BitchX

Incorrect. Until otherwise stated, caf runs the project off of Sourceforge which is where www.bitchx.org is pointed to. I saw what dan said on Freenode and he's not the voice of the project.

If caf decides to start using github as the primary codebase then we'll update the site here to reflect that change. In the meantime dan and I have had this conversation already and caf is lead on the project and if he tells me to move the pointers to github on here I will do so.

The info here is dated. Active development of BitchX continues, see www.bitchx.ca for project info. For current versions check out the github repository at github.com/BitchX .

DCC_MAX_AUTOGET_SIZE
Unfortunately the DCC_MAX_AUTOGET_SIZE has some limits and cannot be set very high. I'm not sure if this is was intended to be so. --Ann (www.quotesdb.info)

Re: New version

>

> %

> % We don't have a

> % need to sanitize and hide things from

> % people.

>

>

> There would have been no need to hide

> only the tcl behind a binary to keep

> from "too many implementations" of it in

> the *first place* if that were (anywhere

> close to being) true. When you explain

> this w/o using an out such as "the

> license doesnt require us to explain",

> maybe you might have some credibility.

> Or are you just going to redirect people

> to the forums, only to discredit what is

> true?

>

seth,

You've proven time and again that you're only interest in

this project is to discredit anyone associated with it.

People do not have to justify or supply you or anyone else

for reasons they might have in doing something such as

pana had done with tcl.c. You're justification for bitching

about this is simply because you can and nothing else.

You've supplied the community with no credible truth to

anything you've stated and you've proven beyond a doubt

that you're intent is only to discredit and slander persons

that in the past have been involved with the project.

My explanations for what has transpired in the past are to

the best of my ability to explain. pana has every right like

any other software author to hide pieces of their code

behind the license they are using if it allows them to do so

simply because they can or for whatever reason they pull

out of their ass.

The code is what it is. It was released by pana to a

handful of people over the years to help support various

platforms they wanted tcl support ported. The goal was

accomplished and it was never as big of a deal as you've

made it out to be with these petty, childish, and

inaccurate rants you have posted here.

When you're able to stop making slanderous comments

and actually show valid proof of what you're saying,

someone will give a rats ass. As I've stated and others

have in the past; the original tcl.c, which has been

modified over the years, was so presented at the time to

persons developing eggdrop at the time and at no point did

they ever see any similarity between what pana had put

together and what they were using. The only people that

had a right to bitch or complain never said a word and that

to me makes you suspect as only being a shit disturbing

little prick that wants to cause a scene for his own

exposure since you have no signature on radar anywhere

else in your pathetic life.

You can continue writing these pathetic comments,

change gears and come after me or anyone else you like.

The burden of proof is on your shoulders and whether

anyone chooses to respond to your mediocre,

hypothetical, and outright slanderous accusations is up to

them. I've decided to let you stew from time to time and

respond at a later date just because.. I can. I've seen

that any direct response to you is always followed up by

these ignorant accusations that we're hiding something or

that we have to come up with proof to back up what we're

saying and have been for years. Wrong. In this case the

license clearly gives pana and anyone else using the same

type of license the right to not disclose portions of the

code which they author. He went the extra step, included

others that were outsiders to review what he had wrote.

They never came at him and they never released the code

out of respect for pana. Others directly involved in the

project also demonstrated the same loyalty and respect for

pana over the years and never once released that piece of

code except to persons who were part of the project in

some fashion.

Is your bitterness driven from the fact that you some how

were attempting to be involved with the project and were

rejected due to your fragile personality problems? It

seems to me that you spent a lot of time flaming pana

and others (myself included) all for some sort of attention

you could not gain any other way? You should seriously

seek some form of medical intervention for these issues

and step away from your computer for a long time to

come. You're unstable and you cry over things that only

matter to people that have no life at all or are just trying

to shine a spotlight on them by attempting to create

drama where there was none. You, by example, have

shown the community exactly the type of person you are

with these repeated false accusations and attempts to

discredit persons who are only doing the best they could to

supply the public with information and access to a product

of interest. This makes you the boy the cried wolf one too

many times.

Good day

Rob Andrews

sin@bitchx.org

Re: New version

>

> We don't have a

> need to sanitize and hide things from

> people.

There would have been no need to hide only the tcl behind a binary to keep from "too many implementations" of it in the *first place* if that were (anywhere close to being) true. When you explain this w/o using an out such as "the license doesnt require us to explain", maybe you might have some credibility. Or are you just going to redirect people to the forums, only to discredit what is true?