quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Intelligence. Q.E. D.

Typo so you admit I had the job.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Intelligence. Q.E. D.

Typo so you admit I had the job.

I admit you haven't any.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

and a computer programer
programmer. Q.E.D.

DECLARE (I,J) FIXED BIN(15);
DECLARE S BIT(1);
DECLARE Y FIXED BIN(15);
DO I = N-1 BY -1 TO 1;
S = '1'B;
DO J = 1 TO I;
IF X(J)>X(J+1) THEN DO;
S = '0'B;
Y = X(J);
X(J) = X(J+1);
X(J+1) = Y;
END;
END; Tell me what language this is, and what this snippet does.


Another typo, nbd
Looks like Fortran, which I haven't even looked at since 80.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

and a computer programer
programmer. Q.E.D.

DECLARE (I,J) FIXED BIN(15);
DECLARE S BIT(1);
DECLARE Y FIXED BIN(15);
DO I = N-1 BY -1 TO 1;
S = '1'B;
DO J = 1 TO I;
IF X(J)>X(J+1) THEN DO;
S = '0'B;
Y = X(J);
X(J) = X(J+1);
X(J+1) = Y;
END;
END; Tell me what language this is, and what this snippet does.


Another typo, nbd
Looks like Fortran, which I haven't even looked at since 80.

Nope, not even close.

PROGRAM MAIN
INTEGER N, X
EXTERNAL SUB1
COMMON /GLOBALS/ N
X = 0
PRINT *, 'Enter number of repeats'
READ (*,*) N
CALL SUB1(X,SUB1)
END

SUBROUTINE SUB1(X,DUMSUB)
INTEGER N, X
EXTERNAL DUMSUB
COMMON /GLOBALS/ N
IF(X .LT. N)THEN
X = X + 1
PRINT *, 'x = ', X
CALL DUMSUB(X,DUMSUB)
END IF
END

That is fortran. So what language did you program?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

You still cant prove one nutsucker slobber blog containing fact.

Quit the derail, show us facts. Not slobberblogging and nutsuckerism.

To paraphrase a dear freind of yours I see no need to post cites when I can just sit here and watch you make a fool of yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

You still cant prove one nutsucker slobber blog containing fact.

Quit the derail, show us facts. Not slobberblogging and nutsuckerism.

To paraphrase a dear freind of yours I see no need to post cites when I can just sit here and watch you make a fool of yourself.

over the 800+ posts in this thread, many dozens of facts have been shared, as well as bunches of legal opinion, updates on the process, conservative and libertarian thought on the matter, insider information and a handful of other aspects of the scandal.

that vile critter parts continues to assert "factless" is rather evidence of an inability to discern, to learn, or something even worse.

so heres the thing bama, given what I just said above, as far as he is concerned, it doesn't matter what gets posted because he is clearly impervious to the truth. subsequently his "show me the facts" challenge lacks the necessary depth to take it seriously.

on the off chance that he actually does read, as opposed to merely babble vulgarities, here's a good summary for his edification:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html?tid=pm_pop_b

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

You still cant prove one nutsucker slobber blog containing fact.

Quit the derail, show us facts. Not slobberblogging and nutsuckerism.

To paraphrase a dear freind of yours I see no need to post cites when I can just sit here and watch you make a fool of yourself.

over the 800+ posts in this thread, many dozens of facts have been shared, as well as bunches of legal opinion, updates on the process, conservative and libertarian thought on the matter, insider information and a handful of other aspects of the scandal.

that vile critter parts continues to assert "factless" is rather evidence of an inability to discern, to learn, or something even worse.

so heres the thing bama, given what I just said above, as far as he is concerned, it doesn't matter what gets posted because he is clearly impervious to the truth. subsequently his "show me the facts" challenge lacks the necessary depth to take it seriously.

on the off chance that he actually does read, as opposed to merely babble vulgarities, here's a good summary for his edification:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html?tid=pm_pop_b

Yep.
You notice that he can't come up with a single left wing site that engages (in his mind) in spin or distortion.

He also counts lies as anything he doesn't like while claiming to know what I did in the service.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

You still cant prove one nutsucker slobber blog containing fact.

Quit the derail, show us facts. Not slobberblogging and nutsuckerism.

To paraphrase a dear freind of yours I see no need to post cites when I can just sit here and watch you make a fool of yourself.

over the 800+ posts in this thread, many dozens of facts have been shared, as well as bunches of legal opinion, updates on the process, conservative and libertarian thought on the matter, insider information and a handful of other aspects of the scandal.

that vile critter parts continues to assert "factless" is rather evidence of an inability to discern, to learn, or something even worse.

so heres the thing bama, given what I just said above, as far as he is concerned, it doesn't matter what gets posted because he is clearly impervious to the truth. subsequently his "show me the facts" challenge lacks the necessary depth to take it seriously.

on the off chance that he actually does read, as opposed to merely babble vulgarities, here's a good summary for his edification:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html?tid=pm_pop_b

Yep.
You notice that he can't come up with a single left wing site that engages (in his mind) in spin or distortion.

He also counts lies as anything he doesn't like while claiming to know what I did in the service.

yet you still havent come up with the claims that you mentioned about the blackberries. You have obfuscated, derailed, hijacked and twisted. But you cannot come up with the cite.
oh Im sorry, you will NOT cite it, why???
Never happened, or has been found to me more ignorant "maybes, "probably", "what ifs", etc.
Until you come up with it, you are the one pushing "non" facts

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I noticed that after several instances you have not denied you are a dick wiggler. According to you, that is proof positve, and all else follows from that.

If thats good enough for you, its good enough for me, and yes you do sound familiar.

You trying to detract my outstanding military service with tales of your substandard military service (as a cook) and subsequent scam to get on the dole. Yes you are dwarfing all nutsuckerisms you've spewn at this point.

quote:

I don't need to cite when I can just watch the absurd foolish twists and turns he takes, sound familiar?
It was good enough for you, it must be good enough for me.
You expect me to have memorized the site of every news story I have read in the last year.
I noticed that neither you or dear Ron denied that Obama said that she didn't mean to share classified information she just didn't protect it like she should have. Although Mnottertail tried to make the claim that not properly protecting classified information isn't a crime, you going to make that claim?

Distracting, wouldn't you admit that Mnottertail trying once again to denegrate my military service is a level of derailment that dwarfs anything I do? Or are you so enamored of him that he can do no wrong?.