Re: A general request for information regarding Dustin Cook
Kadaitcha Man
notorious-bawd. Thou despicable anointed sovereign of sighs and groans.
Thou musty mannish coward. Ye nagged and ye squawked:
> 4Q wrote:
>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>> On Feb 23, 11:44 pm, "4Q"
>
> *fixup* for the archive
>
> <quote> childish bASIC
>
> randomize
> a=rnd(0)
> a=a mod 1
> b=rnd(0)
> b=b mod 23
> death=b
> b=rnd(0)
> b=b mod 23
> runy=b
> b=rnd(0)
> b=b mod 23
>
> if death=runy then
> a=rnd(0)
> a=a mod 23
> runy=a
> endif
> ent$=chr$(13)
> print"Viral Anticipation... Here is a chance for you to run the
> program!"
> print"special greetings to Nick Fitzgerald (fuck you!) and Graham
> Cluley"
> print"of Sophos (www.sophos.com); You fuckin lardass."
> print""
> print"Use your arrows (left & right) to select a square below."
> print"One of the squares has been set to allow your program"
> print"to continue running, While another will destroy your file."
> print"And the remaining ones? They do nothing. Make your decision."
> print"Press <enter> to record it. Good-Luck <Evil Grin>"
> print""
> print"UA:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:?"
> print"^3 Are you of a gambling nature? Muaha ^3"
> print"AA:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:U"
> for y=1 to 24
> a$=a$+"+-"
> next y
> print a$;
> zone=csrlin
> rem setup where the key door and bombs are, There are only 4 bombs
> rem to make the game not impossible.
> rem K is left, M is right
>
> local=b
> locate zone,local
> print"U";
> while exitflag=0
> a$=inkey$
> if a$="K" then
> if local=0 then
> beep
> else
> gosub check:
> local=local-1
> locate zone,local
> print"U";
> endif
> endif
> if a$="M" then
> if local=23 then
> beep
> else
> gosub check:
> local=local+1
> locate zone,local
> print"U";
> endif
> endif
> if a$=ent$ then
> exitflag=1
> ar=local
> endif
> gosub die_cursor:
> wend
> print"th"
> print""
> print"A choice has been made... So what shall become of the program?"
> print""
> print"Will the program continue running? ";
> if ar<> runy then
> print"hah, Nope."
> print"has the program been lost to the depths of electronic noise? "
> if ar=death then
> print"Hah, Yes Cluley's lardass squished it flat. "
> else
> print"Nope. The file moved out of the way as the lardass fell."
> endif
> else
> print"Why yes... yes it will."
> endif
> end
>
> check:
> for x=0 to 22
> locate zone,local
> print"+-";
> next x
> return
>
> die_cursor:
> rem off with the damn cursor
> REM turn crsr off by positioning off screen
> REM ASIC leaves it on for some reaosn ALL the time!
> AX=&HEX0200
> BX=0
> DX=25*256
> INT86 (&HEX10,AX,BX,NA,DX,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA)
> return
>
> </quote> childish code. No wonder they
> call it BASIC (read: code for children)
These days, with .NET there is no fundamental difference between BASIC, C#
and J#, et al. Real differences lie only in how the code is required to be
structured by the precompiler. Only a very short copy/paste manoeuvre is
needed to convert .NET-based C# to Visual Basic or Visual Java, and back
again.
Anyway, that aside, I have often witnessed Dustfart bragging about his "1337
skillz" in coding. I almost had a fit from laughing at the tripe up there.
If he were an employee of mine and showed as much unworthy pride in his awful
scribblings as he has displayed on usenet, I'd fire his fucking arse, on the
spot, and no two ways about it. I've seen better scribblings in Indonesia;
made with daubed faeces by captive orang-utans bored shitless from nothing
else to do except swing in the trees and eat an endless supply of bananas.
"That's a simple programming thing tho"
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.comp.os.windows-xp/msg/616184df875852ca?dmode=source&hl=en
The emphasis is on simple.
"I do all kinds of programming. I'm not the ignorant pissant you wish I was.
and your fixing to learn that, albeit the hard way."
http://groups.google.com.au/group/24hoursupport.helpdesk/msg/f2cd20c7fab2a9f5?dmode=source&hl=en
Looks like a disguised k0oKTHREAT to me, that does. Ah... here is one of the
many Dustfart k0oKTHREATS that never happened:
"You foolishly imagine that I don't maintain contact with my former
associates. :) You really should do yourself a favor before you get
yourself involved in something that has reach far beyond usenet and
your little auk home. DDoSing is a very real and very harmful sport
some of my comrades are still into, only they do it with thousands of
zombie computers. Thousands son. :)"
And in the very same post...
"One final comment, "Pity the fool who doesn't understand programming.""
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/18f51fd79432b393?dmode=source&hl=en
That last one cracked me up. I could hardly breathe from laughing at him.
So, on to a really rough and quick but professional critique of the code
above... I was a professional software developer, now in management, though
I still cut a lot of code just to keep up with the latest advancements...
> randomize
> a=rnd(0)
> a=a mod 1
> b=rnd(0)
> b=b mod 23
> death=b
^^^^^^^^^^
> b=rnd(0)
> b=b mod 23
> runy=b
> b=rnd(0)
> b=b mod 23
The variable named "death" indicates that the language is capable of
supporting variable names other than simple a, b, c. Code should make use of
extended variable names with the intent of increasing the code's ability to
self-document.
As another example of the woefully poor exploitation of variable names...
> ar=local
ar might be short for "AR AR ME 'ARTIES!!!"
Perhaps Dustfart fancies himself as a pirate on the high seas or something.
> b=rnd(0)
> b=b mod 23
> death=b
Three lines of code are used to do what can be done in one line...
death = rnd(0) mod 23
The results are the same but the process is not. Dustfart's amateurish and
woefully inefficient code requires values to be moved left, right and
centre, then all the way back again before a result is obtained. I use the
word "amateurish" reservedly. I am bereft of sufficient one-word
superlatives to convey the idea of complete rubbish born of his artless
bumbling.
> gosub check:
Subroutines should only be used where there is a need to eliminate repeated
_larger_ segments of code. The subroutine named "check" is called from only
two places in the entire ...ahem... "program", and it will cause the
compiler/run environment to beat on the processor; see a little later about
strings. Given what I say a later about strings inside loops, the "check"
subroutine is not just entirely superfluous, it is detrimental to the
efficient execution of the code.
> b=b mod 23
> death=b
> b=rnd(0)
> b=b mod 23
> runy=b
> b=rnd(0)
> b=b mod 23
>
> if death=runy then
> a=rnd(0)
> a=a mod 23
Some variable modulus 23 is used 4 times in 10 lines. Setting aside that the
code segments use 3 lines where one line will do, the whole rnd(x) mod 23
should have been a candidate for conversion into a subroutine, then
discarded as a candidate because it would probably require just as many
processor cycles to jump and return as it would to calculate the modulus of
two simple numbers inline. I doubt Dustfart's capacity to have ever
considered that at all. I suppose soon enough we'll see if his hindsight
is operating at a perfect 20-20.
> for y=1 to 24
> a$=a$+"+-"
> next y
The code is very badly written and grossly inefficient. Any programmer worth
the designation of "programmer" should know that strings are, more often
than not, immutable in BASIC, which means that once a value has been
assigned a string variable the value cannot be extended without moving the
original to a new place, destroying the original variable then moving the
new value from its temporary place and into a newly reserved block in
memory.
In the loop above, the compiler (I assume compiler, surely he's not daft
enough to use interpreted BASIC. Is he?), is forced to move the contents of
the variable into a transient location, free up the formerly reserved memory
location, create a new reserved location, then move the contents from
transient storage to the new location no less than 24 times in a row. Each
of the twenty four executions are repeated for every time the code loops
through the controlling while/wend construct. It is utter shite; it is not
code.
It would have been far more efficient to simply declare a variable with...
SomeVar$ = "+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-..."
But I suppose that would deny Dustfart the bragging rights on knowing how to
execute a simple For...Next loop.
> if a$="K" then
> ...
> endif
Still on the subject of sloppy, inneficient coding; at compile time, the
compiler will not be able to work out how or where to allocate a home for
the simple "K" string literal. The job will therefore be left to runtime,
where, of course, execution will be slowed while the run environment works
out what to do with it. A far more efficient and elegant method would be...
SomeVar$ = "K"
...
...
If SomeOtherVar$ = SomeVar$ Then
...
EndIf
In fact...
If NOT ((SomeOtherVar$ <> SomeVar$) AND (SomeOtherVar$ <> YetAnotherVar$))
Then
...
EndIf
...would be just as quick as, if not actually quicker than, the mess
Dustfart made; the correct word is wrote but his crap is not worthy of such
a word. A not equal operation requires less processor cycles than an equal
operation. With a properly structured If...Then clause, there would be no
need for the dog's breakfast below:
> if a$="K" then
> if local=0 then
> beep
> else
> gosub check:
> local=local-1
> locate zone,local
> print"U";
> endif
> endif
> if a$="M" then
> if local=23 then
> beep
> else
> gosub check:
> local=local+1
> locate zone,local
As an alternative to checking "if a$="K" then", to avoid fucking about with
literals entirely...
If SomeOtherVar$ = Chr$(70) Then
...
EndIf
There is no sign in the code whatsoever that Dustfart knows what Boolean
notation is or does in BASIC. I may have been inclined to be a little less
critical had I seen something, anything, along the lines of...
If -1 * ((a$ <> k$) + (a$ <> m$)) Then
...
EndIf
Alas, there's nothing. No sign of Boolean notation in a chunk of crap
that cries out for it.
> if a$="K" then
> if local=0 then
> beep
> else
> gosub check:
> local=local-1
> locate zone,local
> print"U";
> endif
> endif
Horrible, horrible, horrible. Bloody horrible. Unreadable tripe is what
Dustfart has created. It can not reasonably be labelled "code".
If X Then
If Y Then
...
Else
...
EndIf
EndIf
> wend
You need at least four pairs of eyes to find the controlling while
statement.
> die_cursor:
> rem off with the damn cursor
> REM turn crsr off by positioning off screen
> REM ASIC leaves it on for some reaosn ALL the time!
> AX=&HEX0200
> BX=0
> DX=25*256
> INT86 (&HEX10,AX,BX,NA,DX,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA)
> return
It's supposedly a payload for a virus, so who the fuck cares if the cursor
is on or off? What was he doing here? Bragging that he knows how to call
int86? Why the fuck would he bother with int86 video routines? Why isn't
he showing off his 1337 skillz and calling int13 to make the low-level
disk services sing and dance?
> 4Q
> http://fourq.host.sk/INFO/
"Pity the fool who doesn't understand programming."
The conclusion is ironic... the fool doesn't understand programming.
Two things in closing...
1. I typed this into google...
'REM turn crsr off by positioning off screen"
I wanted to see if there were any other sources for the exact same string of
text. As you can see, the opening quote is a single not a double quote, a
typo on my part. The typo caused results to be found and the first link that
came up showed this...
Touring the Commodore 128 Keyboard10 PRINT CHR$(147):REM CLEAR SCREEN 20
CHAR,14,11,"OFF THE TOP" 30 CHAR,12,12 ... Turn on your C-128, hold down the
CONTROL key, and press G. Surprise!
Coming up with that result in top place from a line in Dustfart's code is an
insult to to the VIC-20, let alone the Commodore 128. Primary school children
write better code than Dustfart.
2. Please feel free to use this quick review on your website. Source
credited, please. I'd be happy to have my name alongside some text that rips
apart the atrocious mess he makes and has the unmitigated cheek to call
"code".
Oh, as an addendum, I've rewritten Dustfart's virus payload in pseudocode...
Do some fancy bullshit with modulus to make me look reely, reely good
In amongst all the fnacy bullshit, pick a number, any number
Print some fuckwitted, geeky message on the screen
Force the user to pick a key
If the user picked this key and I picked a certain number then
Call a subroutine to spray some shit on the screen
Call a reely 1337 DOS interrupt a few times to make me look reely k00l
Print another fuckwitted, geeky message on the screen
Don't do anything else, just exit
End if
If the user picked that key and I picked a different number then
Call a subroutine to spray some shit on the screen
Call a reely 1337 DOS interrupt a few times to make me look reely k00l
Print another fuckwitted, geeky message on the screen
Don't do anything else, just exit
End if
If you look at the code closely, that is exactly what it does.
print"th"
print""
print"A choice has been made... So what shall become of the program?"
print""
print"Will the program continue running? ";
if ar<> runy then
print"hah, Nope."
print"has the program been lost to the depths of electronic noise? "
if ar=death then
print"Hah, Yes Cluley's lardass squished it flat. "
else
print"Nope. The file moved out of the way as the lardass fell."
endif
else
print"Why yes... yes it will."
endif
end
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! LMAO
<snort>
Fucking "virus writer" my arse.
--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1...@registered.motzarella.org
Dustin Cook
> > </quote> childish code. No wonder they
> > call it BASIC (read: code for children)
Actually, it's not quiet basic.. See below, as I tear K-man to
shreds :)
> These days, with .NET there is no fundamental difference between BASIC, C#
> and J#, et al. Real differences lie only in how the code is required to be
> structured by the precompiler. Only a very short copy/paste manoeuvre is
> needed to convert .NET-based C# to Visual Basic or Visual Java, and back
> again.
blah blah. Any developer realizes this.. even you... shrug.
> made with daubed faeces by captive orang-utans bored shitless from nothing
> else to do except swing in the trees and eat an endless supply of bananas.
>
> "That's a simple programming thing tho"http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.comp.os.windows-xp/msg/616184df...
>
> The emphasis is on simple.
So simple in fact, you missed it.. See below.
> So, on to a really rough and quick but professional critique of the code
> above... I was a professional software developer, now in management, though
> I still cut a lot of code just to keep up with the latest advancements...
>
>
>
> > randomize
> > a=rnd(0)
> > a=a mod 1
> > b=rnd(0)
> > b=b mod 23
> > death=b
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> > b=rnd(0)
> > b=b mod 23
> > runy=b
> > b=rnd(0)
> > b=b mod 23
>
> The variable named "death" indicates that the language is capable of
> supporting variable names other than simple a, b, c. Code should make use of
> extended variable names with the intent of increasing the code's ability to
> self-document.
True, that was sloppy on my part. I think I said the code was sloppy
originally tho..
> As another example of the woefully poor exploitation of variable names...
>
> > ar=local
>
> ar might be short for "AR AR ME 'ARTIES!!!"
>
> Perhaps Dustfart fancies himself as a pirate on the high seas or something.
just lazy...
> > b=rnd(0)
> > b=b mod 23
> > death=b
>
> Three lines of code are used to do what can be done in one line...
>
> death = rnd(0) mod 23
Ahh, but your wrong sir. This is Asic, it cannot be done in one
line. :)
> The results are the same but the process is not. Dustfart's amateurish and
The results would be the same, If the language supported it in one
statement like that. (It doesn't). It's asic, not quiet basic. :)
> woefully inefficient code requires values to be moved left, right and
> centre, then all the way back again before a result is obtained. I use the
Ouch, I don't think you realize how close asic really is to
assembler... Your loss. :)
> word "amateurish" reservedly. I am bereft of sufficient one-word
> superlatives to convey the idea of complete rubbish born of his artless
> bumbling.
>
> > gosub check:
>
> Subroutines should only be used where there is a need to eliminate repeated
> _larger_ segments of code. The subroutine named "check" is called from only
> two places in the entire ...ahem... "program", and it will cause the
> compiler/run environment to beat on the processor; see a little later about
Actually, it won't. The assembler code is referenced via jmp
statements in the executable. It saves codespace, by writing code once
if it's going to be used more than once, it should be a routine. Why
repeat the same code?
> strings. Given what I say a later about strings inside loops, the "check"
> subroutine is not just entirely superfluous, it is detrimental to the
> efficient execution of the code.
Ehhhehh.. Heh, the code is written in asic. I don't think you quiet
understand what asic is. :)
> > b=b mod 23
> > death=b
> > b=rnd(0)
> > b=b mod 23
> > runy=b
> > b=rnd(0)
> > b=b mod 23
>
> > if death=runy then
> > a=rnd(0)
> > a=a mod 23
>
> Some variable modulus 23 is used 4 times in 10 lines. Setting aside that the
> code segments use 3 lines where one line will do, the whole rnd(x) mod 23
> should have been a candidate for conversion into a subroutine, then
> discarded as a candidate because it would probably require just as many
> processor cycles to jump and return as it would to calculate the modulus of
> two simple numbers inline. I doubt Dustfart's capacity to have ever
> considered that at all. I suppose soon enough we'll see if his hindsight
> is operating at a perfect 20-20.
Pure lazyness on my part. The entire rnd code could have been
converted to a subroutine, but it has to occur in that order. Asic
doesn't understand multiple statements/actions per line.
> > for y=1 to 24
> > a$=a$+"+-"
> > next y
>
> The code is very badly written and grossly inefficient. Any programmer worth
> the designation of "programmer" should know that strings are, more often
> than not, immutable in BASIC, which means that once a value has been
> assigned a string variable the value cannot be extended without moving the
> original to a new place, destroying the original variable then moving the
> new value from its temporary place and into a newly reserved block in
> memory.
You don't actually do much with assembler do you? Well anyways, when
asic compiles the binary, the resulting assembler code assigns
80characters of memory for each string variable I use. Regardless of
whether or not I use all of the space, the location of the variable is
known the whole time my code is running. Nothing need be, moved.
Overwritten as you wish, but moved, not unless you want too. If you
don't like this design, you may wish to take it up with Asics author,
I'm unable to evade this limitation myself.
> In the loop above, the compiler (I assume compiler, surely he's not
daft
> enough to use interpreted BASIC. Is he?), is forced to move the contents of
> the variable into a transient location, free up the formerly reserved memory
> location, create a new reserved location, then move the contents from
> transient storage to the new location no less than 24 times in a row. Each
> of the twenty four executions are repeated for every time the code loops
> through the controlling while/wend construct. It is utter shite; it is not
> code.
Nope, Nope, Nope Nope, I have more of those. That's not what's
occuring in the resulting assembler binaries generated by the
compiler. If it was a real HLL language, it might do that, but it
doesn't have such capabilities.
STORAGE FORMATS
NORMAL INTEGERS are stored in ASIC as two bytes, with the low
order byte
appearing first (as per Intel conventions).
LONG INTEGERS are stored in ASIC as four bytes, with the least
significant
word first, followed by the most significant word. Within these
two words,
the least significant byte appears first followed by the most
significant
byte.
Page - 140
STRING VARIABLES are stored as FIXED 80 character strings
terminated by an
ASCII null character for a total length of 81 characters.
STRING CONSTANTS are stored with 1 byte per character in the
string
followed by a terminating ASCII null character.
DECIMAL VARIABLES AND CONSTANTS are stored in 8 bytes, from least
significant byte to most significant byte. They are stored as
signed
binary integers, with an implicit decimal point. The integer
values are
adjusted after each multiplication or division to scale the
result to the
proper number of decimal places.
ARRAYS - Each element in an array requires two bytes. (Don't
forget arrays
have an element zero (i.e. DIM A(2) is comprised of A(0), A(1),
and A(2)).
Examples:
Item Data Type Storage Requirements
A Integer Variable 2 bytes
17 Integer Constant 2 bytes
A& Long Integer Variable 4 bytes
55555& Long Integer Constant 4 bytes
A$ String Variable 81 bytes
"ABC" String Constant 4 bytes
"A" String Constant 2 bytes
A@ Decimal Variable 8 bytes
1.23456 Decimal Constant 8 bytes
12345@ Decimal Constant 8 bytes
DIM A(10) Integer Array 22 bytes
DIM A(1) Integer Array 4 bytes
DIM A&(10) Long Int Array 44 bytes
DIM A$(10) String Array 891 bytes
DIM A@(10) Decimal Array 88 bytes
As you can see, string variables are expensive in terms of
storage space.
Since string constants are stored at actual length +1, It is MUCH
more
efficient to store short strings as constants in ASIC in terms of
storage
space. There is no performance advantage to constants over
variables,
however.
In disk files, strings, decimals, and integers are written out in
the above
formats. Note that unlike GWBASIC/BASICA, integer and decimal
values are
NOT expanded into strings when written, and conversely, not
converted from
strings when read. String variables and constants are written
out as ASCII
strings terminated by a null character (however, the null can be
suppressed). Thus, string variables when written to disk, take
the same
space byte for byte as string constants.
The reason behind fixed length string variables was avoidance of
string
"garbage collection". In addition to slight performance
advantages, there
is the added benefit of providing a string memory address which
never
Page - 141
changes. Thus once VARPTR retrieves the address of a variable,
you never
have to worry about it changing.
EXE File Memory Map
The following describes the structure of the ".EXE" file created
by ASIC.
In the COM file format the code, data, and stack are all in the
same memory
segment. In an ASIC EXE format file, the code, data, and stack
each reside
in their own segment. Addresses are given as offsets from the CS
(Code
Segment), DS (Data Segment), or SS (Stack Segment) registers.
Description Address Range
------------------------------ -------------
Program Segment Prefix (PSP) CS: minus 00FF
(Created/Required by DOS, and
immediately precedes the
code segment)
|
|
v
Code Segment (CS:)
User Program 0000 +
|
|
v
System Subroutines Address Varies
|
|
v
Data Segment (DS:)
Program Data Area #1 0000 - 0102
String Conversion Buffer 0103 - 0109
Input Buffer 010A - 015B
Screen Width 015C
Color/Attribute Byte 015D
Screen Graphics Mode 015E
Cursor Position 015F - 0160
File Control Table 0161 - 0169
ERROR System Variable 016A - 016B
System Subroutine Vectors 016C - 017F
EXTENDED System Variable 0180 - 0181
RND Seed 0182 - 0185
Math Work Area 0186 - 018D
DEFSEG System Variable 018E - 018F
Start DATA Block Pointer 0190 - 0191
Current DATA Block Pointer 0192 - 0193
Reserved for future use 0194 - 0195
Optional System Sub Vectors 0196+
and Work Areas (decimal math option)
Program Data Area #2 Address Varies
|
|
v
Stack (SS:) (builds downward) 0000 - 07D0 (0FA0--debug
mode)
Page - 144
NOTE: The format of an EXE file created using the
"B/OBJ" option is essentially the same as the one
produced by the "B/EXE" option, except that the "B/OBJ"
output file may contain additional code or data
segments linked in from other OBJ or LIB files
Read it :)
0wned k-man. Full documentation for asic as well as the compiler can
be found on my site, if your inclined enough to educate yourself. :)
follow this link:
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/asic500.zip
and if you dont want to touch the problem, but want to see the docs
alone, go here:
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/asic.txt
There ya go, enjoy! :)
> notation is or does in BASIC. I may have been inclined to be a little ...
>
> read more »
Dustin Cook
I'd like to show you a couple of other ways of doing the same
thing. :)
a$=string$(24,"+-")
that will do the same as the code above and below.
a$="+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-"
another way
a$="fuck k-man"
kmanshouse=varptr(a$)
ourhouse=defseg(0)
x=1
y=kmanshouse
while x<25
poke y,27
x=x+1
y=y+1
wend
and another
a$="fuck k-man"
kmanshouse=varptr(a$)
ourhouse=defseg(0)
x=kmanshouse
y=x+24
for z=x to y
poke z,27
next z
the end result is the same, but the code generated isn't. Now, you
wouldn't understand why this would be considered useful to someone
like me, but I suspect 4Q might get the idea behind it. This is how
things are done in Asic k-man, 4Q has mislead you concerning what asic
is and isn't.
--
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
4Q
> On Feb 25, 12:11 am, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > </quote> childish code. No wonder they
> > > call it BASIC (read: code for children)
>
> Actually, it's not quiet basic.. See below, as I tear K-man to
> shreds :)
Well I hope you do a better job of it
than the last time you tore him to bits
(in your mind) *grin* Back in 2005 when
you first ran into KM and AUK I actually
felt sorry for you. I was under the
impression you was being bullied, but
I guess was wrong. You invite trouble
and conflict. I like a bit of malicious
mischief now and a again and I guess
this time I'm going to sit back and enjoy
this... <LOG ON> Set Webpage = 4Q
<snip>
>
> > woefully inefficient code requires values to be moved left, right and
> > centre, then all the way back again before a result is obtained. I use the
>
> Ouch, I don't think you realize how close asic really is to
> assembler... Your loss. :)
>
*Shrug* You are using it as BASIC
not assembler. One or two Int86 calls
does not make you an assembly language
coder. This is why people like Mandragore
,T2000, MrSandman laugh at you whenever
you open your mouth.
<snip>
>
> You don't actually do much with assembler do you?
*laugh* You clueless fucktard, it's
you that doesn't have a clue about
assembler.
>Well anyways, when
> asic compiles the binary, the resulting assembler code assigns
> 80characters of memory for each string variable I use. Regardless of
> whether or not I use all of the space, the location of the variable is
> known the whole time my code is running. Nothing need be, moved.
You wouldn't be using ASIC's 80characters
if you had a clue about assembler.
You'd be using the _DATA segment in
one of them FAR calls (you clueless
fucking twat).
> Overwritten as you wish, but moved, not unless you want too. If you
> don't like this design, you may wish to take it up with Asics author,
> I'm unable to evade this limitation myself.
You've had 15 fucking years to solve
this limitation. Now I know you don't
have any .ASM files, you utter code fake.
Hello, McFLY... HELLO!
_DATA segment word public 'DATA'
s@ label byte
db 'Dustin Cook You Stupid Turd'
db 0
_DATA ends
<snip> cut and pasting the ASIC manual
(someone elses work) will not work
as smoke and mirrors you fucking turd
in a blender.
Or he could just get it from a reputable
source where he'd be guaranteed not to
have something nasty installed like a
backdoor BugHunter Trojan.
*Simtel* <-- He could get IBRARY.LIB
as well, you know the one you code ripped
> and if you dont want to touch the problem, but want to see the docs
> alone, go here:
> http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/asic.txt
>
> There ya go, enjoy! :)
>
FOAD! I thought you was dying from AIDS?
How long have you got left? You look
like you are in the advanced stages of
the disease, but just gives us an eta
so we have got a rough idea when you plan
to launch the BugHunter surprise.
4Q
bughunte...@gmail.com
Heh.. Maybe you ignored what was posted. All of the internal asic
commands are setup for that limitation. It would take a bit more than
the modification to the data statement your suggesting.
If I'm going to do that much after compilation patching, I might as
well do it all in assembler. the time taken would be about the same.
> <snip> cut and pasting the ASIC manual
> (someone elses work) will not work
> as smoke and mirrors you fucking turd
> in a blender.
No smoke and mirrors 4q, its a design decision the author made.. It's
a bit more than a couple of bytes to fix it. Any internal asic command
is setup for this silly limitation. I might as well do it in pure asm
if i'm going to go thru that much trouble.
> > follow this link:
> >http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/asic500.zip
>
> Or he could just get it from a reputable
> source where he'd be guaranteed not to
> have something nasty installed like a
> backdoorBugHunterTrojan.
4Q, you know at somepoint, you'll have to back that claim up right? or
risk losing what tiny amount of credibility you have left since
fucking with me. *grin*
> *Simtel* <-- He could get IBRARY.LIB
> as well, you know the one you code ripped
Really? I already posted my disassembly. Point out the differences
please. I already gave you the clue, retf is present in mine, not in
his. The beginning data is the same, and if you see asic.doc, you'll
see I couldn't "rip" it, you either setup with it the way asic wants,
or you cant exchange data between your routine and the one that called
it. Twist what I've said all you like, everything's in the doc
file. :)
> > and if you dont want to touch the problem, but want to see the docs
> > alone, go here:
> >http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/asic.txt
>
> > There ya go, enjoy! :)
>
> FOAD! I thought you was dying from AIDS?
Ouch 4Q, Do you remember what I said about credibility? I have a liver
problem that I've had since birth, I already went over that too. I
have no diseases of any kind, thanks all the same.
> How long have you got left? You look
> like you are in the advanced stages of
> the disease, but just gives us an eta
Ouch, I've really toasted your ass here eh? Have you run dry of
anything useful old buddy? Have I kicked the great 4Q's arse at his
own game?
Hah!
> so we have got a rough idea when you plan
> to launch theBugHuntersurprise.
Ouch, another shot at your credibility. Damn dude, I don't think you
have any left now.
Hey, btw I sent you an email; I hope you enjoy the statistics. to
verify the email claim, just type "bughunter" in any of those search
engines. I carbon copied the email to various individuals, good luck
trying to alter anything. :)
And since I see you want the kookologists involved, they may suck on
the email I sent you as well:
BugHunter MalWare Removal Tool is first link at the following search
engines... and I didn't have to pay
for any of this. :) I certainly do appreciate the popularity. It's
evident my hit counter isn't showing all the traffic...
hehehe
www.google.com
www.yahoo.com
www.ask.com
www.dogpile.com
www.msn.com
www.alltheweb.com
aolsearch.aol.com
and 2nd place on
www.altavista.com
Thanks for your continued support for BugHunter! :)
PS, I have sent this to 4Q also, I know, it wasn't very nice, rubbing
his nose in it like that, but.. I couldn't resist.. *grin*
--
Dustin Cook
author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
Kadaitcha Man
inbred serpent. Thou panderer. Thou murmurer. Ye peeped and ye pined:
> On Feb 25, 12:11 am, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> </quote> childish code. No wonder they
>>> call it BASIC (read: code for children)
>
> Actually, it's not quiet basic.. See below, as I tear K-man to
> shreds :)
>
>> These days, with .NET there is no fundamental difference between
>> BASIC, C#
>> and J#, et al. Real differences lie only in how the code is required
>> to be
>> structured by the precompiler. Only a very short copy/paste
>> manoeuvre is
>> needed to convert .NET-based C# to Visual Basic or Visual Java, and
>> back
>> again.
>
> blah blah.
Fine opening defence of your shit code there, Dustfart; however bravado, bluster and bombast don't readilly hide diffidence.
> Any developer realizes this.. even you... shrug.
20-20 hindsight.
>> made with daubed faeces by captive orang-utans bored shitless from
>> nothing
>> else to do except swing in the trees and eat an endless supply of
>> bananas.
>>
>> "That's a simple programming thing
>> tho"http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.comp.os.windows-xp/msg/616184df...
>>
>> The emphasis is on simple.
>
> So simple in fact, you missed it.. See below.
There's no need try and deflect by reinforcing the simplicity, Dustfart;
the damage has already been done.
20-20 hindsight.
I bet when your code is peer-reviewed your stock response to the
peels of laughter is "that was sloppy on my part". You have had
code peer-reviewed, yes?
>> As another example of the woefully poor exploitation of variable
>> names...
>>
>>> ar=local
>>
>> ar might be short for "AR AR ME 'ARTIES!!!"
>>
>> Perhaps Dustfart fancies himself as a pirate on the high seas or
>> something.
>
> just lazy...
Just lazy, huh? More like you downright don't fucking know what you're
doing. Of course, the rest of this post is aimed at proving exactly that
claim.
20-20 hindsight, btw.
>>> b=rnd(0)
>>> b=b mod 23
>>> death=b
>>
>> Three lines of code are used to do what can be done in one line...
>>
>> death = rnd(0) mod 23
>
> Ahh, but your wrong sir. This is Asic, it cannot be done in one
> line. :)
Admission to using shit to write shit noted.
>> The results are the same but the process is not. Dustfart's
>> amateurish and
>
> The results would be the same, If the language supported it in one
> statement like that.
20-20 hindsight.
> (It doesn't). It's asic, not quiet basic. :)
>
>> woefully inefficient code requires values to be moved left, right and
>> centre, then all the way back again before a result is obtained. I
>> use the
>
> Ouch, I don't think you realize how close asic really is to
> assembler...
1. Unsupported assertion. Claim fails.
2. ASIC is a BASIC compiler that includes a number of BASICA and QBASIC
commands, Dustfart. The ASIC instruction set does not contain any JMP, MOV,
NOP, CPL, JNZ, JZ, INC, DEC or any other assembler [sic] commands. So it is
beyond the reasonable mind to understand how it can be the case that anyone
other than you can appreciate just "how close asic really is to assembler
[sic]".
3. There is no assembler [sic] code in the crap you posted, Dustfart. It's
all ASIC BASIC. Every last fucking byte and every last fucking bit, all ASIC
BASIC. Nothing more. Nothing less.
<shouts right into Dustfarts ear>
WAKEY! WAKEY! HANDS OFF SNAKEY!
Why the assembler [sic] code straw-man, Dustfart? Got you by the scruff of
the neck, have I? Hmmm?
Assembler [sic] code is your straw-man to avoid the charges against you.
Nevertheless I will gleefully and wilfully attack your straw-man with gusto,
but only because doing so exposes you to even more justifiable accusations
of complete and utterly delusional fuckwittery.
4. I will now proceed to show you just "how close asic really is to
assembler [sic]", Dustin...
First the assembler [sic]:
Name "SuckEggsDustin"
org 300H
JMP Start
String db "Hello, FuckNuts Dustfart!", 0DH, 0AH, 24H
Start: LEA DX, String
MOV DX, 09H
INT 21H
MOV AH, 0
RET
Now in ASIC
Print "Hello, FuckNuts Dustfart!";
As you can see, Dustin, I obviously do not realise "how close asic really is
to assembler" [sic] as much as you do.
> Your loss. :)
Yes, Dustin, even Blind Freddy can see "how close asic really is to
assembler" [sic]
Can you say "chalk and cheese"?
Do you mind if we revisit your claim that 'asic is really close is to
assembler' (a paraphrase) _after_ your psychotropic drugs have kicked in
and your acute hallucinatory-delusional episode is over, rather than
during the bad turn you're having? Thanks ever so much; there's a jolly
good chap.
>> word "amateurish" reservedly. I am bereft of sufficient one-word
>> superlatives to convey the idea of complete rubbish born of his
>> artless bumbling.
>>
>>> gosub check:
>>
>> Subroutines should only be used where there is a need to eliminate
>> repeated _larger_ segments of code. The subroutine named "check" is
>> called from only
>> two places in the entire ...ahem... "program", and it will cause the
>> compiler/run environment to beat on the processor; see a little
>> later about
>
> Actually, it won't. The assembler code is referenced via jmp
> statements in the executable.
lol - so what exactly do you think a JMP is? Something other than "assembler
[sic] code" referenced in the executable? And perhaps you meant assembly
rather than assembler, yes?
Sooooo.... "The assembler [sic] code is referenced via jmp statements in the
executable", is it? Hmmm?
That would be assembler [sic] code put there by the compiler, yes? You know,
"code" that you did not actually write. Oh, and the completely straw-man
assembler [sic] code that we're not actually dicussing because we're really
talking about the ASIC BASIC compiler that does not include support for
assembly language mnemonics, yes?
And since when has any "assembler [sic] code" statement been referenceable
in an executable, Dustfart?
JMP <--- That, Dustfart, is the mnemonic for an assembler [sic] JMP
statement.
E9 <--- That, Dustfart, is an unsigned hexadecimal opcode, which is
the result of compiling an assembler [sic] JMP statement.
-23 <--- And that is the very same opcode only in decimal.
So far, Dustfart, it has been established that you:
A) Claim 'asic is really close is to assembler' when the actual
reality is that it isn't
B) You habitually refer to assembly as assembler
C) You do not know the difference between an opcode and its mnemonic;
indeed, it is verifiably provable that you believe that the
mnemonics are referenced in the executable.
And you say you're a programmer, huh?
What other surprises do you have in store for your readers, Dustfart?
> It saves codespace, by writing code once
Repeat: That would be codespace used by assembler [sic] code put there by
the compiler, yes? You know, "code" that you did not actually write. That
is, the assembler [sic] code we're not discussing because we're actually
discussing your shit ASIC BASIC code, yes?
Do you know what GIGO syndrome is, Dustfart? Go on, take a leap to
google to do a search so can post your accurate reply here and look
reely reely kewl. You know you want to.
> if it's going to be used more than once, it should be a routine. Why
> repeat the same code?
DUH! So, why isn't it, Dustfart...?
> a=rnd(0)
> a=a mod 1
> b=rnd(0)
> b=b mod 23
> death=b
> b=rnd(0)
> b=b mod 23
> b=rnd(0)
> b=b mod 23
> a=rnd(0)
> a=a mod 23
"if it's going to be used more than once, it should be a routine. Why repeat
the same code?"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Don't tell me. Let me guess...
"just lazy..."
Of course, an utter lack of capability on your part has nothing to do with
it at all, right?
>> strings. Given what I say a later about strings inside loops, the
>> "check"
>> subroutine is not just entirely superfluous, it is detrimental to the
>> efficient execution of the code.
>
> Ehhhehh.. Heh, the code is written in asic. I don't think you quiet
> understand what asic is. :)
Dustfart, you need a seriously hard kick in the reality glands. First of
all, compilers produce output in a predictible manner. That is to say, when
you put your garbage code into the compiler, what comes out is, lo and
behold, compiled garbage. A BASIC compiler will not fix your crap,
inefficient code, Dustfart; it will only produce a crap, inefficient
program.
Secondly, Dustfart, let us assume, for the sake of supposition only, that
everything I have written, plus all the evidence placed before you to
refute your insane lies is 100 percent pure, unadulterated, irrefutable
bullshit. Yes, let us assume that everything I have written is 100%
techno-poppycock.
So, Dustfart, based on that assumption, do you believe that your readers are
more inclined to fall for the techno-gobbledegook bullshit than they are,
say, to fall for the delusional ramblings of an utterly inept fuckwit who
puffs up his horribly sunken chest and declares, "it's not quiet [sic]
basic... I will tear K-man to shreds :) blah blah. Your loss. :) Ehhhehh..
Heh, the code is written in asic. I don't think you quiet [sic] understand
what asic is"?
>>> b=b mod 23
>>> death=b
>>> b=rnd(0)
>>> b=b mod 23
>>> runy=b
>>> b=rnd(0)
>>> b=b mod 23
>>
>>> if death=runy then
>>> a=rnd(0)
>>> a=a mod 23
>>
>> Some variable modulus 23 is used 4 times in 10 lines. Setting aside
>> that the code segments use 3 lines where one line will do, the whole
>> rnd(x) mod 23 should have been a candidate for conversion into a
>> subroutine, then discarded as a candidate because it would probably
>> require just as many processor cycles to jump and return as it would
>> to calculate the modulus of two simple numbers inline. I doubt
>> Dustfart's capacity to have ever considered that at all. I suppose
>> soon enough we'll see if his hindsight is operating at a perfect 20-20.
>
> Pure lazyness on my part.
If lazyness is a euphemism for incompetence then we agree.
> The entire rnd code could have been
> converted to a subroutine, but it has to occur in that order. Asic
> doesn't understand multiple statements/actions per line.
Your first admission to using shit to write shit was sufficient, Dustfart.
There's no need to keep going over your old self-inflicted wounds and
re-opening them to let your blood drain out all over the carpet, you know.
You'll only piss your mother off. You do still live with your mother, yes?
>>> for y=1 to 24
>>> a$=a$+"+-"
>>> next y
>>
>> The code is very badly written and grossly inefficient. Any
>> programmer worth
>> the designation of "programmer" should know that strings are, more
>> often
>> than not, immutable in BASIC, which means that once a value has been
>> assigned a string variable the value cannot be extended without
>> moving the
>> original to a new place, destroying the original variable then
>> moving the
>> new value from its temporary place and into a newly reserved block in
>> memory.
>
> You don't actually do much with assembler do you?
If you really mean assembly, Dustfart, then the answer is not any more, no.
The days of actually _needing_ to write code down at the bare metal level to
get a simple task done are long gone. Of course, I readily admit I've
forgotten a truckload about assembly language, but, and it's a big but, what
I do remember of assembly language is more than enough to run rings around
you and your "assembler [sic] code" and your SHITBASIC to show you up for the
lying, contemptible and inept buffoon that you are.
You will note the phrase 'writing code down at the bare metal level',
Dustfart. If you really want to fool more than just yourself into believing
that you're a programmer of at least equal repute to coprophilic orang-utans
swinging upside down from treetops in Indonesia then you might like to steal
the phrase and start tossing it around a bit. Please, don't thank me. I'm
here to help...
Sort of.
Continuing on... the days of PEEK and POKE and hand-crafting ASCII
characters in a string to create code that can be executed with a jump to
a VARPTR are also long gone. I understand that geriatric commands like those
went West at around the same time VIC-20 BASIC went South. That would be what,
Dustfart, two and a half decades ago? Closer to three, perhaps?
> Well anyways, when
> asic compiles the binary, the resulting assembler code assigns
No, Dustfart. The assembler [sic] code is the input to the compiler, not the
output. Look, Dustfart, honestly, if you're so desperate to fool someone
other than yourself into believing you know your shit you should at least try
to get the idea of input and output sorted first. Ok?
> 80characters of memory for each string variable I use. Regardless of
> whether or not I use all of the space, the location of the variable is
> known the whole time my code is running. Nothing need be, moved.
> Overwritten as you wish, but moved, not unless you want too. If you
> don't like this design, you may wish to take it up with Asics author,
> I'm unable to evade this limitation myself.
You are also unable to evade your callow inpetitude, Dustfart. Seeing as
you still don't understand that assembler [sic] code is input, not output,
I hope you'll also appreciate it as the reason for my not addressing the
rest of your hogwash.
>> In the loop above, the compiler (I assume compiler, surely he's not
>> daft enough to use interpreted BASIC. Is he?), is forced to move the
>> contents of the variable into a transient location, free up the formerly
>> reserved memory location, create a new reserved location, then move the
>> contents from transient storage to the new location no less than 24 times
>> in a row. Each of the twenty four executions are repeated for every time
>> the code loops through the controlling while/wend construct. It is utter
>> shite; it is not
>> code.
>
> Nope, Nope, Nope Nope, I have more of those.
You have more of what? Utter shite? Why am I not surprised?
> That's not what's occuring in the resulting assembler binaries generated
> by the compiler. If it was a real HLL language, it might do that, but it
> doesn't have such capabilities.
HLL language, eh? That's HLL language as in high level language language,
yes?
Can you say "inept redundancy", Dustfart?
The primary attribute of a high level language language [sic], Dustfart, is
that code written in a high level language language [sic] is readable, in
English-like form.
I challenge you to show how the following pile of steaming shite approaches
anything remotely resembling a mid level language language [sic], never mind
a high level language language [sic]:
> randomize
> a=rnd(0)
> a=a mod 1
> b=rnd(0)
> b=b mod 23
> death=b
> b=rnd(0)
> b=b mod 23
> runy=b
> b=rnd(0)
> b=b mod 23
>
> if death=runy then
> a=rnd(0)
> a=a mod 23
> runy=a
> endif
> ent$=chr$(13)
Go on, show it.
<hack>
> There ya go, enjoy! :)
Posting vast tracts of the manual is not only pointless, but doing such a
thing will not make your case. You see, Dustfart, /you/ have to make /your/
case, and so far you have spectacularly failed to make any case other than
my own, viz you're a total fuckwit; a loser; a no-hoper; an inept and
worthless sack of giblets of no value to anyone except the undertaker.
Not to mention that I have ASIC v5 and the manual sitting quietly on my
hard disk anyway.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| A S I C (tm) 5.00 |
| "Its Almost Basic" |
| |
| Copyright (c) 1994 |
| by |
| 80/20 Software |
| All Rights Reserved |
The problem for you, Dustfart, is, and at risk of being seen to be boasting,
I know my shit, whereas even a portrait of Helen Keller could see that you
do not.
Dustfart, old chap. All the text has been fucked up by your reply. Did
you write your own newsreader too?
Carrying on... I note that you replied to yourself ten minutes after making
the reply I am replying to. I've given you the doubt of the benefit and am
assuming you're not actually so mad (yet) as to talk to yourself. Are you?
The text from your reply to yourself has been copied and pasted below. I
believe we need to keep this as neat and tidy as possible. Lord knows, if
your scatterbrain is allowed to run riot we'll never get anything sorted,
eh, least of all the most fundamental of all programming concepts; viz the
difference between input an output.
>>>> for y=1 to 24
>>>> a$=a$+"+-"
>>>> next y
>
> I'd like to show you a couple of other ways of doing the same
> thing. :)
>
> a$=string$(24,"+-")
>
> that will do the same as the code above and below.
So, Dustfart, why didn't you do that the first time around?
Don't tell me. Let me guess...
Sheer laziness?
Downright sloppiness?
No! I know! "For a very good reason, which I wouldn't understand."
How good am I doing with these guesses, hey? Give me some feedback,
here, ok?
> a$="+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-"
>
> another way
>
> a$="fuck k-man"
> kmanshouse=varptr(a$)
> ourhouse=defseg(0)
> x=1
> y=kmanshouse
> while x<25
> poke y,27
> x=x+1
> y=y+1
> wend
>
> and another
>
> a$="fuck k-man"
> kmanshouse=varptr(a$)
> ourhouse=defseg(0)
> x=kmanshouse
> y=x+24
> for z=x to y
> poke z,27
> next z
Oh, wow! Dustfart! That assembler code [sic] is so beautiful! It brings
tears to my eyes.
Tears of fucking laughter. There you are, bragging and waffling on, not
unlike a demented chimpanzee with habañero-induced diarrhoea tearing a
new arsehole in its backside, about assembler [sic] code and still
you're posting SHITBASIC. Fuck me dead. Can you honestly get any more
pathetic, Dustfart?
> the end result is the same, but the code generated isn't. Now, you
> wouldn't understand why this would be considered useful to someone
> like me, but I suspect 4Q might get the idea behind it. This is how
> things are done in Asic k-man,
Dustfart, you always fall into the trap of seriously under-estimating your
detractors. Of course I understand why that would be considered useful to
someone like you... you're a fucking spaghetti coder at best. An inept one
at that.
> 4Q has mislead you concerning what asic is and isn't.
Ok, your bad turn obviously isn't over yet. When you finally snap out of
the most recent of your ever increasingly frequent acute
hallucinatory-delusional episodes, would you mind posting at least a tiny
bit of evidence to show that 4Q and I have exchanged any conversation,
including even a simple barb in, say, oh... the last three or four months?
There's a jolly good chap.
Kadaitcha Man
Thou artless depender on a thing that leans. Thou courteous destroyer.
Thou viperous worm. Ye yammered and ye plagued:
> No smoke and mirrors 4q, its a design decision the author made.. It's
> a bit more than a couple of bytes to fix it. Any internal asic command
> is setup for this silly limitation. I might as well do it in pure asm
> if i'm going to go thru that much trouble.
Is that input asm or output asm, Dusftart?
> 4Q, you know at somepoint, you'll have to back that claim up right?
*LMFARO* *COUGH* *CHOKE* *GRUNT* *COUGH* *SPLUTTER* *WHEEZE*
That, coming from you, you who cannot back up your claim to have ever
written anything other than a complete pile of shite.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
> or risk losing what tiny amount of credibility you have left since
> fucking with me. *grin*
BWAHAGAHAGHAGHAGAHGHAGAHGAGAHGAHGAGAGAGAGAGAAGGAGAGAGAGAGAGAAGGA!!!
*CHOKE* *COUGH* *CHOKE* *GRUNT* *CHOKE* *COUGH* *CHOKE* *WHEEZE*
*NNEEDDD* *AMBULANCE* *HHHHHHhhhELPPPP!!!*
"risk losing what tiny amount of credibility you have left", wrote the
consumate blockhead who has zero credibility.
<wipes tears of laughter from eyes>
That was truly the funniest thing I've read in years.
> Ouch 4Q, Do you remember what I said about credibility?
Who will ever forget it, Dustfart?
> I have a liver problem<BITCHSLAP>
It's the sentiment that counts. Fuck off and die.
>> How long have you got left? You look
>> like you are in the advanced stages of
>> the disease, but just gives us an eta
>
> Ouch, I've really toasted your ass here eh?
Take more psychotropic drugs, urgently.
> Have you run dry of
> anything useful old buddy? Have I kicked the great 4Q's arse at his
> own game?
No. But then you and truth aren't exactly on familiar terms, eh.
<spam snipped>
Kadaitcha Man
qualling canker-blossom. Thou fly-bitten commonest creature. Thou
bizarre tassel of a prodigal's purse. Ye gabbled and ye stage-whispered:
> I already sent kman some urls
Oh, did you? I suppose now I'll have to check my mailbox so I can LART you
post haste for sending unsolicited email. Tut! Tut! Tut!
> I doubt anybody really cares about this
Oh, Dustfart. So close and yet so far. Do you realise that if you had said
"I know nobody cares about this" you would have been right for the very
first time in your pathetic fucking life?
4Q
> 4Q <paul...@hushmail.com> Thou incompetent tardy son. Thou putrid
> notorious-bawd. Thou despicable anointed sovereign of sighs and groans.
> Thou musty mannish coward. Ye nagged and ye squawked:
>
> > 4Q wrote:
> >> Dustin Cook wrote:
> >>> On Feb 23, 11:44 pm, "4Q"
<snip> analysis of one of Dustin Cook's
best pieces of work.
>
> 2. Please feel free to use this quick review on your website. Source
> credited, please. I'd be happy to have my name alongside some text that rips
> apart the atrocious mess he makes and has the unmitigated cheek to call
> "code".
Yes all part of the plan. I'm going to
show my friend off in the best possible
light. His database is going to be huge.
***************
'Ping --> Dustin' See buddy, you don't
have to worry about me going out looking
for your life story... I'll just keep
mopping up these great things people
have got to say about you.
4Q (Dustin Cook's official biographer)
Kadaitcha Man
Out of my sight, thou dost infect mine eyes. Thou idle gaud. Thou
hell-bound. Ye blurted and ye blubbed:
> a$=string$(24,"+-")
Here, eat some crow, you piteous halfwit...
> that will do the same as the code above and below.
>
> a$="+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-"
Pig's fucking arse it will, you utterly inept wretch.
STRING$ only recognises the first character, so, unlike in your delusional
world where any fucking old bullshit rules, in the real world, the result of
this:
a$=string$(24,"+-")
Is this...
"++++++++++++++++++++++++"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! LMFARO@you, Dustfart.
So, you still reckon you're a programmer, eh, Dustfart? Fuck me dead. You
waffle on and on about assembler [sic] code and you can't even fucking well
write working code in your precious SHITBASIC. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Fucking
pathetic.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> BugHunter MalWare Removal Tool is first link at the following search
> engines... and I didn't have to pay
> for any of this. :) I certainly do appreciate the popularity. It's
> evident my hit counter
9891?
How many people have downloaded the most recent version of BugHunter,
Dustin?
> isn't showing all the traffic...
> hehehe
Right.
> www.google.com
Personalized Results 1 - 50 of about 998 for bughunter trojan
> www.yahoo.com
1 - 100 of about 863 for bughunter trojan - 0.38 sec.
> www.ask.com
Showing results 1-10 of 899
> www.dogpile.com
All Search Engines 1 - 20 of 77
#2 "WARNING: Do not download and run the Bughunter Trojan!"
> www.msn.com
bughunter trojan Page 1 of 624 results
> www.alltheweb.com
1 - 10 of 649 Results for bughunter trojan
> aolsearch.aol.com
42 pages
> and 2nd place on
> www.altavista.com
"bughunter trojan"
AltaVista found 885 results
> Thanks for your continued support for BugHunter! :)
>
> PS, I have sent this to 4Q also, I know, it wasn't very nice, rubbing
> his nose in it like that, but.. I couldn't resist.. *grin*
I'm sure he'll be fine. :)
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay
4Q
The BugHunter Trojan results are building
up.
>
> > Thanks for your continued support for BugHunter! :)
> >
> > PS, I have sent this to 4Q also, I know, it wasn't very nice, rubbing
> > his nose in it like that, but.. I couldn't resist.. *grin*
>
> I'm sure he'll be fine. :)
I'll try to get over it.
*limps off*
4Q
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition
Chaire, and didst finally confess, after taking Muche Tea:
<selected text>
Here's some more:
"email is not a private form of communication." -- Dustin Cook, in
Message-ID: <1157484607....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
"It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I
have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool
of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the
group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has
bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine..
'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur
reached new heights, in Message-ID:
<Xns98355D29419...@69.28.186.121>
"And thats another mistake on your part. Your 'playing' games on usenet,
and I'm not playing...It has nothing to do with impressing you, it has
more to do with making sure you have the education you'll need to debate.
The debate is no fun for me if you are mentally incapable of it. I'm
giving you an opportunity to educate yourself. That's all." -- A trashy
former virus-writer turned Outer Filth doesn't know if he's playing or
working, in MID: <1159389579....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris!
Demon Prince of Absurdity; COOSN-029-06-71069
WINNERS! Usenet Kook Awards, January 2007 MID:
<Xns98D232E44C01pi...@204.153.244.170>
"Who booby-traps a dead end? That's just not right." -- Cordelia
>> Are you the Peter J Ross that I've heard so much about?
>
> Probably. I'm the one who doesn't resort to forgery after losing an
> argument.
"You're the one with the extensive brain damage... okay I see. You're
gonna be easily to own them." -- PorchMonkey4Life: Not aware of too many
things. MID: <bf7xh.834$hH2.64@trnddc02>
At last! See Joxer The Mity Monkey on camera! Watch him freak out!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_WuaENGqz0
"And no, I did not have sex with my son. But if I did I certainly
wouldn't tell you. Something so beautiful and precious should be kept
private." -- Kathy L. Mosesian, or possibly not really her, confesses
she may be a liar and committer of incest with her own son, in MID:
<cfcd3f4660694e3a...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
The reporter asked Colin Powell (or George Bush), "What proof do you
have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?"
He replied, "We kept the receipts." -- Bill Hicks
Looney Maroon nominee for August 2006 Johnny D Wentzky foamed:
"You never asked someone who goes into areas of the internet that are
only for adults who has an underage id somehow or another if they are a
cop posing as an underage person online?
I guess lots of people just don't watch dateline or read stories much.
Why don;t you go to pervertedjustice,com and see what they do. They are
awash in their self-proclaimed glory after they lied to membners of the
public.
They are awash in their self-proclaimed glory after they posed as an
underage person and agreed to do all sorts of sex acts wioth adult
males, and they are adults posing as teenager themselves. They make
themsleves into liars by falsely impersonating underage persons and by
not fuilfilling the words they tell the victims online in their chats.
Why don't you read it where they tell these victims of their deceit
about how they have been with grown men and such? Why don't you read it
where they say, "That would be cool." after someone makes an advance
towards an adult who is posing as a teenager? And, where they agree to
meet the person, etc.
Lost control, didn't you?
Is that why you feel as if you need to lie so much now? I see where lots
of these false impersonation games are not sticking. They feel as if
they can lie and then order the victims to get counseling in the
gayblade, governmental, pro-choice tax leech counseling centers. They
are doing nothing more than usury and fraud in many cases." -- Wentzky
almost comes out of the closet as a pedo/ephebophile in MID:
<H%%Eg.28916$Uq1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
Clogwog
I agree with this poast.
--
Whatever you do, never download/run the Bughunter Trojan
Dustfart's Classic Collection of Cockups:
========================================
"windows uhh, isn't running when your running a bart disc."
"NTFS is greatly slowed if your reading/writing to compressed files."
"sysvolinfo files are not compressed."
Dustbin
> On Feb 25, 12:11 am, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> </quote> childish code. No wonder they
>>> call it BASIC (read: code for children)
>
> Actually, it's not quiet basic..
WTF is "quiet basic"?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Clogwog
> Dustin Cook wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 12:11 am, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> </quote> childish code. No wonder they
>>>> call it BASIC (read: code for children)
>>
>> Actually, it's not quiet basic..
>
> WTF is "quiet basic"?
lol !
Lovely and Quiet - Basic Bungalows
Height, Quiet, Basic, 115V
Quiet, basic, well run - No frills, so could have been cheaper.
quiet, basic, limited breakfast. Anoniem (Familie met jonge kinderen) uit
Verenigd Koninkrijk
Lovely and Quiet - Basic Bungalows - Consultez TripAdvisor
Kadaitcha Man
drain-inhabiting larron. Thou billowy-headed mumbling fool. Thou
clack-dish. Has thou not a brain? Ye perorated and ye gushed:
More k0oKSPEW for Dustfart's biography...
Dustfart accuses Kadaitcha Man of plagiarism then shuts up when asked to put
up:
Message-ID: <Xns97F9FDD4DDB...@69.28.186.121>
Dustfart: "It's not like you didn't copy most of it's content from other
sources anyway."
Kadaitcha Man: "I challenge you to provide evidence to support your
delusion."
Dustfart: <stone-cold silence>
Of couse, the irony is deeper than it may first seem because Dustfart stands
accused of plagiarising somone else's virus code. It seems he changed one,
perhaps two, tiny instructions and called it his own.
bughunte...@gmail.com
> I bet when your code is peer-reviewed your stock response to the
> peels of laughter is "that was sloppy on my part". You have had
> code peer-reviewed, yes?
Your very amusing at times. :)
> >> As another example of the woefully poor exploitation of variable
> >> names...
>
> >>> ar=local
>
> >> ar might be short for "AR AR ME 'ARTIES!!!"
>
> >> Perhaps Dustfart fancies himself as a pirate on the high seas or
> >> something.
>
> > just lazy...
>
> Just lazy, huh? More like you downright don't fucking know what you're
> doing. Of course, the rest of this post is aimed at proving exactly that
> claim.
We shall see. :)
> 20-20 hindsight, btw.
>
> >>> b=rnd(0)
> >>> b=b mod 23
> >>> death=b
>
> >> Three lines of code are used to do what can be done in one line...
>
> >> death = rnd(0) mod 23
>
> > Ahh, but your wrong sir. This is Asic, it cannot be done in one
> > line. :)
>
> Admission to using shit to write shit noted.
Admission that you messed up, noted.
Admission that you couldn't even get such simple code commented
properly, also noted.
I won't bother responding to your assinine attempts to figure asic
out, as you aren't correct on any of it, even after providing you the
damn manual which comes with it. The code generated by asic, as in the
exe fie, isn't interpreted or p-code as you seem to be thinking it is.
Your assembler sample, is (golly gee) the same thing that's actually
inside the exe file. *burn*
> >> The results are the same but the process is not. Dustfart's
> >> amateurish and
>
> > The results would be the same, If the language supported it in one
> > statement like that.
>
> 20-20 hindsight.
> > (It doesn't). It's asic, not quiet basic. :)
>
> >> woefully inefficient code requires values to be moved left, right and
> >> centre, then all the way back again before a result is obtained. I
> >> use the
>
> > Ouch, I don't think you realize how close asic really is to
> > assembler...
>
> 1. Unsupported assertion. Claim fails.
> 2. ASIC is a BASIC compiler that includes a number of BASICA and QBASIC
> commands, Dustfart. The ASIC instruction set does not contain any JMP, MOV,
> NOP, CPL, JNZ, JZ, INC, DEC or any other assembler [sic] commands. So it is
> beyond the reasonable mind to understand how it can be the case that anyone
> other than you can appreciate just "how close asic really is to assembler
> [sic]".
Because I've disassembled the resulting binary files created with the
language. Asic isn't p-code nor is it interpreted.
> Why the assembler [sic] code straw-man, Dustfart? Got you by the scruff of
> the neck, have I? Hmmm?
See above. What was that about the scruff?
> Assembler [sic] code is your straw-man to avoid the charges against you.
> Nevertheless I will gleefully and wilfully attack your straw-man with gusto,
K-man, You were not even able to properly comment on very simple code,
of course you would try the "well, you have a strawman" defense. Face
it, I've beaten you. You jumped before you looked.
> but only because doing so exposes you to even more justifiable accusations
> of complete and utterly delusional fuckwittery.
Yes, I'm sure you will.
> 4. I will now proceed to show you just "how close asic really is to
> assembler [sic]", Dustin...
>
> First the assembler [sic]:
>
> Name "SuckEggsDustin"
> org 300H
> JMP Start
> String db "Hello, FuckNuts Dustfart!", 0DH, 0AH, 24H
> Start: LEA DX, String
> MOV DX, 09H
> INT 21H
> MOV AH, 0
> RET
>
> Now in ASIC
>
> Print "Hello, FuckNuts Dustfart!";
And the resulting binary's code closely matches your assembler. Asic
does use some code which I find unnecessary, but it does it anyway.
> As you can see, Dustin, I obviously do not realise "how close asic really is
> to assembler" [sic] as much as you do.
No, that I understood with your first try. :)
> That would be assembler [sic] code put there by the compiler, yes? You know,
> "code" that you did not actually write. Oh, and the completely straw-man
Well, short of writing everything in machine language, you can't
actually claim anybody has authored anything original, and even
then....
> assembler [sic] code that we're not actually dicussing because we're really
> talking about the ASIC BASIC compiler that does not include support for
> assembly language mnemonics, yes?
It doesn't?
Strange... According to the documentation, I'm free to write
supporting functions in whatever language I desire (assembler
recommended). Asic doesn't have more than 80 commands in the entire
language. To allow for expandability, it supports you adding
additional code to your program written with more advanced languages
to do things not already available to you.
> A) Claim 'asic is really close is to assembler' when the actual
> reality is that it isn't
Ahh, but the final output executable present on your hard disk after
asic has "compiled" it closely matches that of your resulting
assembler file (well, depending on your sloppyness level...). Asic
isn't p-code kook, it generates some unncessary code but not much.
> B) You habitually refer to assembly as assembler
> C) You do not know the difference between an opcode and its mnemonic;
> indeed, it is verifiably provable that you believe that the
> mnemonics are referenced in the executable.
Yes I do. You forget, The criterr.obj file posted is a patched
variant. Obviously I know what the various mnemonic statements
translate to. For example, retf is CB. Mnemonics is for you to
remember things, it's one step below machine language; you keying in
the hex yourself.
> And you say you're a programmer, huh?
Yes, that I am. BugHunter clearly demonstrates this. Have you seen it
recently?
> > if it's going to be used more than once, it should be a routine. Why
> > repeat the same code?
>
> DUH! So, why isn't it, Dustfart...?
I agreed with your statement concerning the fact it should have been
and I didn't make it so. Why do you think your going to misquote what
was said now? :)
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> Don't tell me. Let me guess...
>
> "just lazy..."
Your laughing at your own intentional misquotation?
> Of course, an utter lack of capability on your part has nothing to do with
> it at all, right?
Well, I don't know.. I understand what I'm doing with asic code, and
you don't seem to know what is going on. You seem to think you can
correct my code for me or something, but you can't even get the
language syntax right... You have to understand why I think that's so
damn funny. You know just as well as I do that most of our readers
aren't in fact programmers and might lap up whatever you have to say
purely on faith, but you have to consider one important thing. Some
others here are programmers and aren't fooled by your little games.
> Dustfart, you need a seriously hard kick in the reality glands. First of
> all, compilers produce output in a predictible manner. That is to say, when
> you put your garbage code into the compiler, what comes out is, lo and
> behold, compiled garbage. A BASIC compiler will not fix your crap,
> inefficient code, Dustfart; it will only produce a crap, inefficient
> program.
When you learn the language syntax, and get several years of actual
hands on experience programming in it, then I might consider your
advice as something more than somebody talking out of turn.
> Secondly, Dustfart, let us assume, for the sake of supposition only, that
> everything I have written, plus all the evidence placed before you to
> refute your insane lies is 100 percent pure, unadulterated, irrefutable
> bullshit. Yes, let us assume that everything I have written is 100%
> techno-poppycock.
Oh, no real assumption here. It's obvious to everyone what's going on.
4Q is failing miserably, are you the reinforcement? I've made my
points several times over, this was just salt on your wounds.
language syntax? c'mon.. Your "corrected" one line code example would
generate an error, because it's not right, idiot. Mine is.
--
Dustin Cook
author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
> So, Dustfart, based on that assumption, do you believe that your readers are
> more inclined to fall for the techno-gobbledegook bullshit than they are,
> say, to fall for the delusional ramblings of an utterly inept fuckwit who
> puffs up his horribly sunken chest and declares, "it's not quiet [sic]
> basic... I will tear K-man to shreds :) blah blah. Your loss. :) Ehhhehh..
> Heh, the code is written in asic. I don't think you quiet [sic] understand
> what asic is"?
>
> >>> b=b mod 23
>
> ...
>
> read more »
bughunte...@gmail.com
> Dustin Cook <bughunter.dus...@gmail.com> Thou such toasts-and-butter.
> Out of my sight, thou dost infect mine eyes. Thou idle gaud. Thou
> hell-bound. Ye blurted and ye blubbed:
>
> > a$=string$(24,"+-")
>
> Here, eat some crow, you piteous halfwit...
>
> > that will do the same as the code above and below.
>
> > a$="+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-"
>
> Pig's fucking arse it will, you utterly inept wretch.
>
> STRING$ only recognises the first character, so, unlike in your delusional
> world where any fucking old bullshit rules, in the real world, the result of
> this:
>
> a$=string$(24,"+-")
>
> Is this...
>
> "++++++++++++++++++++++++"
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! LMFARO@you, Dustfart.
Yep, so you read the asic.txt link eh? It's been a very long time
since I've used the function.
language syntax helps, doesn't it? :)
> So, you still reckon you're a programmer, eh, Dustfart? Fuck me dead. You
Yep, I am. I know to atleast know the language syntax before I comment
on someone elses code, especially if I'm trying to make them look
stupid in doing so, wouldn't want it to backfire as it has here on
you. :)
> waffle on and on about assembler [sic] code and you can't even fucking well
> write working code in your precious SHITBASIC. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Fucking
> pathetic.
Well k-man, I made a simple mistake which would have still generated
an executable. Your one line code improvement over my code that you
dedicated a paragraph bashing on me was not proper syntax, and would
not compile.
My programming mistake resulting in a less functional program, yours
resulted in no functional program at all. <g>
bughunte...@gmail.com
> bughunter.dus...@gmail.com wrote:
> >BugHunterMalWare Removal Tool is first link at the following search
> > engines... and I didn't have to pay
> > for any of this. :) I certainly do appreciate the popularity. It's
> > evident my hit counter
>
> 9891?
The hit counter records single IP hits (hits from the same ip in a
period of time do not count) to the main page only. No link clicks are
counted. No effort is made to prevent sites from direct linking to the
zipfile, which will not appear on the hit counter either.
I know how well the site is doing by the logfiles generated on the
server. The log file information is extensive.
> How many people have downloaded the most recent version ofBugHunter,
> Dustin?
According to the logs, almost 2,000 times in a period of days.
Directly from my site. This does not include sites which are mirroring
the download. (And many are now, thanks to my finally getting a pad
file created).
> > isn't showing all the traffic...
> > hehehe
>
> Right.
Well, it's not like we didn't already know your a technological moron.
The hit counter was really messing you up huh? :)
> >www.google.com
>
> Personalized Results 1 - 50 of about 998 forbughuntertrojan
Yep, and anyone with half a brain who reads them can tell it's
simplistic trolling. Akin to schoolyard "cooties" antics.
> All Search Engines 1 - 20 of 77
> #2 "WARNING: Do not download and run theBughunterTrojan!"
Which is a completely unproven claim that makes you look like a
halfwit.
> I'm sure he'll be fine. :)
With a little education dear, even you could be one day. :)
I hope I've helped to educate you further on the great wonders of
links. Heh Heh.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> On Feb 25, 7:13 am, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> bughunter.dus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> BugHunterMalWare Removal Tool is first link at the following search
>>> engines... and I didn't have to pay
>>> for any of this. :) I certainly do appreciate the popularity. It's
>>> evident my hit counter
>>
>> 9891?
>
>> How many people have downloaded the most recent version ofBugHunter,
>> Dustin?
<snip more evasion>
I'll ask again.
How many people have downloaded the /most recent/ version of BugHunter?
There's no doubt that with all the flurry last year, a whole lot of
people wanted to see what the fuss is.
I'm asking you how many people actually /use/ your program.
I know it isn't 9891, nor is it 2000. But the number of downloads of the
most recent version of the program should give us a good idea.
Go ahead. Lie. You know you want to.
>>> isn't showing all the traffic...
>>> hehehe
>>
>> Right.
>
> Well, it's not like we didn't already know your a technological moron.
> The hit counter was really messing you up huh? :)
Ooooh...cut to the quick! I'm bleeding to death.
>>> www.google.com
>>
>> Personalized Results 1 - 50 of about 998 forbughuntertrojan
>
> Yep, and anyone with half a brain who reads them can tell it's
> simplistic trolling. Akin to schoolyard "cooties" antics.
>> All Search Engines 1 - 20 of 77
>> #2 "WARNING: Do not download and run theBughunterTrojan!"
>
> Which is a completely unproven claim that makes you look like a
> halfwit.
Maybe we should take a vote.
Oh wait. We already did.
>> I'm sure he'll be fine. :)
>
> With a little education dear, even you could be one day. :)
> I hope I've helped to educate you further on the great wonders of
> links. Heh Heh.
Does this mean the maniacal laughter will start soon?
bughunte...@gmail.com
> bughunter.dus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 25, 7:13 am, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>bughunter.dus...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> BugHunterMalWare Removal Tool is first link at the following search
> >>> engines... and I didn't have to pay
> >>> for any of this. :) I certainly do appreciate the popularity. It's
> >>> evident my hit counter
>
> >> 9891?
>
> <snip evasion>
What evasion? You relied on the hit counter to tell you how many times
the zipfile may have been downloaded. I can't help it if you relied on
information that's unreliable due to the fact you didn't know how it
worked.
Admission of your attempt to evade, noted.
> >> How many people have downloaded the most recent version ofBugHunter,
> >> Dustin?
>
> <snip more evasion>
See above.
> I'll ask again.
>
> How many people have downloaded the /most recent/ version ofBugHunter?
I already told you, according to the logfiles, close to 2000 downloads
of it. You are counting version of program, and not signature release
right? As the signatures and the program aren't the same files....
> There's no doubt that with all the flurry last year, a whole lot of
> people wanted to see what the fuss is.
The flurry hasn't stopped, hon. It's increasing again. Despite your
efforts to kill my legitimate program by misleading the public, it had
the opposite effect. You caused people to become interested in the
program.
> I'm asking you how many people actually /use/ your program.
I don't know. How many people actually drive Chevy Astrovans?
> I know it isn't 9891, nor is it 2000. But the number of downloads of the
> most recent version of the program should give us a good idea.
Once again, it won't give us a good idea. Any site that is mirroring
the zipfile won't be taken into account.
With the pad file submission, that's many more sites which could be
mirroring and/or direct linking to me.
The only numbers I can get are from the logfiles, and the logfiles
only know systems that have got it directly from me.
> Go ahead. Lie. You know you want to.
Nothing to lie about. BugHunter speaks for itself.
> > Well, it's not like we didn't already know your a technological moron.
> > The hit counter was really messing you up huh? :)
>
> Ooooh...cut to the quick! I'm bleeding to death.
So the hit counter did, infact, mess you up huh? :)
> > Yep, and anyone with half a brain who reads them can tell it's
> > simplistic trolling. Akin to schoolyard "cooties" antics.
> >> All Search Engines 1 - 20 of 77
> >> #2 "WARNING: Do not download and run theBughunterTrojan!"
>
> > Which is a completely unproven claim that makes you look like a
> > halfwit.
>
> Maybe we should take a vote.
>
> Oh wait. We already did.
We should take a vote to decide whether or not something is true? The
claim is completely unproven. If you have evidence to the contrary,
I'm calling your bluff to provide it. The spotlight's on you.
> > With a little education dear, even you could be one day. :)
> > I hope I've helped to educate you further on the great wonders of
> > links. Heh Heh.
>
> Does this mean the maniacal laughter will start soon?
As long as you continue to remain on your medication, you shouldn't be
having any issues.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> On Feb 25, 7:22 pm, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> bughunter.dus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 25, 7:13 am, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> bughunter.dus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> BugHunterMalWare Removal Tool is first link at the following
>>>>> search engines... and I didn't have to pay
>>>>> for any of this. :) I certainly do appreciate the popularity. It's
>>>>> evident my hit counter
>>
>>>> 9891?
>>
>> <snip evasion>
>
> What evasion? You relied on the hit counter to tell you how many times
> the zipfile may have been downloaded.
No I didn't.
I was making fun of the feeble hit count.
> I can't help it if you relied on
> information that's unreliable due to the fact you didn't know how it
> worked.
<sigh>
> Admission of your attempt to evade, noted.
>
>>>> How many people have downloaded the most recent version
>>>> ofBugHunter, Dustin?
>>
>> <snip more evasion>
>
> See above.
Answer the question.
>> I'll ask again.
>>
>> How many people have downloaded the /most recent/ version
>> ofBugHunter?
>
> I already told you, according to the logfiles, close to 2000 downloads
> of it. You are counting version of program, and not signature release
> right? As the signatures and the program aren't the same files....
Y'know...I was asking only for the current version of the program, but I
think that the most recent signature release figures would be a more
accurate indicator of how many people are using the program.
Put up.
>> There's no doubt that with all the flurry last year, a whole lot of
>> people wanted to see what the fuss is.
>
> The flurry hasn't stopped, hon. It's increasing again. Despite your
> efforts to kill my legitimate program by misleading the public, it had
> the opposite effect. You caused people to become interested in the
> program.
I haven't done anything to mislead the public, Dustin.
Your utter lack of credibility speaks for itself without any help from
me.
>> I'm asking you how many people actually /use/ your program.
>
> I don't know. How many people actually drive Chevy Astrovans?
I don't make Chevy Astrovans.
But if I did, I would know.
>> I know it isn't 9891, nor is it 2000. But the number of downloads of
>> the most recent version of the program should give us a good idea.
>
> Once again, it won't give us a good idea. Any site that is mirroring
> the zipfile won't be taken into account.
> With the pad file submission, that's many more sites which could be
> mirroring and/or direct linking to me.
>
> The only numbers I can get are from the logfiles, and the logfiles
> only know systems that have got it directly from me.
>
>> Go ahead. Lie. You know you want to.
>
> Nothing to lie about. BugHunter speaks for itself.
Yep.
And no one is using it.
<choking on laughter>
>>> Well, it's not like we didn't already know your a technological
>>> moron. The hit counter was really messing you up huh? :)
>>
>> Ooooh...cut to the quick! I'm bleeding to death.
>
> So the hit counter did, infact, mess you up huh? :)
You dolt.
>>> Yep, and anyone with half a brain who reads them can tell it's
>>> simplistic trolling. Akin to schoolyard "cooties" antics.
>>>> All Search Engines 1 - 20 of 77
>>>> #2 "WARNING: Do not download and run theBughunterTrojan!"
>>
>>> Which is a completely unproven claim that makes you look like a
>>> halfwit.
>>
>> Maybe we should take a vote.
>>
>> Oh wait. We already did.
>
> We should take a vote to decide whether or not something is true? The
> claim is completely unproven. If you have evidence to the contrary,
> I'm calling your bluff to provide it. The spotlight's on you.
Google is full of evidence that you're a halfwit, Dustin.
You are a shoo-in to win this contest.
>>> With a little education dear, even you could be one day. :)
>>> I hope I've helped to educate you further on the great wonders of
>>> links. Heh Heh.
>>
>> Does this mean the maniacal laughter will start soon?
>
> As long as you continue to remain on your medication, you shouldn't be
> having any issues.
/My/ medication?
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phčdre nó Delaunay
Kadaitcha Man
jolthead. Thou poor inch of nature. Bless me, what a fry of fornication
is at the door. Ye meandered and ye ministered:
> On Feb 25, 7:05 am, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dustin Cook <bughunter.dus...@gmail.com> Thou such toasts-and-butter.
>> Out of my sight, thou dost infect mine eyes. Thou idle gaud. Thou
>> hell-bound. Ye blurted and ye blubbed:
>>
>>> a$=string$(24,"+-")
>>
>> Here, eat some crow, you piteous halfwit...
>>
>>> that will do the same as the code above and below.
>>
>>> a$="+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-"
>>
>> Pig's fucking arse it will, you utterly inept wretch.
>>
>> STRING$ only recognises the first character, so, unlike in your
>> delusional world where any fucking old bullshit rules, in the real
>> world, the result of this:
>>
>> a$=string$(24,"+-")
>>
>> Is this...
>>
>> "++++++++++++++++++++++++"
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! LMFARO@you, Dustfart.
>
> Yep, so you read the asic.txt link eh? It's been a very long time
> since I've used the function.
> language syntax helps, doesn't it? :)
You need to backpedal harder, Dustfart, and your pathetic IDIOTICONS will
not save you. You fucked up completely mid-way through bragging and
bullshitting about how good you think you are but aren't. It is now my job
as a k0oKologist to make sure all that rotten egg on your face stays there
and stinks for as long as possible.
>> So, you still reckon you're a programmer, eh, Dustfart? Fuck me
>> dead. You
>
> Yep, I am.
That's some mighty fine delusion you're having, Dustfart. Next time the
pharmacy fills the prescription for your psychotropic drugs, ask them to
write six extra zeroes on the dispensing quantity and to deliver them by
truck.
Oh, and don't forget to take them all at once.
> I know to atleast know the language syntax before I comment
> on someone elses code, especially if I'm trying to make them look
> stupid in doing so, wouldn't want it to backfire as it has here on
> you. :)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Dustfart, you just shot yourself in the head.
Again. "atleast [sic] know[ing] the language syntax" is _not_ a
qualification for being a programmer. Only one solitary personal attribute
is required to become a programmer, Dustfart, and you do not possess it; you
never had it. Your incompetent usenet blitherings and your typed-out chaos,
which you have the gall to call a "program", prove you never had it.
There are pitiful, homeless tramps gadding about the streets dressed in
stinking, tatty rags and piss-stained slippers who possess the only requiste
skill, which you lack.
>> waffle on and on about assembler [sic] code and you can't even
>> fucking well write working code in your precious SHITBASIC.
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Fucking pathetic.
>
> Well k-man, I made a simple mistake which would have still generated
> an executable.
Don't look now, Dustfart, but every time you go over those freshly-opened,
self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the side of your head you're doing my work
for me.
> Your one line code improvement over my code that you
> dedicated a paragraph bashing on me was not proper syntax, and would
> not compile.
You keep getting told but you never hear, do you, Dustfart? Stop picking at
your self-inflicted wounds, you dumb cunt.
You are the one who is bragging and inflating your worthlessness in a vain
attempt to make it into something, Dustfart. Not anyone else. You can polish
a turd until it looks like burnished bronze, but it is still a turd,
Dustfart. You are too stupid to realise that it is irrelevant that the code
would not compile. What is relevant, Dustfart, is that you actually compiled
it.
No doubt you need that explained to you because, clearly, you lack
sufficient discernment skills to understand the point being made.
You do not even have the fucking halfwit about you to state that code "will
not compile" so as to at least _give_ the impression you possess the simple
ability to think ahead. Instead you admit to compiling the code before
declaring that the code "would not" compile. In short, Dustfart, you could
not assert with even a single, paltry shred of confidence that the code
would not compile beforehand.
Fuck me dead, Dusfart, freaking squirrels stowing acorns for next winter are
think ahead better than you.
I will take your false accusation of reading the manual over your bragging
claim that a$=string$(24,"+-") did something that it does not do. And I will
take that kind of false accusation over your endless series of utterly inept
cockups and backpedals any day of the week.
> My programming mistake resulting in a less functional program, yours
> resulted in no functional program at all. <g>
Dustfart, what sort of a fucking retard are you to keep poking your fist
into the gunshot wounds in the side of your head to make them start bleeding
again whilst at the same time declaring "NEENER! NEENER! It's just a
scratch!", only to end up staring blankly at the screen with a gormless grin
or your stupid gob?
> a$=string$(24,"+-")
>
> that will do the same as the code above and below.
>
> a$="+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH! LMAO@you
Kadaitcha Man
Thou inane dish of skim milk. Thou unsightly most villainous knave. Ye
jargoned and ye swore:
> On Feb 25, 5:35 am, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I bet when your code is peer-reviewed your stock response to the
>> peels of laughter is "that was sloppy on my part". You have had
>> code peer-reviewed, yes?
>
> Your very amusing at times. :)
The question stands. Please attend to it...
You have had code peer-reviewed, yes?
<snip>
>> Just lazy, huh? More like you downright don't fucking know what
>> you're doing. Of course, the rest of this post is aimed at proving
>> exactly that claim.
>
> We shall see. :)
You can only fool yourself all of the time, Dustfart.
Firstly, your delusions of adequacy and your NORAD-like psychological
defence mechansisms (to pinch a phrase I coined earlier in another thread
where other ko0ks like yourself were being discussed) never fail kick in to
protect you from the reality of the depth of your utter worthlessness. It
goes without saying that you could stand before God Almighty, Him accusing
you of sheer fuckwittery, and still have the bare-faced cheek to deny you're
a fuckwit.
Secondly, Dustfart, and you've been told this time and time again, and still
it hasn't sunken in to that massive slab of steel-reinforced concrete you
like to call a head; It is neither your decision nor mine to determine the
accuracy or otherwise of the accusations of consummate fuckwittery made
against you.
Your readers will decide. Not you. Not me.
>> 20-20 hindsight, btw.
>>
>>>>> b=rnd(0)
>>>>> b=b mod 23
>>>>> death=b
>>
>>>> Three lines of code are used to do what can be done in one line...
>>
>>>> death = rnd(0) mod 23
>>
>>> Ahh, but your wrong sir. This is Asic, it cannot be done in one
>>> line. :)
>>
>> Admission to using shit to write shit noted.
>
> Admission that you<BICTHSLAP>
Monkey see, monkey do.
> messed up, noted.
> Admission that you couldn't even get such simple code commented
> properly, also noted.
>
> I won't bother responding to your assinine attempts
Dustfart, if the same principle were applied to you and all your usenet
posts, you'd be the world's loneliest poster. Hell, even drive-by spammers
would get more acknowledgement of their existence.
> to figure asic
> out, as you aren't correct on any of it
Is that so? How do you explain this then...?
>> a$=string$(24,"+-")
>
> Here, eat some crow, you piteous halfwit...
>
>> that will do the same as the code above and below.
>>
>> a$="+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-"
>
> Pig's fucking arse it will, you utterly inept wretch.
Go on. Explain that in context of my allegedly not being "correct on any of it".
> even after providing you the
> damn manual which comes with it. The code generated by asic, as in the
> exe fie, isn't interpreted or p-code as you seem to be thinking it is.
You incompetent fuckhead. Code is what you write; or in your case, scribble.
Instructions are what compilers produce.
CODE <> INSTRUCTIONS
Do you understand that, Mister-High-and-Mighty-Programmer who also does not
know the difference between input and output?
Results 1 - 100 of about 1,090,000 English pages for computer programming
basics code instructions. (0.76 seconds)
Picking a link at random from only the first eight displayed of the more than one million pages...
Programming BasicsSince a computer program consists of a series of
instructions for the computer ... the process of writing the actual program
code in some computer language. ...
www.play-hookey.com/computers/programming_basics.html - 8k - Cached -
Similar pages
> Your assembler<BITCHSLAP>
Assembly, Dustfart. Assembly. I, being highly skilled in programming, write
Assembly. You, being the dribbling fuckwit that you are are the one who
dabbles about with "assembler".
> sample, is (golly gee) the same thing that's actually
> inside the exe file. *burn*
Oh, someone else wrote a program that displays "Hello, FuckNuts Dusfart!"?
<snippage of stuff you ignored and did not reply to, yet again>
>>> Ouch, I don't think you realize how close asic really is to
>>> assembler...
>>
>> 1. Unsupported assertion. Claim fails.
>
>> 2. ASIC is a BASIC compiler that includes a number of BASICA and
>> QBASIC commands, Dustfart. The ASIC instruction set does not contain
>> any JMP, MOV, NOP, CPL, JNZ, JZ, INC, DEC or any other assembler
>> [sic] commands. So it is beyond the reasonable mind to understand
>> how it can be the case that anyone other than you can appreciate
>> just "how close asic really is to assembler [sic]".
>
> Because I've disassembled the resulting binary files created with the
> language. Asic isn't p-code nor is it interpreted.
Well, fuck me dead, Dustfart. You've made a major discovery there. Do you
suppose it could be possible that if you disassembled every natively
compiled executable ever compiled by every native complier available that
you'd identify a correlation so undeniable that you could state with some
certainty that all native compilers produce binary files that are not
interpreted and are not p-code?
I can see now why you believe you're a genius, Dustfart.
The alert reader will note that not only have you conflated code with
instructions, you just tried to conflate reverse-engineered
instructions represented by assembly mnemonics into ASIC BASIC.
How smart did you say you weren't again, Dustfart?
>> Why the assembler [sic] code straw-man, Dustfart? Got you by the
>> scruff of the neck, have I? Hmmm?
>
> See above. What was that about the scruff?
>
>> Assembler [sic] code is your straw-man to avoid the charges against
>> you. Nevertheless I will gleefully and wilfully attack your
>> straw-man with gusto,
>
> K-man, You were not even able to properly comment on very simple code,
> of course you would try the "well, you have a strawman" defense. Face
> it, I've beaten you. You jumped before you looked.
Your delusional opinion counts for what, exactly, Dustfart?
>> but only because doing so exposes you to even more justifiable
>> accusations of complete and utterly delusional fuckwittery.
>
> Yes, I'm sure you will.
>
>> 4. I will now proceed to show you just "how close asic really is to
>> assembler [sic]", Dustin...
>>
>> First the assembler [sic]:
>>
>> Name "SuckEggsDustin"
>> org 300H
>> JMP Start
>> String db "Hello, FuckNuts Dustfart!", 0DH, 0AH, 24H
>> Start: LEA DX, String
>> MOV DX, 09H
>> INT 21H
>> MOV AH, 0
>> RET
>>
>> Now in ASIC
>>
>> Print "Hello, FuckNuts Dustfart!";
>
> And the resulting binary's code closely matches your assembler. Asic
> does use some code which I find unnecessary, but it does it anyway.
>
>> As you can see, Dustin, I obviously do not realise "how close asic
>> really is to assembler" [sic] as much as you do.
>
> No, that I understood with your first try. :)
Well then, you're just going to have to force yourself to show, step by
woefully laborious step, how it is that this code indicates just "how close
asic really is to assembler [sic]"...
[QUOTE]
First the assembler [sic]:
Name "SuckEggsDustin"
org 300H
JMP Start
String db "Hello, FuckNuts Dustfart!", 0DH, 0AH, 24H
Start: LEA DX, String
MOV DX, 09H
INT 21H
MOV AH, 0
RET
Now in ASIC
Print "Hello, FuckNuts Dustfart!";
[/QUOTE]
The bad news, Dusfart, is that you are now going to have to do it without
confusing CODE with INSTRUCTIONS, and without confusing binary OUTPUT
with ASIC BASIC input.
Your audience awaits your stony silence. Get to it.
>> That would be assembler [sic] code put there by the compiler, yes?
>> You know, "code" that you did not actually write. Oh, and the
>> completely straw-man
>
> Well, short of writing everything in machine language, you can't
> actually claim anybody has authored anything original, and even
> then....
Woah! Back up there a moment, retard...
Who made any claim even remotely resembling "writing everything in machine
language, you can't actually claim anybody has authored anything original"?
The point under discussion here, which must have gone right through one of
those shotgun wounds in your head, is this:
The ASIC BASIC code is very close to Assembly code.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is a paraphrase of your claim. It has already been established that you
do not know the difference between input and ouput, and that you do not know
the difference between code and instructions. And it has already been
established that, following on from your failure to understand the
difference between code and instructions, that you believe machine
instructions are code.
The points are these:
Point 1. "I don't think you realize how close asic really is to
assembler..."
The implication that I do not know the difference is
proven false and the reverse is true, viz it is you
who knows nothing.
The implication that "ASIC BASIC code is very close
to Assembly code" is proven false.
Point 2: It is verifiably true that in order to justify and
support your claims you not only conflated machine
instructions and code, you also conflated binary
output with ASIC BASIC input.
The implications of those two points are also two-fold:
1. Either you deliberately performed the conflation, OR
2. It is true that you have less repute as a programmer
than the coprophilic orang-utans swinging upside down
from the tops of trees in Indonesia that were used to
pillory you previously.
Taken together, your ineptitude and lack of ability are so immense that you
do not have the wits about you to even think of trying to pull off a slimy
card trick, let alone get caught doing it, so my money is on implication 2.
Ceteris paribus, your pervasive confusion between CODE and INSTRUCTIONS,
and binary OUTPUT with ASIC BASIC INPUT could stand alone as testament to
the truth.
>> assembler [sic] code that we're not actually dicussing because we're
>> really talking about the ASIC BASIC compiler that does not include
>> support for assembly language mnemonics, yes?
>
> It doesn't?
No, it doesn't. Perhaps you would like to quote vast tracts of the manual
again showing exactly where support for assembly language mnemonics is
documented while proving the exact opposite?
> Strange... According to the documentation, I'm free to write
> supporting functions in whatever language I desire (assembler
> recommended). Asic doesn't have more than 80 commands in the entire
> language. To allow for expandability, it supports you adding
> additional code to your program written with more advanced languages
> to do things not already available to you.
Let us grant, for the sake of argument only, that it is true that "[you are]
free to write supporting functions in whatever language [you] desire".
Now, from that granted assumption, please explain, in your best spluttering
drool, why it is not the case that "the ASIC BASIC compiler that does not
include support for assembly language mnemonics."
Thank you.
PS: Your audience awaits more of your shifty footwork. get to it.
Let me know if the mental dexterity required to invert the logical negation
of a plain English sentence expressed in the negative gives you a headache,
Dustfart. I'll fix it for you.
<reloads shotgun>
>> A) Claim 'asic is really close is to assembler' when the actual
>> reality is that it isn't
>
> Ahh, but the final output executable<BITCHSLAP>
Code is input. Your claim is that the code 'is really close is to
assembler'.
Once more, for the perpetually stupid, we are dealing with input,
Dustfart, not output.
> present on your hard disk after
> asic has "compiled" it closely matches that of your resulting
> assembler file (well, depending on your sloppyness level...). Asic
> isn't p-code kook, it generates some unncessary code but not much.
Output <> Input
Code <> Instructions
ASIC BASIC <> "assmebler" [sic]
HTH
>> B) You habitually refer to assembly as assembler
>
>
>> C) You do not know the difference between an opcode and its mnemonic;
>> indeed, it is verifiably provable that you believe that the
>> mnemonics are referenced in the executable.
>
> Yes I do. You forget, The criterr.obj file posted is a patched
> variant.
What evidence do you have to support the claim that I forgot anything about
the "criterr.obj file posted"?
In order to support your claim, you are going to have to show that I knew
about, let alone fucking cared about, the "criterr.obj file posted", you
stupidly presumptuous cuntplug.
> Obviously I know what the various mnemonic statements
> translate to. For example, retf is CB. Mnemonics is for you to
> remember things, it's one step below machine language; you keying in
> the hex yourself.
The available empirical evidence does not indicate what you now claim is
the obvious.
>> And you say you're a programmer, huh?
>
> Yes, that I am. BugHunter clearly demonstrates this. Have you seen it
> recently?
<pours high-octane petroleum on Dustfart's latest straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>
At best, the available empirical evidence indicates that you are nothing
more than a fuckwitted dabbler who lacks the necessary logical turn of mind
to cut proper code.
At worst, the available empirical evidence indicates that you are a
self-immersed and utterly delusional lying cur who rightly belongs under
intensive treatment in a mental institution.
You know, Dustfart, whenever I read your posts, I get the feeling that your
parents must surely have rued the day that lobotomies were outlawed. Yours
would be the only case in history where a full lobotomy ever resulted in an
improvement in cognitive ability.
>>> if it's going to be used more than once, it should be a routine. Why
>>> repeat the same code?
>>
>> DUH! So, why isn't it, Dustfart...?
>
> I agreed with your statement concerning the fact it should have been
> and I didn't make it so. Why do you think your going to misquote what
> was said now? :)
Real meaning: 20-20 hindsight.
Your hindsight is so keen that I am forced to wonder if you eyes in your
arse.
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>> Don't tell me. Let me guess...
>>
>> "just lazy..."
>
> Your laughing at your own intentional misquotation?
Seeing as you got caught in yet another inept context snip I'll merely point
to the body of evidence that says you're a delusional fucktard and leave it
at that.
>> Of course, an utter lack of capability on your part has nothing to
>> do with it at all, right?
>
> Well, I don't know.
Sure you know. Deep down you do know. Your delusional state prevents you
from acknowledging it though.
>. I understand what I'm doing with asic code, and
> you don't seem to know what is going on. You seem to think you can
> correct my code for me or something, but you can't even get the
> language syntax right... You have to understand why I think that's so
> damn funny. You know just as well as I do that most of our readers
> aren't in fact programmers and might lap up whatever you have to say
> purely on faith, but you have to consider one important thing. Some
> others here are programmers and aren't fooled by your little games.
Let's break that down into more manageable chunks:
> you don't seem
> You seem to think
> you can't even
> You have to understand
> You know just as well as I do
> purely on faith
> you have to consider
Ok, but have you got any facts to go on?
As for this...
"You know just as well as I do that most of our readers aren't in fact
programmers and might lap up whatever you have to say purely on faith"
I sincerely doubt your capacity to have thought about that until it was told
to you. Nevertheless if it is true that "most of our readers aren't in fact
programmers and might lap up whatever [I] have to say purely on faith" then
that's not my problem. It's yours, entirely, and I refuse to deal with it.
You deal with it, Dustfart. It's your problem.
As for "our readers", this show is all about you, Dustfart. You and you
only. I am merely the puppeteer pulling your strings from up in the loft.
>> Dustfart, you need a seriously hard kick in the reality glands.
>> First of all, compilers produce output in a predictible manner. That
>> is to say, when you put your garbage code into the compiler, what
>> comes out is, lo and behold, compiled garbage. A BASIC compiler will
>> not fix your crap, inefficient code, Dustfart; it will only produce
>> a crap, inefficient program.
>
> When you learn the language syntax, and get several years of actual
> hands on experience programming in it, then I might consider your
> advice as something more than somebody talking out of turn.
So, what depth of knowledge of "the language syntax" and how many "years
of actual hands on experience programming in" ASIC BASIC did it take to
make the following cockup...?
> a$=string$(24,"+-")
>
> that will do the same as the code above and below.
>
> a$="+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-"
Hmm? Well?
>> Secondly, Dustfart, let us assume, for the sake of supposition only,
>> that everything I have written, plus all the evidence placed before
>> you to refute your insane lies is 100 percent pure, unadulterated,
>> irrefutable bullshit. Yes, let us assume that everything I have
>> written is 100% techno-poppycock.
>
> Oh, no real assumption here. It's obvious to everyone what's going on.
> 4Q is failing miserably, are you the reinforcement? I've made my
> points several times over, this was just salt on your wounds.
> language syntax? c'mon.. Your "corrected" one line code example would
> generate an error, because it's not right, idiot. Mine is.
Would you mind showing, using, say, a join the dots picture of a bunny
rabbit, how your wild imagination managed to run up the ladder of inference
like a rat up a drainpipe and get from a wholly valid supposition into
"BRING ON THE CAVALRY!!!!" in a single leap.
In your best scribble, please. And no drool.
Thank you.
>> So, Dustfart, based on that assumption, do you believe that your
>> readers are more inclined to fall for the techno-gobbledegook
>> bullshit than they are, say, to fall for the delusional ramblings of
>> an utterly inept fuckwit who puffs up his horribly sunken chest and
>> declares, "it's not quiet [sic] basic... I will tear K-man to shreds
>> :) blah blah. Your loss. :) Ehhhehh.. Heh, the code is written in
>> asic. I don't think you quiet [sic] understand what asic is"?
The unanswered question to the wholly valid supposition stands. Answer it.
Do you believe that your readers are more inclined to fall for the
techno-gobbledegook bullshit than they are, say, to fall for the delusional
ramblings of an utterly inept fuckwit who puffs up his horribly sunken chest
and declares, "it's not quiet [sic] basic... I will tear K-man to shreds :)
blah blah. Your loss. :) Ehhhehh.. Heh, the code is written in asic. I don't
think you quiet [sic] understand what asic is"?
--
bughunte...@gmail.com
> > Yep, so you read the asic.txt link eh? It's been a very long time
> > since I've used the function.
> > language syntax helps, doesn't it? :)
>
> You need to backpedal harder, Dustfart, and your pathetic IDIOTICONS will
I'm not the one doing any backpeddling...
> > I know to atleast know the language syntax before I comment
> > on someone elses code, especially if I'm trying to make them look
> > stupid in doing so, wouldn't want it to backfire as it has here on
> > you. :)
>
> Again. "atleast [sic] know[ing] the language syntax" is _not_ a
> qualification for being a programmer. Only one solitary personal attribute
Oh your right of course, not knowing the syntax of the language your
instructing a person in makes alot of sense. /sarcasm.
> > Well k-man, I made a simple mistake which would have still generated
> > an executable.
>
> Don't look now, Dustfart, but every time you go over those freshly-opened,
> self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the side of your head you're doing my work
> for me.
I think your suffering from mental halliciounations (sp?). I'm unaware
of any gunshot wounds. I'm aware of an individual (you) who tried to
school me in coding in asic. One obvious problem with this is, you
don't even know the asic syntax.
> Dustfart. You are too stupid to realise that it is irrelevant that the code
> would not compile. What is relevant, Dustfart, is that you actually compiled
> it.
I compiled it? Ehh, no. I didn't need too.
> No doubt you need that explained to you because, clearly, you lack
> sufficient discernment skills to understand the point being made.
Oh the point is simple, k-man. You don't know asic from assembler, and
you've been trying to convince others that this isn't the case ever
since.
> You do not even have the fucking halfwit about you to state that code "will
> not compile" so as to at least _give_ the impression you possess the simple
> ability to think ahead. Instead you admit to compiling the code before
> declaring that the code "would not" compile. In short, Dustfart, you could
> not assert with even a single, paltry shred of confidence that the code
> would not compile beforehand.
K-man, your grasping desperatly at straws. I didn't compile any code
from you. You didn't know your improved code wasn't valid Asic syntax
until I pointed this out to you. Now, try as you might to paint the
picture opposite of what it is, You are the individual who posted
invalid syntax trying to correct my code.
> Fuck me dead, Dusfart, freaking squirrels stowing acorns for next winter are
> think ahead better than you.
If the squirrels are making the same assumptions about things that you
are, they're going to starve next winter.
> I will take your false accusation of reading the manual over your bragging
> claim that a$=string$(24,"+-") did something that it does not do. And I will
bragging claim? Desperate huh? I said it was a mistake on my part. The
reason I suspect you read the manual is because you didn't know asic
syntax well enough to know that the code you posted wouldn't work, the
code I posted on the other hand is the correct way in asic to do what
I was doing, burns you up doesn't it? Caught with your pants down like
this, I mean.
> > My programming mistake resulting in a less functional program, yours
> > resulted in no functional program at all. <g>
>
> Dustfart, what sort of a fucking retard are you to keep poking your fist
> into the gunshot wounds in the side of your head to make them start bleeding
> again whilst at the same time declaring "NEENER! NEENER! It's just a
> scratch!", only to end up staring blankly at the screen with a gormless grin
> or your stupid gob?
While you are indeed clever with your insults, it doesn't change the
fact this thread has shown you to be an utter idiot with regards to
asic, the language, it's syntax or anything else concerning it. No
amount of witty attempts to twist things around is going to change
those facts.
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH! LMAO@you
I was laughing alot at your correction. I bet you laugh at yourself
alot, with all the mistakes you likely make in a day.
I really started laughing when you said syntax wasn't important. See
how easy it is to mislead people into thinking you said something you
didn't actually say? :)
Trademark troll tactic, crossposting. That's alright, this response is
certainly worth cross-posting back.
--
Dustin Cook
Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool v2.2
Kadaitcha Man
woeful man. Pray God we may make haste, and come too late. Ye sniveled
and ye confounded:
> On Feb 25, 7:22 pm, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> bughunter.dus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 25, 7:13 am, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> bughunter.dus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> BugHunterMalWare Removal Tool is first link at the following
>>>>> search engines... and I didn't have to pay
>>>>> for any of this. :) I certainly do appreciate the popularity. It's
>>>>> evident my hit counter
>>
>>>> 9891?
>>
>> <snip evasion>
>
> What evasion? You relied on the hit counter to tell you how many times
> the zipfile may have been downloaded. I can't help it if you relied on
> information that's unreliable due to the fact you didn't know how it
> worked.
You know, Dustfart, in all my days on usenet, and there many, indeed, in all
my days on this planet, I have never, ever seen anyone padlock the exit
door, swallow the key then promptly proceed to paint themselves into a
corner quite the way you do, and with such unwitting stupidity and haste.
How witless are you to not realise that you just defenestrated every single
one of your claims about the imaginary success of your BogHunter trojan?
bughunte...@gmail.com
> Secondly, Dustfart, and you've been told this time and time again, and still
> it hasn't sunken in to that massive slab of steel-reinforced concrete you
> like to call a head; It is neither your decision nor mine to determine the
> accuracy or otherwise of the accusations of consummate fuckwittery made
> against you.
> Your readers will decide. Not you. Not me.
> Monkey see, monkey do.
So you are a monkey? Can I train you to do more tricks then?
> Dustfart, if the same principle were applied to you and all your usenet
> posts, you'd be the world's loneliest poster. Hell, even drive-by spammers
> would get more acknowledgement of their existence.
Your primary existance on usenet is alt.usenet.kooks, who are you to
make statements with regard to anyone else?
> You incompetent fuckhead. Code is what you write; or in your case, scribble.
> Instructions are what compilers produce.
You somehow think symantics is going to save you now?
> > Your assembler<BITCHSLAP>
>
> Assembly, Dustfart. Assembly. I, being highly skilled in programming, write
> Assembly. You, being the dribbling fuckwit that you are are the one who
> dabbles about with "assembler".
If you think not being able to get an asic syntax correct is a
demonstration of highly skilled programming, I have some nice ocean
front property in arizona I'd like to sell you.
> Oh, someone else wrote a program that displays "Hello, FuckNuts Dusfart!"?
Are you intentionally evading the point? Are we going to get so
nitpicky that were going to bitch if asicc strings are different?
Geeze..
> <snippage of stuff you ignored and did not reply to, yet again>
That seems to be something we're both guilty of. Lets face it, some
things you comment on aren't worth a response.
> > Because I've disassembled the resulting binary files created with the
> > language. Asic isn't p-code nor is it interpreted.
>
> Well, fuck me dead, Dustfart. You've made a major discovery there. Do you
You don't know the cracking scene either? It's a rhetorical question.
If you had, you'd already know i'm not bad at reverse engineering. Oh
wait, doh, I am supporting a malware removal tool, of course I can
reverse engineer... Silly me.
> suppose it could be possible that if you disassembled every natively
> compiled executable ever compiled by every native complier available that
> you'd identify a correlation so undeniable that you could state with some
I've done alot of diassemblies from HLL compilers, and yes, many of
them produce p-code. Asic doesn't.
I'm getting bored with defending the reasons I write software in asic
tho... It reminds me of the av/vx wars of yesteryear. Only, they
understood eventually.
> certainty that all native compilers produce binary files that are not
> interpreted and are not p-code?
What are you calling a native compiler in this aspect?
> The alert reader will note that not only have you conflated code with
> instructions, you just tried to conflate reverse-engineered
> instructions represented by assembly mnemonics into ASIC BASIC.
The alert reader already knows I'm just feeding trolls at this point.
I'm basically screwing off killing a little bit of time, and smashing
on you here in usenet. But at the end of the day, I know that you
don't personally give a rats ass what I say anymore than I do about
what you say. It's for the audience that we even bother trading shots.
One of us has to get the last word in...
> > K-man, You were not even able to properly comment on very simple code,
> > of course you would try the "well, you have a strawman" defense. Face
> > it, I've beaten you. You jumped before you looked.
>
> Your delusional opinion counts for what, exactly, Dustfart?
Admission of the fact accepted.
> Well then, you're just going to have to force yourself to show, step by
> woefully laborious step, how it is that this code indicates just "how close
> asic really is to assembler [sic]"...
you already know what i meant by the statement, we're simply going
round and round now.
> >> That would be assembler [sic] code put there by the compiler, yes?
> >> You know, "code" that you did not actually write. Oh, and the
> >> completely straw-man
>
> > Well, short of writing everything in machine language, you can't
> > actually claim anybody has authored anything original, and even
> > then....
>
> Woah! Back up there a moment, retard...
Backing up...
> Who made any claim even remotely resembling "writing everything in machine
> language, you can't actually claim anybody has authored anything original"?
Do you have trouble reading what you wrote or something?
> >> That would be assembler [sic] code put there by the compiler, yes?
> >> You know, "code" that you did not actually write.
Your breaking little twigs at this point, but I'll bite. You made the
statement that the compiler makes code I didn't write, I responded by
saying unless you do everything by hand in pure machine language, your
statement claims nobody's code is their own, it's the work of the
programmers who wrote the compiler. We seem to have a chicken and egg
problem if that's the case.
> The point under discussion here, which must have gone right through one of
> those shotgun wounds in your head, is this:
>
> The ASIC BASIC code is very close to Assembly code.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are beating a dead horse dude. The resulting binary is close to
what you would have gotten in assembly, is what I meant, and it's what
you knew I meant. Now, can you find something that's actually worth
trading shots over?
> That is a paraphrase of your claim. It has already been established that you
> do not know the difference between input and ouput, and that you do not know
> the difference between code and instructions. And it has already been
It's a desperate attempt to save face on your part, actually.
> established that, following on from your failure to understand the
> difference between code and instructions, that you believe machine
> instructions are code.
Assembly languages use mnemonic codes to refer to machine code
instructions. Such a more readable rendition of the machine language
is called an assembly language and consists of both numbers and simple
words whereas machine code is composed only of numbers, usually
represented in either binary or hexadecimal.
For example, on the Zilog Z80 processor, the machine code 00000101
causes the CPU to decrement the B processor register. In assembly
language this would be written as DEC B.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_code
Still want to debate over symantics? Or will you try to spin what you
said?
> The implication that I do not know the difference is
> proven false and the reverse is true, viz it is you
> who knows nothing.
Ehh, incorrect.
> Taken together, your ineptitude and lack of ability are so immense that you
> do not have the wits about you to even think of trying to pull off a slimy
> card trick, let alone get caught doing it, so my money is on implication 2.
>
Well, I do know the common term, machine code. :)
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Kadaitcha Man
beef-witted lazar kite of cressid's kind. Thou dilatory sloth. Methink
thou art a general offence, and every man should beat thee. Ye gassed
and ye ejaculated:
> On Feb 25, 8:20 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yep, so you read the asic.txt link eh? It's been a very long time
>>> since I've used the function.
>>> language syntax helps, doesn't it? :)
>>
>> You need to backpedal harder, Dustfart, and your pathetic IDIOTICONS
>> will
>
> I'm not the one doing any backpeddling...
Is that why you snipped what was being referenced by the accusation of
back-pedalling made against you?
>>> I know to atleast know the language syntax before I comment
>>> on someone elses code, especially if I'm trying to make them look
>>> stupid in doing so, wouldn't want it to backfire as it has here on
>>> you. :)
>>
>> Again. "atleast [sic] know[ing] the language syntax" is _not_ a
>> qualification for being a programmer. Only one solitary personal
>> attribute
>
> Oh your right of course, not knowing the syntax of the language your
> instructing a person in makes alot of sense. /sarcasm.
Ok, so far so good. Thanks for confirming that you have no clue as what this
solitary but essential attribute might be. I planted the answer elsewhere
because I want to see if it later pops out of your head labelled as one of
your original thoughts.
>>> Well k-man, I made a simple mistake which would have still generated
>>> an executable.
>>
>> Don't look now, Dustfart, but every time you go over those
>> freshly-opened, self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the side of your
>> head you're doing my work for me.
>
> I think
The evidence suggests otherwise.
> your suffering from mental halliciounations (sp?).
And still you are too witless to see other people's statements popping out
of your head with "ORIGINAL!" splattered all over them in irridescent pink
paint.
> I'm unaware
Point granted.
> of any gunshot wounds. I'm aware of an individual (you) who tried to
> school me in coding in asic. One obvious problem with this is, you
> don't even know the asic syntax.
You are also unaware of metaphor.
>> Dustfart. You are too stupid to realise that it is irrelevant that
>> the code would not compile. What is relevant, Dustfart, is that you
>> actually compiled it.
>
> I compiled it? Ehh, no. I didn't need too.
You lying fuckstick.
news:1172384284.2...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com
You it at Date: 24 Feb 2007 22:18:04 -0800
And you continued to miss it until you compiled it:
news:1172448433.4...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
Date: 25 Feb 2007 16:07:13 -0800
"Well k-man, I made a simple mistake which would have still generated
an executable. Your one line code improvement over my code that you
dedicated a paragraph bashing on me was not proper syntax, and would
not compile."
It "would not compile" <--- an operative assertion.
>> No doubt you need that explained to you because, clearly, you lack
>> sufficient discernment skills to understand the point being made.
>
> Oh the point is simple, k-man. You don't know asic from assembler, and
> you've been trying to convince others that this isn't the case ever
> since.
Let's get this right, eh...
1. You confuse Assembly with "assembler" [sic]
2. You confuse code with instructions
3. You confuse input with output
4. You maintian that ASIC BASIC is close to "assembler" [sic]
5. You assert that a$=string$(24,"+-") does something in ASIC BASIC
that it does not do...
...therefore it is the case that someone other than you does not
know ASIC BASIC from "assembler" [sic]
And you want people to believe that, yes?
>> You do not even have the fucking halfwit about you to state that
>> code "will not compile" so as to at least _give_ the impression you
>> possess the simple ability to think ahead. Instead you admit to
>> compiling the code before declaring that the code "would not"
>> compile. In short, Dustfart, you could not assert with even a
>> single, paltry shred of confidence that the code would not compile
>> beforehand.
>
> K-man, your grasping desperatly at straws. I didn't compile any code
> from you. You didn't know your improved code wasn't valid Asic syntax
> until I pointed this out to you. Now, try as you might to paint the
> picture opposite of what it is, You are the individual who posted
> invalid syntax trying to correct my code.
Dustfart, go all the way back to the original post I made in this
thread. When you get there, see if you can find the words, "quick review"
and "a really rough and quick...critique".
When you find them, analyse them and determine if you actually understand
them. If you feel brave enough to assert that you really do understand the
meaning of those words then, please, take yet another dot to dot picture of
a bunny rabbit and show how you got from "really rough and quick...critique"
all the way to "You are the individual who posted invalid syntax trying to
correct my code" in one easy leap of delusion.
Now to escalate some more...
Let us assume, for the sake of argument only, that is the case that I had
never heard of ASIC BASIC before I critiqued your code. Let us also assume,
for the sake of argument only, that I have never used ASIC BASIC, ever.
Indeed, let us assume I know nothing about programming at all. Not a single
thing.
Please explain, in your best shifty dodging, weaving and ducking, exactly
how it is that that assumption alters the fact you are a bumbling halfwit
who plonks out code that is very badly written and is grossly inefficient.
Thank you.
>> Fuck me dead, Dusfart, freaking squirrels stowing acorns for next
>> winter are think ahead better than you.
>
> If the squirrels are making the same assumptions about things that you
> are, they're going to starve next winter.
Don't look now, Dustfart, but your pathetic attempt at deflection ricocheted
and shot you in the skull again. Perhaps it would have been less troublesome
for you had you directly admitted to lacking any and all foresight instead
of tacitly admitting to it.
>> I will take your false accusation of reading the manual over your
>> bragging claim that a$=string$(24,"+-") did something that it does
>> not do. And I will
>
> bragging claim? Desperate huh? I said it was a mistake on my part. The
> reason I suspect you read the manual is because you didn't know asic
> syntax well enough to know that the code you posted wouldn't work, the
> code I posted on the other hand is the correct way in asic to do what
> I was doing, burns you up doesn't it? Caught with your pants down like
> this, I mean.
Yes, Dustfart, bragging claim. Here, see...?
[QUOTE]
I'd like to show you a couple of other ways of doing the same
thing. :)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Swagger, brag, bluster, big talk.
a$=string$(24,"+-")
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ hahaha
that will do the same as the code above and below.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Swagger, brag, bluster, big talk. Also wrong.
a$="+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-"
another way
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Swagger, brag, bluster, big talk.
a$="fuck k-man"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Swagger, brag, bluster, big talk.
kmanshouse=varptr(a$)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Swagger, brag, bluster, big talk.
ourhouse=defseg(0)
x=1
y=kmanshouse
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Swagger, brag, bluster, big talk.
while x<25
poke y,27
x=x+1
y=y+1
wend
and another
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Swagger, brag, bluster, big talk.
a$="fuck k-man"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Swagger, brag, bluster, big talk.
kmanshouse=varptr(a$)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Swagger, brag, bluster, big talk.
ourhouse=defseg(0)
x=kmanshouse
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Swagger, brag, bluster, big talk.
y=x+24
for z=x to y
poke z,27
next z
the end result is the same, but the code generated isn't. Now, you
wouldn't understand
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Swagger, brag, bluster, big talk.
why this would be considered useful to someone
like me,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Swagger, brag, bluster, big talk.
but I suspect 4Q might get the idea behind it. This is how
things are done in Asic k-man,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Swagger, brag, bluster, big talk.
4Q has mislead you concerning what asic
is and isn't.
[/QUOTE]
Bragging claim, Dusftart. Bragging claim.
>>> My programming mistake resulting in a less functional program, yours
>>> resulted in no functional program at all. <g>
>>
>> Dustfart, what sort of a fucking retard are you to keep poking your
>> fist into the gunshot wounds in the side of your head to make them
>> start bleeding again whilst at the same time declaring "NEENER!
>> NEENER! It's just a scratch!", only to end up staring blankly at the
>> screen with a gormless grin or your stupid gob?
>
> While you are indeed clever with your insults, it doesn't change the
> fact this thread has shown you to be an utter idiot with regards to
> asic, the language, it's syntax or anything else concerning it. No
> amount of witty attempts to twist things around is going to change
> those facts.
Wrote the perpetual halfwit who also...
1. Confuses Assembly with "assembler" [sic]
2. Confuses code with instructions
3. Confuses input with output
4. Maintians that ASIC BASIC is close to "assembler" [sic]
5. Asserts that a$=string$(24,"+-") does something in ASIC BASIC
that it does not do...
6. Tacitly admits to having less foresight than a squirrel
7. Uses shifty dodging, weaving and ducking to disguise his
complete lack of all capability and sense.
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH! LMAO@you
>
> I was laughing alot at your correction. I bet you laugh at yourself
> alot, with all the mistakes you likely make in a day.
> I really started laughing when you said syntax wasn't important. See
> how easy it is to mislead people into thinking you said something you
> didn't actually say? :)
Laugh all you like, Dustfart. There was no correction. There was only
critique. It's all there in black and white. Perhaps if you tried reading it
rather than just looking in bewilderment at all the funny squiggles?
> Trademark troll tactic, crossposting. That's alright, this response is
> certainly worth cross-posting back.
I readily admit to being a troll, Dustfart. I have never denied it and you
know it. Indeed, I am led to believe that there are some who count me
amongst the best there is in the trade, but none of that changes your status
as an insensible and bumbling halfwit prat.
Kadaitcha Man
strange fly. Thou notable pirate. Thou bellyless, shameless base and
humble mind. Ye sniggered and ye squirted:
> On Feb 25, 10:23 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Secondly, Dustfart, and you've been told this time and time again,
>> and still it hasn't sunken in to that massive slab of
>> steel-reinforced concrete you like to call a head; It is neither
>> your decision nor mine to determine the accuracy or otherwise of the
>> accusations of consummate fuckwittery made against you.
>> Your readers will decide. Not you. Not me.
>> Monkey see, monkey do.
>
> So you are a monkey? Can I train you to do more tricks then?
>
>> Dustfart, if the same principle were applied to you and all your
>> usenet posts, you'd be the world's loneliest poster. Hell, even
>> drive-by spammers would get more acknowledgement of their existence.
>
> Your primary existance on usenet is alt.usenet.kooks, who are you to
> make statements with regard to anyone else?
>
>> You incompetent fuckhead. Code is what you write; or in your case,
>> scribble. Instructions are what compilers produce.
>
> You somehow think symantics is going to save you now?
Dustfart, programming is a precise science, an art even. If you cannot line
up your ducks to support your scurrilous claim to be a programmer then that
is entirely your problem.
The fact remains, no programmer that I have ever worked with or known since
I started in the computer industry in 1976 has ever, read that again, no
programmer that I have ever worked with or known since I started in the
computer industry in 1976, and actively work in to this very day, has ever,
ever, not even once, 1. Confused input with output, 2. Confused code with
instructions, 3. Confused assembly mnemonics with binary data. Yet there you
are, claiming to be a 1337 uberprogrammer of great repute and awesome fame,
and in post after post after post you persistently do all three and all at
fucking once.
Semantics has nothing to do with you being a worthless, over-inflated bag of
gas, Dusftart.
>>> Your assembler<BITCHSLAP>
>>
>> Assembly, Dustfart. Assembly. I, being highly skilled in
>> programming, write Assembly. You, being the dribbling fuckwit that
>> you are are the one who dabbles about with "assembler".
>
> If you think not being able to get an asic syntax correct is a
> demonstration of highly skilled programming, I have some nice ocean
> front property in arizona I'd like to sell you.
That straw-man was burnt alive some time ago, Dustfart. You cannot ressurect
it...
Quick critique <> correction.
>> Oh, someone else wrote a program that displays "Hello, FuckNuts
>> Dusfart!"?
>
> Are you intentionally evading the point? Are we going to get so
> nitpicky that were going to bitch if asicc strings are different?
> Geeze..
Again, you context snipped so I'll take that your question as being
rhetorical, albeit inadvertant on your part.
>> <snippage of stuff you ignored and did not reply to, yet again>
>
> That seems to be something we're both guilty of. Lets face it, some
> things you comment on aren't worth a response.
Don't try and drag me into your quagmire, Dustfart. It won't work. Now,
please point to one solitary example of ignoring and not replying. Thank
you.
>>> Because I've disassembled the resulting binary files created with
>>> the language. Asic isn't p-code nor is it interpreted.
>>
>> Well, fuck me dead, Dustfart. You've made a major discovery there.
>> Do you
>
> You don't know the cracking scene either? It's a rhetorical question.
> If you had, you'd already know i'm not bad at reverse engineering. Oh
> wait, doh, I am supporting a malware removal tool, of course I can
> reverse engineer... Silly me.
<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>
>> suppose it could be possible that if you disassembled every natively
>> compiled executable ever compiled by every native complier available
>> that you'd identify a correlation so undeniable that you could state
>> with some
>
> I've done alot of diassemblies from HLL compilers, and yes, many of
> them produce p-code. Asic doesn't.
<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>
> I'm getting bored with defending the reasons I write software
Consistent failure will do that, Dustin.
> in asic
> tho... It reminds me of the av/vx wars of yesteryear. Only, they
> understood eventually.
<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>
>> certainty that all native compilers produce binary files that are not
>> interpreted and are not p-code?
>
> What are you calling a native compiler in this aspect?
Results 1 - 100 of about 1,150,000 English pages for native compiler. (0.26
seconds)
Pardon me for a moment please...
1. Confuses Assembly with "assembler" [sic]
2. Confuses code with instructions
3. Confuses input with output
4. Maintians that ASIC BASIC is close to "assembler" [sic]
5. Asserts that a$=string$(24,"+-") does something in ASIC BASIC
that it does not do...
6. Tacitly admits to having less foresight than a squirrel
7. Uses shifty dodging, weaving and ducking to disguise his
complete lack of all capability and sense.
[scribbles...]
8. Has no idea what native compiler means.
>> The alert reader will note that not only have you conflated code with
>> instructions, you just tried to conflate reverse-engineered
>> instructions represented by assembly mnemonics into ASIC BASIC.
>
> The alert reader already knows I'm just feeding trolls at this point.
> I'm basically screwing off killing a little bit of time, and smashing
> on you here in usenet. But at the end of the day, I know that you
> don't personally give a rats ass what I say anymore than I do about
> what you say. It's for the audience that we even bother trading shots.
<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>
> One of us has to get the last word in...
>
>>> K-man, You were not even able to properly comment on very simple
>>> code, of course you would try the "well, you have a strawman"
>>> defense. Face it, I've beaten you. You jumped before you looked.
>>
>> Your delusional opinion counts for what, exactly, Dustfart?
>
> Admission of the fact accepted.
I already told you. That straw-man was set alight a long time ago. You
cannot now try to ressurect it. I can understand you fooling yourself into
believeing you can get away with it once in a post, but twice? Pffft.
Quick critique <> correction.
The question stands. Answer it.
Your delusional opinion counts for what, exactly, Dustfart?
>> Well then, you're just going to have to force yourself to show, step
>> by woefully laborious step, how it is that this code indicates just
>> "how close asic really is to assembler [sic]"...
>
> you already know what i meant by the statement, we're simply going
> round and round now.
>>>> That would be assembler [sic] code put there by the compiler, yes?
>>>> You know, "code" that you did not actually write. Oh, and the
>>>> completely straw-man
>>
>>> Well, short of writing everything in machine language, you can't
>>> actually claim anybody has authored anything original, and even
>>> then....
>>
>> Woah! Back up there a moment, retard...
>
> Backing up...
>
>> Who made any claim even remotely resembling "writing everything in
>> machine language, you can't actually claim anybody has authored
>> anything original"?
>
> Do you have trouble reading what you wrote or something?
The question stands, like all rest of the unanswered questions. Answer it.
Who made any claim even remotely resembling "writing everything in
machine language, you can't actually claim anybody has authored
anything original"?
>>>> That would be assembler [sic] code put there by the compiler, yes?
>>>> You know, "code" that you did not actually write.
>
> Your breaking little twigs at this point, but I'll bite. You made the
> statement that the compiler makes code I didn't write, I responded by
> saying unless you do everything by hand in pure machine language, your
> statement claims nobody's code is their own, it's the work of the
> programmers who wrote the compiler. We seem to have a chicken and egg
> problem if that's the case.
There is no chicken and egg, Dustfart. All there is is yet another one of
your immolated straw-men lying in a forlorn pile of carbon giving off smoke.
The record clearly shows that you set out from the claim of 'asic is like
assembler' and then proceeded to take the input of ASIC BASIC and fool
yourself into believing that the compiled output somehow proved your utterly
fuckwitted position that a brick is like a nerf ball.
I have news for you, Dustfart. You can try that pathetic Svengali card trick
of yours on any native compiler, not just ASIC BASIC, and still draw the
same fuckwitted and completely wrong conclusion. So, to extrapolate the
demented idiocy of your fuckwitted notions to their logical conclusion...
'asic is like assembler'
'APL is like assembler'
'Forth is like assembler'
'Algol is like assembler'
'C is like assembler'
'Java is like assembler'
'Pascal is like assembler'
'FORTRAN is like assembler'
'PL/1 is like assembler'
'asic is like assembler'
'Smalltalk is like assembler'
'Postscript is like assembler'
So, fucktard, why doesn't everyone just use "assembler" [sic]?
>> The point under discussion here, which must have gone right through
>> one of those shotgun wounds in your head, is this:
>>
>> The ASIC BASIC code is very close to Assembly code.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You are beating a dead horse dude.
Yeah, you.
> The resulting binary is close to what you would have gotten in
> assembly<BITCHSLAP>
<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>
>, is what I meant,
I repeat: Programming is a precise science.
> and it's what you knew I meant.
Salve your battered conscience in whatever manner you like, Dustfart, I will
merely point to the mounting pile of evidence to your delusional state and
ask you to cough up some proof to support your claim that a highly skilled
software developer might actually be able to make sense out of the
discombobulated balderdash you toss about.
> Now, can you find something that's
> actually worth trading shots over?
Not so fast, dustfart. I'm not letting you off until I see coffin maggots
emerge from your decrepit corpse.
You have claimed to be a programmer of great repute and fame and you persist
in claiming to be a programmer when the truth is you are nothing of the
sort. There are unanswered questions that you must attend to. Get to them.
All of them.
>> That is a paraphrase of your claim. It has already been established
>> that you do not know the difference between input and ouput, and
>> that you do not know the difference between code and instructions.
>> And it has already been
>
> It's a desperate attempt to save face on your part, actually.
>
>> established that, following on from your failure to understand the
>> difference between code and instructions, that you believe machine
>> instructions are code.
>
> Assembly languages use mnemonic codes to refer to machine code
> instructions. Such a more readable rendition of the machine language
> is called an assembly language and consists of both numbers and simple
> words whereas machine code is composed only of numbers, usually
> represented in either binary or hexadecimal.
>
> For example, on the Zilog Z80 processor, the machine code 00000101
> causes the CPU to decrement the B processor register. In assembly
> language this would be written as DEC B.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_code
ALL HAIL TEH WIKI!!!, eh, Dustfart. So, I guess that settles it then, eh.
You can post quotes from the wiki therefore you are a programmer of great
fame and exceeding repute. FNAR! You blithering fuckstick; you've shot
yourself in the head, yet again...
> Still want to debate over symantics? Or will you try to spin what you
> said?
<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>
Read the first sentence of your precious wiki extract, Dustfart.
Now read this:
[QUOTE]
> Well anyways, when
> asic compiles the binary, the resulting assembler code assigns
No, Dustfart. The assembler [sic] code is the input to the compiler, not the
output.
[/QUOTE]
And this:
[QUOTE]
> Actually, it won't. The assembler code is referenced via jmp
> statements in the executable.
lol - so what exactly do you think a JMP is? Something other than "assembler
code" [sic] referenced in the executable?
And since when has any assembler [sic] statement been referenceable in an
executable, Dustfart?
JMP <--- That, Dustfart, is the mnemonic for an assembler [sic] JMP
statement.
E9 <--- That, Dustfart, is unsigned hexadecimal opcode, which is
the result of compiling an assembler [sic] JMP statement.
[/QUOTE]
And this:
[QUOTE]
CODE <> INSTRUCTIONS
[/QUOTE]
And _especially_ this:
[QUOTE]
Ceteris paribus, your pervasive confusion between CODE and INSTRUCTIONS,
and binary OUTPUT with ASIC BASIC INPUT could stand alone as testament to
the truth.
[/QUOTE]
>> The implication that I do not know the difference is
>> proven false and the reverse is true, viz it is you
>> who knows nothing.
>
> Ehh, incorrect.
<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>
Not your decision. That straw-man was turned to carbon a long time ago,
Dustfart. it is daed and stay daed it will.
>> Taken together, your ineptitude and lack of ability are so immense
>> that you do not have the wits about you to even think of trying to
>> pull off a slimy card trick, let alone get caught doing it, so my
>> money is on implication 2.
>>
>
> Well, I do know the common term, machine code. :)
Well, you do now. I should bill you for all the lessons.
Oh, btw, you seem to have fooled yourself into believing you actually stood
a chance of getting away with hacking out bits you don't like so I'll just
make sure you're aware that you can't. Like I said, you can only fool
yourself all of the time, Dustin. You snipped and did not reply to any of
the following from the post you replied to. Please attend to it; there's a
jolly good chap...
Mowe Z. Slowley
What is the target of your coding, if I may ask?
I once wrote a very interesting bit of MC68XXX code for AmigaOS, it
was was a serial interrupt handler for streaming MIDI that didn't
obstruct the multitasking (at 7.5Mh) and captured every byte (at
33250 baud) and which was (after every use) then pulled and the
handler pointer reset to the system's.
This is the fellow you were trolling me to contact?
<snip>
--
When you do something right,
No one will know you did anything at all.
...attributed to 'God'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nXT8lSnPQ
Kadaitcha Man
weedy busy meddling fiend. Thou ticklebrain. Thou unthrifty son. Ye
scoffed and ye maundered:
Nowadays I generally just keep up to date in Visual Studio 2005 and .NET,
with a bit of Tcl and perl thrown in for good measure, but recently an
occasion arose to write a large in-house application in .NET for getting at
project schedule data stored in SQL Server so I'm working on that at the
moment. In the past I've earned a living writing everything from Assembly,
through Pascal, FORTRAN, COBOL and goodness knows what else on PCs, DEC/VAX
running VMS, and IBM mainframes running CICS.
> I once wrote a very interesting bit of MC68XXX code for AmigaOS, it
> was was a serial interrupt handler for streaming MIDI that didn't
> obstruct the multitasking (at 7.5Mh) and captured every byte (at
> 33250 baud) and which was (after every use) then pulled and the
> handler pointer reset to the system's.
>
> This is the fellow you were trolling me to contact?
Yes :D
Mowe Z. Slowley
Males named 'Dusty' raise bad connotations in my mind.
My own little baby sized PTSD.
Kadaitcha Man
braggart vile. Thou gross watery pumpion. Thou lumpish, mad-bred filthy
traitor. Ye mewled and ye growled:
Do go on.
Mowe Z. Slowley
Dipwad borrowed $200 from me and used it to file a section 40 on my ass.
http://www.em.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Titles/forms/DescriptionofeachForm/MTL504-Description.htm
Kadaitcha Man
hasty-witted monkey. Thou famished beggar. An admirable evasion of whore
master man, to lay thy goatish disposition to the charge of a star. Ye
chimed in and ye ummed and arred:
pmsl
> http://www.em.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Titles/forms/DescriptionofeachForm/MTL504-Description.htm
Mowe Z. Slowley
gets even better.
trust != gold + fever
he did the parts of my claim line specified in the complaint.
In the end he was royally fricasseed.
I have a lot of credibility at the Ministry.
It's a character thing.
My claims are secure 'till 2010.
Mowe Z. Slowley
Would you like to see this source?
It would be an interesting exercise to TCP my old Amiga1200 into my
lan, or do a virtual machine build... They had variable speed floppy
drives, so I don't think I can just read one of the disks...
But the A1200 still reads them. I still have my whole product over
in there...
>>>>>> This is the fellow you were trolling me to contact?
>>>>> Yes :D
>>>>>
>>>> Males named 'Dusty' raise bad connotations in my mind.
>>>> My own little baby sized PTSD.
>>> Do go on.
>>>
>> Dipwad borrowed $200 from me and used it to file a section 40 on my
>> ass.
>
> pmsl
>
>> http://www.em.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Titles/forms/DescriptionofeachForm/MTL504-Description.htm
>
--
Kadaitcha Man
butcher of silk button. Thou bloodshot fat rogue. Thou dense amazonian
trull. Ye hectored and ye articulated:
To be perfectly honest, not particularly, no. Thanks anyway.
--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Vescere immunda subgalia meis.
Mowe Z. Slowley
lol