Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:

> olcott wrote:
>
> >
> > > 1. Christ wasn't an amateur
> >
> > The distinction between professional and amateur is most
> > typically made on the basis of whether one received monetary
> > compensation for there work.
>
> That is not the difference between amateur and professional. I suggest you learn what the word
> "profession" means, not it's current misuse by the vulgar.
>
> >
> > > 4. My statements are rude - if you are telling the truth. If you are just a gas bag, as
> > > you posts suggest, then all that has happened is you've been shown, once again, and not
> > > just by me, to be wearing no imperial robes.
> > >
> >
> > There is NO EXCUSE for one whose "profession"
> > is speaking for God to ever be rude.
>
> What authority says so? It is obvious that you know nothing about this matter. Jesus called
> Herod a fox, John the Baptist called the Pharisees and priest, a brood of vipers, Jesus also
> called the Pharisees whitewashed tombs full of decaying bones. Of course, you will claim that

All of examples go directly against "Love your enemies"
None of these examples is any form of an expression of Love.
Christ killed a fig tree in anger because it was merely not
in season for figs. This killing of the fig tree is by no means
an expression of righteousness, and I would even go so far as
to say it was an expression of the opposite of righteousness.
Christ had a human nature too, and all human natures are
inherently fallible. Would you propose that the killing of
an innocent fig tree is a Good thing?

Learning a thing by rote, makes one a non-living machine.
Learning a thing by the comprehension of all the reasoning
behind it is the only correct way.

>
> these are not from God, but from Satan, because they don't agree with what you think is truth.
> What that means, is that you have elevated yourself to the position of God, for you have
> determined what is truth and righteousness and anything that disagrees with your conception is
> false. Your pseudo intellectual approach is only more of the fig leaf to cover your violation of
> the first two commandments, as your have tried to cover your violation of  the eighth and tenth
> commandments (Ex 20 so you can check it out.)
>
> > My compiler
> > does produce mathematically optimal code.
>
> So you claim. For the third time - who publishes it, and who has verified that your claim is
> true? What third party testing labs have done this?
>
> > I have
> > worked on it for several years. As it turns out the
> > distinction between the mathematically optimal code
> > that it produces and the code produced by other
> > compilers is of little practical consequence, decreasing
> > size, and time by less than one percent. Yet this
> > difference is required to distinguish between
> > actual perfection, and a mere reasonable facsimile.
>
> LOL. Even if your unvalidated claim is right, I've been around long enough to know that fast
> code has often been made faster, sometimes in ways that astonish people. Humility would demand
> that you not make such categorical statements, but then megalomaniacs are seldom humble.
>

I have in no way invalidated my claim. I have merely qualified it
by providing some additional details.

>
> >
> > A Pastor whom does not bother to incorporate
> > the teachings of Christ into his life? This seems
> > to me to be a sham...
>
> I do, though, unlike your compiler, I'm not perfect. And in this case, at least, I've done what
> Christ himself has done, so I'm feeling confident that I've not sinned.
>
> Oh, by the way, shame is spelled with a final "e", and "sham" doesn't fit your sentence. Esp.
> since I've never been so foolish (unlike some posting here) to claim to have achieved perfection
> or infallibility. I'm not God, not now, and never will be. Baruch ha shem.
>

 sham    n., adj., v., shammed, sham�ming � n.1. something that is not what it purports to be; a
spurious imitation; fraud or hoax.

>
> Roy
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Roy