On 28 Jun 2023 at 18:48:04 CEST, "Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguilar96@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I have no way of finding this out myself because I can't run VFX on my
> computer.

Of course you can. You just do not have the guts to do it.

Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, stephen@vfxforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering, Ltd. - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, +44 (0)78 0390 3612,
+34 649 662 974
http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 2:37:51 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2023 at 18:48:04 CEST, "Hugh Aguilar" <hughag...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I have no way of finding this out myself because I can't run VFX on my
> > computer. h
> Of course you can. You just do not have the guts to do it.
> Stephen

I don't have the guts to run known malware on my computer.
You have already sabotaged VFX to crash when it detected code
from my novice-package, although the code is ANS-Forth compliant.
What is the next level of your VFX sabotage? Erase my hard-disk?

Why don't you just tell me. Did you "invent" (steal) the rquotations
for this version of VFX or do you still have the worthless Paysan-faked
quotations that you had in the previous version? With the Paysan-faked
quotations in VFX you look like an idiot, but with the rquotations you
look like an intellectual-property thief. Which do you prefer?

Also, define the word "sin" so that all of your potential customers can know
if you consider them to be sinners or not, and if your sabotage of VFX
will be aimed at them or not.
I wrote an MSP430 assembler --- in the Middle Ages I would have been
burned at the stake for that! --- now you sabotage VFX to stop me.

On 30/06/2023 9:53 am, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 2:37:51 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote:
>> On 28 Jun 2023 at 18:48:04 CEST, "Hugh Aguilar" <hughag...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I have no way of finding this out myself because I can't run VFX on my
>>> computer. h
>> Of course you can. You just do not have the guts to do it.
>> Stephen
>
> I don't have the guts to run known malware on my computer.
> You have already sabotaged VFX to crash when it detected code
> from my novice-package, although the code is ANS-Forth compliant.
> What is the next level of your VFX sabotage? Erase my hard-disk?
>
> Why don't you just tell me. Did you "invent" (steal) the rquotations
> for this version of VFX or do you still have the worthless Paysan-faked
> quotations that you had in the previous version? With the Paysan-faked
> quotations in VFX you look like an idiot, but with the rquotations you
> look like an intellectual-property thief. Which do you prefer?
>
> Also, define the word "sin" so that all of your potential customers can know
> if you consider them to be sinners or not, and if your sabotage of VFX
> will be aimed at them or not.
> I wrote an MSP430 assembler --- in the Middle Ages I would have been
> burned at the stake for that! --- now you sabotage VFX to stop me.

Giordano Bruno and Joan of Arc would have had the guts to run VFX on
their computer.

On Friday, 30 June 2023 at 00:53:29 UTC+1, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 2:37:51 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> > On 28 Jun 2023 at 18:48:04 CEST, "Hugh Aguilar" <hughag...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I have no way of finding this out myself because I can't run VFX on my
> > > computer. h
> > Of course you can. You just do not have the guts to do it.
> > Stephen
> I don't have the guts to run known malware on my computer.
> You have already sabotaged VFX to crash when it detected code
> from my novice-package, although the code is ANS-Forth compliant.
> What is the next level of your VFX sabotage? Erase my hard-disk?
>
> Why don't you just tell me. Did you "invent" (steal) the rquotations
> for this version of VFX or do you still have the worthless Paysan-faked
> quotations that you had in the previous version? With the Paysan-faked
> quotations in VFX you look like an idiot, but with the rquotations you
> look like an intellectual-property thief. Which do you prefer?
>
> Also, define the word "sin" so that all of your potential customers can know
> if you consider them to be sinners or not, and if your sabotage of VFX
> will be aimed at them or not.
> I wrote an MSP430 assembler --- in the Middle Ages I would have been
> burned at the stake for that! --- now you sabotage VFX to stop me.

What a heap of BULLSHIT .
You are just talking.

It would be simple and no risk - probably too simple for you ,
to ask around who has a PC in the corner, not used ,
to prove it either way.
But this is too risky for you.
Then you would not have anything to complain about anymore.

PROVE IT OR SHUT UP.

Or you could buy a cheap laptop for £100 and prove it.

On 30 Jun 2023 at 01:53:26 CEST, "Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguilar96@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I don't have the guts to run known malware on my computer.
> You have already sabotaged VFX to crash when it detected code
> from my novice-package, although the code is ANS-Forth compliant.
> What is the next level of your VFX sabotage? Erase my hard-disk?

You now admit that you can run VFX on your computer, and you "know"
that VFX can detect your code. I really cannot be bothered with the
novice package when people with apps of 155,000 and 1.2M SLOC
are pleasant and easy to deal with.

> Why don't you just tell me. Did you "invent" (steal) the rquotations
> for this version of VFX or do you still have the worthless Paysan-faked
> quotations that you had in the previous version? With the Paysan-faked
> quotations in VFX you look like an idiot, but with the rquotations you
> look like an intellectual-property thief. Which do you prefer?

Are you lazy or stupid? The assumption of either/or could be
considered both. We have all dealt with this since childhood, so
a third choice could be childish. This fallacious argument is an
example of a false dichotomy.

https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/docs/107-2016-02-17-Fallacious%20Arguments.pdf
Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation):
assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. For
example,
assuming Atheism is the only alternative to Fundamentalism, or being a traitor
is
the only alternative to being a loud patriot.

You and I could trade insults for ever, but I choose only to permit
myself an annual round, and I usually regret the waste of time
afterwards.

VFX has the same quotations as described in the Forth standard.

> Also, define the word "sin" so that all of your potential customers can know
> if you consider them to be sinners or not, and if your sabotage of VFX
> will be aimed at them or not.

Once upon a when, VFX re-ran source code to improve performance.
When it was proven that this technique cannot produce compliant
code, we replaced the source inliner with the tokeniser. Your question
as to the meaning of "sin" is answered in the first paragraph
of the manual section about the tokeniser. This documentation
has been available to you for many, many years, probably since 2009.

\ *P From VFX Forth v4.3, build 2825, the tokeniser replaces the
\ ** previous source inliner. The change was made to improve ANS
\ ** and Forth200x standards compliance, and to reduce issues
\ ** with particularly "guru" code. To prevent breaking your
\ ** existing code, the tokeniser uses the same word names for
\ ** its control words. The abbreviation "sin" is short for "source
\ ** inline".

--
Stephen Pelc, stephen@vfxforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering, Ltd. - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, +44 (0)78 0390 3612,
+34 649 662 974
http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:05:46 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> VFX has the same quotations as described in the Forth standard.

You don't know how to implement general-purpose data-structures.
VFX has never provided any general-purpose data-structures and
there is no evidence to indicate that you or anybody else on the
Forth-200x committee know how to implement such a thing.
Your employee Peter Knaggs, also a Forth-200x committee member,
failed to implement a linked-list --- that is pathetic incompetence!
Your failure to understand the concept of general-purpose data-structures
is why you accept the Paysan-faked quotations that are worthless.

> > Also, define the word "sin" so that all of your potential customers can know
> > if you consider them to be sinners or not, and if your sabotage of VFX
> > will be aimed at them or not.
> Once upon a when, VFX re-ran source code to improve performance.
> When it was proven that this technique cannot produce compliant
> code, we replaced the source inliner with the tokeniser. Your question
> as to the meaning of "sin" is answered in the first paragraph
> of the manual section about the tokeniser. This documentation
> has been available to you for many, many years, probably since 2009.
>
> \ *P From VFX Forth v4.3, build 2825, the tokeniser replaces the
> \ ** previous source inliner. The change was made to improve ANS
> \ ** and Forth200x standards compliance, and to reduce issues
> \ ** with particularly "guru" code. To prevent breaking your
> \ ** existing code, the tokeniser uses the same word names for
> \ ** its control words. The abbreviation "sin" is short for "source
> \ ** inline".

This is bullshit!
My novice-package worked fine under VFX for many, many years,
since 2010. Then with this recent VFX version you specifically targeted
the disambiguifiers with sabotage of VFX, and the word to undo
the sabotage is doNotSin. LIT, and the disambiguifiers aren't "guru code"
(whatever that means). This is just the use of POSTPONE inside of a
colon definition.

You have been attacking the disambiguifiers with lies.
Now you claim that it is just a coincidence that VFX fails on the
disambiguifiers, and the word to fix this is: doNotSin

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 2:27:41 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:28:18 -0700 (PDT), hughag...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >My complaint against Stephen Pelc is that he uses dishonest business practi> >ces. He supports ANS-Forth and Forth-200x for the purpose of making all For> >th programmers look stupid. He doesn't actually use ANS-Forth himself. He r> >outinely provides vendor-specific code in VFX, even when it is easy to writ> >e the code in ANS-Forth, for the purpose of trapping his customers in vendo> >r lock-in. A good example is SYNONYM --- I can write this in ANS-Forth usin> >g my disambiguifiers --- he insists that this is impossible to write in ANS> >-Forth --- he refuses to admit that the disambiguifiers exist because he wa> >nts ANS-Forth's FIND to behave differently in every ANS-Forth compiler.
>
> Hugh's wonderful disambiguifiers do NOT do what the great Hugh thinks
> they do. What the great Hugh has done is to redefine a large number of
> words so that they behave in a very restricted way to support the
> great Hugh's version of Forth. Hugh's SYNONYM is not portable ANS
> Forth unless you use Hugh's Forth. Bah, humbug. Another emperor
> with no clothes.
>
> Stephen

You are a liar!
This is described here:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/T-yYkpVwYew/m/fnXe90wUAgAJ

You want people to be "pleasant" to you --- this means that you want
brown-nosers who accept your blatant lies without question --- you find it
quite unpleasant when your blatant lies are pointed out in public.

On Saturday, 1 July 2023 at 01:38:34 UTC+1, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:05:46 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> > VFX has the same quotations as described in the Forth standard.
> You don't know how to implement general-purpose data-structures.
> VFX has never provided any general-purpose data-structures and
> there is no evidence to indicate that you or anybody else on the
> Forth-200x committee know how to implement such a thing.
> Your employee Peter Knaggs, also a Forth-200x committee member,
> failed to implement a linked-list --- that is pathetic incompetence!
> Your failure to understand the concept of general-purpose data-structures
> is why you accept the Paysan-faked quotations that are worthless.
> > > Also, define the word "sin" so that all of your potential customers can know
> > > if you consider them to be sinners or not, and if your sabotage of VFX
> > > will be aimed at them or not.
> > Once upon a when, VFX re-ran source code to improve performance.
> > When it was proven that this technique cannot produce compliant
> > code, we replaced the source inliner with the tokeniser. Your question
> > as to the meaning of "sin" is answered in the first paragraph
> > of the manual section about the tokeniser. This documentation
> > has been available to you for many, many years, probably since 2009.
> >
> > \ *P From VFX Forth v4.3, build 2825, the tokeniser replaces the
> > \ ** previous source inliner. The change was made to improve ANS
> > \ ** and Forth200x standards compliance, and to reduce issues
> > \ ** with particularly "guru" code. To prevent breaking your
> > \ ** existing code, the tokeniser uses the same word names for
> > \ ** its control words. The abbreviation "sin" is short for "source
> > \ ** inline".
> This is bullshit!
> My novice-package worked fine under VFX for many, many years,
> since 2010. Then with this recent VFX version you specifically targeted
> the disambiguifiers with sabotage of VFX, and the word to undo
> the sabotage is doNotSin. LIT, and the disambiguifiers aren't "guru code"
> (whatever that means). This is just the use of POSTPONE inside of a
> colon definition.
>
> You have been attacking the disambiguifiers with lies.
> Now you claim that it is just a coincidence that VFX fails on the
> disambiguifiers, and the word to fix this is: doNotSin
>
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 2:27:41 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:28:18 -0700 (PDT), hughag...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > >My complaint against Stephen Pelc is that he uses dishonest business practi=
> > >ces. He supports ANS-Forth and Forth-200x for the purpose of making all For=
> > >th programmers look stupid. He doesn't actually use ANS-Forth himself. He r=
> > >outinely provides vendor-specific code in VFX, even when it is easy to writ=
> > >e the code in ANS-Forth, for the purpose of trapping his customers in vendo=
> > >r lock-in. A good example is SYNONYM --- I can write this in ANS-Forth usin=
> > >g my disambiguifiers --- he insists that this is impossible to write in ANS=
> > >-Forth --- he refuses to admit that the disambiguifiers exist because he wa=
> > >nts ANS-Forth's FIND to behave differently in every ANS-Forth compiler..
> >
> > Hugh's wonderful disambiguifiers do NOT do what the great Hugh thinks
> > they do. What the great Hugh has done is to redefine a large number of
> > words so that they behave in a very restricted way to support the
> > great Hugh's version of Forth. Hugh's SYNONYM is not portable ANS
> > Forth unless you use Hugh's Forth. Bah, humbug. Another emperor
> > with no clothes.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> You are a liar!
> This is described here:
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/T-yYkpVwYew/m/fnXe90wUAgAJ
>
> You want people to be "pleasant" to you --- this means that you want
> brown-nosers who accept your blatant lies without question --- you find it
> quite unpleasant when your blatant lies are pointed out in public.

What a heap of BULLSHIT .
You are just talking.

It would be simple and no risk - probably too simple for you ,
to ask around who has a PC in the corner, not used ,
to prove it either way.
But this is too risky for you.
Then you would not have anything to complain about anymore.

PROVE IT OR SHUT UP.

Or you could buy a cheap laptop for £100 and prove it.
And sell it on ebay and make money after you could not prove it.