🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5550@bd.sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
> In article <5524@bd.sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu I wrote:
> 
> > . There is no difference among the 80xxx processors in the semantics
> >   of the PUSH instruction
> 
> In article <10190@microsoft.UUCP> gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) writes:
> 
> >This is totally wrong.  It's a fact that the handling of "push sp" differs
> 
> It may well, indeed, be totally wrong.  However, given that I went to
> the trouble actually to extract the documents, reread them, and post to
> the net their citations, including title, date, and order number, it
> seems to me that it would be a matter of simple courtesy, both to me
> and to the net, if you would take the same trouble before issuing a
> public contradiction.  


Nah.  The key fact here is that I'm right.  I'm doing a "service" to the
net by warning folks that your "authoritative" posting is N.F.G., so that
some day someone won't get caught out on this.

I don't care what expectations, demands, or requirements you may have on
me.  It's ridiculous to assert that I'm "discourteous" because I don't
do what you expect of me.  In my case, I expect folks in this "babel" forum
to be right or to be quiet.  You don't meet those expectations.

THis isn't a timely topic and is therefore of minimial interest, I just
took a quick moment in case there was anyone who might believe - and later
rely - upon your erronious information.

If you want to talk courtesy, then talk about how courtious it is to
do negligent research and then to post it as authoritative.

	gordon


(The order number of this reply is : "BUZZ-12-45/Qr-OFF".  That compenstates
	for any other failing - such as being totally wrong - that it may have.