On 20/03/2022 4:38 pm, Xeno wrote:
> 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.

Evivently NASA knew something that keith doesn't which makes you
wonder... what exactly was keith doing at NASA for him to be completely
unaware of this fact? It couldn't have been anything technology based or
he wouldn't have made his silly remarks.
Parking lot attendant maybe?

>>
>> 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 21/03/2022 2:13 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 20/03/2022 4:38 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Evivently NASA knew something that keith doesn't which makes you
> wonder... what exactly was keith doing at NASA for him to be
> completely unaware of this fact? It couldn't have been anything
> technology based or he wouldn't have made his silly remarks.
> Parking lot attendant maybe?

😁

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

--
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 21/3/2022 2:13 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 20/03/2022 4:38 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Evivently NASA knew something that keith doesn't which makes you
> wonder... what exactly was keith doing at NASA for him to be completely
> unaware of this fact? It couldn't have been anything technology based or
> he wouldn't have made his silly remarks.

Indeed! Apparently those attributes that make a computer ideal for
*gaming* also make it *perfect* for NASA's requirements.

> Parking lot attendant maybe?
>
>>>
>>> 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)

On 21/03/2022 12:07 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 21/3/2022 2:13 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 20/03/2022 4:38 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Evivently NASA knew something that keith doesn't which makes you
>> wonder... what exactly was keith doing at NASA for him to be
>> completely unaware of this fact? It couldn't have been anything
>> technology based or he wouldn't have made his silly remarks.
>
> Indeed!  Apparently those attributes that make a computer ideal for
> *gaming* also make it *perfect* for NASA's requirements.
>

A powerful computer is often good at gaming but probably more to do with
it's pre-emptively multitasking 32 bit OS, flexible screen modes,
multimedia capabilities, Zorro bus and Autoconfig (plug 'n' play) making
for easy and flexible interfacing and therefore perfect for data
acquisition and control I'd suggest. PC's wouldn't have that for another
10 years at a significantly higher cost.

>> Parking lot attendant maybe?
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 18/03/2022 7:52 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?

Flight experiments.

On 18/03/2022 7:49 pm, 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. What I'm actually doing
> is disagreeing with you, and the fact that you can't seem to make the
> distinction is very telling.

Yearh right.

> 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.

"Groups resident authority"? There are a number of self ordained
resident authorities around here including yourself.

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

The little program to to make your switches click on click off. On
Arduinos, programs are know as sketches for some reason.

>> 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?

So anybody who can change a spark plug can call themselves a mechanic

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

In that case, take him down - 20 years hard labour with no parole.

On 19/03/2022 12:23 am, 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...
>
<yawn> how much evidence do you have of anything that you've ever done?

On 19/03/2022 12:39 am, Clocky wrote:
> 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?

Not where I worked, at Carnarvon we had Univac 1210 machines, at Island
Lagoon we had XDS 910 and 930 machines, at Orrorral we had an ADECS37A
and a Packard Bell PB250. Not a commodore in sight. The I started
working on real computers.

> "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."
>
And?

On 20/03/2022 1:06 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.

Perhaps you failed to notice that NASA is/was a huge organisation, just
because some section used them doesn't mean that everybody cam into
contact with them.

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

Perhaps he was too busy with tuning paramentric amplifiers, working with
hydraulic and cryogenic systems, PCM telemetry decommutator systems and
many other thing that you've never heard of.

On 21/03/2022 3:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 21/03/2022 12:07 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 21/3/2022 2:13 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 20/03/2022 4:38 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Evivently NASA knew something that keith doesn't which makes you
>>> wonder... what exactly was keith doing at NASA for him to be
>>> completely unaware of this fact? It couldn't have been anything
>>> technology based or he wouldn't have made his silly remarks.
>>
>> Indeed!  Apparently those attributes that make a computer ideal for
>> *gaming* also make it *perfect* for NASA's requirements.
>>
>
> A powerful computer is often good at gaming but probably more to do with
> it's pre-emptively multitasking 32 bit OS, flexible screen modes,
> multimedia capabilities, Zorro bus and Autoconfig (plug 'n' play) making
> for easy and flexible interfacing and therefore perfect for data
> acquisition and control I'd suggest. PC's wouldn't have that for another
> 10 years at a significantly higher cost.

What a load of bullshit, anyway what you don't seem to realise is that I
left NASAs employ many years before the Amiga came out, to work on real
computers.

On 19/03/2022 12:28 am, 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.
>
>
Either you you are an idiot or you just believed what you wanted to
believe, take your pick.

On 19/03/2022 12:18 am, Clocky wrote:
> 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.

And what proof have you ever provided about your activities? Like I
said, now it's just petty insults. Sad really.

On 28/03/2022 6:05 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 18/03/2022 7:52 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?
>
> Flight experiments.

Did you go to a special school to learn to be this vague? :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 28/03/2022 6:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 18/03/2022 7:49 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>> 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.
>
> Yearh right.

Of course the irony here is that in holding this view you are adopting
the very view that you've spent the last few months criticising the FLC
for holding :)

>> 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.
>
> "Groups resident authority"? There are a number of self ordained
> resident authorities around here including yourself.

And you're feeling a bit left out apparently....

>> How sad, and *utterly* ridiculous.
>>
>>> I looked at the sketch that you so cleverly modified to suit your needs,
>>
>> What "sketch"?
>
> The little program to to make your switches click on click off. On
> Arduinos, programs are know as sketches for some reason.

Right. I never published anything relating to what I did, so I don't
know what you looked at.

>>> 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.

And this is your problem *right* here, Keefy.

Your comments are utterly ridiculous, as the code is *not* badly written
at all. In fact it is written exactly the way it needs to be in order to
make the events occur that need to occur, and it needs to be no more
elaborate or "fancy" than that. It's not about being complicated, but
rather about being simple, basic code that is easy to follow and you do
not need years of programming experience to pick it up and make use of
it. I'm no programmer and had never used Arduino before in my life, but
I was able to set it up easily and get it working reliably without any
hassle at all, which to me is a testament of the ease in which it can be
made to work.

Moreover, what you have done here in criticising it for it's basic
structure is actually proved Clocky's comments to be true in that it
*is* very basic and indeed anyone *can* do it, and had you not been so
keen to portray yourself as being superior with your silly little
"challenge" you might have been able to see that.

Perhaps next time you might look first and *then* shoot.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 28/03/2022 6:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 19/03/2022 12:18 am, Clocky wrote:

>> 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.
>
>  And what proof have you ever provided about your activities? Like I
> said, now it's just petty insults. Sad really.

Just so you know, you're not dancing solo here :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 28/03/2022 6:35 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 19/03/2022 12:28 am, Clocky wrote:

>> 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.
>>
>>
> Either you you are an idiot or you just believed what you wanted to
> believe, take your pick.

In fairness here Keith, if you weren't so keen to beat your chest and
remind everyone of how thoroughly brilliant you are with continual vague
references this confusion may not exist.

Just to remind you, you *did* post about your programming prowess *and*
that you worked for "NASA" in the same breath, and it was reasonable for
anyone to conclude that the two were connected. I *also* remind you that
if that's *not* the case then feel free to set the record straight about
what you *did* do for NASA.

It would also be interesting to see how it was relevant to anything
being discussed here at the time :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
> On 28/03/2022 6:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 19/03/2022 12:18 am, Clocky wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>>  And what proof have you ever provided about your activities? Like I
>> said, now it's just petty insults. Sad really.
>
> Just so you know, you're not dancing solo here :)
>
You led the way. Such a pity you’re out of step - with reality.

--
Xeno

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
> On 28/03/2022 6:35 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 19/03/2022 12:28 am, Clocky wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>> Either you you are an idiot or you just believed what you wanted to
>> believe, take your pick.
>
> In fairness here Keith, if you weren't so keen to beat your chest and
> remind everyone of how thoroughly brilliant you are with continual vague
> references this confusion may not exist.
>
Omigod, the above from one so delusional, he beats his chest with bullshit
and lies.

> Just to remind you, you *did* post about your programming prowess *and*
> that you worked for "NASA" in the same breath, and it was reasonable for
> anyone to conclude that the two were connected. I *also* remind you that
> if that's *not* the case then feel free to set the record straight about
> what you *did* do for NASA.
>
> It would also be interesting to see how it was relevant to anything
> being discussed here at the time :)
>
>

--
Xeno

On 28/03/2022 3:05 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 18/03/2022 7:52 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?
>
> Flight experiments.
>

Ah, so you were were the crash test dummy.

That explains a lot.

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

On 28/03/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 19/03/2022 12:18 am, Clocky wrote:
>> 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.
>
>  And what proof have you ever provided about your activities?

Which activities specifically? I keep most almost all of my activities
out of this group and barely if ever mention them.

What proof have *you* provided for any of yours aside from your garden
art assembly pics? You're always creaming your pants and belittling
others but where is the evidence to support your claims?

Like I
> said, now it's just petty insults. Sad really.

Not insults, observations.

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

On 28/03/2022 3:21 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 19/03/2022 12:39 am, Clocky wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Not where I worked, at Carnarvon we had Univac 1210 machines, at Island
> Lagoon we had XDS 910 and 930 machines, at Orrorral we had an ADECS37A
> and a Packard Bell PB250. Not a commodore in sight. The I started
> working on real computers.
>
>> "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."
>>
> And?
>

You worked for NASA and you didn't know they used Commodore Amigas where
it mattered. I call bullshit until you provide some evidence for your
grand claims.

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

On 28/03/2022 3:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 21/03/2022 3:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 21/03/2022 12:07 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 21/3/2022 2:13 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 20/03/2022 4:38 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Evivently NASA knew something that keith doesn't which makes you
>>>> wonder... what exactly was keith doing at NASA for him to be
>>>> completely unaware of this fact? It couldn't have been anything
>>>> technology based or he wouldn't have made his silly remarks.
>>>
>>> Indeed!  Apparently those attributes that make a computer ideal for
>>> *gaming* also make it *perfect* for NASA's requirements.
>>>
>>
>> A powerful computer is often good at gaming but probably more to do
>> with it's pre-emptively multitasking 32 bit OS, flexible screen modes,
>> multimedia capabilities, Zorro bus and Autoconfig (plug 'n' play)
>> making for easy and flexible interfacing and therefore perfect for
>> data acquisition and control I'd suggest. PC's wouldn't have that for
>> another 10 years at a significantly higher cost.
>
> What a load of bullshit,

On 28/03/2022 3:35 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 19/03/2022 12:28 am, 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.
>>
>>
> Either you you are an idiot or you just believed what you wanted to
> believe, take your pick.

When you talk of programming and working at NASA in the same breath
*you* creates that impression.

If you can't see why *your* ALU is faulty.

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

On 28/03/2022 3:28 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 20/03/2022 1:06 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.
>
> Perhaps you failed to notice that NASA is/was a huge organisation, just
> because some section used them doesn't mean that everybody cam into
> contact with them.
>

Perhaps when you shoot your load with "or a Commodore games machine,
I've preferred real computers." you shouldn't do so in total ignorance
of the facts so you don't look like a complete wanker.

How about that?

>> Perhaps he pushed a broom around the place and didn't notice...
>
> Perhaps he was too busy with tuning paramentric amplifiers, working with
> hydraulic and cryogenic systems, PCM telemetry decommutator systems and
> many other thing that you've never heard of.
>
>

Yeah but *you* never heard of Amigas at NASA and you claimed to have
worked there! Perhaps you were just told to be careful sweeping up
around those things... I guess we will never know.

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

On 29/03/2022 3:36 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 28/03/2022 3:35 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 19/03/2022 12:28 am, 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.
>>>
>>>
>> Either you you are an idiot or you just believed what you wanted to
>> believe, take your pick.
>
> When you talk of programming and working at NASA in the same breath
> *you* creates that impression.
>
> If you can't see why *your* ALU is faulty.
>

he'll never admit to being wrong about anything

--
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