even if we don't like what they have to say - then, well:

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right
to say it."
[ from "Les Liaison Dangereuse", which, deeply ironically, is translated
from the French ]

Beth :)

Beth

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 6:42:13 AM3/20/05

to

LGC wrote:
> There were no "WAR LIES". The 'lies' were made up by the liberal media
to
> support their anti-American agenda.

Oh, I see...well, thank you for correcting my misconception there...

Yes, it all makes sense now:

Hell-bent on global destruction and their own deaths (plus, the suppression
of their very craft of journalism), the "liberal media" formed an "Alliance
of Pure Evil" with the "terrorist networks" to bring about a Communist
dictatorship of the entire universe...in order to further their evil
"liberal" schemes of letting people do whatever they like...

Deep within the hillside below the "Hollywood" sign - in his high-tech,
heavily fortified "bunker of death and evilness" - evil mastermind Tim
Robbins, leader of the "liberal media" Alliance of Pure Evil (APE, for
short), switches on his "screen of evil" to send encoded transmissions to
bin Laden to co-ordinate them in a devious "liberal" plot to enslave
honest, hard-working Americans into the contradictory paradise of Liberal
Communism...where, for no particular reason, chief executioner and
torturer, Michael Moore, arbitrarily does rather nasty things to kids and
cute puppy dogs, merely to show truly evil the "Alliance of Pure Evil"
really is...

Out of interest, why would _AMERICANS_ and _AMERICAN_ "liberal media" have
an "anti-American agenda"? Are they sadists or something?

No, let me guess, the Soviets - who really do still exist but it is a
"liberal media" ploy to make us believe otherwise...with the Berlin Wall
footage being computer generated imagery and that tourists to the country
are actually seeing an elobrately staged multi-billion dollar production,
to give the _appearance_ that the Soviets no longer exist but, deep
underground, in the "bunkers of evil", they are still controlling and
plotting "pure evil", in co-operation, of course, with Martin Sheen - are
ochestrating a devious plot of "brain-washing" on "liberal media"
journalists and Hollywood actors to "infiltrate" the heart of America -
Washington D.C.? No, of course not: The television screen! - in order to
project their "brain wave beams" (you know, like in those crap Halloween
movies) to control Americans into a liberal Communist dictorship of pure
leftist evil...

Fortunately, those Americans who have stood proud with their hands over
their hearts with patriotic pride whenever the national anthem is played at
baseball matches, are, of course, "immune" to the influence of the "brain
wave beams" through sheer force of "American-ness"...hence, an honest,
hard-working, immensely gullible and deeply paranoid few American souls are
able to penetrate this dastardly "Alliance of Pure Evil"...

Do you know how completely fucking insane you sound?

Yeah, right...due to that mental disease known as "liberal-ness", the
"liberal media" (despite also being American) are all conspiring together
in a "plot" to project an "anti-American agenda"...to...to...to do what
exactly? Convince Americans not to be American? Does any of this have a
shred of logic?

Let me ask you one simple question:

Where are the WMD?

If the Soviet "evil empire" was ochestrating all world terrorism, why are
the terrorists still around once that empire collapsed?

Similarly, if the Afghanistan war was a success at destroying Al Qu'aeda -
and they tell it was, as we're regularly informed that "lead members of the
organisation" have been captured or killed - then why is there still a
"terrorist threat"? From bin Laden? No, no...the President assures us
otherwise:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
[ George Walker Bush Jnr., 13th March, 2002 ]

If the "intelligence" about WMD - as presented to the world by Colin
Powell - was accurate, then, as it specified exact sites for WMD stockpiles
and WMD programmes, why have NONE - absolutely NONE - been found?

Don't be a dick all your life...THINK, damn you, _THINK_...especially if
you're a programmer (as one presumes you are posting here) then the
underlying contradictory logic should be screaming at you that none of this
"story" Bush is providing adds up at all...heck, it's not even consistent:

He has WMD, he doesn't have WMD...bin Laden is the top priority, he's not a
priority at all...Iraq has links to Al Qu'aeda, Iraq has no links to Al
Qu'aeda...the "terrorists" are a threat...no, wait, "rogue nations" are the
"threat"...no, wait, the "liberal media" is the "threat"...no, wait,
protest marches are the "threat"...

Yeah, it's all "funded by dictators", you know...even the American
ones...yeah, Saddam sold a whole bunch of oil to "bribe" millions upon
millions in over 600 countries world-wide across every continent on Earth
(including in America itself), in order to stage the world's largest
protest of all time...yes, that would come cheap, wouldn't it? Only the
greatest expense every paid for in all of human history...wonder where he
got the money for that? Seems a terrible waste too, seeing as it didn't
work...

> The US was attacked by terrorists

Correct; So, what does this have to do with Iraq? Why are you invading and
occupying Iraq, if this is about "terrorists"?

Perhaps you didn't read this last time I posted here, so I'll repeat it
with a copy and paste:

"Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives
being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are
largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency."
[ USA today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm ]

The 9/11 commission reported that it had found no "collaborative
relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda...

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks
against the United States."
[ National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States ]

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September
the 11th."
[ George Walker Bush Jnr., 17th September, 2003 ]

"Although [ Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ] is thought to have links with al-Qaeda,
experts regard his group as autonomous - perhaps even a rival to Osama Bin
Laden's organisation."
[ "Profile: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi",
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm ]

Note the 4th one...that is _BUSH HIMSELF_ explicitly saying that Saddam
Hussein and Iraq have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with the 9/11 terrorist
attacks...

Indeed, terrorists _DID_ attack America...so, what the fuck are you doing
messing around in Iraq and taking troops and other means of defence _away_
from America to deal with something that has nothing to do with the 9/11
attacks (by the President's own admission, by Rumsfeld's own admission, by
the 9/11 commission's findings, by the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States' findings, etc., etc.), when you have this
apparent "threat" at your door?

> and is now defending her freedom by going after them where they are,

No, America is arbitrarily attacking and occupying a country that...well,
let's allow Bush to explain:

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September
the 11th."
[ George Walker Bush Jnr., 17th September, 2003 ]

No evidence...none...that's Bush himself who's said that...the 9/11
commission agrees...Donald Rumsfeld agrees...the National Commission set up
to look into "terrorist threats" on America agrees...everyone who fracking
investigates it agrees...

If you're "defending your freedom" - you don't even fucking know what that
means, if you are allowing laws like the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, which allows
government monitoring without proof, without permission, without judicial
supervision, without any of the safeguards required to _ENSURE YOUR
FREEDOM_ being present - from "terrorist attacks" like 9/11, then what the
fuck are you doing in Iraq?

> not waiting for them to come to us.

You do know that this was the pre-text by which Hitler invaded Poland,
don't you? "Pre-emptive action"...to deal with the "terrorist" who burnt
down the Reichstag (and much consensus today is that the Nazis themselves
probably did the attack and invented a "terrorist" to blame, to get the
excuse to dismantle democracy and invade other countries...or, at least, if
not themselves, then they "allowed" it to happen...ringing any bells?)...

> I'm all for peace and freedom. (Who isn't, other than the terrorists.)

Actually, a misrepresentation: The IRA are terrorists...they are fighting
the cause of bringing Northern Ireland out of British Rule into the
Republic of Ireland...they enacted a bombing campaign on Britain (including
an assassination attempt on Maggie and all of her cabinet...the bomb did go
off and destroyed the hotel they were staying in...one person died, the
wife of one of the ministers was permanently disabled)...there are
undoubtedly "gangsters" among their membership who have no intention of
"peace and freedom" because they make too much money and have too much
control from their criminality...

But, fundamentally, the IRA's cause is to bring Northern Ireland into the
Republic of Ireland...if they were to succeed, then it is exactly that
"peace and freedom" that they would enjoy that they are striving to
achieve...

The point is that, on the contrary, those who some call "terrorists",
others call "freedom fighters" (you know, just as bin Laden himself was
called a "freedom fighter" and had the space shuttle Columbia dedicated to
his "freedom fighting" by Ronald Reagan when the Afghan warlords were
fighting the Soviets...yes, Ronnie dedicated the space shuttle Columbia to
_BIN LADEN_ (as well as all the other Muslims who went to Afghanistan to
fight the Soviets...whose names are effectively the "who's who" in the
whole Al Qu'aeda leadership)...and then bin Laden was considered a "brave
freedom fighter"...

Let's get Ronnie's exact words of praise for bin Laden and the other
Islamist fighters in Afghanistan that he poured on them:

"Just as the Columbia we think represents man's finest aspirations in the
field of science and technology, so too does the struggle of the Afghan
people represent man's highest aspirations for freedom"
[ President Ronald Reagan, dedicating the space shuttle Columbia to the
"freedom fighters" in Afghanistan...of which bin Laden and the higher
echelons of the Al Qu'aeda leadership were a number ]

The IRA fund-raised regularly in America (even though they are ILLEGAL in
the Republic of Ireland itself)...Ronald Reagan dedicated one of America's
greatest symbols - the space shuttle - to bin Laden and the other Islamists
who became Al Qu'aeda...indeed, they were _TRAINED_ and _FUNDED_ by America
to help fight the Soviets...bin Laden knows how to avoid American spy
satellites and other extra-terrorist skills that have made him so
impossible to catch, because America _TRAINED_ him how to do it (it was
supposed to be used against the Soviets but, well, it works just as well
against America too)...

These people were "freedom fighters" in American eyes...and then they
conspired to attack the WTC on 11th September, 2001...Al Qu'aeda was
_CREATED_ by America...even their name, as there is no documentation of the
name "Al Qu'aeda" being used by bin Laden or any organisation until America
needed a name for a fictious "terrorist network" of global proportions
(which doesn't exist, in fact...there are terrorists, of course...but no
"global network" of them), in order to prosecute on "conspiracy" laws that
were originally designed for the Maffia (that is, to arrest someone - under
true "rule of law", anyhow - you need a "crime" to accuse them
of..."suspicion of possibly planning a suspected terrorist attack (or maybe
not)" is NOT any crime on any lawbook...so, to arrest people, they played a
legal game...to deal with the Maffia, laws _were_ introduced regarding
"being a member of _an organisation_ that commits crimes"...hence, the
"global terrorist network" was _invented_ just as a "loophole" to be able
to arrest terrorist suspects...originally a noble intention, I'm sure...the
old "we can't wait until an attack to arrest" them problem...but, once
invented, it has proven useful by the neo-conservatives to control people
by fear...

Now, I've accused you of "conspiracy theory" crackpot-ism about the
"liberal media"...so, in return, you're reasonably asking "isn't this the
same accusation against the neo-conservatives?"...well, in essence,
yes...but there is clear "motive" and "method" to this...

The "motive" is pure and simple: Bush won that second term of office,
right? It's kept the Republicans and the neo-conservative branch of the
Republicans in power, yes? They most certainly do have the "means"
too..they are running the world's most powerful country...that more than
enough "means"...

There _ARE_ terrorists...100% there are...and, yes, they do, indeed,
threaten our lives and our Liberty...in no way is this to be detracted from
in any regard whatsoever...but the simple point is that it is NOT only
terrorists or "liberal media" who have "agendas"...the Bush adminstration -
specifically, the neo-conservative underbelly inside that administration -
has a clear "agenda" that is based on the teachings of Leo Strauss...

Now, you have the name: Leo Strauss...if you investigate - choose any
reliable historical source you like (to pick something you considered
personally "non-liberal media" to ensure yourself of no "anti-American
agenda") - then you will see that, indeed, members of the Bush
administration and close allies - Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, etc. (who
also engaged in the "Project for a New American Century" PNAC, whose
website you can also investigate and see that these names are part of this
"proejct" too) - were students of Leo Strauss...

Then check what Leo Strauss' ideological and philosophical views were about
generating "terrible illusions" by which to restore the moral and ethical
heart of America from "liberalism" by creating an "enemy"...people unite in
adversity...it was Strauss's answer to ensure moral and social cohesion
amongst the American people...

It's, unfortunately, a very large 1GB download (but it is 3 hour-long
episodes at high quality) that requires BitTorrent, but the following
really will change your perception of what's going on:
<
http://www2.digitaldistractions.org:8080/torrents/The%20Power%20Of%20Nightm
ares%20-%20The%20Rise%20Of%20The%20Politics%20Of%20Fear%20(3-Part%20Miniser
ies).torrent
>

It is not like Michael Moore's stuff in any way, I assure you...but a
simple documentary that sticks to historical facts to take you through the
origins of the neo-conservatives now in power in America and the radical
Islamists who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks...

Please, take the time to download it...

[ To Wannabee: I actually waited for this one to fully download...it's the
entire thing and it's in high quality...unfortunately, it's an absolutely
gigantic download and the BitTorrent thing really doesn't seem to go
particularly fast... ]

> In order to maintain the peace, those who threaten it must be dealt with.

I absolutely and completely agree; But _MULTIPLE_ parties currently
threaten peace and freedom and stability...these are the terrorists on one
axis...and the rising political fascists on the other axis...it is we, the
people, who must defend ourselves from _BOTH_ - from _ALL_ - threats to our
peace and freedom...

If I could personally do something also about the terrorist threat to peace
and freedom - unfortunately, though, as you know, politicians don't always
listen to protests that there's no way in hell that terrorists would pay
the slightest bit of attention to any protest against them...if they did,
though - if it could do any good - then most of those on these peace
marches would equally march to protest against the terrorists too...it is
merely a consequence that the terrorists do NOT believe in "democracy" -
Bush is correct on that score - and, hence, the democratic concepts of
making peaceful protests carries no weight...but, for sure, we _would_
march against that too, just as equally, just as passionately...I sat
watching the 9/11 attacks as they happened and it is the most saddening and
horrific sight I have ever witnessed, bar none...my sympathy and
condolences to the victims and their families does not waver or flinch for
an iota...the problem is that, in our shock and horror at this atrocity, we
fail to acknowledge _other_ threats to our Liberty that exist concurrently
with the terrorist threat...do you see the point? It's not that the
terrorists are not a threat but that Bush and others are _ALSO_ a threat at
the exact same instant...that they are moving towards _fascist_ policies
and "police state" politics...this will just as equally - if not more
because terrorist attacks are destructive but localised, fascism is not so
destructive but has a far further reach to effect entire nations - come to
threat our peace and freedom, if we do not act "pre-emptively" to stop
rising fascism gaining a foothold...

Remember, the German people were modern and civilised and suffered an
attack on their parliament building...and then a charismatic man, named
Hitler, came to promise them that he would provide a "final solution" to
their troubles...he _exploited_ Germany's economic troubles - they were
suffering "hyperinflation" - and such to get the German people to vote him
into office...Hitler dismantled democracy, _AFTER_ getting into power...he
got into government _democratically_ by "duping" the people in a time of
need by making big promises of "final solution" to the "Jewish problem",
economic troubles and so forth...

The Germans were (still are) a modern, civilised nation...Hitler got into
power _democratically_ by "duping" the people with charismatic promises to
"solve" their problems...if it could happen to the Germans, then it could
happen to anyone...and DON'T make the mistake of thinking that the Germans
are somehow "more gullible" or otherwise...they made the exact same
mistakes that, in effect, the American people are making now...one Hopes
and prays that they are NOT of the same calibre as the Nazi party were or
we all already know the consequences to Liberty - peace and freedom - that
happened in that instance...it's not "theory", it _HAPPENED_...and it only
happened 60 years ago...within a lifetime...

We must, it's true, defend against terrorism...but we must also defend
against fascist governments, just as equally...as _both_ threaten "peace
and freedom" in different ways...indeed, if another "threat" were also to
appear, then we must defend against that too...you know, there is no "oh,
we'll just fight these threats to peace and freedom but ignore the other
ones"...all sides of our fort of freedom must be defended just as
equally...if there is one "threat", then we must defend against that
threat...if there are two "threats", then we must defend against both
threats _simultaneously_ (you know, if you decide to focus on one threat,
it's not as if the other threat - terrorists, for example - are going to
sit and wait for you to be ready...no, no, on the contrary, when they see
you "otherwise engaged", that is most likely when they will strike, as
you're most ill-equipped to deal with it)...if there were 100 threats -
1000 threats - then we must defend against them all with equal
determination to let NONE of them succeed...

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
[ Edmund Burke ]

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations."
[ James Madison ]

"Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the
subjects of government. The history of liberty is a history of resistance.
The history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power, not
the increase of it."
[ Woodrow Wilson ]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
[ President Benjamin Franklin ]

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance"
[ President Thomas Jefferson ]

Beth :|

Beth

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 12:13:39 PM3/20/05

to

NoDot wrote:
> Annie wrote:
> > Much as you'd like to believe that "we're all the same,"
> > it simply ain't true. We're NOT "all the same;" we've
> > NEVER BEEN "all the same," and we'll NEVER BE "all the
> > same."
>
> As much as I'd like to disagree, I can't. Every person is unique. This
> is true in personality, in experiences, and in genetics. Each person has
> different experiences, and, as such, is different in that regard. Need I
> mention the genetic case?
>
> What *IS* true, however, is that all people deserve equal treatment,
> regardless of differences. We're all human, and deserve human treatment.

_EXACTLY_; Miss ASCII - probably delibrately, probably maliciously, if
track record is anything to go by - is (willfully) misunderstanding the
term "equal"...

At no point ever in all of the history of the English language has "equal"
ever meant "identical"...these are similar but _completely different_
words...

"All men are equal" does not mean "all men are completely
identical"...where they all look exactly the same, all are called "John",
all are the exact same age, all are the same height, all have the same
genetics...nope, utter crap...

"Equal" has NEVER meant "identical"; Are we all identical? Absolutely
correct: No, we're not...we're not identical at all...indeed, like many
things in nature - snowflakes, fingerprints, etc. - it's quite the
opposite: No two instances are ever alike...always 100% "unique" every
single time (even identical twins - who have the same genetics - _DO_ end
up different from each other in subtle ways: Caused by "nuture", which does
play a part in things...so, even "identical" twins aren't actually really
"identical", except for initial genetic characteristics...thereafter,
simply being present in different spacetime - to undergo different
influences upon them, the two diverge...simply for beginning life a few
centimetres across in space...that's all...and their growth, features,
lives, etc. are from then on, no longer "identical"...very, very close,
perhaps...but not "identical")...

There is a difference in the semantics of "equal" and "identical" that
needs to be understood to understand the point...

No-one ever was identical, is identical or ever will be identical...

But that does not mean people haven't been equal, be equal and will be
equal...

There is a difference in the semantics..."identical" means absolutely the
same in all ways and measures..."equal" only means the same in _worth_ or
_value_...

In mathematics, in fact, there is the "equals" sign (two horizontal lines)
and then there's the "identity" sign (three horizontal lines)...though not
quite exactly corresponding to the linguistics, it is a similar-ish
concept...

"x equals 3" doesn't mean that "x" and "3" are completely and utterly
identical in all regards possible...no...it simply means that the variable
x and the number 3 "coincide" in equal _value_ or equal _worth_ (at that
point in time: "variable", of course, implies that it's dynamic and
"subject to change" in its value..."variable" = "it varies" :)...

No-one is saying that people have to be "identical"...indeed, a _real_
belief in "equality" _UTTERLY REJECTS_ the concept of "everyone must
conform to one set pattern"...as, in fact, that is clearly _discriminating_
against someone because of "non-conformity"...

Imagine those old-style see-saw scales (like the one's the mythological
character of "Justice" carries ;)...on one side, we're putting
potatoes...on the other side, we're putting metal weights...and we add on
potatoes and add on weights until they are in balance with each
other...this is measuring out, ooh, a pound of potatoes (a kilogram, if you
prefer metric :)...then, we tip the potatoes into a bag and hand it over to
the customer...they give us coins and notes that match the "price" of these
potatoes...yes, basically, we're selling someone vegetables, such as in a
market...

But, in this transaction, the weight of the potatoes was _EQUAL_ to the
weight of the metal weights...and the money paid was _EQUAL_ to the "price"
of that weight of potatoes...

So, the potatoes were _EQUAL_ to the weights...and the potatoes _EQUAL_ to
the money exchanged for them...

But does this mean that the weights are _identical_ to the potatoes?
Clearly not...you can eat potatoes, you can't eat metal weights...you can
use a knife to cut potatoes into strips and fry them to make French fries
(or "chips" as we Brits call them :)...it would be interesting to see you
try to do that with lead weights...indeed, if literally made of _lead_,
eating those weights would be toxic and highly un-recommended...the
potatoes and the weights are _EQUAL_ (with regard to their "weight" value
or worth) but this does NOT mean they are one and the same thing...

Similarly, the potatoes are exchanged for money...in usual colloquial
speech: "a pound of potatoes _IS_ $2.50"..."is"? "IS"? Well, not
really...two dollar notes and a fifty cent coin are completely and utterly
_DIFFERENT_ to a pound of potatoes in terms of shape, weight, composition,
materials, useful purposes, whether you can eat them or not, etc....BUT -
at the market stall holder's prices, anyway - they are _EQUAL_...

So, in fact, "equality" does NOT actually mean "same treatment"...this is
the very naive interpretation some have of "equality" but they are
essentially wrong...for example, without wanting to be at all crude or
anything, when it comes to "baby making", men and women are NOT the same,
we wouldn't want them to be the same, etc....the point, as per the
potatoes, as per the mathematics, is that their _WORTH_ is the same...their
_VALUE_ is the same...that neither man nor woman is considered
"lesser"...indeed, logically enough, this _WOULD_ be a nonsense: After all,
just try making a baby without both a man and a woman...a child is 50 / 50
mother and father...the contribution is _EQUAL_ but that does NOT, of
course, mean the contribution is _identical_...different words, different
semantics...

No-one (but the stupidest people) are in any way implying "the same", as in
"identical"...the point is "equal", as in "of the same worth"...that -
taking the law courts, whose role is to always treat people with equality
before the law (doesn't always happen in practice but that's what's
_SUPPOSED_ to happen in law) - if you kill me then you would be subject to
equal punishment, had it been me killing you instead...basically, a life
(or, in some countries, death) sentence irrespective of who is killed and
who did the killing..."equal justice for all": That you can expect the
courts to go to the same lengths for you, as they would for me, as they
would for _anyone_...that when we seek "justice" from the courts, we can
all expect the same level of justice to be enacted..._THAT_ is the kind of
principle we're talking about...

Similar to how, when you buy things, you hand over money...very rarely are
you buying money (certainly not of the exact same currency, in the main, as
that would be rather pointless)...you are buying _other things_ of _EQUAL_
worth as that money...indeed, perhaps that's a measure everyone - even the
rich, pampered and spoilt - can understand: Money is, indeed, NOT in any
way "identical" to things it buys (indeed, what use would money be, if all
you could buy with a dollar bill is, ummm, an absolutely identical dollar
bill? It would render money useless)...but it is (by social convention)
deemed to have "equal worth" to that which it buys...

So, yes, we're "not the same", if you mean "we're not identical"...indeed,
one would have to be severely stupid not to notice the various differences
between people...we are all completely unique...but "equal" and "identical"
_DON'T_ mean the same thing...we can all be completely and utterly unique -
which we are - and of _EQUAL_ worth for that exactly reason...

Indeed, that's the other way to look at it from the reverse
perspective...we are, indeed, all completely and utterly unique from each
other...all different from the next...and, thus, we are _EQUAL_ in that
very facet itself...we're _EQUALLY_ all different or, by definition, that
wouldn't be "unique", would it?

So, yes, we are NOT the same...

...and that is _EXACTLY_ what makes us "equal" ;)

Beth :)

Sevag Krikorian

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 7:02:43 PM3/20/05

to

\\o//annabee wrote:
> På Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:38:57 -0500, skrev Sevag Krikorian
> <kahl...@nop.yahoo.com>:
>
>>> If you have never seen him do this, you are BLIND.
>
>
>> Yes, it is evident that you have bought into Rene's bullshit hook, line
>> and sinker.
>
>
> What bullshit ? What line, what sinker ? Please stop phrasing me, in a
> post adressed at me. Try finding your own style.
>

The bullshit I hear you spew which almost exactly mimmics Rene's
bullshit. Your're like Rene's Mini-me.

> This quiet implementation, based on Randall advice, that you claim, how
> could that be so, when Randall
> have CRITIZED RosAsms actuall implementation several times ? But he has
> _never_ - the 100s of post or so I have read, in the past, seen him pose
> the actuall solution. On the contrary, he has critized the _actuall_
> solution. So why dont we see Randall praise the actuall solution. Do I
> have to go back on goggle and locate some of Randalls post on the topic ?

I was around during the benchmark tests and criticisms in the old MASM
fourm. Some new features did appear in Rosasm as a result of these.
You can claim otherwise, but I wont' buy it.

>
> Betov:
> "
>
>> Good luck and courage. May be one other day, you
>> will understand where the "problem" lives.
>
>
> Randy :
> I have no desire to understand where the problem lies.
> It is *your* product, not mine. *You* should be the
> one concerned about where the problem lies and you
> should be the one concerned about fixing it. Relying on
> your users to understand these problems and correct
> them is, shall we say, a bit unprofessional.
> "
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=RosAsm+group:alt.lang.asm+author:Randall+author:Hyde&hl=no&lr=&selm=JXwHc.9903%24R36.2240%40newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net&rnum=9
>
>
> Here, Randall admit, he doesnt have a clue what the problem even is, and
> this was posted way after the implementation, so how the hell could
> RosAsm havce learned something of this phony teacher ?
>

Not at all. Your not reading the quotes your posting. Randall admits
that he doesn't want to know *where* (not *what*) the problem is, he is
just interested in pointing out that there is a problem with the code
and it is up to the author to fix it.

> If he does this to save assembly, and the programming art, as an example
> of saving some of whats left of a culture in the process of
> self-destruction, he has my full permission !!
>

This is a part of the reason assembly isn't going to get anywhere as big
as you would hope. HLL's have focused groups that develop and support
them while assemblers are not only divided on processor, but also on
different syntaxes from the same processor groups. Instead of
supporting each other, people like Rene and you take great pleasure in
causing as much damage to the delicate assembly community as possible.

> (Shaking head) Envy ??? Are you mad? I am 100% convinced, its an inner
> knowing, that if Betov had created HLA, he would have killed himself in
> shame years ago. RosAsm is a 100% unique codepiece. Its like drinking
> wine, browsing down the pages, looking for the checksum64 implementation.
>

It's exactly envy. His 'precious' isn't getting as much attention as
HLA and MASM and that is killing him inside.

> Its a logic only visible to the once who can see.

That's not logic, that's religion.

>> I certianly hope this isn't the logic you were talking about. All I
>> read above is a parroting of the same bullshit Rene spurts.
>
>
> This is actually parroting / rephrasing myself, from a post written ages
> ago.
>

Yes, and it sounds so much like what Rene says.

>>> Why would Randy, after his 30 years of "intimate assmembly
>>> experience" (Randalls own words), create a blackbox syntax the likes
>>> of C and Pascal ??? A syntax, much harder and dement than both C and
>>> Pascal, and espesially asm. And why would he use C ??? for this ?
>>
>>
>> This has been answered before. You simply refuse to accept the answer.
>
>
> There can be no other answer : He lies.
>

So it's your opinion that he lies, I disagree what that is beside the
point. The fact is that you *have* been given an answer to that
question and you continue to bring it up.

But let's see where you think he lies. How about this phrase:
(this is not a Randy quote, but one of his reasons)

The syntax was chosen so that it would be familiar for those
who already know an HLL.

Is this a lie Wannabee? How would you go about proving it as such?
I'm still waiting for that logic.

> You glasses are dirty. Thats the best solution I have to offer. The
> other solutions I have for you are insulting, to say the least.
>

So your best solution is "he lies". My, that's very convincing. Where
do I sign up for RosAsm?

> AoA _is_ the proof. Programming is learned by _doing_. It is much to
> complicated to learn from a manual, except for the "keyword" and spesial
> syntax. But learning the syntax or memonics, has NJET to do with

Everybody has their own way of learning, Wannabee. I learned from a
manual, and also by doing.

> programming. Programming is an artform, it required both brainhalfs
> working. And years of experience. And LOTS AND LOTS of rewriting. Anyone
> telling you diffrently is nothing but a lier.
>

Okay, but this has nothing to do with the ligitimacy of AoA.

> As you have no idea of the extreme advantage of RosAsm styled
> programming, I bet you have &NULL competance in HLLs either.

I knocked out a couple small demos with RosAsm. I do not fancy
its style. And yes, I don't have any competence in any HLL and
don't really plan on learning one.

> The fact
> is, for instance, that when you people trumpet the "victory" of having
> support for "structures" this is so hollow and bogus that it would make
> an asmer cry. Because asm support it all, by default, whereas HLL,
> allmost _unsupport_ the conseption of the true structures, and make sure
> that it takes years for any beginner do debunk what a structure really
> is, if his first tool is an HLL. A structure is an ABSTRACT. A rule for
> how to interpret a chunk of memory. Thats ALL it is. In fact, in reality
> there are asbolutly no stuctures at all. Structure support is an
> oxymoron. Theres no need for support of structures, as they can be used
> in all their invisible pride, without ever thinking about them as such.
> Without having any knowledge of the term at all. I didnt know this until
> I started reading some of the RosAsm user demos. Because I was also fed
> up with the "structure" bullshits.
>

Another of your opinions. Structures go hand in hand with
type-checking, another feature missing from Rosasm.

> Thats insane. 9 megas of code for HIDE ? How is that possible ?

The Windows include file is almost a mega and each unit (about 9)
include this file which HLA has to process. So a full rebuild
of HIDE is actually a build of 9 separate 1 meag sized programs
that are linked together after compiling.

The beauty of this system is that once a unit is built, it doesn't
have to be rebuilt again unless you make changes to it.

>
>> The fault for that is my lazyness. I can easily
>> grab just the prototypes that I actually use and shrink the size down
>> to 1 mega.
>
>
> So HLA processes the full Win32 prototypes each rebuild, and this
> account for the 8 megas ?
> A masterpiece indeed :)))
>

Like I said, my laziness. Not a particular fault of HLA.

>> But as HIDE full rebuild on my computer is under 6s, and
>> the fact that I rarely do a full rebuild, my average build time is under
>> 1s, I have no motivation to speed up the compiling time.
>
>
> Ok. But it still seems like quite an amount of time for someone whos
> been working in asm for 30 years, (like Randall Hide) dont you think ?
> RosAsm really do a FULL rebuild in less <1 sec on a much slower machine
> than yours.
>

Well *I* haven't been working for 30 years and HIDE is my work, nor
Randall's. It has been stated that HLA 1.x is a prototype (again,
something which you probably consider one of those "lies").

>>> The more abstractions we lay over the real thing, the more lies to
>>> uncover, and the longer the path to become a programmer.
>
>
>> Use of abstractions in HLA is optional, just as in Rosasm.
>
>
> Completly false. RosAsm code doesnt contain a single keyword
> abstraction. Any abstractions must be built by the users, or by
> borrowing code from another project. But RosAsm code, can be a little as
> on single line.
> call 'Kernel32.ExitProcess' &NULL
>

Use of abstractions in HLA is optional, just as in Rosasm.

Putting in formatting like "program ..." is not an abstraction.

> The autocreation of the data and code sections, are one of the things
> that make RosAsm superior, both for beginners, and makes annoying things
> go away for experienced users.
>
>>> Do you really need more then this ?
>>
>>
>> I was hoping for that logical proof you mentioned. You have
>> disappointed me.
>
>
> Well, likewise. I told you it needed a pair of working eyes and some
> experience. Even with one year of it I can easily see what you probably
> just refuse to see.
>

What it needs is someone looking through foggy glasses. I refuse to
see baseless claims for actual proof.

>>
>> "People who make fun of hard work, esesially when its free, should
>> hang by their neck."
>
>
> First, if you think HLA is slow, because its hard work, then you know
> nothing.

This has nothing to do about speed. HLA is a result of hard work and
it's free, just like RosAsm. Therefore, go hang yourself.

Sevag Krikorian

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 12:42:02 AM3/21/05

to

Betov wrote:
> Sevag Krikorian <kahl...@nop.yahoo.com> écrivait
> news:3a49iiF...@individual.net:
>
>
>>[...]
>>
>>That time is for a *full rebuild* of HIDE and the
>>actual code processed is about 9 megas (due to the include files for
>>each unit). The fault for that is my lazyness.
>
>
> Mind you, pathetic ass-hole we have never seen any RosAsm
> user processing a 9 megas Sources, for a trivial window with
> Menu. Not even by lazyness.
>

That's because Rosasm lacks an important feature: it is unable
to do modular units, and the Windows equates are built in.

> When you will feel tired of your own lies and swindlings
> echoing the Randall Hyde ones,

Lay off the booze, Betov. Lies and swindlings are your
forte. These 'echos' are my own as I lived through 'em
and saw first hand what kind of crackpot you are.

> and of making by yourself
> the final demonstration that your ridicoulous HLL Pre-
> Parser is not an Assembler, let us know...
>
>
> Betov.
>
> < http://rosasm.org/ >
>

The only thing of importnace is the language implementation.
Like it or not, squirm if you must, but it won't change
these two facts:

fact: HLA is an assembly language.
fact: Your full of shit.

Betov

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 2:47:23 AM3/21/05

to

Sevag Krikorian <kahl...@nop.yahoo.com> écrivait news:3a755aF66lvqpU1
@individual.net:

> Betov wrote:
>> Sevag Krikorian <kahl...@nop.yahoo.com> écrivait
>> news:3a49iiF...@individual.net:
>>
>>
>>>[...]
>>

>> Mind you, pathetic ass-hole we have never seen any RosAsm
>> user processing a 9 megas Sources, for a trivial window with
>> Menu. Not even by lazyness.
>>
>
> That's because Rosasm lacks an important feature: it is unable
> to do modular units,

RosAsm is perfectly able of doing with Modular Units,
and it does it in way more intelligent manner that the
other Progamming Tools (Back & Forth Managements).

> and the Windows equates are built in.

Yes, among the many reasons why RosAsm is the fastest
of the actual Assemblers (FASM should now as as fast...)
There is the fact that it _is_ designed in a way that
makes it fast. Excuse me: I am sorry of having used
my brain when writing it.

There is also the fact that it is written in Auto-
Compilable Assembly. Excuse me: I am an Assembly
Programmer. Sorry.

There is also the fact that i wrote, for it, one of
the best (if not THE best) original Symbols Table
Management. Excuse for not having copied a weird
C one written by a talking head. Sorry.

There is also the fact that i appply to myself what
i preach, that is the Strategy Optimization, and that
this Type of Optimization does what it promisses to
do. Excuse for not developping bullshits in HLL/VHLLs
while claiming preaching Assembly. Sorry.

>> When you will feel tired of your own lies and swindlings
>> echoing the Randall Hyde ones,
>
> Lay off the booze, Betov. Lies and swindlings are your
> forte. These 'echos' are my own as I lived through 'em
> and saw first hand what kind of crackpot you are.
>
>> and of making by yourself
>> the final demonstration that your ridicoulous HLL Pre-
>> Parser is not an Assembler, let us know...
>>
>>
>> Betov.
>>
>> < http://rosasm.org/ >
>>
>
> The only thing of importnace is the language implementation.
> Like it or not, squirm if you must, but it won't change
> these two facts:
>
> fact: HLA is an assembly language.
> fact: Your full of shit.

Sure. :)

The most interresting side of the HLA victims behaviours
is that, even though they have all evidences that they
have fallen into a vicious trap, with no end Dev Times,
Tons of bullshits Megas for any poor Demo, way more problems
than with any Assembler, and so on, and so on... they
_persist_... this is a very impressive demonstration that
Propaganda is more powerfull than facts.

Betov.

Johannes Kroll

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 11:02:45 AM3/21/05

to

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:03:44 +0100
"\\\\o//annabee" <http://TheWannabee.org> wrote:

> På Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:38:57 -0500, skrev Sevag Krikorian
> <kahl...@nop.yahoo.com>:
>
> >> If you have never seen him do this, you are BLIND.
>
> > Yes, it is evident that you have bought into Rene's bullshit hook,
> > line and sinker.
>
> What bullshit ? What line, what sinker ? Please stop phrasing me, in a
>
> post adressed at me. Try finding your own style.
>
> > What I have seen Randall do are ligitimate integrity tests,
>
> Randy :
> "
> To make RosAsm crash (losing all your work, of course),
> just put the label back and hit the compile button.
> "
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=no&lr=&threadm=4TFFc.3886%24R36.2442%40newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net&rnum=11&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DRosAsm%2Bgroup:alt.lang.asm%2Bauthor:Randall%2Bauthor:Hyde%26start%3D10%26hl%3Dno%26lr%3D%26selm%3D4TFFc.3886%2524R36.2442%2540newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net%26rnum%3D11
>
>
> Theese test would make any half competent programmer die laughing.
> It has just been shown that RosAsm symbolmanagement is close to the
> best !

I read that post (all of it...), it shows that there's a bug in RosAsm,
and that Betov refuses to fix it. Don't you agree? I mean, if there's a
valid asm file with a few hundred valid symbols which RosAsm can't
assemble, instead it crashes, would you call that a "feature"?

\o//annabee

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 1:10:39 PM3/21/05

to

På Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:02:45 +0100, skrev Johannes Kroll
<junk-m...@gmx.de>:

> I read that post (all of it...), it shows that there's a bug in RosAsm,
> and that Betov refuses to fix it. Don't you agree?

No. There is a bug (was), but Guga posted a long post here in ALA,
explaining that the bug was noticed, and that it has been put on the
todolist. It was given a low priority, because usually no RosAsm user try
to assemble a dictionary. So yes, there was a bug, and no it had nothing
to do with what master pdf thought. Master PDF concluded based on the
CRASH, not on finding the bug.

Our dear friend Kain, is unable to see the logic here, but maybe someone
else is.

So I will answer to Krikorian, right here instead :

First there IS no problem, (with the symbolmanagement) so then, someone,
who want to claim that there is a problem must first locate where.

Randy claim there is a problem with RosAsm symbolmanagment. To prove it,
he loaded a dictionary into Rosasm :-)))) RosAsm crashes, and Randy, the
*proffessor* concluded : Symbolmanagement.

RosAsm could have crashed for only one reason, but until you know the
reason, you CANNOT conclude if it is this .... or that. You will have to
investigate.

Randy did NOT do this. He said :

"I have no desire to understand where the problem lies"

And this implies, OF COURSE, that he doesnt know WHAT is the problem
either. This is exceptionally easy to grasp logic. Espesially for a
programmer.

> I mean, if there's a
> valid asm file with a few hundred valid symbols which RosAsm can't
> assemble, instead it crashes, would you call that a "feature"?

;-) I would have to see the file. But if it was contructed to make Rosy
crash, when Rosy have no problems on real life sources, it wouldnt be
interessting. Reality are much more interessting than a philosophical
"teacher" debate.

It is selfevident, to anyone with a brain, that when Rosy is able to
assemble its own 3 megas + 1 mega for one of the demos + 1 megas for
another of the demos, and that it has support for 3 clicks DLL creation,
that RosAsm could handle, very very large projects indeed.

Teoretical swada cannot change that.

Johannes Kroll

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 2:17:22 PM3/21/05

to

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:10:39 +0100
"\\\\o//annabee" <http://TheWannabee.org> wrote:

> På Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:02:45 +0100, skrev Johannes Kroll
> <junk-m...@gmx.de>:
>
> > I read that post (all of it...), it shows that there's a bug in
> > RosAsm, and that Betov refuses to fix it. Don't you agree?
>
> No. There is a bug (was), but Guga posted a long post here in ALA,
> explaining that the bug was noticed, and that it has been put on the
> todolist.

I see.

>["Randy this, Randy that" snipped..]

> > I mean, if there's a
> > valid asm file with a few hundred valid symbols which RosAsm can't
> > assemble, instead it crashes, would you call that a "feature"?
>
> ;-) I would have to see the file. But if it was contructed to make
> Rosy crash, when Rosy have no problems on real life sources, it
> wouldnt be interessting. Reality are much more interessting than a
> philosophical "teacher" debate.

You have seen the file(s). The examples in the thread you linked to are
valid asm, have "only" a few hundred symbols, and crash RosAsm. The fact
that Randall probably intentionally tried to create a file that crashes
RosAsm doesn't change that.

> It is selfevident, to anyone with a brain, that when Rosy is able to
> assemble its own 3 megas + 1 mega for one of the demos + 1 megas for
> another of the demos, and that it has support for 3 clicks DLL
> creation, that RosAsm could handle, very very large projects indeed.

Sure, but it's also "evident" that RosAsm might crash on very small
files, too.

BTW, has the bug been fixed?

Betov

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 2:34:20 PM3/21/05

to

Johannes Kroll <junk-m...@gmx.de> écrivait
news:20050321201722.4fb...@gmx.de:

> You have seen the file(s). The examples in the thread you linked to are
> valid asm, have "only" a few hundred symbols, and crash RosAsm. The
fact
> that Randall probably intentionally tried to create a file that crashes
> RosAsm doesn't change that.

We are not used to dig inside the reasons why Master
Pdf might create a "File": They are widely known:
Swindling and Self-Promotion.

>> It is selfevident, to anyone with a brain, that when Rosy is able to
>> assemble its own 3 megas + 1 mega for one of the demos + 1 megas for
>> another of the demos, and that it has support for 3 clicks DLL
>> creation, that RosAsm could handle, very very large projects indeed.
>
> Sure, but it's also "evident" that RosAsm might crash on very small
> files, too.

When RosAsm crashes, the users report, and usually the
bug-fix version is made available in less than one day.

> BTW, has the bug been fixed?

What bug? There is no bug: RosAsm is a Tool for writing
Applications in Assembly. It cannot parse Dictionaries,
and there is no reason why should parse Dictionaries.
So, it will never parse Dictionaries. Same for phone
lists, for cooking Manuals, for... It is an Assembler
and this is its main "feature".

Betov.

\o//annabee

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 4:55:05 PM3/21/05

to

På Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:17:22 +0100, skrev Johannes Kroll
<junk-m...@gmx.de>:

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:10:39 +0100
> "\\\\o//annabee" <http://TheWannabee.org> wrote:
>
>> På Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:02:45 +0100, skrev Johannes Kroll
>> <junk-m...@gmx.de>:
>>
>> > I read that post (all of it...), it shows that there's a bug in
>> > RosAsm, and that Betov refuses to fix it. Don't you agree?
>>
>> No. There is a bug (was), but Guga posted a long post here in ALA,
>> explaining that the bug was noticed, and that it has been put on the
>> todolist.
>
> I see.

Good. :)

>
>
>> ["Randy this, Randy that" snipped..]
>
>
>> > I mean, if there's a
>> > valid asm file with a few hundred valid symbols which RosAsm can't
>> > assemble, instead it crashes, would you call that a "feature"?
>>
>> ;-) I would have to see the file. But if it was contructed to make
>> Rosy crash, when Rosy have no problems on real life sources, it
>> wouldnt be interessting. Reality are much more interessting than a
>> philosophical "teacher" debate.
>
> You have seen the file(s). The examples in the thread you linked to are
> valid asm, have "only" a few hundred symbols, and crash RosAsm.

Do they ? I just tried to see if it was true. And this program, clipped
from Goggle, does not crash RosAsm at all.

Source size : 7020
PE Size : 3072
Total time : 20 millisec

_______________
____________________________________________________________________________
_______________
____________________________________________________________________________
_______________
____________________________________________________________________________
_______________
; Some basic Macros:

[push | push #1 | #+1] [pop | pop #1 | #+1]

[mov | mov #1 #2 | #+2]
[inc | inc #1 | #+1] [dec | dec #1 | #+1]

[On | cmp #1 #3 | jn#2 o1> | #4>L | o1:]

[call | push #L>2 | call #1]

[move | push #2 | pop #1 | #+2]

____________________________________________________________________________
_______________
Main:
aback:
abaft:
abandon:
abandoned:
abandoning:
abandonment:
abandons:
abase:
abased:
abasement:
abasements:
abases:
abash:
abashed:
abashes:
abashing:
abasing:
abate:
abated:
abatement:
abatements:
abater:
abates:
abating:
abbe:
abbey:
abbeys:
abbot:
abbots:
abbreviate:
abbreviated:
abbreviates:
abbreviating:
abbreviation:
abbreviations:
abdomen:
abdomens:
abdominal:
abduct:
abducted:
abduction:
abductions:
abductor:
abductors:
abducts:
abed:
aberrant:
aberration:
aberrations:
abet:
abets:
abetted:
abetter:
abetting:
abeyance:
abhor:
abhorred:
abhorrent:
abhorrer:
abhorring:
abhors:
abide:
abided:
abides:
abiding:
abilities:
ability:
abject:
abjection:
abjections:
abjectly:
abjectness:
abjure:
abjured:
abjures:
abjuring:
ablate:
ablated:
ablates:
ablating:
ablation:
ablative:
ablaze:
able:
abler:
ablest:
ably:
abnormal:
abnormalities:
abnormality:
abnormally:
aboard:
abode:
abodes:
abolish:
abolished:
abolisher:
abolishers:
abolishes:
abolishing:
abolishment:
abolishments:
abolition:
abolitionist:
abolitionists:
abominable:
abominate:
aboriginal:
aborigine:
aborigines:
abort:
aborted:
aborting:
abortion:
abortions:
abortive:
abortively:
aborts:
abound:
abounded:
abounding:
abounds:
about:
above:
aboveboard:
aboveground:
abovementioned:
abrade:
abraded:
abrades:
abrading:
abrasion:
abrasions:
abrasive:
abreaction:
abreactions:
abreast:
abridge:
abridged:
abridges:
abridging:
abridgment:
abroad:
abrogate:
abrogated:
abrogates:
abrogating:
abrupt:
abruptly:
abruptness:
abscess:
abscessed:
abscesses:
abscissa:
abscissas:
abscond:
absconded:
absconding:
absconds:
absence:
absences:
absent:
absented:
absentee:
absenteeism:
absentees:
absentia:
absenting:
absently:
absentminded:
absents:
absinthe:
absolute:
absolutely:
absoluteness:
absolutes:
absolution:
absolve:
absolved:
absolves:
absolving:
absorb:
absorbed:
absorbency:
absorbent:
absorber:
absorbing:
absorbs:
absorption:
absorptions:
absorptive:
abstain:
abstained:
abstainer:
abstaining:
abstains:
abstention:
abstentions:
abstinence:
abstracted:
abstracting:
abstraction:
abstractionism:
abstractionist:
abstractions:
abstractly:
abstractness:
abstractor:
abstractors:
abstracts:
abstruse:
abstruseness:
absurd:
absurdities:
absurdity:
absurdly:
abundance:
abundant:
abundantly:
abuse:
abused:
abuses:
abusing:
abusive:
abut:
abutment:
abuts:
abutted:
abutter:
abutters:
abutting:
abysmal:
abysmally:
abyss:
abysses:
acacia:
academia:
academic:
academically:
academics:
academies:
academy:
accede:
acceded:
accedes:
accelerate:
accelerated:
accelerates:
accelerating:
acceleration:
accelerations:
accelerator:
accelerators:
accelerometer:
accelerometers:
accent:
accented:
accenting:
accents:
accentual:
accentuate:
accentuated:
accentuates:
accentuating:
accentuation:
accept:
acceptability:
acceptable:
acceptably:
acceptance:
acceptances:
accepted:
accepter:
accepters:
accepting:
acceptor:
acceptors:
accepts:
access:
accessed:
accesses:
accessibility:
accessible:
accessibly:
accessing:
accession:
accessions:
accessories:
accessors:
accessory:
accident:
accidental:
accidentally:
accidently:
accidents:
acclaim:
acclaimed:
acclaiming:
acclaims:
acclamation:
acclimate:
acclimated:
acclimates:
acclimating:
acclimatization:
acclimatized:
accolade:
accolades:
accommodate:
accommodated:
accommodates:
accommodating:
accommodation:
accommodations:
accompanied:
accompanies:
accompaniment:
accompaniments:
accompanist:
accompanists:
accompany:
accompanying:
accomplice:
accomplices:
accomplish:
accomplished:
accomplisher:
accomplishers:
accomplishes:
accomplishing:
accomplishment:
accomplishments:
accord:
accordance:
accorded:
accorder:
accorders:
according:
accordingly:
accordion:
accordions:
accords:
accost:
accosted:
accosting:
accosts:
account:
accountability:
accountable:
accountably:
accountancy:
accountant:
accountants:
accounted:
accounting:
accounts:
accredit:
accreditation:
accreditations:
accredited:
accretion:
accretions:
accrue:
accrued:
accrues:
accruing:
acculturate:
acculturated:
acculturates:
acculturating:
acculturation:
accumulate:
accumulated:
accumulates:
accumulating:
accumulation:
accumulations:
accumulator:
accumulators:
accuracies:
accuracy:
accurate:
accurately:
accurateness:
accursed:
accusal:
accusation:
accusations:
accusative:
accuse:
accused:
accuser:
accuses:
accusing:
accusingly:
accustom:
accustomed:
accustoming:
accustoms:
ace:
aces:
acetate:
acetone:
acetylene:
ache:
ached:
aches:
achievable:
achieve:
achieved:
achievement:
achievements:
achiever:
achievers:
achieves:
achieving:
aching:
acid:
acidic:
acidities:
acidity:
acidly:
acids:
acidulous:
acknowledge:
acknowledgeable:
acknowledged:
acknowledgement:
acknowledgements:
acknowledger:
acknowledgers:
acknowledges:
acknowledging:
acknowledgment:
acknowledgments:
acme:
acne:
acolyte:
acolytes:
acorn:
acorns:
acoustic:
acoustical:
acoustically:
acoustician:
acoustics:
acquaint:
acquaintance:
acquaintances:
acquainted:
acquainting:
acquaints:
acquiesce:
acquiesced:
acquiescence:
acquiescent:
acquiesces:
acquiescing:
acquirable:
acquire:
acquired:
acquires:
acquiring:
acquisition:
acquisitions:
acquisitive:
acquisitiveness:
acquit:
acquits:
acquittal:
acquitted:
acquitter:
acquitting:
acre:
acreage:
acres:
acrid:
acrimonious:
acrimony:
acrobat:
acrobatic:
acrobatics:
acrobats:
acronym:
acronyms:
acropolis:
across:
acrylic:
act:
acted:
acting:
actinium:
actinometer:
actinometers:
action:
actions:
activate:
activated:
activates:
activating:
activation:
activations:
activator:
activators:
active:
actively:
activism:
activist:
activists:
activities:
activity:
actor:
actors:
actress:
actresses:
actual:

call 'Kernel32.ExitProcess' &NULL

____________________________________________________________________________
_______________

____________________________________________________________________________
___________

The fact
> that Randall probably intentionally tried to create a file that crashes
> RosAsm doesn't change that.

Change what ?

> Sure, but it's also "evident" that RosAsm might crash on very small
> files, too.

Any program can potentially have errors. It would be no less than a
miracle if a tool like RosAsm offering 100s of subtools for windows
assebly programming, would not have any errors, but it is surpricingly
stable. This the works of, in all majority a few men only, and mostly
Renes work. A single man. Amazing if you ask me.

Windows, an OS created by the biggest software house in the world, is
_FILLED_ with bugs and slowdowns, while RosAsm is really blazing fast.

We should encourage Rene, and thank him, not offer baseless critics !!

Your claim have no base, outside the abovementioned points. I have used
RosAsm for over a year. I was fresh, and learned my first assembly with it.

> BTW, has the bug been fixed?

I have never known about any bug. I have not took Randall serious since a
few of his SpeedTests and numerous other patetic posts from him, so I have
not tried to test his talentless dictionary ass programs, until today.
Myself I use seriously LONG and similar labelnames for my applications.
(That you can see for yourself from my homepage). And I have never run
into any problems, with RosAsm itself. So, anything this talentless man
Randall Hyde would ever say, is just a laughing matter to me. He is really
SO PHONY its screams !

You can load the exefile into RosAsm to view the code by way of RosAsm
rightclick speed, but if you just want to see the code, you can also load
the exe into nodepad, and view it there, but then the right click (a
genious feature of RosAsm) will not be available.

Annie

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 4:42:08 PM3/21/05

to

On 2005-03-21 Johannes Kroll <junk-m...@gmx.de> said:

> I read that post (all of it...), it shows that there's a bug in
> RosAsm, and that Betov refuses to fix it. Don't you agree? I mean,
> if there's a valid asm file with a few hundred valid symbols which
> RosAsm can't assemble, instead it crashes, would you call that a

> "feature"? _____
((( `\
Your assumption in not correct. _ _`\ )
The 'benchmark' which Randy (^ ) )
Hyde used to test RosAsm was ~-( )
-NOT- a 'valid ASM file.' _'((,,,)))
,-' \_/ `\
The file was only a symbol ( , |
table; it did not contain any `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
actual working program code. \ / | |
=()=: / ,' aa
If there had been valid ASM
-program- code included in the file, RosAsm would have
assembled it...AND the symbol table...with no problem.

Randy says, "Well, MA$M can assemble the file, and RosAsm
can't. So RosAsm is broken."

No. -MA$M- is 'broken.'

What kind of idiot would try to assemble ONLY a symbol table,
without any functional program code? That's totally crazy.
Hehe!

Johannes Kroll

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 3:44:50 PM3/21/05

to

On 21 Mar 2005 19:34:20 GMT
Betov <be...@free.fr> wrote:

> Johannes Kroll <junk-m...@gmx.de> écrivait
> news:20050321201722.4fb...@gmx.de:
>
> > You have seen the file(s). The examples in the thread you linked to
> > are valid asm, have "only" a few hundred symbols, and crash RosAsm.
> > The
> fact
> > that Randall probably intentionally tried to create a file that
> > crashes RosAsm doesn't change that.
>
> We are not used to dig inside the reasons why Master
> Pdf might create a "File": They are widely known:
> Swindling and Self-Promotion.
>
>
> >> It is selfevident, to anyone with a brain, that when Rosy is able
> >to > assemble its own 3 megas + 1 mega for one of the demos + 1 megas
> >for > another of the demos, and that it has support for 3 clicks DLL
> >> creation, that RosAsm could handle, very very large projects
> >indeed.
> >
> > Sure, but it's also "evident" that RosAsm might crash on very small
> > files, too.
>
> When RosAsm crashes, the users report, and usually the
> bug-fix version is made available in less than one day.

Fine!

> > BTW, has the bug been fixed?
>
> What bug? There is no bug: RosAsm is a Tool for writing
> Applications in Assembly. It cannot parse Dictionaries,
> and there is no reason why should parse Dictionaries.
> So, it will never parse Dictionaries. Same for phone
> lists, for cooking Manuals, for... It is an Assembler
> and this is its main "feature".

So I'm glad I don't use RosAsm for the code I'm writing now: a table of
many labels, sometimes with no code in between (generated by macros).
I'd always have to fear that RosAsm decides it is a "dictionary" and
crashes...

Johannes Kroll

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 5:15:43 PM3/21/05

to

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:55:05 +0100
"\\\\o//annabee" <http://TheWannabee.org> wrote:

Ok. I don't have Windoze running, so I can't test it myself. I just read
the post you linked and several people there confirmed that RosAsm
crashed.

So I supposed the bug has been fixed. Err, the feature has been removed.

> > You have seen the file(s). The examples in the thread you linked to
> > are valid asm, have "only" a few hundred symbols, and crash RosAsm.

\o//annabee

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 5:50:21 PM3/21/05

to

På Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:15:43 +0100, skrev Johannes Kroll
<junk-m...@gmx.de>:

> So I supposed the bug has been fixed. Err, the feature has been removed.

You should be very careful with supposing in your position. Its very likly
that you'd be wrong.
I now suppose you are just a Troll. I just said there aint no bug, and
_if_ there was it WAS NOT the bug Randall Hyde said it was.

This makes him a blatant OBVIOUS lier.

What part of my language did you brain have problem processing ?

Fucking retard !

Sevag Krikorian

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 6:53:44 PM3/21/05

to

Yes, a typical response from Betov victims these days.

Here are some facts for you:

1. Randall found a bug.
2. Other people (including myself) confirmed the bug.
3. Rene denied there ever was a bug.
4. Some time later, Rene (or maybe Guga) quietly fixes it
(aparantly, since it doesn't crash anymore as you report).

Here is some *actual* logic for you from the above data:

Randall spoke the truth when he reported a problem with
RosAsm.

Rene's a "blatant OBVIOUS lier"

Buy since your idea of "logic" is actually a religion, you will
fail to notice these facts.

Haven't you hanged yourself yet or do you need someone else
to do it for you?

\o//annabee

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 7:51:42 PM3/21/05

to

På Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:53:44 -0500, skrev Sevag Krikorian
<kahl...@nop.yahoo.com>:

>> You should be very careful with supposing in your position. Its very

>> likly that you'd be wrong.

> Yes, a typical response from Betov victims these days.

Because talking to trolls and idiots will make one frustrated. I did hard
work to confirm that I wrote was correct, I went back to all the versions
of RosAsm I have on my machine, and located the code in question in every
single one, to find if this code was added before or after master PDF's
visious lies.

I also tried the supposed crashing code, just now, at there was _no_ bug.

There could have been a bug, at the time Randall says = a crash, (Guga =
Beyond2000, also confirmed this in one of his post, but *i* have not) but
it COULD NOT be the symbolmanagment, because I have confirmed the dates.

So, where Randall lies, is not that RosAsm had a bug, its when he claims
that RosAsm symbolmanagment is useless (which he have posted many times).
Its been confirmed that it is close to the best, and that it was both
faster and more accurate then Pauls code, when tested on my codebase.

Can you say idiots anyone ?

> Here are some facts for you:
>
> 1. Randall found a bug.

Randall *produced* a bug, by trying to compile a dictionary. He didnt want
to spend time on finding the source of the bug, but he spent time on
produsing the bug. Since we know he would never consider RosAsm, the
question is why ?

Randall claimed the bug was in RosAsm symbolcruncher. This is now *proven*
a lie.

> 2. Other people (including myself) confirmed the bug.

Lets here the details then.

> 3. Rene denied there ever was a bug.

Noone has denied a bug, but there has been denied that it was because of
symbolmanagement. Wolgfang, who is 300 times smarter than you will ever
hope to become, also told he had confirmed the bug that crashed on
Randalls demented test, was but a jump to fix. Rene ALLWAYS new this, but
it was a low priority fix. As noone in their right mind, paste a dicionary
into an assembler. If they do :>>> Dictionary-asses.

Remember that this is the key point here. The symbolcruncher. That was
what Randall blamed, but that was NOT the bug, at all. Unless you start
showing some cards, and show you have done your homework I am not going to
locate the exact place of the bug, because I very much convinced, I am
just talking with two indecent shit and Troll-heads here.

> 4. Some time later, Rene (or maybe Guga) quietly fixes it
> (aparantly, since it doesn't crash anymore as you report).

I do not know when this bug was fixed, but Guga POSTED about this bug.
Guga posted about the bug, and confirmed it, a LONG time ago, in this very
NG. The key point here is not the bug, it was real, the keypoint is that
Randall said it to be the a bug in the Symbolmanagemnet, the hash
algorythm and organization of the collisions.

This was the lie. Two and two is still 4 Krikorian, even when you cant see
it.
So even when you are blind, doesnt mean that 2+2 isnt logical.

> Here is some *actual* logic for you from the above data:

You have no brain able to teach me about logic. Your performance is
completly boring.

> Buy since your idea of "logic" is actually a religion, you will
> fail to notice these facts.

You are stupid as a duck Krikorian. The logic here is insanly childishly
simple.

> Haven't you hanged yourself yet or do you need someone else
> to do it for you?

You are welcome to try Krikorian. Good LUCK.

Johannes Kroll

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 9:26:16 PM3/21/05

to

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:50:21 +0100
"\\\\o//annabee" <http://TheWannabee.org> wrote:

> På Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:15:43 +0100, skrev Johannes Kroll
> <junk-m...@gmx.de>:
>
> > So I supposed the bug has been fixed. Err, the feature has been
> > removed.
>
> You should be very careful with supposing in your position. Its very
> likly that you'd be wrong.
> I now suppose you are just a Troll. I just said there aint no bug, and
>
> _if_ there was it WAS NOT the bug Randall Hyde said it was.

I see.

So there was a bug, it has been fixed already, and the guess Randall
Hyde made about where the bug could have been, might have been wrong.

Right?

:)

Johannes Kroll

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 9:40:12 PM3/21/05

to

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 01:51:42 +0100
"\\\\o//annabee" <http://TheWannabee.org> wrote:

> På Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:53:44 -0500, skrev Sevag Krikorian
> <kahl...@nop.yahoo.com>:
>
> >> You should be very careful with supposing in your position. Its very
> >> likly that you'd be wrong.
>
> > Yes, a typical response from Betov victims these days.
>
> Because talking to trolls and idiots will make one frustrated. I did hard
> work to confirm that I wrote was correct, I went back to all the versions
> of RosAsm I have on my machine, and located the code in question in every
> single one, to find if this code was added before or after master PDF's
> visious lies.
>
> I also tried the supposed crashing code, just now, at there was _no_ bug.
>
> There could have been a bug, at the time Randall says = a crash, (Guga =
> Beyond2000, also confirmed this in one of his post, but *i* have not) but
> it COULD NOT be the symbolmanagment, because I have confirmed the dates.
>
> So, where Randall lies, is not that RosAsm had a bug, its when he claims
> that RosAsm symbolmanagment is useless (which he have posted many times).

Where? I didn't read that. But I only read through the post you linked here.

> Its been confirmed that it is close to the best, and that it was both
> faster and more accurate then Pauls code, when tested on my codebase.
>
> Can you say idiots anyone ?
>
> > Here are some facts for you:
> >
> > 1. Randall found a bug.
>
> Randall *produced* a bug, by trying to compile a dictionary. He didnt want
> to spend time on finding the source of the bug, but he spent time on
> produsing the bug. Since we know he would never consider RosAsm, the
> question is why ?
>
> Randall claimed the bug was in RosAsm symbolcruncher. This is now *proven*
> a lie.
>
> > 2. Other people (including myself) confirmed the bug.
>
> Lets here the details then.
>
> > 3. Rene denied there ever was a bug.
>
> Noone has denied a bug,

Well, Betov did write "There is no bug" here:
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.lang.asm/messages/4908669771919f94,62c24a7055cd81ee,768eb3abd43cb1e7,ec981da5b385965c,6a4b4a14033b05ee,04e4f69866de3ad6,6cf87b8f8e6e5fd2,0181371e81f05842,2739f258bac0baba,07c6e2c5e41623ca?thread_id=b8f51e297ed8fa27&mode=thread&noheader=1#doc_6cf87b8f8e6e5fd2>

Sevag Krikorian

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 10:22:31 PM3/21/05

to

\\o//annabee wrote:
> På Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:53:44 -0500, skrev Sevag Krikorian
> <kahl...@nop.yahoo.com>:
>

You know, Wannabee, you're well on your way of becoming a
master swindler like Rene. In the last couple of posts,
you have been digging out ancient debates that have come
to conclusion and asking re-asking questions that have
been answered to satisfaction before.

you brought up the HIDE compile times again and lied
about the amount of source HLA processes even though
you've been given the explanations before.

> Randall *produced* a bug, by trying to compile a dictionary. He didnt
> want to spend time on finding the source of the bug, but he spent time
> on produsing the bug. Since we know he would never consider RosAsm, the
> question is why ?

Randall already answered "why" right here:
http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/group/alt.lang.asm/messages/58101.html

He also points out why he ran the benchmarks here:
http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/group/alt.lang.asm/messages/58100.html

You distort the past in order to support yourself, Wannabee.

As for a bug being in the symbol management, there may be. There was
some debate on it and not all parties agreed that Rosasm's symbol
manager was perfect. But all that is irrelevant if Rene (or Guga) has
finally fixed the crash problem. It's a non-issue.

I've wasted enough time digging through the archives. We are gaining
no ground here as it is apparant that your analysis of the archives
can't be fully trusted. I bet in a few months time, you will raise
the very same questions again.

Troll away, Wannabee.

Betov

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 3:05:20 AM3/22/05

to

Johannes Kroll <junk-m...@gmx.de> écrivait
news:20050322034012.02c...@gmx.de:

> Well, Betov did write "There is no bug" here

Indead, there is no bug, here.

If you mean to say that, if RosAsm hangs when
forced to compile a no end Labels List, this
is a _feature_: RosAsm is an Assembler and it
is not a Tool for parsing a no end Labels List.

As this problem CAN NOT exist in any Assembly
Source i have nothing to fix as there is no bug.

Betov.

Betov

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 2:47:07 AM3/22/05

to

Johannes Kroll <junk-m...@gmx.de> écrivait
news:20050321214450.533...@gmx.de:

> So I'm glad I don't use RosAsm for the code I'm writing now: a table of
> many labels, sometimes with no code in between (generated by macros).
> I'd always have to fear that RosAsm decides it is a "dictionary" and
> crashes...

Where is your Source, Troll?

Betov.

Betov

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 3:07:03 AM3/22/05

to

Sevag Krikorian <kahl...@nop.yahoo.com> écrivait news:3a9hbnF69dm7uU1
@individual.net:

> But all that is irrelevant if Rene (or Guga) has
> finally fixed the crash problem. It's a non-issue.

:))

We would have hard time for fixing a bug that does
not exist.

Betov.

Beth

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 3:30:43 AM3/22/05

to

Annie wrote:
> The purpose of a war is to kill people and break things.

Well, at least someone admits that it's just about sadistic pleasure and
little else...

Beth :|

Beth

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 1:51:06 AM3/22/05

to

\\o//annabee wrote:
> Last night I saw this program, where a scientist working with
> COWS, and studying COWS, closely for years, had found remarkable
> similarites between COWS and people. COWS are exactly like many people.
> They follow a leader, they go with the mainflow, they ask for permission
> to stear the flock, and if no permission they obey. They have certain
cows
> that they prefer to chat with,

Huh?!? Wait a minute...you saw a programme on TV where cows were talking to
each other?

Oh dear, you were watching the Cartoon Channel again, weren't you? How many
times do we need to explain this? The cartoon animals are just animated
drawings...real cows, rabbits, ducks and stuff don't really speak
English...it's just a cartoon ;)...

Beth :)

Betov

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 3:22:40 AM3/22/05

to

"Beth" <BethS...@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> écrivait news:ufP%d.26$it1.19
@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net:

> real cows, rabbits, ducks and stuff don't really speak
> English...it's just a cartoon ;)...

Aaaahhhh!!!... So is Randall Hyde? Oooohhhhh!!!...

:)

Betov.

Betov

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 3:20:01 AM3/22/05

to

Johannes Kroll <junk-m...@gmx.de> écrivait
news:20050322032616.102...@gmx.de:

> I see.
>
> So there was a bug, it has been fixed already, and the guess Randall
> Hyde made about where the bug could have been, might have been wrong.
>
> Right?

Right and wrong:

The most funny thing, in the affair, is that Master Randall
Hyde is not abla to identify a behaviour.

But as there was no bug we could not have anything to fix.

For the one interrested in Assembler "BenchMarking", they
have to know that an Assembler performs a difficult to
count number of tasks, and that, comparing the various
Assemblers on tiny details, like "Let's compare the speed
of RosAsm Labels Encoding to MASM Labels Encoding" does
NOT make ANY SENSE.

The ony way to compare the Speed of the various Assemblers
is to compile comparable Applications, with similar Sizes,
with similar level of HLL writing Style, and with similar
Sources.

Plus, the number of enable features must also be considered.
For example, it is quite normal that an Assembler with a
very powerfull macros System, like RosAsm be _slower_ than,
say, an Assembler like GoAsm (that has a very small Macros
Engine Implementation). Nevertheless, even with its Macros
System, and multiple unic feature, RosAsm compile 1.5 Megas
per Second, on a Celeron 1.3. With the actualy new Conditional
Macros Implementation, even for a file making a dementialy
heavy use of this feature, this would never be under 1 Mega
Second.

In short, with fair Benchmarking, RosAsm _is_ the fastest
of the actual Assembler, with FASM close to it, and the
stupidities of Randall Hyde will never change a thing at
this fact.

Betov.

\o//annabee

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 9:26:24 PM3/22/05

to

På Wed, 23 Mar 2005 01:25:32 +0000 (UTC), skrev Annie <m...@privacy.net>:

>
> On 2005-03-22 be...@free.fr said:
>
> > Annie écrivait:
> >
> > > When that point is reached, the war is officially over.
> > >
> > > Like in Iraq, right now.
> > >
> > > That's not to say that the killing stops immediately.
> > > There are always small pockets of resistance remaining
> > > which have to be 'cleaned out.' If you knew history
> > > (which you obviously don't), you'd know that the
> > > 'cleaning out' process in Europe following World War II
> > > took almost 5 years. It'll take awhile in Iraq, as well.
> > > But it WILL happen.
> >
> > Absurd analyse.
> >
> > The US Nazis never had any chance for winning the "Oil
> > agression". This war was lost before it even started.
> >
> > Now, that the US Nazi have effectively lost the war, the
> > only question is to know when they will go back home.
> > The exact answer is: "When the US Nazi population will
> > feel tired of its own deaths".
> >
> > After this, when the US nazis will leave Irak, the facts
> > will be like this:
> >
> > Before: A developed country.
> > After: A ruined country.
> >
> > Before: a Pro-Occidental country.
> > After: A Islamic country.
> >
> > Before: One country.
> > After: three countries.
> >
> > Before: A country without Mafia.
> > After: Several Mafias ruling the market.
> > _____
> > Betov. ((( `\
> _ _`\ )
> Rene mon cher, tu sais que (^ ) )
> je t'aime, mais...vraiment... ~-( )
> tu es un idiot. Hehe! _'((,,,)))
> ,-' \_/ `\
> Et n'oubliez pas: le raison ( , |
> que La Belle France est ici `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
> aujourd-hui...apres WWII...est \ / | |
> Les Etats Unis. =()=: / ,' aa
>
> 'Nazi?' Je ne pense pas cela.
> Seulement un idiot pense cela.
> Hehehe!
>

;-))) Betov ? Does she sound like an 120 year old dement in your language
as well ?

- Your norwegian, Annie, sucked so much, that most towelheads living here
for two weeks would have dyed of laughter.

Hehehe.

Betov

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 12:47:08 PM3/22/05

to

Johannes Kroll <junk-m...@gmx.de> écrivait
news:20050322181926.214...@gmx.de:

> If that happens, why don't you create your own benchmarks to
> show the truth?

I do not know of any Assembler Author who would feel
in need of any "Benchmark" for analysing the speed
of his Tool: We all have a yet working brain.

I have always said that "creating Benchmarks for
comparing the various Assemblers" does not make any
sense. This would be utterly absurd. As well for
FASM/fresh and for RosAsm, we have the Compilations
times printed with the intermediate timings available,
and this is all we need 1) to talk with some effective
base of "Assembler speed", and 2) to eventually improve
some partial task that would take too much time.

We (the Assemblers Authors) have never been in need of
an unsignificant ass-hole like Randall Hyde, - deprived
of any form of intellectual honesty -, for evaluating
our Tools.

Betov.

\o//annabee

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 2:24:15 PM3/22/05

to

På Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:43:07 +0100, skrev Johannes Kroll
<junk-m...@gmx.de>:

> On 22 Mar 2005 17:37:15 GMT

> Betov <be...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> Johannes Kroll <junk-m...@gmx.de> écrivait

>> news:20050322180614.6f5...@gmx.de:

>>
>> >> As this problem CAN NOT exist in any Assembly
>> >> Source i have nothing to fix as there is no bug.
>> >

>> > So why was it fixed?
>>
>>
>> Nobody said it was fixed.
>
>
> So why has it disappeared?

What disappeared ?

Johannes Kroll

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 12:39:57 PM3/22/05

to

On 22 Mar 2005 17:36:06 GMT
Betov <be...@free.fr> wrote:

> Johannes Kroll <junk-m...@gmx.de> écrivait
> news:20050322180530.353...@gmx.de:
>
> > If I would try to do the
> > same in RosAsm it would possibly crash, right? Because it doesn't
> > assemble dictionaries.
>
>
> No, it would of course not crash.

Great!

>You don't understand
> what you are talking about.
>
>
> Betov.
>
> < http://rosasm.org/ >
>

Johannes Kroll

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 12:06:14 PM3/22/05

to

On 22 Mar 2005 08:05:20 GMT
Betov <be...@free.fr> wrote:

So why was it fixed?

Annie

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 10:13:19 PM3/22/05

to

On 2005-03-23 The Half-A-Wannabee said:

> Your norwegian, Annie, sucked so much, that most towelheads
> living here for two weeks would have dyed of laughter.

_____
I never claimed to be fluent in ((( `\
Norsk. _ _`\ )
(^ ) )
But just imagine what we native ~-( )
English-speakers think when we _'((,,,)))
read -your- 'English.' ,-' \_/ `\
( , |
"DYED of laughter," indeed... `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
you silly SquareHead. \ / | |
=()=: / ,' aa
Ask Beth if she speaks Welsh. Hehehe!

Betov

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 4:40:30 PM3/22/05

to

Johannes Kroll <junk-m...@gmx.de> écrivait
news:20050322222310.205...@gmx.de:

> The property of RosAsm that made it crash when given this input:

There has never been any relationship between any
Randall Hyde input and any Assembly input, and as
long as this ass-hole will go on refusing to learn
the basics of Assembly, it will remain so.

:)

Betov.

Robert Redelmeier

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 8:30:19 AM3/22/05

to

Different motivations are possible within "break things &
kill people". Sadism has fewer adherents than nationalism.

More often one or both sides wish to take things of value from
the other. Both believe the prize is large and justifies
the effort of fighting. Both are often wrong, sometimes
spectacularly so (WW1).

-- Robert

Annie

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 8:25:32 PM3/22/05

to

\o//annabee

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 2:22:19 PM3/22/05

to

På Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:39:57 +0100, skrev Johannes Kroll
<junk-m...@gmx.de>:

>> No, it would of course not crash.
>
> Great!

Didnt you just ask why it was fixed :)))))))))))))

\o//annabee

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 3:57:32 AM3/22/05

to

På Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:51:06 GMT, skrev Beth
<BethS...@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com>:

> \\o//annabee wrote:
>> Last night I saw this program, where a scientist working with
>> COWS, and studying COWS, closely for years, had found remarkable
>> similarites between COWS and people. COWS are exactly like many people.
>> They follow a leader, they go with the mainflow, they ask for permission
>> to stear the flock, and if no permission they obey. They have certain
> cows
>> that they prefer to chat with,
>
> Huh?!? Wait a minute...you saw a programme on TV where cows were talking
> to
> each other?

:)) :)) Actually I used the term "chat". As you know, chatting and taking
isnt exactly the same. Chatting is more like communicating, it dont
nessesarily involve "talking".

> Oh dear, you were watching the Cartoon Channel again, weren't you? How
> many
> times do we need to explain this? The cartoon animals are just animated
> drawings...real cows, rabbits, ducks and stuff don't really speak
> English...it's just a cartoon ;)...

No :)) But, what I meant was that COWS have "girlfriends", just like
people, they prefer to stand aside certain other COWS, and this relation
last for their whole life, just like with people. Much like you and Annie.
Maybe the COWS just exchange bodyheat, or sweat odor, or just prefer each
other grasseating sounds, -and do not really chat, but they do prefer to
spend time, close to some spesial other COWS. Much like you and Annie. :))

>
> Beth :)
>
>

Betov

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 12:37:15 PM3/22/05

to

Johannes Kroll <junk-m...@gmx.de> écrivait
news:20050322180614.6f5...@gmx.de:

>> As this problem CAN NOT exist in any Assembly
>> Source i have nothing to fix as there is no bug.
>
> So why was it fixed?

Nobody said it was fixed.

Betov.

Annie

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 4:06:33 PM3/22/05

to

On 2005-03-22 BethS...@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com said:

> _____
> Beth :| ((( `\
_ _`\ )
Silly mad cow. This remark merely (^ ) )
illustrates your naivet‚. ~-( )
_'((,,,)))
It has nothing to do with ,-' \_/ `\
'sadism' or 'pleasure.' ( , |
`-.-'`-.-'/|_|
In a war, you kill people and \ / | |
break things so that the enemy =()=: / ,' aa
eventually loses the manpower,
the materiel, and/or the will necessary to continue
waging war.

When that point is reached, the war is officially over.
Like in Iraq, right now.

That's not to say that the killing stops immediately.
There are always small pockets of resistance remaining
which have to be 'cleaned out.' If you knew history
(which you obviously don't), you'd know that the
'cleaning out' process in Europe following World War II
took almost 5 years. It'll take awhile in Iraq, as well.
But it WILL happen.

So....did you climb aboard one of those 'free' buses,
and ride to London for the 'peace march?'

Yeah; didn't think so. Hehehe!

---
"The object of war is not to die for your country,
but to make the other bastard die for his."
- General George Patton

Johannes Kroll

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 12:17:37 PM3/22/05

to

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:40:17 +0100
"wolfgang kern" <now...@nevernet.at> wrote:

>
> Johannes Kroll wrote:
>
> | ["Randy this, Randy that" snipped..]
>
> From my experience:
> Randy is bound to theoretical thinking.
>
> This 'RosAsm-bug' described and endless discussed already
> 'is' just based on a theoretical problem which never will
> occur in a 'real-life' program.

Probably not. But why does it occur at all (the crash)? Will it crash
also on a very large file with only a few unused labels here and there?

To me, an assembler which can't assemble a bunch of labels is broken.
But before the RosAsm people will admit that, they rather quietly
remove the, err, feature and then deny there ever was a bug. :D

> I don't know any serious programmer who would try to compile
> a huge list of unused label-names (what for?)
>
> | BTW, has the bug been fixed?
>
> I haven't checked on it, as I really can't see any reason to.
> [my RosAsm code examples also contain unused 'future prepared' labels,
> but of course just in a reasonable amount]
>
> Ok, the limit of unused labels could be mentioned in the Help-file.
> This would end this discussion forever.
>
> __
> wolfgang
>
>
>

Johannes Kroll

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 12:43:07 PM3/22/05

to

On 22 Mar 2005 17:37:15 GMT
Betov <be...@free.fr> wrote:

> Johannes Kroll <junk-m...@gmx.de> écrivait
> news:20050322180614.6f5...@gmx.de:
>
> >> As this problem CAN NOT exist in any Assembly
> >> Source i have nothing to fix as there is no bug.
> >
> > So why was it fixed?
>
>
> Nobody said it was fixed.

Betov

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 5:32:55 AM3/22/05

to

"wolfgang kern" <now...@nevernet.at> écrivait news:d1oqa3$l57$1
@newsreader1.utanet.at:

>| BTW, has the bug been fixed?
>
> I haven't checked on it, as I really can't see any reason to.
> [my RosAsm code examples also contain unused 'future prepared' labels,
> but of course just in a reasonable amount]
>
> Ok, the limit of unused labels could be mentioned in the Help-file.
> This would end this discussion forever.

:)

No, we can't: Master pdf would understand the reason why,
and would restart his so called "BenchMarking", until he
could found out some detail of the Compilation, were MASM
could be _faster_ than RosAsm.

The problem is that, after he would run into his usual
Propaganda system on such a swindling, there _would_ be
idiots who would really believe that MASM is faster than
RosAsm, dispiting any evidence.

So, i CANNOT explain where the so called problem really
is.

For your own real life Coding, you can have as much unused
Symbols as you'd like, it will never be a problem.

:)

Betov.

Johannes Kroll

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 5:50:30 PM3/22/05

to

On 22 Mar 2005 21:40:30 GMT
Betov <be...@free.fr> wrote:

> [Randall ass-hole blah, blah, ...]
>
> :)
>
> Betov.
>
> < http://rosasm.org/ >

Betov

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 4:58:59 PM3/22/05

to

"Annie" <m...@privacy.net> écrivait news:d1q1ck$kcf$1...@domitilla.aioe.org:

> When that point is reached, the war is officially over.
> Like in Iraq, right now.
>
> That's not to say that the killing stops immediately.
> There are always small pockets of resistance remaining
> which have to be 'cleaned out.' If you knew history
> (which you obviously don't), you'd know that the
> 'cleaning out' process in Europe following World War II
> took almost 5 years. It'll take awhile in Iraq, as well.
> But it WILL happen.

Absurd analyse.

The US Nazis never had any chance for winning the "Oil
agression". This war was lost before it even started.

Now, that the US Nazi have effectively lost the war, the
only question is to know when they will go back home.
The exact answer is: "When the US Nazi population will
feel tired of its own deaths".

After this, when the US nazis will leave Irak, the facts
will be like this:

Before: A developed country.
After: A ruined country.

Before: a Pro-Occidental country.
After: A Islamic country.

Before: One country.
After: three countries.

Before: A country without Mafia.
After: Several Mafias ruling the market.

Betov.

\o//annabee

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 2:20:43 PM3/22/05

to

På Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:06:14 +0100, skrev Johannes Kroll
<junk-m...@gmx.de>:

>

> So why was it fixed?

:)))))))))))))))))))

Cant please every/anyone :)))))))))))))))))
--
http://TheWannabee.org

\o//annabee

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 2:21:31 PM3/22/05

to

På Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:19:26 +0100, skrev Johannes Kroll
<junk-m...@gmx.de>:

>

> If that happens, why don't you create your own benchmarks to
> show the truth?

Read the history.