On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 5:24:35 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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

Stephen Pelc is now lying about lying:

On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 6:27:11 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On 3 Jan 2022 at 03:03:03 CET, Mr Angry, "Hugh Aguilar"
> <hughag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Stephen Pelc says that my disambiguifiers don't work, although he doesn't have
> > either
> > SYNONYM or and early-binding MACRO: which both depend upon the disambiguifiers.
> > Stephen Pelc says that anybody can write a better string-stack that what I
> > have,
> > although he has nothing to show, and this has been about 30 years now.
> Lies, lies, lies.

On Monday, 3 January 2022 at 22:57:29 UTC, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 5:24:35 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 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
> Stephen Pelc is now lying about lying:
>
> On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 6:27:11 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> > On 3 Jan 2022 at 03:03:03 CET, Mr Angry, "Hugh Aguilar"
> > <hughag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Stephen Pelc says that my disambiguifiers don't work, although he doesn't have
> > > either
> > > SYNONYM or and early-binding MACRO: which both depend upon the disambiguifiers.
> > > Stephen Pelc says that anybody can write a better string-stack that what I
> > > have,
> > > although he has nothing to show, and this has been about 30 years now.
> > Lies, lies, lies.

You dug yourself a hole again - welcome to 2022.

5 Years ago you complain about MPE stating that your dihonestifiers do not do what you say.
You complain again now after 5 years
- without proving MPE was then or even is now wrong after you might have adapted it.
What sort of unprofessional behaviour is this?

MPEs products and services are appreciated as MPE is a company for many many years - and successfully.
You are telling the world you are the God of Forth - but nobody wants your Forth programming services it seems.
Which companies / projects have you worked for showing your Forth competance over the last 10 years?
HHHHHHM...