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