Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/25/25 6:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/25/2025 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/25/2025 11:59 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

>
[ .... ]
>

That everyone that understands these things
sees that there is no bug ....

>

That is untrue.  The bug is clear to anybody who understands C code.

>

OK then to prove that you are not a damned liar
(you won't do this because you know that you are a liar)
show how DDD simulated by HHH according to the rules
of the x86 language reaches its own "ret" instruction
final halt state.

>

You've got a wierd notion of what it means to be a liar.

>

FIND THE BUG ASSHOLE !!!

>

You're not a nice person.  The bug in question has been pointed out many
times, in particular by Fred.

>

I am not going to be a nice person to those that
are lying about my work.

>
There's only one person around here lying about your work.
>

Being a nice person in this case is weakness and invitation to more
abuse.

>
Do you have any friends in real life, just as a matter of interest?
>

_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]

>

Alluded to is not the same as pointing the
exact machine address where DDD emulated by
HHH breaks the rules of the x86 language
such that DDD emulated by HHH reaches its
own "ret" instruction.

>
There is no "exact address where ... breaks the rules of the X86
language."  There's an art to slipping in loaded questions.  You haven't
mastered that art.
>
In that sequence of x86 instructions, the processor simply executes in
sequence, calling whatever HHH is,

 There is no "whatever HHH is" when HHH is specified to simulate DDD.

But then you assume that isn't the definition of HHH, as HHH then aborts its simulation.
Sorry, but incomplete definitions that leave holes in their meaning are not definitions, but just lies.
All you are proving is that your fundamental nature is to use poorly defined words to create operturnities to lie.
That puts you aimed right for the lake of fire, as your nature is that of a liar.

 

which then returns and proceeds to the
ret instruction at 0x21a3.  I think it's been established that by HHH you
mean a certain function hosted on the GitHub website, and that that
function returns normally.
>

-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

>