Thanks you, I have your answer, you can find my response in the PowerBASIC forum.

Regards,
http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/cryptmail.php?tauntspiders=in.your.face@nomail.for.you&id=2f46ed9f24413347f14439b64bdc03fd
Posted on 2004-03-29 19:27:21 by hutch--
Hutch argues, hutch doesn't have any reasonable arguments, hutch goes influence peddling elsewhere:
http://www.powerbasic.com/support/forums/Forum4/HTML/010242.html
Way to go, hutch - :alright: - I'm sure that will earn you a lot of respect.

I find it funny how hutch believes he's allowed to flame everything and everyone, even without any reasoning or technical arguments, but if anybody says anything bad about something he uses, the person is an evil agressive destructive <insert more derogative words> kind of person.

Oh well, have fun in your perfect kingdom of blind believers, hutch :stupid:
Posted on 2004-03-30 04:04:17 by f0dder
What's that message? Just an ad begging people to go to his forum ... that's low ...
Posted on 2004-03-30 04:25:07 by Eternal Idol Birmingham
Fodder,

well, I think you need to have some out-side party critique
your posts for you... as it reads to me.. you are the one doing the flaming... I can be wrong.. but your posts were one of the main reasons I left this board... now, I only visit now and then to see what kind of magic bitrake and svin are cooking up... else, I believe this board has degenerated to quite a bit of ego slinging...
I wish you all well...

oh, and btw, it's obvious that you know nothing of PowerBASIC, for it is not limited in any way, if you understand it... it rivals any compiler out there in capibilities... and personally I believe it is most powerful, but I wouldn't go around saying that C++ or something else sucks before I have used them..
Posted on 2004-03-30 04:43:12 by an_old_member
an_old_member, if you really were an old member here and had a problem with me, you could have contacted me instead of running away. I would have had more respect for that, than some anonymous person popping in to call this board degenerate.

Yes, I started this mess by calling powerbasic a load of crap, and I probably shouldn't have done that, sorry if I hurt anybody's feelings. I have messed a little around with powerbasic, though, and I've looked at the disassembly of some executables, and well... this contrasts a lot with the PB (sales) hype and such.

So, I have something to base my critique on - and I would probably be even more critical if I had more experience with PB than I do. It seems rather obvious that hutch has no experience whatsoever with (modern, at least) C/C++ compilers, and that he's calling names just to call names, because a product he's using has received critique.

As for PowerBASIC and it's limitations, you have obviously used it more than me, so perhaps you could answer a few simple questions for me?

Can you redefine any function of PowerBASIC that you want to? Builtin/library or whatever you want to call it...

Does PB support exception handling?

Can you throw away all runtime library and startup code, and only have *your* code in the output executable?

Can you link in static libraries?

Can you define your own data types, and have the standard operators do meaningful actions on your own custom datatypes?

Do you have very comprehensive control of the PB optimizer?

How quickly can you port your PB programs to run on Itanium, AMD64, or under Linux or Mac OS X?

PS: the last question was somewhat of a troll question, but the rest are genuine...
Posted on 2004-03-30 09:07:33 by f0dder
Fodder,

Can you redefine any function of PowerBASIC that you want to?

PB is really an assembler with it's own library of higher
level functions to make some stuff easier..
so, if you want to change a PB function, you just write
your own...

Does PB support exception handling?

again, PB is low-level... so you must write your own


Can you throw away all runtime library and startup code, and only have *your* code in the output executable?

I'm not completely sure what your asking. but PB
only supports and builds DLL's and Exe's.. and you
can package all your dll's, inc's and exe code into a single exe if you wish

Can you link in static libraries?..

I use Dll's, and currentely PB does not support static lib's, but I'm sure sure if I really wanted to.. I could use
PB to write the code to do it...

Can you define your own data types, and have the standard operators do meaningful actions on your own custom datatypes?

PB's built-in Type's and Unions, do have a few limitations.. (not many)... but with PB you can also
just use vertual memory to build any structure you can
dream up..

Do you have very comprehensive control of the PB optimizer?

hehe, I don't know what that is?.. I guess a C++ word :)

lastly, PB currentely only supports windows..

Fodder, PB is a very powerful tool.. and very low-level
it's been years since I programmed C, and have never used C++, but "IMO", I can not think of any reason that I would not select PB over C...

anyway, it's kindda like saying "sail boats are crap"
because you like your power boat...

but, both can get you where you are going, and have
thier own advantages... PB's advantage is low-level,
and I assume C++'s is high...
Posted on 2004-03-30 09:52:03 by an_old_member

so, if you want to change a PB function, you just write
your own...

But I can totally replace some powerbasic function with my own code? Like, replace the built-in string support with my own code, but still use the same syntax in my programs?


again, PB is low-level... so you must write your own

For high-level languages, exception handling needs to be incorporated into the language to be meaningful.


PB's built-in Type's and Unions, do have a few limitations.. (not many)... but with PB you can also just use vertual memory to build any structure you can dream up..

Doesn't sound like that allows you to define operators for the data structures, though? Ie, if you wanted to define a "bignum" datatype, you'd have to "add_bignum(output,bn1,bn2)" instead of "output = bn1 + bn2" ?


hehe, I don't know what that is?.. I guess a C++ word :)

Well, an optimizer is an integral part of any language that is above machine code level. It is the part of the machine code generator that means your program is output "as a whole" instead of "line per line", at the very basic level re-using registers, avoiding re-loading variables from memory, doing expression reduction, et cetera. Most C/C++ compilers have pretty decent optimizers today, and allow good control of them - including turning them off.

BASIC never seemed very low-level to me - a lot of things are traditionally built-in in the language, rather than having a language that's strong enough to implement these features (dynamic strings and arrays, whatever). I'm not saying that it's bad to integrate things like this directly in the language, but if I have to choose, I'd rather have a language that's powerful enough to implement things like this rather than being stuck with what the language offers me.

C is a pretty low-level language, it allows you to do a lot of the things assembly does, with the exception of very platform-specific things. Every compiler I've ever came across supported inline assembly as well as linking with external modules, so you were never limited to what the core language offers you.

C++ adds on some high-level features, but still retains full C support, and still allows inline assembly and external linkage - so you could argue that C++ is still low-level :). It's high-level features can be pretty useful, and you have quite reasonable control of it. Do you want to put objects on the stack, .data, or dynamic storage? You're the boss. You can overload the dynamic memory allocation method if you don't like the default heap allocation. This can be done both globally and per-object.

Furthermore, since the language core is very basic and most of the functionality of the language is implemented via libraries, you can override almost everything you want, if you don't like the speed or size footprint. This makes both C and C++ suitable for tasks like OS and Driver construction, or embedded systems (care *has* to be taken if C++ is used for embedded systems, though. Fullblown OOP has a little more overhead than plain C, and if you let a novice programmer loose, there's a good chance he doesn't know what he's doing and end up creating insane amounts of bloat. No language is better than it's users, and C++ doesn't try to hinder you from doing things YOUR way.)

Neither C or C++ are the holy grail, though. The core language and libraries are pretty raw, and you'll have to spend some time building your own code toolboxes if you want to do GUI programming. Things like Delphi or BCB or Java or VB or C# are more suitable for these tasks, out of the box. Other trivial tasks require "too much" code if you haven't written your own library routines - but that's where sane people would use a scripting language, anyway. Right tool for the job, and everything.

I'm not trying to convert anybody or act as a C++ salesman or whatever, but I am of a nature that causes me to point out when people are wrong (yes yes, according to my own subjective view of the world, but that goes without saying). I mostly :P respect peoples' choice of language, even if I may drop a remark like the one that kickstarted all this (and sorry for that.) I do not, however, accept people making 100% uninformed and false statements, I don't accept people tryng to justify doing things badly rather than trying to correct the problem (and listening to constructive criticism), and I don't like when people spend pages throwing random unrelated crap around, twisting words trying and cover up their own sillyness.

Furthermore, I think personal insults and namecalling and patronization is a bit silly rather than dealing with technical matters and straight facts.

It's not that PowerBASIC as such sucks, it's probably a fine platform if you like writing BASIC code. But it's being hyped up to be a lot that it isn't, while the authors are criticizing a other languages. I think that's a bit silly when the quality of the output code isn't very high (although small).

I'm sorry if it's my fault that you left the forum; I would rather have had you contact me and have a talk. I can be quite reasonable if faced with reason.
Posted on 2004-03-30 10:47:43 by f0dder
Fodder,

Thanks for the interesting discussion on C++, and I can see how having a Lib of optimized code can be beneficial,
but, at this time it's not for me... I do not know enough yet..
and most of my coding partially involves trying and learning something new... and until I have a real good
grasp at the low-level... the high level will be a distraction IMO..

btw, about 5 years ago, I did pick up JAVA for a while..
(hated it!!) but I am always open to something new.. and
I do believe that C++ has it's worth...

further, I believe that the biggest obstacle in today's
programming.. is that there is so much available.. very
difficult in selecting what to learn... for no-one can learn
it all... but the better foundation one gets the easier it is... and a solid foundation can be aquired through study of any assembly level system, whether it be C, HLA, MASM ,TASM, etc. or even PB :) ... btw, anyone know enough SGML to build a browser?

also btw, you did not cause me to leave forum, but the
wealth of criticizm, and argument by many members did.. and you did participate often :) .. I invest my time
visiting programming forums to learn, a really for nothing else..

about:
"... But I can totally replace some powerbasic function with my own code? Like, replace the built-in string support with my own code, but still use the same syntax in my programs?..."

that's thinking high-level again.. imo.. maybe I'm reading wrong... but PB does not have procedure/s to
morph their functions, if you want a function similar to
a PB function, but not exactly you just use asm to make
your own...

often I have entire programs that then only PB statements I use .. is

#Compile
Function PBMAIN()
End Function

the rest is all WinAPI's and asm statements


"...Doesn't sound like that allows you to define operators for the data structures, though? ..."

again not sure what you are saying.. but if you are referancing adding methods to a structure.. PB does not support that at this time... but I know it is in the works... but you can always do the same thing yourself with strings, arrays or allocated memory... but, also
PB is a tool for the small team developers.. and not
intended for large development teams that need to follow a common ground... anyway, I know that if you
used it a while, you would appreciate it, even though
you may chose to use C++ ... trulely PB is not really a
BASIC compiler as the others, it just uses Basic syntax
for it high-level functions as opposed to C syntax or what-ever..

:)
Posted on 2004-03-30 13:31:09 by an_old_member
old, nice to have a peaceful and calm conversation, even if we may not agree on everything :)

It's a good idea not spreading your focus too much while learning - but also to look other languages when you have a good understanding of one language, but before you get "set in concrete". That's a problem many coders face, regardless of their language - they become whatever_language coders, instead of open-minded programmers.

I find that C/C++ and Assembly complement eachother well, learning both have given me a better understanding of both of them, and allow me to write better code for each. Others have said the same. While C/C++ and ASM seem to go along particularly well, I think it is general from mastering (er, rather, knowing) multiple languages. You think more abstractly and learn to attack problems from multiple angles.

JAVA... I think it's an interesting idea, and it seems pretty elegant. I think it's an okay language for a bunch of problems, and I wish I had the time to learn it. It lacks some lowlevel capacity that I would like in a lot of my projects, but it might do well for others - and it can be extended with native code. Performance sucks in a lot of JVMs (especially now the microsoft JVM is gone), but there's also native compilers - I think GNU has one that does fairly well.

Yes, there's a myriad of languages out there today, and you can't learn them all. Not all of them are worth learning, anyway. I'd say you're well off if you know assembly for at least one architecture, a couple of more or less high level languages, and a scripting language or two. Guess it wouldn't hurt learning some of those "weird" languages either, like LISP :). I still have a lot of learning to do myself. I plan on picking up at least Python or a similar language, within the next couple of years.

Yup, I've had my share in the various 'wars' around here, and things have gone ballistic especially when hutch has been involved. But well, hutch is less active around here now, so things are becoming calmer ;). Also, scali seems to be banned permanently - it's a bit sad it has to be that way, since the guy has a lot to share - but his social interactions need to improve at least as much :(. So... things are getting quieter :)

I'm here myself to learn, and to spread knowledge when I can, and to generally hang around. Like most people, I have an opinion about things, and I tend to speak instead of keeping quiet. Sometimes that causes people to get pissed, but at least you know what I stand for.

"Overriding the language" is an important point in flexibility for me. It's true that you could write your own functions for handling strings, et cetera, but if you find out that the implementation for strings or memory allocation is very weak in the platform you use, and you have to fix up some 250.000 line application - what's fastest? Redefining the language functions of the library, or using search&replace across all source files to strange "malloc" to "mymalloc"? :)


often I have entire programs that then only PB statements I use .. is
...
the rest is all WinAPI's and asm statements

I wonder how much PB runtime and startup code is included then - I can get it down to 0 bytes with the languages I use :). Not really meant as a flame against PB, using a HLL is most useful if you use it's features and runtime. It's nice to have flexibility, though.


again not sure what you are saying.. but if you are referancing adding methods to a structure

Well, not just methods to a structure, but "methods with the name" +,-,/,* and so on. This allows you to define your custom data types, and work with them just as naturally as if it was a DWORD. It's true that everything object-oriented can be written plainly, but the syntax can be a lot nicer with object orientation. Consider


output = a*b + c - b/d;

versus


bignum_mul(output, a, b);
bignum_add(output, output c);
bignum_div(temp, b, d);
bignum_sub(output, output, temp);

The first is an example of operator overloading in C++ :) - performance will typically be somewhat worse than if you handcode the entire thing in assembly, but will be quite reasonable - and I do like the first code block for simplicity. And of course nothing stops you from implementing the bignumb operations themselves in assembly, either inline or external, with your assembler of choice (masm, tasm, nasm, fasm, whatever)

Again, PowerBASIC is probably a quite fine tool for a lot of things - I'm just not particularly fond of the BASIC syntax, and would rather play with something like Python when ease of coding matters more than performance.

Well, nice talking to me, feel free to PM me if you want to - as long as you're not going to preach about the virtues of GNU GPL ;-)
Posted on 2004-03-30 14:39:37 by f0dder

old, nice to have a peaceful and calm conversation, even if we may not agree on everything :)


This is my only focus. There is no rule here that says you have to buffer your opinions to make it easy on the rest of the users to read. This is exactly what Hutch's attacks go at. Hutch wasnt even part of the conversation, but out of the blue he blind sides f0dder with full out character attacks. I pitty anyone who actually believes the propaganda he wrote on this PB forum. :rolleyes: . And if someone were to "wake up" from his spell, I certainly wouldnt ridicule them over thier past opinion.

Hutch's actions are no different than a terrorist, who attacks in wide open sweeps. Survivors say "you just killed 20 people". The terrorist says "Im defending my people and our beliefs, these are not 20 victims, they are soldiers in our great battle". And then proceeds to fill everyones head with distractive propaganda untill everyone looses sight of the fact there are now 20 victims. Well my point stands firmly with a "you just killed 20 people" point of view, period. I can care less about his "beliefs" that gave him "cause" in the first place :mad: .

Propaganda is such a mysterious and interesting vale. It can distort and warpe something simple to identify, into a complex issue that gets entirely away from the real cause for attention.

I wonder if anyone who posted in Hutch's forum can see the simple trueth that Hutch did attack without and provocation upon his character. He didnt even write PowerBASIC!. To say its debatable that he may have "just cause" to act the way he did is totally irrelavent, he knows the rules he once enforced as a moderator here, yet he sees himself somehow immune to them.

It has nothing to do with f0dder, and everything to do with the fact users have open and free rights to express their opinions here over abstract topics. If you can't handle it, and worry your feeling might get bursed when someone out right dissagrees with your thoughts, goto Hutch's child care center, im sure he has a bottle on right now :rolleyes: .

If someone if beating on you verbally, come see us. We'd be glad 'beat' back in your defence. If need be, we will ban users who loose site of this point. Unfortunately, Hutch would be only too happy to be banned, since he can really start propaganda when he is a marter. Our only recourse is to hope he either (1) stops his 'holy war' on people, or (2) enough free thinking users will see his actions and realize that despite all the great work he had done for MASM32, he is quite simply being unfare to users.

Bottom line here is: People are People, and oppinions can and will vary. Its how you accept this fact which will ultimately define who you are to others.

:Propaganda sux:
:NaN:
Posted on 2004-03-30 19:07:38 by NaN
Well, I can understand if hutch took the jab at PowerBASIC as a personal insult - it wasn't meant as such, though. People should just stop walking around with their hearts on their sleeves, I guess :tongue:, and be a little objective.

Sorry for writing it in the original thread anyway, it was probably a bit inappropriate. I stand by my words though, and do find the lack of static library support quite a limit.

Oh well, enough about all that for now, good night to the lot of you :)
Posted on 2004-03-30 20:49:44 by f0dder
Interesting the thing about the libs, also I remember, ?rene? in his work 'pushed' to use this "peculiaruty", also I remember that ?randal? say that the work was one of the best that he see?, also I dont like the first impressions that I have about the sitaxis... there are other ways.



By the way, maybe yes, the static libs need be removed and replaced for dynamix ones (or some thing more that ****hu(sound terribly chilling "escalofriante") : I h i m a c :), but for the moment, remember that we have a bunch of code writed in static libs, if you cut this, you cut a part of history... a part of help. When all the programmers and languages (implementations) generate only runtime libs (dlls, reentrant code.. or other good name), and executables, then use only that.... sure complications will come, but they need be handled.



By the way, if you dont like the language, write your own (I do, but will be for personal use :P, very interesting thought). Or use a better solution or approach that help you. That make the translation of your way of think to the programm more easy or confortable.



I h i m a c = I have in mind a couple.

Have a nice day or night.

PD. Why I can put hu hu hu == ****hu ?.. that sound "escalofriante"
Posted on 2004-03-31 00:19:38 by rea



This is my only focus. There is no rule here that says you have to buffer your opinions to make it easy on the rest of the users to read. This is exactly what Hutch's attacks go at. Hutch wasnt even part of the conversation, but out of the blue he blind sides f0dder with full out character attacks. I pitty anyone who actually believes the propaganda he wrote on this PB forum. :rolleyes: . And if someone were to "wake up" from his spell, I certainly wouldnt ridicule them over thier past opinion.


You are 100% right, as I said before "Just an ad begging people to go to his forum ... that's low ...".

Regards,
Mariano.

:alright:
Posted on 2004-03-31 01:21:30 by Eternal Idol Birmingham
hehe, Nan
you have made some fine contributions to the Internet,
so I really hate to dissagree with you.. :)

but, as I recall and/or read it, Hutch is really only concerned with two things... A) not letting the influence
of accomplished programmer mis-dirrect a beginner...
and, B) not allowing any support for viri coding info...

I think If you reread his posts.. you might agree...

now, look what has just taken place... Fodder, was
providing some good info... and you redirrected topic
to Hutch..hehe.. and now Idol has open door to continue
with more flaming... etc.. hehehe

just my 2c
:)
Posted on 2004-03-31 02:49:07 by an_old_member
Originally posted by an_old_member
now, look what has just taken place... Fodder, was
providing some good info... and you redirrected topic
to Hutch..hehe.. and now Idol has open door to continue
with more flaming... etc.. hehehe

just my 2c
:)


I'm the one who disagree with you ... have you read his message?
He's telling the people to leave this forum and go to his forum, so his just doing advertise ...

Regards,
Mariano.
Posted on 2004-03-31 02:56:21 by Eternal Idol Birmingham
To Jaymeson Trudgen.

I did make you an offer to nominate a neutral ground to address the matters you raised on forum moderation. I note that you have failed to do so so I make you the offer again, a place where you don't have the capacity to modify the response I make to your original assertions.

If you are not up to the task, just let me know.

Regards,
http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/cryptmail.php?tauntspiders=in.your.face@nomail.for.you&id=2f46ed9f24413347f14439b64bdc03fd
Posted on 2004-03-31 03:39:43 by hutch--
Just to get some idea about what this whole performance thing was all about, I downloaded an example package from the PowerBASIC homepage and found a line sorting example in there. I wanted to compare it to a couple of other languages to get some idea about how well PowerBASIC did.

I sorted a text file large.txt containing 182,583 lines, with each of these (all performing a case-insensitive sort):

PBSort.exe   :  compiled PowerBASIC example from CSamp302.zip in Util

subdir. (20k)

sort.exe : the sort.exe executable that came with my Windows. (25k)

sortcpp.exe : a C++ example I wrote in a couple of minutes (thanks to the
STL). I compiled it with cl /O1 /EHsc sortcpp.cpp, which
means regular optimisation. (172k)

perl -e ".." : a perl one-liner to sort the lines of stdin. (0k)


Clearly the perl one-liner wins on code size, but there is of course the hidden cost of the perl interpreter ;). sort.exe uses msvcrt.dll, so the 25k would probably not be considdered as the right size by the asm people. sortcpp.exe is statically linked, if I use msvcrt.dll it goes down to 10k. All in all, the PowerBASIC compiler wins on size if you strip all external libraries and runtimes except for the Win32API.

Now, let's look at the results:

  time    command line

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.8014 - PBSort.exe <large.txt >large.s
12.5942 - perl -e "print sort { lc $a cmp lc $b } <>" <large.txt >large.s
6.2899 - sort.exe <large.txt >large.s
4.0011 - sortcpp.exe <large.txt >large.s


Of course the sorting algorithm used has a huge effect on the running time of a program like this, but I assume the build-in array sort function in PowerBASIC was carefully chosen to perform well.

In other problems the PowerBASIC compiler may beat all the others without a problem, this is just a single little test, so don't read too much into it :alright:.
Posted on 2004-03-31 05:10:08 by Jibz
I find PB, very useful...
a little PB example,

PB allows for very fast and easy high-level prototyping of
code, which then can be moved and optimized in ASM..

sample result:
On a 300mhz P2 running '98
Indexed 103813 words in .174712113847031 secs
word w(50021) is "%SEE_MASK_INVOKELIST"
size of w() is 103813
size of txt is 933247




#COMPILE EXE
#INCLUDE "win32api.inc"
TYPE WORDS
pz AS ASCIIZ POINTER
END TYPE
FUNCTION PBMAIN ()
DIM C1 AS QUAD,C2 AS QUAD , F1 AS QUAD
DIM txt AS STRING, i AS LONG, n AS LONG
DIM pb AS BYTE POINTER
OPEN "c:\pbdll61\winapi\win32api.inc" FOR BINARY AS 1
GET$ #1, LOF(1), txt
CLOSE 1
QueryPerformanceCounter C1
pb = STRPTR(txt)
DIM w(LEN(txt)) AS WORDS
FOR i = 0 TO LEN(txt)
ON @pb[i]-31 GOTO WhiteSpace
ON @pb[i]-9 GOTO WhiteSpace,WantChar,WantChar,WhiteSpace
WantChar:
NEXT
QueryPerformanceCounter C2
REDIM PRESERVE w(n)
!Jmp zExit
WhiteSpace: 'skip null Char's
@pb[i]=0
INCR i
ON @pb[i]-31 GOTO WhiteSpace
ON @pb[i]-9 GOTO WhiteSpace,NewWord,NewWord,WhiteSpace
NewWord: 'set index ptr
INCR n
w(n).pz = pb + i
!Jmp WantChar
zExit:
QueryPerformanceFrequency F1
MSGBOX "On a 300mhz P2 running '98" _
+ $CRLF + "Indexed " + FORMAT$(UBOUND(w())) + " words in " + FORMAT$((C2-C1)/F1)+ " secs " _
+ $CRLF + "word w(50021) is " +$DQ + w(50021).@pz + $DQ _
+ $CRLF + "size of w() is " + FORMAT$(UBOUND(w())) _
+ $CRLF + "size of txt is " + FORMAT$(LEN(txt))
END FUNCTION
Posted on 2004-03-31 09:12:35 by Brad Byrne
I have only read the first few posts of this thread, so i probably can't comment on too much stuff

however, C/C++ executables produced via msvc6/7 is much more optimized (or the same) than some macro-overheaded HLL MASM program (and thus most likely smaller than something produced in PB). You just need to know how to tweak msvc executables, with a few simple steps. You need to change the executable size, add "msvcrt.lib" (because msvc usually statically links that lib, unless you tell it not to) to the linked libraries section, and turn on optimization. Also, use the common linker options to merge the sections, and the end result is very small and efficient.

In my opinion, BASIC is probably the worst designed language i've seen, and Visual Basic was probably a even worse direction. I've done a bit of VB years back, and i was left with the impression that the language was poorly designed. Also, with all those script kiddiez flocking in learning VB to be "leet", it's not hard to imagine why some people think VB is lame.

in short, PB might be better than some other "variant" of BASIC/VB, but can't compete with C/C++, certainly not optimized asm.
Posted on 2004-03-31 16:18:40 by Drocon
Look, i feel that this fiasco has gone beyond proportion.

HUTCH, leave it. F0dder has REstated his opnion, and i can see he has admitted for using harsh words for his opionion on PB - and corrected it. This is to my view of all the reading a child's fight with heavy jargon and examples thrown in. HUTCH why are you provoking a fight???. Sorry that i feel that you havn't quite done mutch of late then slantering each other. It is sad to watch... well i did completly agree with Clippy in the accounting thread. This has become an utter wast of time - reading over and over how who called what what and why and then the other ones reply ect. etc.

Freedom of CHOICE,
Freedom of SPEECH

As long as you abide by the form's rules


Nan has it right and you (Hutch) appealed to him and as far as i know, that most of the post in accounting lies in f0dder's favour and this thread is in f0dder's favour. In the sence that he can have his own opinoin - and so can you.

All i know it that when this post is read, i will have to state or restate things in here because language is ambigues with perseption. ( that goes for any language )

Kindly,
Black iCE
Posted on 2004-04-23 23:23:44 by Black iCE