More in the way of comments

The author has decided to respond to some of his comments again, so we might as well take a few moments to consider and comment on what was said.  First there’s the response to a commenter called David (we’ll ignore the author’s dimwitted thoughts about how the posts were approved) where he said:

There’s one very important thing to note from these comments, though. David’s first computer wasn’t a Commodore 64. It was a Commodore 128. I think this proves my point that the best way to learn how to program the Commodore 64 is to learn on another computer which is somehow compatible, such as the Commodore 128, or Atari 8 bit computers!

No, it doesn’t prove that point in the slightest because the author still has to deny the existence of tens of thousands of programmers who had a C64 as their first computer and began programming with it. The author has repeatedly made this idiotic claim despite a total lack of evidence to actually back his position up; this is merely his insistence that his personal view is correct merely because he personally was incapable of learning to program with the C64 and nothing more, the same “I know best” attitude he recently chided his own father for.

In response to a trackback from your correspondent’s post where it was pointed out that the author debunked his own “point”, he had this to say:

I said that it wasn’t possible to use hexadecimal numbers from C64 BASIC, because it’s not usually possible. It seems that somehow, a few magazines managed to make it possible with certain programming techniques, though, so MEH!

And what a wonderfully robust response he offers dear reader, after being proven wrong by his own source and having demonstrated his own failure to research a subject properly the author can merely muster up a pointless and childish “meh” in response. His claims that “it’s not usually possible” and requires “certain programming techniques” are of course bogus; the techniques themselves are regular C64 BASIC so it was always possible even if the author wasn’t aware of that fact.

One thing your correspondent has recently noticed (so will retrospectively graft into this post rather than adding a new one to C64CD) is that the author has replied to a comment from a user called “vimax”… the only problem is that said user is a spambot giving out the well-worn page loading problem garbage along with some badly worded platitudes which the author seems to have actually fallen for! Most blog authors simply trash these rather obvious attempts at social engineering meant to fool them into pushing a dodgy link into their comments, but the author instead tries to give English lessons.


This entry was posted in Commentary, Debunking and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.