On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 6:44:55 PM UTC-7, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
> On 2021-10-08, Hugh Aguilar <hughag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think that when an employee takes a job doing a task that the boss doesn't know how
> > to do, this will end badly for the employee. The truth is that John Hart didn't know how
> > to write an assembler for the MiniForth --- the advice he gave me was uniformly bad
> > and I ignored his advice completely --- the out-of-ordering was my own idea and design.
> > Testra won't admit this now. Tom Hart says that MFX was written long before
> > I showed up and I had nothing to do with it.
> >
> When you work for money, you don't think, you just do. No questions asked..
> With your attitude you will not be welcomed anywhere...

Here is a interesting article:
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/17-phrases-great-leaders-never-say-to-employees?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Like a lot of click-bait, this article offers advice on how we can be better people.
In this case, how to inspire employees and not be a toxic boss.
For the most part I agree with this advice. For example, #4 toxic thing to say is:
“You don’t need to know why—just execute.”
The article only listed 17 toxic things to say, but Tom Hart could provide more.
I clearly remember him saying this to me:
"The only reason why you're employed here is that you work for cheap."
Note that this was *after* I wrote MFX (assembler, simulator and Forth cross-compiler).
In retrospect, I should have responded: "Okay then, I quit." I eventually did quit,
but I missed my opportunity to do so directly in response to this toxic comment.

I disagree that some of the 17 phrases are toxic. For example, #10 is:
-------------------------------------------------------
10. “That’s your problem.”
Wrong. If you’re a leader, it’s your problem too.
There’s no faster way to ditch accountability than to use this sentence.
-------------------------------------------------------
In my experience, this is an empowering comment for the boss to make.
This means I can go ahead and do whatever the hell I want to do. Yee haw!!!

For example, when I was an IBM370 assembly-language programmer I would
sometimes be my own CSR (customer-service-representative) because the
customer was being a pain and I didn't want a CSR between me and the customer
because the messages back and forth would get distorted by the confused CSR..
The customers were MBAs and were chronic liars. They would try to get more work done
than was originally agreed to, for the same price. They would tell me that they golf
with my boss every weekend and can get me fired with a comment to him about my
bad attitude and lack of can-do enthusiasm. I spoke to my boss about this.
He said, for one thing, that he doesn't play golf. His office is full of golf memorabilia
because he played golf when he was younger, but he hasn't played in over a decade
due to a back injury. He said that he is aware that the customers are sleazes,
but: "That's your problem." He said that, if it is necessary for him to get involved,
he will back me up 100%, but he doesn't want to get involved --- dealing with these
sleazy customers is what I'm getting paid to do. So, I said: "Okay, then --- I'll deal with it."
What I was thinking was: "Yee haw!!! No more getting intimidated!"
Previously my job had been miserable, but after that meeting my job became fun
and the sleazy customers became miserable trying unsuccessfully to jerk me around.

John Hart routinely said: "That's your problem."
If I asked how to write an assembler for a VLIW processor, this was his response.
I considered this to be empowering at the time.
I also assumed that I would be given credit for succeeding, if I succeeded,
but that didn't work out in the end --- I succeeded, but got no credit.

In that list, #8 is:
-------------------------------------------------------
8. “Good job.”
Bland feedback is like white bread --it’s not nutritious.
Instead, get granular and let them know what about the job they did was good, and why.
-------------------------------------------------------
I disagree that this is a toxic comment.
It would have been really awesome if, sometime after I succeeded at writing MFX,
John Hart or Tom Hart would have said: "Good job." Nobody ever said anything positive.
They have been using MFX for a quarter of a century now, and they had 32-bit UR/Forth
upgraded from running under a DOS-extender to running under Windows-10 so that
they could keep MFX going, so MFX must have been a good job --- they will never say
anything positive about it though --- they will never give me credit for writing MFX.

On 2021-10-08, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote:
> In this case, how to inspire employees and not be a toxic boss.
If boss sux, change company :P

--

7-77-777
Evil Sinner!
with software, you repeat same experiment, expecting different results...

On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 03:06:40 GMT
Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> wrote:

> On 2021-10-08, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In this case, how to inspire employees and not be a toxic boss.
> If boss sux, change company :P

hi Branimir,

Thanks for this example of optimal message trimming, time is precious.

Jan Coombs.

On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 4:55:43 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 10. “That’s your problem.”
> Wrong. If you’re a leader, it’s your problem too.
> There’s no faster way to ditch accountability than to use this sentence.
> -------------------------------------------------------
In general - I tend to say it's true. As a boss, all the problems of your employees are your problems - for the simple reason that you are accountable for everything your team does. This is IMHO setting up yourself for possible deniability. That's the best reason for your team to lose trust in you. Which makes you pretty much toxic.

Hans Bezemer

On 10/10/2021 04:06, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 4:55:43 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> 10. “That’s your problem.”
>> Wrong. If you’re a leader, it’s your problem too.
>> There’s no faster way to ditch accountability than to use this sentence.
>> -------------------------------------------------------
> In general - I tend to say it's true. As a boss, all the problems of your employees
> are your problems - for the simple reason that you are accountable for everything
> your team does. This is IMHO setting up yourself for possible deniability. That's
> the best reason for your team to lose trust in you. Which makes you pretty much toxic.

Not all their problems. A boss's role is to keep the place functional;
whatever that takes. He doesn't have to be a technical expert - his
job is to sort out those who are, from those who imagine they are - and
to keep them from each other's throats.

On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 7:55:43 PM UTC-7, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> For example, when I was an IBM370 assembly-language programmer I would
> sometimes be my own CSR (customer-service-representative) because the
> customer was being a pain and I didn't want a CSR between me and the customer
> because the messages back and forth would get distorted by the confused CSR.
> The customers were MBAs and were chronic liars. They would try to get more work done
> than was originally agreed to, for the same price. They would tell me that they golf
> with my boss every weekend and can get me fired with a comment to him about my
> bad attitude and lack of can-do enthusiasm. I spoke to my boss about this..
> He said, for one thing, that he doesn't play golf. His office is full of golf memorabilia
> because he played golf when he was younger, but he hasn't played in over a decade
> due to a back injury. He said that he is aware that the customers are sleazes,
> but: "That's your problem." He said that, if it is necessary for him to get involved,
> he will back me up 100%, but he doesn't want to get involved --- dealing with these
> sleazy customers is what I'm getting paid to do. So, I said: "Okay, then --- I'll deal with it."
> What I was thinking was: "Yee haw!!! No more getting intimidated!"
> Previously my job had been miserable, but after that meeting my job became fun
> and the sleazy customers became miserable trying unsuccessfully to jerk me around.

In my experience, what an MBA fears the most is a paper trail.
The MBA wants to strut around like General McCarthy and give verbal orders,
and have people like me jump into action.
There are two problems for the employee with not having a paper trail:

1.) The feature list grows a lot, and the price for the work doesn't grow
correspondingly. Essentially, the MBA is getting free work done.

2.) The MBA will backtrack. When the work is done he or she will say:
"This is not according to our written specification! The programmer was not
able to follow directions. I'm not paying for a screwed up mess!"

The solution is to get signed change-orders. I would pretend to be dumb and say:
"Just to make sure I understand the change, lets get it in writing, so I don't
get confused about my instructions or forget what you told me."
The MBA would agree to this because the MBA likes an employee
who admits to being dumb. Then I would say:
"Okay, now put your signature at the bottom of the change-order."
This is where the MBA begins to squirm! He or she will threaten me,
telling the story about golfing with my boss every weekend and saying
that a single word about my bad attitude will get me fired, etc..
So I would stick to my guns: "No signie, no workie!"
After getting the change-order, I would forward it to the higher-ups and let
them decide if this is big enough to require a contract/price upgrade.
I wouldn't do this for tiny cosmetic changes --- I would only do this for what
I considered to be big changes (anything that would take most of the day).

I read a lot of history books!
During WWII, the Germans being detail-oriented people, tended to document
everything that they did. Because of this, quite a lot is known about the SS and
Gestapo now. What is interesting though, is that no documentation at all
can be found from the higher-ups. They were well aware that what they
were doing was criminal and, if Germany lost the war, they could be prosecuted
as criminals. Even if Germany won the war, they could be seen to be criminals
by later generations. For example, the commander of Auschwitz became
worried that he might be considered a criminal (mass-murder is a crime),
and so when his boss came to visit Auschwitz he tried very hard to get
written orders telling him to do what he was doing. He failed. His boss verbally
commended him for doing a great job, verbally told him that he would be
rewarded highly, and gave him expensive gifts (chocolate, cigarettes, booze, etc.)
as a token of his appreciation --- but no written orders.

Similarly, there is a famous photograph of Calamity Jane wearing buckskin
clothes like a man and holding a rifle, and the caption says:
"Calamity Jane --- scout for General Crook"
Because of this, modern-day feminists have latched onto Calamity Jane
as a 19th-century feminist --- this is absurd, of course --- she was a prostitute
and a hustler, and she committed at least one armed robbery that we know of..
Historians have looked for records verifying that she was a scout for
General Crook and have found nothing. This doesn't mean that she wasn't
a scout for General Crook though. He would have realized that hiring somebody
named 'Calamity Jane' might end badly for him if she did something calamitous
such as commit an armed robbery, and so he would have certainly done some
shuffling of funds so she would get paid out of some innocuous budget
and there would be no paper-trail leading back to his desk.

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 10:06:21 AM UTC-7, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 4:55:43 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > 10. “That’s your problem.”
> > Wrong. If you’re a leader, it’s your problem too.
> > There’s no faster way to ditch accountability than to use this sentence.
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> In general - I tend to say it's true. As a boss, all the problems of your employees are your
> problems - for the simple reason that you are accountable for everything your team does.
> This is IMHO setting up yourself for possible deniability. That's the best reason
> for your team to lose trust in you. Which makes you pretty much toxic.
>
> Hans Bezemer

Hans Bezemer is right that the boss is accountable for everything that the team does.
If the employee doesn't want to be accountable for what he does, he or she can say:
"I'm just a code-monkey. Tell me what to do and I will do it! Certainly, I can't get
into trouble for doing what I'm told --- the boss has to micro-manage me as if I
were a vassal though, and the boss has to take total accountability."
This is a miserable way to live!
I recommend inducing the boss to say: "That is your problem."
Then you say: "Yee haw!"
The worst that can happen if you screw everything up, is that you get fired..
So long as your boss gave you free rein though, his head is on the chopping block
along with yours --- so don't worry and be happy!

On 11/10/2021 14:22, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
>
> Similarly, there is a famous photograph of Calamity Jane wearing buckskin
> clothes like a man and holding a rifle, and the caption says:
> "Calamity Jane --- scout for General Crook"
> Because of this, modern-day feminists have latched onto Calamity Jane
> as a 19th-century feminist --- this is absurd, of course --- she was a prostitute
> and a hustler, and she committed at least one armed robbery that we know of.
> Historians have looked for records verifying that she was a scout for
> General Crook and have found nothing.
Historians looking to verify your genius would find references to a 'Novice
Pack' but scant else. Having removed it from circulation the question can
remain open. Not unlike Lon Chaney's 'London After Midnight'.

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 5:22:54 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> Hans Bezemer is right that the boss is accountable for everything that the team does.
> If the employee doesn't want to be accountable for what he does, he or she can say:
> "I'm just a code-monkey. Tell me what to do and I will do it! Certainly, I can't get
> into trouble for doing what I'm told --- the boss has to micro-manage me as if I
> were a vassal though, and the boss has to take total accountability."
> This is a miserable way to live!
> I recommend inducing the boss to say: "That is your problem."
> Then you say: "Yee haw!"
> The worst that can happen if you screw everything up, is that you get fired.
> So long as your boss gave you free rein though, his head is on the chopping block
> along with yours --- so don't worry and be happy!

I tend to agree with you here. First of all, a boss needs to be predictable.. Second, a boss needs to have your back. It's IMHO impossible to operate as an employee if you get flak from management as well as your co-workers and clients. Unless you've done something obviously wrong (like storing MP3's on a office server, sending porn to your co-workers or "lend" components from company equipment - yes, I've seen that happen) a boss has got to have your back.

I knew a guy who played that game very well. He would take the blame if something had gone wrong, but after the meeting ended, you had to get in his office and then you knew you were in trouble. And IMHO that's ok. Bosses have to be predictable and reliable. If you violate the trust of employees for temporary political gain you may have won the battle, but you most certainly have lost the war. Even if the victim doesn't affect the others, the message you're sending is "today him, tomorrow it might be you".

I also HATE RACI matrices. Give an employee an area of responsibility within a clear field of operation. Define the services or products your department delivers. The tasks will be derived from that almost automatically. It allows you to monitor your output - which in essence is all that matters. It will free you from a lot of micro management. If problems arise, Identify them and look for the root cause. Then fix it.

Be there where the work is done. As one of my bosses put it: "Some managers say 'my door is always open'. That means you can get out". Be approachable.. Every problem identified by the workfloor is one you don't have to identify. Every suggestion is one you don't have to invent yourself. If everyone works within the same frame of mind, these suggestions might catapult you much further and much faster than if you had to plan it yourself.

So yes, "Yeehaw" is what I'm looking for every day. ;-)

Hans Bezemer

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 1:57:04 AM UTC-7, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> I also HATE RACI matrices. Give an employee an area of responsibility
> within a clear field of operation. Define the services or products your department delivers.
> The tasks will be derived from that almost automatically. It allows you to monitor
> your output - which in essence is all that matters. It will free you from a lot of micro management.
> If problems arise, Identify them and look for the root cause. Then fix it..

I don't know what RACI matrices are. I do know that employees need to have clearly defined
responsibilities. A certain path to failure is: "many cooks spoil the broth.."
This is a problem with plumbing. I may get assigned to plumb in a bathroom, but halfway
through I get pulled off to go finish something else because they guy who started it
didn't come to work and/or because something needed fixing. Later on I find that someone else
has finished the bathroom that I started. If problems are found, who gets the blame?
Also, if I am finishing something someone else started, what if I don't like his design?
There is not as much creativity of design in plumbing as in programming, but there is some.

> Be there where the work is done. As one of my bosses put it:
> "Some managers say 'my door is always open'. That means you can get out".
> Be approachable. Every problem identified by the workfloor is one you don't have to identify.
> Every suggestion is one you don't have to invent yourself. If everyone works within the same frame
> of mind, these suggestions might catapult you much further and much faster than if you had to
> plan it yourself.

Ultimately, somebody has to figure out how to do the job.
You would fail badly at Testra because you don't even know what Harvard Architecture is:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/MXFGBjt-UIg/m/H5mkUOLRAAAJ
This is very basic computer-architecture knowledge. VLIW is much more complicated.
I remember being seriously baffled by the idea that instructions could execute concurrently.
That idea took me several days to get my mind wrapped around --- John Hart explained
the concept, but there is no way for anybody to inject the knowledge into your head,
and you must grok it yourself --- if you can't, then just quit; faking it won't work.

If you don't know how to do out-of-ordering of the instructions, how would you find out?
You could ask John Hart as he designed the processor. Unfortunately, he doesn't know either.
You could read a book on the subject. Unfortunately, there aren't any books on the subject.
Ultimately, somebody has to figure out how to do the job.

"Those whom heaven helps we call the sons of heaven. They do not learn by learning. They do not work it by working. They do not reason it by using reason. To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven."
Chuang Tse: XXIII

P.S. Your grammar is bad.
The word "farther" is used when the distance is known, and "further" when unknown.
For example: "The deadline for project A is two months farther down the road than for project B."
For example: "These suggestions might catapult you much further than planning it yourself."
This grammar rule is easy to remember because cats have fur, and you always want them
further away than they currently are.

On 19/10/2021 04:13, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 1:57:04 AM UTC-7, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
>> Be approachable. Every problem identified by the workfloor is one you don't have to identify.
>> Every suggestion is one you don't have to invent yourself. If everyone works within the same frame
>> of mind, these suggestions might catapult you much further and much faster than if you had to
>> plan it yourself.
>
> Ultimately, somebody has to figure out how to do the job.
> You would fail badly at Testra because you don't even know what Harvard Architecture is:
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/MXFGBjt-UIg/m/H5mkUOLRAAAJ
> This is very basic computer-architecture knowledge.

So it's a game of who else would have failed at Testra? Badly, of course :)

Hugh wrote:
>[...] you don't even know what Harvard Architecture is:
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/MXFGBjt-UIg/m/H5mkUOLRAAAJ
> This is very basic computer-architecture knowledge.

I'm sure he knows and he pointed you as ye know..
Hans took another definition focusing on address spaces, than your textbook
with the canonical two busses.

https://www.mikrocontroller.net/articles/Prozessorarchitekturen

"In the literature and in this article, the distinction between
Harvard and von-Neumann is mostly made on the buses. However,
it can also be differentiated via the address spaces: Whether
program and data memories are in a common address space, or
addressed separately. Because whether the buses themselves are
separated or together is invisible for the programmer, this has
only influence on the speed. Separate address spaces, however,
influence the whole programming including high-level language,
especially since the commonly used C language cannot handle
data lying in a separate program address space (flash ROM) by
design and therefore language extensions are necessary (not
possible in GCC).

Thus, both PC processors and the widespread ARM versions are
sometimes this or that in terms of buses, depending on the core
used (ARM7: von Neumann, ARM9 Harvard, up to 486: von Neumann,
from Pentium: Harvard). This makes the criterion "buses" rather
meaningless."

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
--
Zong

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 7:13:01 PM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
It's remarkable how some people get it into their thick heads to write about "toxic bosses" when they are so toxic themselves. No matter which job they do or which role their play. Either professionally or personally.

Hans Bezemer

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 6:35:44 AM UTC-7, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 7:13:01 PM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> It's remarkable how some people get it into their thick heads to write about "toxic bosses"
> when they are so toxic themselves. No matter which job they do or which role their play.
> Either professionally or personally.

You were insulting me by talking down to me as I were a stupid little trainee
that you need to educate --- and you don't actually know anything about the subject:

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 4:48:15 AM UTC-7, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 6:36:13 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> > This is a kind of processor in which the code-memory and data-memory each have
> > their own address and data bus --- it is possible to access both code-memory and
> > data-memory concurrently.
> You can make up all the definitions you want, Hugh, but I'm going for this one:
> "The Harvard architecture is a computer architecture with separate storage and signal pathways
> for instructions and data. ...

This is very typical for comp.lang.forth trolls, to insult me like this, which they don't
consider to be toxic behavior. Here is another example:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/y96tQf_iOSk/m/WhpmjMTeAgAJ

On 21/10/2021 13:11, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 6:35:44 AM UTC-7, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 7:13:01 PM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
>> It's remarkable how some people get it into their thick heads to write about "toxic bosses"
>> when they are so toxic themselves. No matter which job they do or which role their play.
>> Either professionally or personally.
>
> You were insulting me by talking down to me as I were a stupid little trainee
> that you need to educate --- and you don't actually know anything about the subject:
> ...
> This is very typical for comp.lang.forth trolls, to insult me like this, which they don't
> consider to be toxic behavior. Here is another example:
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/y96tQf_iOSk/m/WhpmjMTeAgAJ

When messiahs aren't talking down to their audience, they're recounting their
sufferings at the hands of enemies in order to elicit sympathy :)

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:11:53 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> This is very typical for comp.lang.forth trolls, to insult me like this, which they don't
> consider to be toxic behavior. Here is another example:
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/y96tQf_iOSk/m/WhpmjMTeAgAJ
Don't try to score victim points, Hugh. It doesn't suit you - and nobody is falling for it.

Hans Bezemer

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:53:27 AM UTC-7, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:11:53 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> > This is very typical for comp.lang.forth trolls, to insult me like this, which they don't
> > consider to be toxic behavior. Here is another example:
> > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/y96tQf_iOSk/m/WhpmjMTeAgAJ
> Don't try to score victim points, Hugh. It doesn't suit you - and nobody is falling for it.

In that thread, Anton Ertl, Alex McDonald and Gerry Jackson were totally lying
about the disambiguifiers. The liars claimed that the disambiguifiers
make the use of IF R@ etc. in interpret mode legal in ANS-Forth.

When they tell blatant lies like this, the entire Forth community is victimized.
This is especially true because Anton Ertl is a Forth-200x committee member
pretending to be the leader of the entire Forth community, so when he is seen to be
a liar this makes the entire Forth community seem to be founded upon dishonesty.

On 22/10/2021 16:31, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:53:27 AM UTC-7, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:11:53 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
>> > This is very typical for comp.lang.forth trolls, to insult me like this, which they don't
>> > consider to be toxic behavior. Here is another example:
>> > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/y96tQf_iOSk/m/WhpmjMTeAgAJ
>> Don't try to score victim points, Hugh. It doesn't suit you - and nobody is falling for it.
>
> In that thread, Anton Ertl, Alex McDonald and Gerry Jackson were totally lying
> about the disambiguifiers. The liars claimed that the disambiguifiers
> make the use of IF R@ etc. in interpret mode legal in ANS-Forth.
>
> When they tell blatant lies like this, the entire Forth community is victimized.
> This is especially true because Anton Ertl is a Forth-200x committee member
> pretending to be the leader of the entire Forth community, so when he is seen to be
> a liar this makes the entire Forth community seem to be founded upon dishonesty.

Ah - the 'they made me do it' excuse.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 7:31:14 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> In that thread, Anton Ertl, Alex McDonald and Gerry Jackson were totally lying
> about the disambiguifiers. The liars claimed that the disambiguifiers
> make the use of IF R@ etc. in interpret mode legal in ANS-Forth.
>
> When they tell blatant lies like this, the entire Forth community is victimized.
> This is especially true because Anton Ertl is a Forth-200x committee member
> pretending to be the leader of the entire Forth community, so when he is seen to be
> a liar this makes the entire Forth community seem to be founded upon dishonesty.

“The year is 2021 CE. The Forth community is entirely victimized by Anton Ertl, Alex McDonald and Gerry Jackson.
Well not entirely! One small compiler still holds out against all the lies and dishonesty.
Since 4tH is always compiled, the use of R@ and IF outside a definition has been supported since its inception."

Hans Bezemer

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:15:48 AM UTC-7, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 7:31:14 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> > In that thread, Anton Ertl, Alex McDonald and Gerry Jackson were totally lying
> > about the disambiguifiers. The liars claimed that the disambiguifiers
> > make the use of IF R@ etc. in interpret mode legal in ANS-Forth.
> >
> > When they tell blatant lies like this, the entire Forth community is victimized.
> > This is especially true because Anton Ertl is a Forth-200x committee member
> > pretending to be the leader of the entire Forth community, so when he is seen to be
> > a liar this makes the entire Forth community seem to be founded upon dishonesty.
> “The year is 2021 CE. The Forth community is entirely victimized by Anton Ertl,
> Alex McDonald and Gerry Jackson.
> Well not entirely! One small compiler still holds out against all the lies and dishonesty.
> Since 4tH is always compiled, the use of R@ and IF outside a definition has been supported
> since its inception."

You are trying to be sarcastic.
You are making a complete fool out of yourself though, because you don't know
what the topic of the conversation is. You never actually read that thread:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/y96tQf_iOSk/m/WhpmjMTeAgAJ
Nobody is claiming that IF R@ etc. have meaningful run-time behavior in
interpretation mode in ANS-Forth --- that is what OpenForth did --- it was a bad idea then too.

Anton Ertl wants to use IF and other control-flow words inside of [ ] brackets.
This is so he can do compilation (compilation of code is what IF etc. do)
inside of the [ ] brackets --- not their run-time behavior, dumb-ass!
This usually works, but it is not ANS-Forth compliant.
Anton Ertl now begins to tell the lie that the disambiguifier makes this ANS-Forth compliant.
He thinks that I will be happy because he is using my disambiguifiers, despite the fact
that he is claiming that the disambiguifiers do something that they don't actually do,
and he is still refusing to admit that they do make FIND and tick work which is what they do.
The liar Anton Ertl is trying to convince the world that his code that is not ANS-Forth
is actually ANS-Forth --- he knows that this is bullshit --- he is purposefully lying.