Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekcrl!tekgvs!keithe From: keithe@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Decency on the Net (was Re: Keyboard "fix" TSRs) Message-ID: <3629@tekgvs.TEK.COM> Date: 24 Jun 88 17:37:44 GMT References: <45919AHS@PSUVM> Reply-To: keithe@tekgvs.UUCP (Keith Ericson) Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 53 In article <45919AHS@PSUVM> AHS@PSUVM.BITNET writes: > >Tom replies: >>In article <8806190331.AA02653@slvblc.UUCP> AHS%psuvm.bitnet@rutgers.edu writes: > >>This program does work as advertised! > > Prove it. Publish the correct symbolic dissassembly. I am > not going to load in my machine routines that deeply alter > its guts without looking at the code first. > ["deeply alter its guts" referring to stack manipulation in the program - kde] You know, some people would complain if they were handed the earth on a silver platter. The person posting this veiled accusation is certainly not worth my time of posting a rebuttal, but Tom's work and reputation most certainly are. It distresses me greatly that(why doesn't he or she include their name in their postings, by the way?) feels that their cautious skepticism must be blasted all over the Net instead of conducted in civil, private e-mail. QUESTIONS such as this should be asked and answered via private e-mail, with RESULTS posted to this wider forum. Anyway, simply because is incapable of properly disassembling Tom's program is not grounds for accusations of skulduggery or devious programming. I know Tom as a co-worker and friend; the reason the code may be difficult to exegete is that it is well written by a craftsman who knows the ins and outs of the IBM-PC/AT/Clone/DOS architecture better than anyone else I know. Not satisfied with the size/speed performance of "conventional" programming languages, Tom is an acknowledged expert in FORTH programming, having written (among many other things) a compiler which inhales FORTH code and exhales tight, well-optimized machine code. It is this output that you have as his keyboard macros. FORTH uses stacks as a matter of course and this is exemplified in Tom's keyboard macros. To castigate the program and/or Tom (as was done in these postings) is simply a demonstration of one's onwn ineptitude and lack of proper human-relationship abilities. This will be my only posting on the subject: public rebuttals and retorts will be ignored; private e-mail will be answered (given a useable return path is provided/discernable). Thank you for your patience in reading this. keith