00:00:00 --- log: started forth/02.04.18
00:14:05 --- quit: futhin ("sleep")
01:16:49 --- join: davidw (~davidw@ppp-178-10.25-151.libero.it) joined #forth
02:28:33 --- quit: Soap- (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
02:28:34 --- quit: MrReach (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
03:49:49 --- join: Soap` (flop@210-55-86-51.dialup.xtra.co.nz) joined #forth
05:20:10 --- join: rob_ert (~robert@h237n2fls31o965.telia.com) joined #forth
05:53:05 --- join: onetom (tom@adsl52032.vnet.hu) joined #forth
06:38:00 --- join: tathi (~tathi@wsip68-15-54-54.ri.ri.cox.net) joined #forth
07:55:23 --- join: Fare (fare@samaris.tunes.org) joined #forth
07:56:24 <rob_ert> Hi
07:57:22 <Fare> lo
08:11:26 --- quit: tathi (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
08:54:43 --- quit: Fare ("Connection reset by pear")
09:06:05 --- join: tathi (~tathi@wsip68-15-54-54.ri.ri.cox.net) joined #forth
09:38:47 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust23.tnt1.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth
09:42:03 <rob_ert> Hej
09:44:30 <I440r> hi hehe i gtg now
09:44:32 <I440r> grrr
09:44:52 <I440r> i sit down to do some in depth idling and my father now wants to go do WORK!!!!
09:44:53 <I440r> dammit
09:44:54 <I440r> heh
09:44:55 <I440r> bbl
09:44:58 --- quit: I440r ("bbl")
10:35:33 --- join: XeF4 (~xef4@dsl-XIV-238.kotikaista.weppi.fi) joined #forth
11:08:27 --- join: Fare (fare@samaris.tunes.org) joined #forth
12:39:36 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust229.tnt2.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth
12:39:46 <I440r> just a flyby vizzit 
12:40:04 <I440r> can idle here for a few but hfata go out again ina  min and do some werk
12:40:40 <rob_ert> Hmm
12:40:41 <rob_ert> OK
12:40:42 <rob_ert>  :)
12:41:40 <I440r> lol time to go hehe
12:41:41 <I440r> doh
12:41:42 <I440r> ill bbl
12:41:44 --- quit: I440r (Client Quit)
13:12:27 --- join: MrGone (~mrreach@209.181.43.190) joined #forth
13:13:30 <XeF4> welcome back, Mr Gone
13:13:48 <MrGone> thanks
13:14:49 <rob_ert> Hi Mr Gone and Sir XeF4.
13:31:11 --- quit: tathi ("Client Exiting")
14:04:10 --- join: herkamire (~jason@68.15.54.54) joined #forth
14:05:24 <rob_ert> Hi :)
14:40:44 <herkamire> hi :)
14:40:57 <herkamire> gosh, I've got lightning quick reflexes tonight ;)
14:41:01 <rob_ert> Yeah
14:41:08 <MrGone> heh
14:41:19 * rob_ert pokes herkamire
14:41:27 * herkamire notices :)
14:42:08 <rob_ert> Forth is growing, maybe we'll have to get rid of the 83 limit soon ;)
14:42:13 <rob_ert> #forth that is.
14:42:40 <herkamire> riiight
14:43:15 <herkamire> we're comming dangerously close to %20 capacity... ;)
14:44:13 <rob_ert> Yah... but you should never lose your faith ;)
14:44:22 <herkamire> anybody know if there's a PIC programmer for USB?
14:44:58 <rob_ert> Ugh, no idea :)
14:51:29 --- join: s[e]th (s_7_th@AAubervilliers-103-1-3-235.abo.wanadoo.fr) joined #forth
14:51:37 <s[e]th> hiho
14:51:47 <MrGone> hi
14:54:38 <rob_ert> Hi :)
14:55:02 <herkamire> yo
14:55:03 <s[e]th> how are you today ?
14:55:51 <rob_ert> Just like day yesterday, even better than the day before.
14:56:06 <MrGone> I am "ok"
14:56:07 <s[e]th> ^^
14:56:33 <s[e]th> i have a boring day...
14:56:52 <herkamire> is ?branch supposed to branch on a false value or on true?
14:56:54 * s[e]th programmed MFC during all the day :p
14:57:09 <MrGone> usually on a false value
14:57:14 <herkamire> cool
14:57:33 <herkamire> that's what I did
14:57:43 <MrGone> when embedded in an IF ... you want flow uninterrupted on true condition
14:58:06 <MrGone> it's often called '0bra' for that reason
14:58:34 <MrGone> I consider ?branch to be a misnomer ... it implies a branch on true
15:02:04 <herkamire> I thought it looked misleading, if it branches on zero, but that's what seemed most useful, so I did that.
15:02:18 <onetom> yuy, poor s[e]th 
15:03:09 <herkamire> oops... I forgot to decrement the counter in my do/loop words
15:03:31 <MrGone> ha!
15:03:43 <s[e]th> onetom: it's interresant at least :^p
15:04:32 <herkamire> yay it works :) seccond try
15:05:15 <herkamire> that wasn't so bad. I don't know how I managed to get so confused last time I went to implement it. I was tired I'm sure :) :)
15:13:34 <herkamire> with this forth I can Rule The World!!! ooowwoaaaahahahaaa
15:13:49 * MrGone yawns.
15:13:58 <herkamire> now I gotta think of something to do with it... :)
15:25:55 <onetom> s[e]th: what?!?! mfc? its disgusting, ugly. makes the programmer go crazy!
15:26:32 --- quit: Soap` (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
15:28:24 <herkamire> what is mfc?
15:28:41 <onetom> ud better not 2 know ;)
15:28:43 <MrGone> Micro$oft Foundation Classes
15:28:55 <onetom> Ms Foundation Classes
15:29:07 <MrGone> a huge library of GUI helpers
15:29:47 <onetom> its a higher level of gui programming, developed 4 visual c++
15:30:05 <onetom> higher than the direct gdi api
15:31:21 <herkamire> oh
15:31:26 <herkamire> nasty
15:31:50 <onetom> it  is   : )
15:32:04 <onetom> herkamire: & how about u & ur 4th?
15:32:15 <herkamire> it's working well :)
15:32:23 <onetom> herkamire: do u already have some idea what 2 do w it?
15:32:51 <herkamire> I just got do/loop to work :) that was the last thing I really wanted done. now I'm playing with it, and I'll see if I missed anything important that I can't write in forth :)
15:33:15 <MrGone> time to write a single-step debugger    @:^>
15:33:31 <onetom> or disassembler >:)
15:33:31 <herkamire> nahhh
15:33:37 <onetom> imean the word SEE
15:33:45 <MrGone> decompiler
15:33:51 <herkamire> oh :) I could write see
15:34:23 --- quit: rob_ert ("(:")
15:34:38 <onetom> but seriously: a ?do could make it more graceful ;)
15:35:29 <herkamire> ??
15:35:30 <MrGone> I'm fond of FOR ... NEXT myself, or FOR ... ENDFOR
15:35:31 <onetom> ahhh! rob_ert has thrown an evil back-grin 2 us :)
15:35:55 <MrGone> : test 5 FOR I . ENDFOR ;
15:35:56 <herkamire> I have REPEAT ... UNTIL and DO ... LOOP and IF ... THEN
15:36:12 <MrGone> test 4 3 2 1 0 ok
15:36:29 <onetom> herkamire: : ?do 2dup = if postpone do else 2drop .... then ;
15:37:01 <MrGone> onetom: I think you got your logic backwards
15:37:12 <onetom> really? why?
15:37:20 <onetom> (imust b tired :)
15:37:23 <MrGone> don't you want to drop if they ARE equal?
15:37:45 <onetom> ah, right
15:38:22 <onetom> herkamire: : test 1 1 do i . loop ; ???
15:38:50 <herkamire> so, it's like do except it doesn't loop at least once?
15:38:53 <MrGone> also, it needs to skip past the look somehow after dropping the items
15:39:18 --- quit: Fare ("Connection reset by pear")
15:39:20 <MrGone> skip past the loop, that is
15:40:07 <MrGone> herkamire: correct
15:40:31 <MrGone> as a rule, ... 1 1 do ... loop ... is a VERY bad thing ... infinate loop
15:40:37 <onetom> yeah. ive never implemented it yet
15:40:52 <herkamire> ok, I'll see if I need it. untill then, I'm sticking with my 3 control structures.
15:40:55 <onetom> MrGone: infinite? dont think so
15:41:05 <onetom> it just wraps around the 
15:41:10 <MrGone> ok, I might be mistaken, lemme check win32 forth
15:41:13 <onetom> number representation domain
15:41:32 <herkamire> in a 32 bit forth it can take a long time to wrap around :)
15:41:48 <MrGone> yep, it's infinate for all intents and purposes
15:42:00 <onetom> herkamire: ?do is similat to the folloing construct:
15:42:12 <onetom> 2dup <> if do ..... loop then
15:42:28 <onetom> u can all the time replace ?do w this structure
15:42:51 <MrGone> ... 2dup <> if do ... loop else 2drop then
15:42:52 <herkamire> right
15:42:59 <herkamire> :)
15:43:08 <herkamire> who needs a debugger :)
15:43:27 <MrGone> that's difficult to put into a flow-control word, though
15:43:45 <MrGone> it requires knowledge of the compiler internals
15:44:37 <herkamire> I would make it a builtin word. it would be like do, except it would do the checking at the top of the loop instead of at the bottom
15:45:04 <XeF4> herk: while
15:45:18 <herkamire> I almost did it that way anyway, but then tathi told me that DO is suposed to execute at least once no matter what.
15:45:30 <herkamire> while?
15:45:37 <MrGone> you didn't check the ANS spec for do?
15:45:53 <herkamire> no :)
15:46:04 <herkamire> I couldn't find it
15:46:41 <MrGone> http://www.taygeta.com/forth/dpans6.htm#6.1.1240
15:47:06 <MrGone> that's the URL for DO itself
15:48:07 <herkamire> I really don't like the ANS standard
15:48:26 <MrGone> the url for all defined words is http://www.taygeta.com/forth/dpansf.htm
15:48:33 <herkamire> tnks
15:48:43 <MrGone> and the TOC is http://www.taygeta.com/forth/dpans.html
15:50:01 <herkamire> I wish it would describe how forth works from the programmers perspective.
15:50:30 <herkamire> it seem to me to be a big deal that you  can't rely on the implementation working a certain way, and I believe  the standard says that.
15:50:44 <herkamire> but then the standard is mostly blathering on about how to implement stuff... I don't get it.
16:01:23 <onetom> herkamire: i also advice u 2 have a look @ tile's minimal.f83
16:01:58 <onetom> herkamire: its show funny implementations of the various basic 4th word
16:02:10 <onetom> herkamire: and it is based on only 9 primitives
16:02:14 <XeF4> herk: to which blathering do you refer?
16:09:25 <herkamire> (about DO) "Place do-sys onto the control-flow stack. Append the run-time semantics
16:09:25 <herkamire> given below to the current definition. The semantics are incomplete
16:09:25 <herkamire> until resolved by a consumer of do-sys such as 
16:09:25 <herkamire> LOOP."
16:11:24 <XeF4> there are myriad ways to implement those semantics.
16:11:32 <herkamire> why can't they just say "DO marks the begining of a loop which must end with LOOP or +LOOP."
16:12:12 <XeF4> because that is vague about nesting behaviour
16:13:41 <XeF4> and because the ANS definition implies you can't freely use the data stack across a DO boundary before consumption of its do-sys by loop
16:13:58 <herkamire> why imply that??
16:14:21 <herkamire> why not just say, this is how it's supposed to work, and then tell the programmer which stacks he can use in which situations (to leave room for the implementation)
16:14:25 <XeF4> ANS must take existing practice into account, and existing forths put do-sys stuff on the data stack
16:14:41 <herkamire> yes, but you d'nt have to do it that way.
16:14:49 --- quit: s[e]th ()
16:14:55 <herkamire> so why does  the standard say that's how its done?
16:15:14 <herkamire> I don't mind advice, or someone saying that it's often done that way, but that's not what standards are about.
16:15:17 <XeF4> the standard says the control-flow stack may or may not physically exist in an implementation
16:15:25 <XeF4> and if it does, it may be implemented using the data stack.
16:15:44 <herkamire> right. it desn't have to exist, but it tells you to put stuff on it!!!!
16:16:01 <XeF4> which means:  it doesn't _have_ to be done that way, but the programmer must assume worst-case if he is to write portable code
16:16:14 <herkamire> it says "Place do-sys onto the control-flow stack."
16:18:10 <XeF4> that doesn't imply a physical operation
16:18:12 <herkamire> my beef with it is that you have to infer everything to get any useful information out of it.
16:18:23 <herkamire> I standard should just tell you the mimimum you need to know
16:18:38 <onetom> how else could u implement a control structure, anyway?
16:18:49 <herkamire> it shouldn't just describe a particular implementation and expect people to just sorta figure out how to be compatible
16:19:06 <onetom> wo a real/separate or a virtual control stack?
16:20:15 <onetom> if u cross-compile 4th code for example
16:20:22 <XeF4> one: well.. you could have a loop scan backward through the list of XTs, but that would be ridiculous :)
16:20:43 <herkamire> I don't think the standard should talk about implementations at all, except to impose some restrictions on the language/programmer to make it easier to implement
16:20:56 <onetom> there really mustn b a control stack or @ least its unimportant
16:21:20 <onetom> coz the compiling system is totally separate from the run-time system
16:21:47 <XeF4> herka: look at the usage requirements on the control-flow stack and the do-sys strcuture
16:21:59 <herkamire> I don't really care.
16:22:01 <XeF4> and you'll see that that is actually not an implementation prescription, even though it looks like one.
16:22:07 <onetom> herkamire: probably it has a section about the control stack, iguess
16:22:14 <herkamire> I'm not going to be using 
16:22:14 <herkamire> ans forth much
16:22:32 <onetom> herkamire: and probably they tell more about it. more about their assumption
16:22:48 <herkamire> you can use the data stack as the control stack
16:22:57 <herkamire> anyway, I gotta go
16:23:08 <onetom> herkamire: and more about the causes of why they r talkin about a ctrl stack in the document
16:23:40 <onetom> XeF4: yup. u r right
16:24:04 <onetom> XeF4: :))
16:24:20 <onetom> XeF4: i was just typing wo reading
16:24:28 * onetom is tired a bit, uknow
16:25:40 <herkamire> XeF4: I'm glad to hear that, but rather than checking up on it, I'm just going to shut up about the standard. and just leave it at: 
16:25:50 <herkamire> "I wish it was simpler"
16:26:04 <herkamire> bye all
16:26:04 --- quit: herkamire ("Client Exiting")
16:40:36 <XeF4> and it allows consistent manipulation of the control-flow stack (when it does exist) for user-defined control-flow words (ahead, cs-roll, cs-pick)
16:40:49 <MrGone> heh
16:41:11 <MrGone> the process is not to read the standard to learn how to implement your system ... quite the opposite
16:41:34 <MrGone> the process is to write your system, then double check that all the words are compliant
16:41:49 <MrGone> maybe tweak them a little in the details
16:44:22 --- join: Soap` (flop@210-54-91-74.dialup.xtra.co.nz) joined #forth
16:45:51 <XeF4> of course.
16:46:16 --- quit: Soap` (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
16:46:59 --- join: Soap` (flop@210-54-91-74.dialup.xtra.co.nz) joined #forth
17:20:25 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust201.tnt3.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth
17:20:52 <I440r> ./me sits down and relaxes
17:56:30 --- quit: davidw (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
18:19:44 --- quit: XeF4 ("pois")
18:43:00 --- join: TheBlueWizard (TheBlueWiz@ip-216-25-202-100.vienna.va.fcc.net) joined #forth
18:43:00 --- mode: ChanServ set +o TheBlueWizard
18:43:10 <TheBlueWizard> hiya all
18:47:39 <I440r> tbw!!
18:48:14 <I440r> howzit going :)
19:02:17 <TheBlueWizard> hiya I440r!!!  sorry for being afk...emergency poop plus emergency shower lol
19:03:00 <I440r> heh
19:03:05 <I440r> i gtg get my sis
19:03:07 <I440r> ill bhrb
19:03:12 <I440r> gotta log out tho
19:03:20 <I440r> be about 20 mins max
19:03:20 <TheBlueWizard> ok
19:03:24 <TheBlueWizard> take care!
19:19:24 --- quit: I440r (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
19:26:39 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust80.tnt2.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth
19:26:50 <TheBlueWizard> hiya I440r again
19:27:19 <I440r> :)
19:27:31 <I440r> :)
19:27:51 <TheBlueWizard> so how're things going?
19:28:05 <TheBlueWizard> mine's very busy...
19:28:56 <I440r> not too bad
19:28:56 <I440r> still no job tho
19:33:48 <TheBlueWizard> aww man...no job for, what, 9 months now...you must be starvin'....
19:33:56 <I440r> heh
19:33:59 <I440r> not quite.
19:34:10 <TheBlueWizard> not quite?
19:34:12 <I440r> but i realy realy realy need to get a job PHAST
19:34:16 <I440r> not quite starving
19:34:21 * TheBlueWizard grins in spite of it
19:34:56 <TheBlueWizard> I know....at least I have a steady job as a gov't peon :P
19:39:16 <I440r> hehe
19:39:54 <TheBlueWizard> um...I see you created a website for IsForth
19:41:04 <I440r> yea i asked in #debian if anyone would host and some guy who runs an isp somewhere here in indiana said sure :)P
19:43:49 <TheBlueWizard> cool...
20:01:15 <TheBlueWizard> gotta go...later!
20:01:33 <I440r> :)
20:01:37 <I440r> c u dood
20:02:01 --- part: TheBlueWizard left #forth
20:18:48 --- quit: joa (carter.openprojects.net irc.openprojects.net)
22:02:06 --- quit: Soap` ()
22:15:32 --- join: joa (~james@25-118-237-24.anc-dial.gci.net) joined #forth
22:17:43 <I440r> wb :)
22:23:37 <I440r> joa afk ?
23:31:26 --- nick: MrGone -> MrReach
23:32:26 <I440r> lol i waas just about to go zzz heh
23:32:42 <MrReach> heh, it happens
23:32:45 <MrReach> I am too
23:32:58 <I440r> hows it goin ? :)
23:33:06 <MrReach> btw, about my dad and the coffee cup on the dash of the El Camino
23:33:33 <I440r> ya
23:33:49 <MrReach> one afternoon, I got kinda irritated with the cup, so we were changing on dry pavement, straight section of road
23:34:43 <MrReach> after we got in, I floored it, and as the cup came of the edge, I yanked the wheel hard to the left ... the coffee hit his square in the chest in landed in his lap
23:35:21 <MrReach> I didn't get to drive for a couple of months, but that was the last time there was a cup of coffee on the dashboard
23:35:26 <I440r> lol
23:35:26 <I440r> what did he do :)
23:35:40 <I440r> bitch slap ya or laff :)
23:35:48 <I440r> :)
23:35:55 <I440r> i would have drunk it :)
23:36:02 <I440r> as i drove :)
23:36:08 <MrReach> jumped all over the inside of the cab, called me a few choice names, and laughed
23:36:17 <I440r> and told dad - thanx for the coffee :)
23:36:40 <MrReach> I didn't drink coffee when I was 14-15
23:37:01 <I440r> lol
23:37:10 <I440r> did he take sugar in his coffee?
23:37:17 <MrReach> nope, black
23:37:24 <I440r> sugar on upholstery is a bitch :)
23:37:34 <I440r> aha
23:37:38 <MrReach> not so bad on naugahyde
23:38:07 <I440r> oh yea
23:38:09 <I440r> hehe
23:38:24 <MrReach> it was a work truck, not a luxery car
23:38:29 <MrReach> not leather or anything
23:39:00 <I440r> ok heh
23:39:09 <I440r> not too bad then
23:39:41 <MrReach> he sure thought I was going into the ditch, though
23:40:05 <I440r> lol
23:41:07 <MrReach> coffee caught him completely by surprise, the last thing he was thinking about
23:42:20 <I440r> haha
23:42:56 <MrReach> anyway, thought you'd like to hear about how that part of my life turned out
23:43:06 <MrReach> "the era of the accursed cup"
23:43:29 <I440r> heh
23:43:36 <MrReach> to this day I hate to see coffee in white styrofoam cups
23:43:51 <I440r> i also thought of something. another critisism i have of drivers arround here...
23:43:56 <I440r> no lane discipline
23:44:01 <I440r> at all!
23:44:11 <MrReach> heh, you probably wouldn't like me much then ...
23:44:36 <MrReach> on back roads, I always drive exactly astraddle the yellow line
23:44:54 <I440r> oh i take my half out of the middle sometimes
23:44:59 <MrReach> because a dog or critter is as likely to dart out from either side of the road
23:45:07 <I440r> but these ppl cross over when going round a blind corner
23:45:48 <MrReach> yes, my wife had to go off the road last w/e because some ditz in a minivan was looking for a pack of smokes in the back or messing with her kid or something
23:46:03 <I440r> lol
23:46:23 <I440r> ppl drive very close to the centre line or with the wheel slightlo over
23:46:30 <MrReach> the ditz in the minivan didn't go off the road NNOOOOOO! we got the honor
23:46:35 <I440r> i drive past them with like an inch and a half to spare
23:46:39 <I440r> ohhh i thunked of anotehr one
23:46:45 <I440r> your pulling up to an intersection
23:46:50 <MrReach> no, this lady was driving in our lane like she belonged there
23:46:58 <I440r> somone is coming round the corner and cuts accross your lane
23:47:03 <I440r> they clip the corner
23:47:12 <I440r> if you pull up to where the line WOULD BE
23:47:16 <I440r> they get ansi at you 
23:47:16 <I440r> lol
23:47:23 <MrReach> yes, that's not so bad when they're going the same direction as you
23:47:36 <MrReach> heh
23:47:53 <MrReach> I lost a rim to that in Calif once ... guy in a camper
23:47:53 <I440r> no  im talking about when they are turning into the road your about to leave
23:48:04 <MrReach> oh!!!
23:48:10 <MrReach> yeah, that's nasty
23:48:10 <I440r> they think that its their space your driving into
23:48:30 <I440r> dumbasses. that falls under lane discipline i recon tho
23:48:43 <MrReach> heh, or cars that pull right up to or beyond the stop line when I'm driving the truck and camper
23:48:56 <I440r> lol
23:49:00 <I440r> another one
23:49:17 <I440r> your at a red lite.  wanting to turn left. (in left turn lane)
23:49:18 <MrReach> I've seen the camper come 2" from ripping off their bumper and carrying it a block or so
23:49:33 <I440r> the light turns green and the cars on the other side of the road have the right of way
23:49:47 <I440r> so. the guy in front of you SITS at the green light
23:49:48 <MrReach> oh, yes, and they rabbit around the corner
23:49:55 <I440r> the other ppl pass. then he goes and it turns red
23:50:09 <I440r> all he had to do was PULL INTO the intersection and you would have had a chance
23:50:18 <MrReach> oh, yes, I've had that happen
23:50:27 <I440r> driveing down the road. person in front of you is making a left had turn
23:50:32 <MrReach> that's not a real biggie to me
23:50:33 <I440r> instead of HUGGING the center line
23:50:46 <I440r> he pulls out wide. blocking you from passing him
23:50:49 <I440r> and then turns
23:50:50 <I440r> ugh
23:51:02 <I440r> if yhou need to swing out to make a turn you should give up the steering wheel heh
23:51:30 <I440r> hehe theres also alot of very very small people round ehre who have to look THROUGH the stearing wheel to drive
23:51:37 <I440r> i think it should be illegal for them to drive
23:52:07 <MrReach> heh, in Sacrmento, the Staples delivery van swung wide to the right to make a u-turn ... knocking me into the traffic on my right to avoid getting hit by him
23:52:19 <I440r> but then if it was up to me i would pull about 80% of the populations drivers lisences heh
23:52:35 <I440r> sue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
23:52:37 <I440r> lol
23:52:43 <MrReach> I was driving my boss's brand new Camry
23:53:18 <MrReach> it worked out cool, because I knew that the guy made a delivery to our office every Thurs at 3pm
23:53:40 <I440r> gave him shit for it ?
23:53:51 <MrReach> so on Thurs I asked him, "Were you making a u-turn on Arden at 12:10 last tuesday?"
23:53:58 <MrReach> "yes"
23:54:03 --- quit: onetom (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
23:54:30 <MrReach> well, youi probably didn't know, but you're swiging out of your lane on the right and almost hitting traffic
23:54:48 <MrReach> he started spluttering and denying
23:55:15 <I440r> lol
23:55:26 <I440r> ya know he knew he did :)
23:55:35 <MrReach> "LISTEN, I want you to succeed at your job, and I'm *TELLING* you that you're not going to keep it long if you have a collision. Take it or leave it."
23:56:49 <MrReach> it's kinda stupid to say that the route takes him through there each day about that time ... and then deny either that it was him or that he did a boo-boo
23:57:12 <MrReach> which is what it was, no big deal ... happens all the time
23:57:42 <MrReach> heh, wouldn't it have been interesting trying to explain to Bruce why his car came back all hammered
23:58:33 <I440r> lol
23:58:37 <MrReach> "John the Staples guy swung out and hit it. I didn't react fast enough."
23:58:52 <MrReach> "yes, the John that's here every Thursday"
23:59:18 * MrReach scratches his head and tries not to giggle.
23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/02.04.18