On 11/03/2022 7:59 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 11/03/2022 5:28 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 11/03/2022 4:50 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 10/03/2022 4:57 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 10/03/2022 6:54 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 10/03/2022 3:28 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/03/2022 4:25 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/03/2022 12:10 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/03/2022 2:22 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 18/2/22 (and unlike clocky the date is correct) clocky posted
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "What, you copy and paste code into a Sketch in Arduino, select
>>>>>>>>> the libraries to include, modify it a bit and hit program.
>>>>>>>>> Literally anyone can do that."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So now it is time for him to put his talents such as they are
>>>>>>>>> where his mouth is. Its a simple task, make a speedometer that
>>>>>>>>> runs from GPS. It must display current speed of course, but
>>>>>>>>> that is so simple that felix could do it in BASIC on his Mac,
>>>>>>>>> so, in addition, it has to display average speed. The current
>>>>>>>>> average speed needs to be continuously displayed starting when
>>>>>>>>> a button is pressed (the button press also resets any average
>>>>>>>>> speed displayed up to that point). Extra points for displaying
>>>>>>>>> current time, time and distance that the average speed is
>>>>>>>>> calculated over, but don't make the display crowded and
>>>>>>>>> unreadable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The whole thing has to be small enough to the fitted in or on
>>>>>>>>> top of the dashboard, and be a single unit, the display has to
>>>>>>>>> be clear enough to be read while concentrating on driving.
>>>>>>>>> Probably a 3.5" 380x320 display is the sweet spot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The code has to be readable and compilable, and provided in
>>>>>>>>> source form so that it can be inspected and tested.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since anybody can do that, I would expect that as a licenced
>>>>>>>>> and qualified mechanic, holder of a certificate in electronics,
>>>>>>>>> well renowned vintage computer dealer you will have no trouble
>>>>>>>>> doing it in say a month. In fact, since anybody can do it
>>>>>>>>> anybody who wants to have a go is welcome, felix included.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so you want Clocky to work for a month just to prove something
>>>>>>>> to you? Clocky should charge you $75 an hour then, the price you
>>>>>>>> quoted me for computer problem diagnostics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> keith is acting *very* weird and it's getting worse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> maybe he's been sniffing too much of the glue they use at the
>>>>>> Aviation museum?
>>>>>
>>>>> Glue? You think that real aircraft are made like models? Modern
>>>>> airlines do use bonded panels, but the old one we have are done
>>>>> properly with bolts and rivets.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> don't you have any WW1 bi-planes? :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You know what's the difference between keiths bolted and riveted
>>> planes and those made with A4 sheets of paper and clag?
>>>
>>> Those made from paper and Clag will actually fly.
>>>
>> You're not even a good troll, barely even an average one.
>
> Troll or fact?
>
> How many of the planes you have bolted and riveted together have taken
> flight?

None recently, but way back several flew with auto-pilots that I had
been fiddling with. Interesting days - well to me at least.

> How many keith?

More demands, didn't your mother teach you to ask politely?

On 18/3/22 17:47, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 18/03/2022 5:21 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 14/03/2022 10:25 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, wow. Hear that? That's the sound of no one giving a shit.
>>
>> Then why this reply then?
>>
>> Your interest in this is really weird, it's unbelievable that you give
>> a shit whether I make a fool of myself or not, or that you're trying
>> to defend clocky's honour, but you still had to dive in bovver boots
>> and all. So what has spooked you has it hit some sort of sore spot?
>>
>> I looked at the sketch that you so cleverly modified to suit your
>> needs, it's about as basic as it gets, it does what it says but it is
>> pretty badly written, and changing a couple of values in it is to
>> programming what changing a spark plug is to being a motor mechanic.
>>
>
> what sketch where?
>
An Arduino sketch or "program". Not a drawing.

--
Xeno

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 16:31:57 +1000, keithr0 wrote:

> You have sunk really far over the years, your obsession is eating you
> away. Once, I had regard for you, you used to post reasonably
> interesting and relevant stuff, now it's just petty insults. Sad really.

So once again keith... Exactly what did you do at NASA?

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 18/3/22 19:01, alvey wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 16:31:57 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>
>
>> You have sunk really far over the years, your obsession is eating you
>> away. Once, I had regard for you, you used to post reasonably
>> interesting and relevant stuff, now it's just petty insults. Sad really.
>
> So once again keith... Exactly what did you do at NASA?
>
>
>
> alvey
>

Probably what Darren did at Repco - not what *we* were led to believe.

Darren is shitting himself at the prospect of *supporting*, or even
being seen to support Keith, in coming up with proof of stated claims.
That puts the spotlight back firmly upon Darren's unsubstantiated claims
and there a huge list of those fantastical claims. Darren's claims, as
you are no doubt aware, are entirely bogus and the last thing Darren
wants to see here is a general consensus upon proving one's claims.

--
Xeno

On 18/03/2022 5:21 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 14/03/2022 10:25 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>> Oh, wow. Hear that? That's the sound of no one giving a shit.
>
> Then why this reply then?

Oh, I'm sorry. Is no one allowed to comment unless you say so? :)

> Your interest in this is really weird, it's unbelievable that you give a
> shit whether I make a fool of myself or not, or that you're trying to
> defend clocky's honour, but you still had to dive in bovver boots and
> all. So what has spooked you has it hit some sort of sore spot?

Interesting statement. Let's analyse it, shall we?

In the first instance I'm not defending anyone. What I'm actually doing
is disagreeing with you, and the fact that you can't seem to make the
distinction is very telling.

In the second instance, you're free to make as much of an absolute
*twat* of yourself as you like and don't need anyone's permission to do
that, but what I found to be absolutely astonishing about your
"Challenge" is that you'd achieved nothing other than doing a complete
180 degree turn where you moved from criticising people for following a
particular course of action to doing *precisely* what they've done and
somehow thinking that it's perfectly fine if *you* do it.

Lastly, and if we're going to be honest here, your "challenge" had
nothing to do with testing anyone's integrity but rather was a poorly
devised opportunity for you to position yourself as the group's resident
authority where you could sit in judgement of whoever you liked and make
yourself feel superior.

How sad, and *utterly* ridiculous.

> I looked at the sketch that you so cleverly modified to suit your needs,

What "sketch"?

> it's about as basic as it gets, it does what it says but it is pretty
> badly written, and changing a couple of values in it is to programming
> what changing a spark plug is to being a motor mechanic.

In other words, it was so easy anyone could do it. Huh?

That concludes the case for the defendant, You're Honour.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 18/03/2022 5:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 14/03/2022 10:59 pm, Clocky wrote:
>
>> Who gives a fuck? Even if I took up this insane and deranged challenge
>> of yours and completed it all you would do is say I copy and pasted it
>> so it's not valid before wanking off about how good you are without
>> ever providing any proof. It's your standard tired and boring old MO
>> keith. Nobody is interested in your self-aggrandising wank.
>
> Insane and deranged? That's clocky code for "It's all too hard for me".
> Since, unlike you, I am not an obsessed and narrow minded person,

ROTFL :)

I would suggest you take a *long* hard look at your posting history in
this group over the last few months and see if you *really* think this
statement here holds even a drop of water.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 18/03/2022 5:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 11/03/2022 7:59 pm, Clocky wrote:

>> How many of the planes you have bolted and riveted together have taken
>> flight?
>
> None recently, but way back several flew with auto-pilots that I had
> been fiddling with. Interesting days - well to me at least.

What did you do on them? Vacuum the carpet?

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 18/3/22 20:49, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/03/2022 5:21 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 14/03/2022 10:25 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, wow. Hear that? That's the sound of no one giving a shit.
>>
>> Then why this reply then?
>
> Oh, I'm sorry. Is no one allowed to comment unless you say so? :)
>
>> Your interest in this is really weird, it's unbelievable that you give
>> a shit whether I make a fool of myself or not, or that you're trying
>> to defend clocky's honour, but you still had to dive in bovver boots
>> and all. So what has spooked you has it hit some sort of sore spot?
>
> Interesting statement. Let's analyse it, shall we?

You? Analyse a *statement*? Hahahah! Your grasp of English is piss poor!

>
> In the first instance I'm not defending anyone. What I'm actually doing

Oh yes you are. You are defending Clocky's stance. How unusual is that?

> is disagreeing with you, and the fact that you can't seem to make the
> distinction is very telling.

What you are actually disagreeing with is your own stance in proving
claims anyone makes. You made a *huge* deal out of that right up until
you had to prove *your own unprovable claims*, unprovable because they
are all fanciful self aggrandising lies and bullshit. Now you realise
you've been hoist by your own petard.
>
> In the second instance, you're free to make as much of an absolute
> *twat* of yourself as you like and don't need anyone's permission to do

Well, you certainly did, what a twat you made of yourself with that
*invented* career in the motor trade.

> that, but what I found to be absolutely astonishing about your
> "Challenge" is that you'd achieved nothing other than doing a complete
> 180 degree turn where you moved from criticising people for following a
> particular course of action to doing *precisely* what they've done and
> somehow thinking that it's perfectly fine if *you* do it.
>
> Lastly, and if we're going to be honest here, your "challenge" had

You? Honest? Fair suck of the sav here Darren, you haven't exactly got
much *honesty* in aus.cars. Your *claimed trade career* is 100% bullshit
and that has gone on for 20+ years. Do not talk about honesty, you have
no idea what the word even means.

> nothing to do with testing anyone's integrity but rather was a poorly
> devised opportunity for you to position yourself as the group's resident
> authority where you could sit in judgement of whoever you liked and make
> yourself feel superior.

Like you have been doing for decades here in aus.cars, you mean? That's
what you invented your trade career for, wasn't it? So you could feel
superior and position yourself as the oracle! Not doing so well now, is it?
>
> How sad, and *utterly* ridiculous.

It is sad, yes, and your carry on now trying to avoid coming up with
proof of *your* claims is laughable to the point of being utterly
ridiculous.
>
>> I looked at the sketch that you so cleverly modified to suit your needs,
>
> What "sketch"?
>
>> it's about as basic as it gets, it does what it says but it is pretty
>> badly written, and changing a couple of values in it is to programming
>> what changing a spark plug is to being a motor mechanic.
>
> In other words, it was so easy anyone could do it. Huh?
>
> That concludes the case for the defendant, You're Honour.

You? The defendant? You can't even get that right. What a clown.

--
Xeno

On 18/3/22 20:51, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/03/2022 5:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 14/03/2022 10:59 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>
>>> Who gives a fuck? Even if I took up this insane and deranged
>>> challenge of yours and completed it all you would do is say I copy
>>> and pasted it so it's not valid before wanking off about how good you
>>> are without ever providing any proof. It's your standard tired and
>>> boring old MO keith. Nobody is interested in your self-aggrandising
>>> wank.
>>
>> Insane and deranged? That's clocky code for "It's all too hard for
>> me". Since, unlike you, I am not an obsessed and narrow minded person,
>
> ROTFL :)
>
> I would suggest you take a *long* hard look at your posting history in
> this group over the last few months and see if you *really* think this
> statement here holds even a drop of water.
>
>
>
OMIGOD, your *DESPERATION* is really showing now Darren!

--
Xeno

On 18/3/22 20:52, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/03/2022 5:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 11/03/2022 7:59 pm, Clocky wrote:
>
>>> How many of the planes you have bolted and riveted together have
>>> taken flight?
>>
>> None recently, but way back several flew with auto-pilots that I had
>> been fiddling with. Interesting days - well to me at least.
>
> What did you do on them? Vacuum the carpet?
>
Well, that would be a lot better than being a *trades assistant* at an
aviation repair facility at Essendon because you were too stupid to
qualify for an apprenticeship, and then getting retrenched because you
weren't of any use to the new owner. A real ego dampener there, eh?

--
Xeno

On 18/03/2022 8:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/03/2022 5:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 11/03/2022 7:59 pm, Clocky wrote:
>
>>> How many of the planes you have bolted and riveted together have
>>> taken flight?
>>
>> None recently, but way back several flew with auto-pilots that I had
>> been fiddling with. Interesting days - well to me at least.
>
> What did you do on them? Vacuum the carpet?
>
>

considering that we were castigated for inferring from prior remarks of
his that he worked as a programmer at NASA, we must not assume that he
worked on the auto-piloting function, or in fact had anything to do with
it, so your guess is probably very close to the mark.

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

"His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
"He came, he saw, he got pummelled" - Alvey on Keefy
"What a pair! Not a single word of rebuttal or reason,
just cretinous abuse" - Alvey on jonz and noddy
"His self serving ego pumping comments just read
like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy
"your opinion isn't worth 2 knobs of goat shit"- Xeno on Grubby Tech
"You cannot turn Darren's lies into the truth by attempting to *discredit*
what *I* say. You just make yourself look more of a dick"- Xeno to Grubby Tech

On 18/03/2022 2:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 14/03/2022 10:59 pm, Clocky wrote:
>
>>> Nope the stuff that I write is built from the ground up.
>>
>>
>> Wank.
>
> Stop it or you'll go blind
>
>> No copying
>>> required.
>>
>> Who gives a fuck? Even if I took up this insane and deranged challenge
>> of yours and completed it all you would do is say I copy and pasted it
>> so it's not valid before wanking off about how good you are without
>> ever providing any proof. It's your standard tired and boring old MO
>> keith. Nobody is interested in your self-aggrandising wank.
>
> Insane and deranged?

Yes.

That's clocky code for "It's all too hard for me".

*I* never claimed to be a programmer. I described a process which anyone
here could do. You took that as a personal affront to your manhood or
something.
Tough.

> Since, unlike you, I am not an obsessed and narrow minded person, I'd
> look at what you had produced with an open mind, and there isn't much
> that you could copy anyway. I just want you to try and prove your
> assertion that "Anybody could do it" because I don't think that you could.
>

Hey dickhead, *nobody* claimed to be able to program from scratch.
Nobody claimed to be a programmer. I described a process that works for
countless people that don't consider themselves to be programmers to
achieve the results *they* are looking for. Not some stupid test to
achieve something *you* want to do which, knowing you, even if
completed, you would reject anyway.

>> Well, except maybe Jonz but he's the "village idiot" in every group he
>> posts in so...
>
> You have sunk really far over the years, your obsession is eating you
> away.

Truth is my defense.

Once, I had regard for you, you used to post reasonably
> interesting and relevant stuff, now it's just petty insults. Sad really.
>

Oh go away you twit. You're never provided any evidence for any of your
claims and you have always come across as a complete tosser.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 18/03/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 12/03/2022 11:17 am, Clocky wrote:
>> On 12/03/2022 7:18 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2022 8:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 11/03/2022 6:32 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>> On 11/03/2022 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 9:27 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 1:04 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL, keith, mate... you seem to have a very high opinion of
>>>>>>>> yourself as a programmer - so successful and highly paid that
>>>>>>>> you could afford such prestige vehicles as a Cordia Turbo and
>>>>>>>> Miata. You must have been ace to be able to afford those two
>>>>>>>> examples of motoring excellence... :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> he claims he worked at NASA as a programmer but has no formal
>>>>>>> qualifications, and was in a senior position there, iirc. can you
>>>>>>> imagine what the competition to be employed at NASA would be
>>>>>>> like? they would only be interested in the very best and
>>>>>>> brightest; the most qualified and capable. me thinketh that
>>>>>>> maybe, just maybe, something is rotten in Denmark! :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong as usual felix. I worked for NASA and I worked as a
>>>>>> programmer but I didn't work as a programmer for NASA.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> oh, I'm expected to take such interest in you that I'm expected to
>>>>> know such details am I, fukwit. but of course you didn't, you're no
>>>>> where good enough
>>>>
>>>> If you can't be bothered to get it s\right, you should STFU
>>>> otherwise you just look stupid.
>>>
>>>
>>> by telling us about your incredible programming talent and skills,
>>> and THEN saying you worked for NASA, you created the impression that
>>> you were employed by them as a programmer. but we now know you just
>>> emptied rubbish bins at NASA and probably just programmed a Commodore
>>> 64 for the kids. :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> keith preferred this
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Sinclair-ZX81.png
>> to a real computer.
>>
>> The Z80 uses twice as many cycles (4 on average) to execute an opcode
>> compared to 2 cycles on average for the a 6502 (6510/8500 in the C64,
>> same core). The Z80 is inefficient and slow, like keith.
>>
>
> ROTFL, I've never owned a Sinclair, or a Commodore games machine, I've
> preferred real computers.

Nope, no evidence to support that claim so...

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 18/03/2022 2:11 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 12/03/2022 9:18 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>> by telling us about your incredible programming talent and skills, and
>> THEN saying you worked for NASA, you created the impression that you
>> were employed by them as a programmer. but we now know you just
>> emptied rubbish bins at NASA and probably just programmed a Commodore
>> 64 for the kids. :)
>
> "You created the impression that you were employed by them as a
> programmer" only in your tiny mind, it ain't my fault if your arithmetic
> is so bad that you think that 2+2=10000000000000000000.

That yet another example of your faulty ALU.

When you claim you're expertise as a programmer and then mention working
for NASA you create the impression that you worked as a programmer for NASA.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 18/03/2022 10:23 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 18/03/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 12/03/2022 11:17 am, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2022 7:18 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 11/03/2022 8:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 11/03/2022 6:32 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 9:27 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 1:04 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL, keith, mate... you seem to have a very high opinion of
>>>>>>>>> yourself as a programmer - so successful and highly paid that
>>>>>>>>> you could afford such prestige vehicles as a Cordia Turbo and
>>>>>>>>> Miata. You must have been ace to be able to afford those two
>>>>>>>>> examples of motoring excellence... :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> he claims he worked at NASA as a programmer but has no formal
>>>>>>>> qualifications, and was in a senior position there, iirc. can
>>>>>>>> you imagine what the competition to be employed at NASA would be
>>>>>>>> like? they would only be interested in the very best and
>>>>>>>> brightest; the most qualified and capable. me thinketh that
>>>>>>>> maybe, just maybe, something is rotten in Denmark! :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong as usual felix. I worked for NASA and I worked as a
>>>>>>> programmer but I didn't work as a programmer for NASA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> oh, I'm expected to take such interest in you that I'm expected to
>>>>>> know such details am I, fukwit. but of course you didn't, you're
>>>>>> no where good enough
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't be bothered to get it s\right, you should STFU
>>>>> otherwise you just look stupid.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> by telling us about your incredible programming talent and skills,
>>>> and THEN saying you worked for NASA, you created the impression that
>>>> you were employed by them as a programmer. but we now know you just
>>>> emptied rubbish bins at NASA and probably just programmed a
>>>> Commodore 64 for the kids. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> keith preferred this
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Sinclair-ZX81.png
>>> to a real computer.
>>>
>>> The Z80 uses twice as many cycles (4 on average) to execute an opcode
>>> compared to 2 cycles on average for the a 6502 (6510/8500 in the C64,
>>> same core). The Z80 is inefficient and slow, like keith.
>>>
>>
>> ROTFL, I've never owned a Sinclair, or a Commodore games machine, I've
>> preferred real computers.
>
>
> Nope, no evidence to support that claim so...
>

Oh, and btw... if you worked for NASA how is it that you seemingly are
oblivious to Commodore Amigas used at NASA?

"Gary Jones, principal systems engineer for NASA's software systems at
Cape Canaveral told us the Amigas take in all the telemetry data from
the spacecraft, scale it by applying coefficients of up to fifth order
polynomials and convert the data back to engineering units for display
to the engineers working the launch."

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 18/03/2022 5:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/03/2022 5:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 11/03/2022 7:59 pm, Clocky wrote:
>
>>> How many of the planes you have bolted and riveted together have
>>> taken flight?
>>
>> None recently, but way back several flew with auto-pilots that I had
>> been fiddling with. Interesting days - well to me at least.
>
> What did you do on them? Vacuum the carpet?
>
>

:-)

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 18/03/2022 7:33 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 18/03/2022 8:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 18/03/2022 5:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2022 7:59 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>
>>>> How many of the planes you have bolted and riveted together have
>>>> taken flight?
>>>
>>> None recently, but way back several flew with auto-pilots that I had
>>> been fiddling with. Interesting days - well to me at least.
>>
>> What did you do on them? Vacuum the carpet?
>>
>>
>
> considering that we were castigated for inferring from prior remarks of
> his that he worked as a programmer at NASA, we must not assume that he
> worked on the auto-piloting function, or in fact had anything to do with
> it, so your guess is probably very close to the mark.
>
>

Yep I reckon that too.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 20:49:56 +1100, Noddy wrote:

> On 18/03/2022 5:21 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 14/03/2022 10:25 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, wow. Hear that? That's the sound of no one giving a shit.
>>
>> Then why this reply then?
>
> Oh, I'm sorry. Is no one allowed to comment unless you say so? :)
>
>> Your interest in this is really weird, it's unbelievable that you give a
>> shit whether I make a fool of myself or not, or that you're trying to
>> defend clocky's honour, but you still had to dive in bovver boots and
>> all. So what has spooked you has it hit some sort of sore spot?
>
> Interesting statement. Let's analyse it, shall we?
>
> In the first instance I'm not defending anyone.

Ooooh yes your are! Yourself.

> What I'm actually doing is disagreeing with you, and the fact that you
> can't seem to make the distinction is very telling.

Just add keith to the pile of those who just don't seem to understand what
you're "actually" saying. Gosh that's a big pile now. Odd hey Fraudster?
>
> In the second instance, you're free to make as much of an absolute
> *twat* of yourself as you like and don't need anyone's permission to do
> that, but what I found to be absolutely astonishing about your
> "Challenge" is that you'd achieved nothing other than doing a complete
> 180 degree turn where you moved from criticising people for following a
> particular course of action to doing *precisely* what they've done and
> somehow thinking that it's perfectly fine if *you* do it.

Nope. No self-interest here.
>
> Lastly, and if we're going to be honest here,

Gak! Fraudster being "honest"! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

> your "challenge" had
> nothing to do with testing anyone's integrity but rather was a poorly
> devised opportunity for you to position yourself as the group's resident
> authority where you could sit in judgement of whoever you liked and make
> yourself feel superior.

Any derisory comment or reference to mirrors is entirely redundant here.

> How sad, and *utterly* ridiculous.
>
>> I looked at the sketch that you so cleverly modified to suit your needs,
>
> What "sketch"?

Indeed. Curious.
>
>> it's about as basic as it gets, it does what it says but it is pretty
>> badly written, and changing a couple of values in it is to programming
>> what changing a spark plug is to being a motor mechanic.
>
> In other words, it was so easy anyone could do it. Huh?
>
> That concludes the case for the defendant, You're Honour.

lol!
A double play from Gibbens!
1) You're prosecuting Der Der.
2) "... defendant, You're Honour". Hahaha.

alvey
“My command of the language is quite good even if I do say so myself.”
Fraudster, 06Aug20

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 22:23:54 +0800, Clocky wrote:

> On 18/03/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 12/03/2022 11:17 am, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2022 7:18 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 11/03/2022 8:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 11/03/2022 6:32 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 9:27 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 1:04 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL, keith, mate... you seem to have a very high opinion of
>>>>>>>>> yourself as a programmer - so successful and highly paid that
>>>>>>>>> you could afford such prestige vehicles as a Cordia Turbo and
>>>>>>>>> Miata. You must have been ace to be able to afford those two
>>>>>>>>> examples of motoring excellence... :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> he claims he worked at NASA as a programmer but has no formal
>>>>>>>> qualifications, and was in a senior position there, iirc. can you
>>>>>>>> imagine what the competition to be employed at NASA would be
>>>>>>>> like? they would only be interested in the very best and
>>>>>>>> brightest; the most qualified and capable. me thinketh that
>>>>>>>> maybe, just maybe, something is rotten in Denmark! :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong as usual felix. I worked for NASA and I worked as a
>>>>>>> programmer but I didn't work as a programmer for NASA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> oh, I'm expected to take such interest in you that I'm expected to
>>>>>> know such details am I, fukwit. but of course you didn't, you're no
>>>>>> where good enough
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't be bothered to get it s\right, you should STFU
>>>>> otherwise you just look stupid.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> by telling us about your incredible programming talent and skills,
>>>> and THEN saying you worked for NASA, you created the impression that
>>>> you were employed by them as a programmer. but we now know you just
>>>> emptied rubbish bins at NASA and probably just programmed a Commodore
>>>> 64 for the kids. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> keith preferred this
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Sinclair-ZX81.png
>>> to a real computer.
>>>
>>> The Z80 uses twice as many cycles (4 on average) to execute an opcode
>>> compared to 2 cycles on average for the a 6502 (6510/8500 in the C64,
>>> same core). The Z80 is inefficient and slow, like keith.
>>>
>>
>> ROTFL, I've never owned a Sinclair, or a Commodore games machine, I've
>> preferred real computers.
>
> Nope, no evidence to support that claim so...

TBF, that's a tad difficult to prove. Not many make a vid of themselves
standing in front of Big Iron.

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Saturday, 19 March 2022 at 01:29:10 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
> On 18/03/2022 2:11 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> > On 12/03/2022 9:18 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> >
> >> by telling us about your incredible programming talent and skills, and
> >> THEN saying you worked for NASA, you created the impression that you
> >> were employed by them as a programmer. but we now know you just
> >> emptied rubbish bins at NASA and probably just programmed a Commodore
> >> 64 for the kids. :)
> >
> > "You created the impression that you were employed by them as a
> > programmer" only in your tiny mind, it ain't my fault if your arithmetic
> > is so bad that you think that 2+2=10000000000000000000.
> That yet another example of your faulty ALU.
>
> When you claim you're expertise as a programmer and then mention working
> for NASA you create the impression that you worked as a programmer for NASA.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah well, the typical braindead, non thinking, flop might interpret his words as such. :)))
(Especially those with an agenda, one who has been handed his arse on multiple occasions, and is desperately trying to regain his mojo. However, it be gone boi )
BTW, That would be 'your'.....HTH. ;)))
> --
> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
> it is unproven, he is lying."

On 19/3/2022 6:05 am, alvey wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 20:49:56 +1100, Noddy wrote:
>
>> On 18/03/2022 5:21 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 14/03/2022 10:25 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh, wow. Hear that? That's the sound of no one giving a shit.
>>>
>>> Then why this reply then?
>>
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Is no one allowed to comment unless you say so? :)
>>
>>> Your interest in this is really weird, it's unbelievable that you give a
>>> shit whether I make a fool of myself or not, or that you're trying to
>>> defend clocky's honour, but you still had to dive in bovver boots and
>>> all. So what has spooked you has it hit some sort of sore spot?
>>
>> Interesting statement. Let's analyse it, shall we?
>>
>> In the first instance I'm not defending anyone.
>
> Ooooh yes your are! Yourself.
>
>> What I'm actually doing is disagreeing with you, and the fact that you
>> can't seem to make the distinction is very telling.
>
> Just add keith to the pile of those who just don't seem to understand what
> you're "actually" saying. Gosh that's a big pile now. Odd hey Fraudster?
>>
>> In the second instance, you're free to make as much of an absolute
>> *twat* of yourself as you like and don't need anyone's permission to do
>> that, but what I found to be absolutely astonishing about your
>> "Challenge" is that you'd achieved nothing other than doing a complete
>> 180 degree turn where you moved from criticising people for following a
>> particular course of action to doing *precisely* what they've done and
>> somehow thinking that it's perfectly fine if *you* do it.
>
> Nope. No self-interest here.
>>
>> Lastly, and if we're going to be honest here,
>
> Gak! Fraudster being "honest"! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

What, he doesn't know the meaning of the word much less possess an
understanding of the concept of being honest.
>
>> your "challenge" had
>> nothing to do with testing anyone's integrity but rather was a poorly
>> devised opportunity for you to position yourself as the group's resident
>> authority where you could sit in judgement of whoever you liked and make
>> yourself feel superior.
>
> Any derisory comment or reference to mirrors is entirely redundant here.

You noticed that too, huh?
>
>> How sad, and *utterly* ridiculous.
>>
>>> I looked at the sketch that you so cleverly modified to suit your needs,
>>
>> What "sketch"?
>
> Indeed. Curious.

Whilst I saw no link to said sketch, what is being referred to is this;

https://thestempedia.com/tutorials/arduino-sketch-structure-flow/

I have an Arduino here - somewhere.
>>
>>> it's about as basic as it gets, it does what it says but it is pretty
>>> badly written, and changing a couple of values in it is to programming
>>> what changing a spark plug is to being a motor mechanic.
>>
>> In other words, it was so easy anyone could do it. Huh?
>>
>> That concludes the case for the defendant, You're Honour.
>
> lol!
> A double play from Gibbens!
> 1) You're prosecuting Der Der.
> 2) "... defendant, You're Honour". Hahaha.
>
>
> alvey
> “My command of the language is quite good even if I do say so myself.”
> Fraudster, 06Aug20
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 19/03/2022 3:09 am, alvey wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 22:23:54 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>
>> On 18/03/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2022 11:17 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/2022 7:18 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>> On 11/03/2022 8:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 6:32 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 9:27 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 1:04 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LOL, keith, mate... you seem to have a very high opinion of
>>>>>>>>>> yourself as a programmer - so successful and highly paid that
>>>>>>>>>> you could afford such prestige vehicles as a Cordia Turbo and
>>>>>>>>>> Miata. You must have been ace to be able to afford those two
>>>>>>>>>> examples of motoring excellence... :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> he claims he worked at NASA as a programmer but has no formal
>>>>>>>>> qualifications, and was in a senior position there, iirc. can you
>>>>>>>>> imagine what the competition to be employed at NASA would be
>>>>>>>>> like? they would only be interested in the very best and
>>>>>>>>> brightest; the most qualified and capable. me thinketh that
>>>>>>>>> maybe, just maybe, something is rotten in Denmark! :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong as usual felix. I worked for NASA and I worked as a
>>>>>>>> programmer but I didn't work as a programmer for NASA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> oh, I'm expected to take such interest in you that I'm expected to
>>>>>>> know such details am I, fukwit. but of course you didn't, you're no
>>>>>>> where good enough
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can't be bothered to get it s\right, you should STFU
>>>>>> otherwise you just look stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> by telling us about your incredible programming talent and skills,
>>>>> and THEN saying you worked for NASA, you created the impression that
>>>>> you were employed by them as a programmer. but we now know you just
>>>>> emptied rubbish bins at NASA and probably just programmed a Commodore
>>>>> 64 for the kids. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> keith preferred this
>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Sinclair-ZX81.png
>>>> to a real computer.
>>>>
>>>> The Z80 uses twice as many cycles (4 on average) to execute an opcode
>>>> compared to 2 cycles on average for the a 6502 (6510/8500 in the C64,
>>>> same core). The Z80 is inefficient and slow, like keith.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ROTFL, I've never owned a Sinclair, or a Commodore games machine, I've
>>> preferred real computers.
>>
>> Nope, no evidence to support that claim so...
>
> TBF, that's a tad difficult to prove.

keith makes lots of claims.

Not many make a vid of themselves
> standing in front of Big Iron.
>

I've seen no evidence of his programs, no photos or anything else that
supports his claims.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 00:38:39 +0800, Clocky wrote:

> On 19/03/2022 3:09 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 22:23:54 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/03/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/2022 11:17 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/2022 7:18 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 8:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 6:32 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 9:27 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 1:04 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LOL, keith, mate... you seem to have a very high opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>> yourself as a programmer - so successful and highly paid that
>>>>>>>>>>> you could afford such prestige vehicles as a Cordia Turbo and
>>>>>>>>>>> Miata. You must have been ace to be able to afford those two
>>>>>>>>>>> examples of motoring excellence... :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> he claims he worked at NASA as a programmer but has no formal
>>>>>>>>>> qualifications, and was in a senior position there, iirc. can you
>>>>>>>>>> imagine what the competition to be employed at NASA would be
>>>>>>>>>> like? they would only be interested in the very best and
>>>>>>>>>> brightest; the most qualified and capable. me thinketh that
>>>>>>>>>> maybe, just maybe, something is rotten in Denmark! :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong as usual felix. I worked for NASA and I worked as a
>>>>>>>>> programmer but I didn't work as a programmer for NASA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> oh, I'm expected to take such interest in you that I'm expected to
>>>>>>>> know such details am I, fukwit. but of course you didn't, you're no
>>>>>>>> where good enough
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you can't be bothered to get it s\right, you should STFU
>>>>>>> otherwise you just look stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> by telling us about your incredible programming talent and skills,
>>>>>> and THEN saying you worked for NASA, you created the impression that
>>>>>> you were employed by them as a programmer. but we now know you just
>>>>>> emptied rubbish bins at NASA and probably just programmed a Commodore
>>>>>> 64 for the kids. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> keith preferred this
>>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Sinclair-ZX81.png
>>>>> to a real computer.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Z80 uses twice as many cycles (4 on average) to execute an opcode
>>>>> compared to 2 cycles on average for the a 6502 (6510/8500 in the C64,
>>>>> same core). The Z80 is inefficient and slow, like keith.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ROTFL, I've never owned a Sinclair, or a Commodore games machine, I've
>>>> preferred real computers.
>>>
>>> Nope, no evidence to support that claim so...
>>
>> TBF, that's a tad difficult to prove.
>
> keith makes lots of claims.
>
> Not many make a vid of themselves
>> standing in front of Big Iron.
>>
>
> I've seen no evidence of his programs, no photos or anything else that
> supports his claims.

Meh. Could be worse.
He could be a witless and abusive gobshite like Fraudster.

Oh btw... re keith & NASA... It wasn't a light-sabre, I think he used to
wield a soldering iron for them.

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 20/03/2022 4:14 am, alvey wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 00:38:39 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>
>> On 19/03/2022 3:09 am, alvey wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 22:23:54 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18/03/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/2022 11:17 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/03/2022 7:18 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 8:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 6:32 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 9:27 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 1:04 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL, keith, mate... you seem to have a very high opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself as a programmer - so successful and highly paid that
>>>>>>>>>>>> you could afford such prestige vehicles as a Cordia Turbo and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Miata. You must have been ace to be able to afford those two
>>>>>>>>>>>> examples of motoring excellence... :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> he claims he worked at NASA as a programmer but has no formal
>>>>>>>>>>> qualifications, and was in a senior position there, iirc. can you
>>>>>>>>>>> imagine what the competition to be employed at NASA would be
>>>>>>>>>>> like? they would only be interested in the very best and
>>>>>>>>>>> brightest; the most qualified and capable. me thinketh that
>>>>>>>>>>> maybe, just maybe, something is rotten in Denmark! :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wrong as usual felix. I worked for NASA and I worked as a
>>>>>>>>>> programmer but I didn't work as a programmer for NASA.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> oh, I'm expected to take such interest in you that I'm expected to
>>>>>>>>> know such details am I, fukwit. but of course you didn't, you're no
>>>>>>>>> where good enough
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you can't be bothered to get it s\right, you should STFU
>>>>>>>> otherwise you just look stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by telling us about your incredible programming talent and skills,
>>>>>>> and THEN saying you worked for NASA, you created the impression that
>>>>>>> you were employed by them as a programmer. but we now know you just
>>>>>>> emptied rubbish bins at NASA and probably just programmed a Commodore
>>>>>>> 64 for the kids. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> keith preferred this
>>>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Sinclair-ZX81.png
>>>>>> to a real computer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Z80 uses twice as many cycles (4 on average) to execute an opcode
>>>>>> compared to 2 cycles on average for the a 6502 (6510/8500 in the C64,
>>>>>> same core). The Z80 is inefficient and slow, like keith.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFL, I've never owned a Sinclair, or a Commodore games machine, I've
>>>>> preferred real computers.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, no evidence to support that claim so...
>>>
>>> TBF, that's a tad difficult to prove.
>>
>> keith makes lots of claims.
>>
>> Not many make a vid of themselves
>>> standing in front of Big Iron.
>>>
>>
>> I've seen no evidence of his programs, no photos or anything else that
>> supports his claims.
>
> Meh. Could be worse.
> He could be a witless and abusive gobshite like Fraudster.
>
> Oh btw... re keith & NASA... It wasn't a light-sabre, I think he used to
> wield a soldering iron for them.
>
>

If he did he would still know that NASA used Commodore computers for a
decade (a well documented fact) but apparently he has no idea about that
either.

Perhaps he pushed a broom around the place and didn't notice...

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 20/3/2022 2:06 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 20/03/2022 4:14 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 00:38:39 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/03/2022 3:09 am, alvey wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 22:23:54 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 18/03/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/03/2022 11:17 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/03/2022 7:18 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 8:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 6:32 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 9:27 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 1:04 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL, keith, mate... you seem to have a very high opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself as a programmer - so successful and highly paid that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you could afford such prestige vehicles as a Cordia Turbo and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Miata. You must have been ace to be able to afford those two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples of motoring excellence... :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> he claims he worked at NASA as a programmer but has no formal
>>>>>>>>>>>> qualifications, and was in a senior position there, iirc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> can you
>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine what the competition to be employed at NASA would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> like? they would only be interested in the very best and
>>>>>>>>>>>> brightest; the most qualified and capable. me thinketh that
>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe, just maybe, something is rotten in Denmark! :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong as usual felix. I worked for NASA and I worked as a
>>>>>>>>>>> programmer but I didn't work as a programmer for NASA.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> oh, I'm expected to take such interest in you that I'm
>>>>>>>>>> expected to
>>>>>>>>>> know such details am I, fukwit. but of course you didn't,
>>>>>>>>>> you're no
>>>>>>>>>> where good enough
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you can't be bothered to get it s\right, you should STFU
>>>>>>>>> otherwise you just look stupid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> by telling us about your incredible programming talent and skills,
>>>>>>>> and THEN saying you worked for NASA, you created the impression
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> you were employed by them as a programmer. but we now know you just
>>>>>>>> emptied rubbish bins at NASA and probably just programmed a
>>>>>>>> Commodore
>>>>>>>> 64 for the kids. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> keith preferred this
>>>>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Sinclair-ZX81.png
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to a real computer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Z80 uses twice as many cycles (4 on average) to execute an
>>>>>>> opcode
>>>>>>> compared to 2 cycles on average for the a 6502 (6510/8500 in the
>>>>>>> C64,
>>>>>>> same core). The Z80 is inefficient and slow, like keith.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ROTFL, I've never owned a Sinclair, or a Commodore games machine,
>>>>>> I've
>>>>>> preferred real computers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, no evidence to support that claim so...
>>>>
>>>> TBF, that's a tad difficult to prove.
>>>
>>> keith makes lots of claims.
>>>
>>>    Not many make a vid of themselves
>>>> standing in front of Big Iron.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've seen no evidence of his programs, no photos or anything else that
>>> supports his claims.
>>
>> Meh. Could be worse.
>> He could be a witless and abusive gobshite like Fraudster.
>>
>> Oh btw... re keith & NASA... It wasn't a light-sabre, I think he used to
>> wield a soldering iron for them.
>>
>>
>
> If he did he would still know that NASA used Commodore computers for a
> decade (a well documented fact) but apparently he has no idea about that
> either.

They were *still* using the Amiga until 2006, 12 years *after* Commodore
itself went under.
>
> Perhaps he pushed a broom around the place and didn't notice...
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)