Re: Followup

[toddpw@wrath.ugcs.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)]

Dr. Tom writes:

>So, what have either of you done for the A2 or IIGS users, other than
>boast of many unreleased programs, that anybody has yet to see.

I boast of NOTHING that has not been distributed at some point. I stopped
sending out LHG's years ago, but many people have it. Every other program
or patch I have released (ZipTalk, ZipFix, AUFSInit, A.H.H.H.SYSTEM,
the DiskCopy hack, etc.) was put on the caltech FTP site by me personally.
None were big-ticket programs, but all were original work done by me that
I and others found useful. I have never claimed they were more than that.

Not bad for a shot in the dark though.

> You both
>are very ignorant of the law and very stupid - IMHO, which oviously means
>nothing to both of you.

Hey, I'm not _that_ rude. Everyone's opinion means something -- we're in
agreement on that. However past experience advises me to be quite skeptical
of whether or not your opinions are actually correct.

>The following statement -> copied from above "I have yet to see a
>legitimate 1WSW release." is a statement that must either be factually
>backed up, (without
>a reasonable doubt), with credientialed professional evidence, that will
>hold up in a court of law, A.S.A.P., in vivid detail, with names, dates

The only 1WSW releases I have _seen_ were the first few VAMPS disks. I
say they were not legitimate because they falsely claim to be much more
than they really are.

Based on what I heard from people (like Ian Schmidt) whose technical ability
you yourself don't question, I did not bother to download any other 1WSW
releases, therefore I have not seen them.

Yes, that is an English loophole of sorts, and I did word it that way on
purpose. If there are 1WSW releases you know are perfect and without flaw,
please name one and I'll get it from GRIND and post my revised opinion on
c.s.a2 after examining it.

If, however, you really want to take me to court, I suggest you start with
my recent statement that you have been hallucinating, which I'll admit is
the only conclusion I can make after reading your claims. I'll retract that
one publically if you really want me to. The same post pointed out another
ridiculous technical claim of yours (what the hell is a 'virtual memory
op-code' ?), which you should probably explain here first so I can debunk
it now and save us both the trouble.

I have been devoting my time to the propagation of correct (as much as I
am able) and authoritative information on c.s.a2 since I first came on the
net in 1989. All the net traffic I have seen from 1WSW is consistent with
the conclusion that you have convinced yourself of many things which are
simply not true, and then convinced other IIgs owners that they were true.
I would be neglecting my chosen duty on c.s.a2 by letting posts containing
such misinformation go unchallenged.

Why does no one who regularly posts authoritative answers here on c.s.a2
rise to defend you? Would you like to try your hand at proving (without a
reasonable doubt, that will hold up in a court of law, etc.) that we're
in conspiracy with each other to tarnish your good name? Okay, so are
you then prepared to sue _all_ of us? Or just me & Peter, who happened
to be fed up enough to challenge you this time. We're not alone, you'll
notice.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ ugcs.caltech.edu