Oh, they're not? When the person you replied to wrote, "It’s far easier to write a minimal program on a TI calculator", what did you understand that to mean?

Reading back the thread, it's clear that not only is hello world in scope, minimal programs are the only sort of program that anyone who isn't you even mentioned. What this is is a bizarre situation where you insisted on linking the topic of programming TI-89 calculators to general purpose computing while simultaneously trying to take up arms at the suggestion that anyone could think there could a relation between the two.

> that’s not a quote [...] just another thing you have made up just now

Oh, it's not? So the words "easier to write a minimal program" don't appear here <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27906345>? And it's not true that you quote those words and then even use them yourself while engaging with the topic here <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27906820>?

> You chose to reply to a comment that wasn’t a reply to you to make a personal attack based on an inaccurate rendering of the context.

Oh, I did? So those bits you're identifying didn't occur here <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27912959>, in a reply to a comment that was a reply to me? (Or is it that they did occur there, but you're maintaining that the comment is a reply to another comment that was itself not a reply to me?)

Not only was this a stupid thing to pick a fight over, this has got to be the dumbest attempt to quarrel over the written record that I've seen since "I'm not using the word free" <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23250829>

-----

Edit following your edit:

> ‘to write a minimal program’ was added in a later comment from the claim in response

Yeah, it's almost as if someone wrote down their thoughts to share them, and then after seeing your response they attempted for your sake to offer some clarification in a followup to eliminate the misunderstanding. And it's almost as if you can't seem to acknowledge that we're here because you misunderstood them, and you continue to insist on maintaining that the thing that came from your misreading them is the thing that they meant all along.

Here's a tip: if someone says something that sounds outrageous and your first thought is, "man, it's unbelievable that someone would say that!", then your second thought should be, "yeah, it IS unbelievable that someone would say that", and then reflect on why your first thought was to believe that that's what they were saying. Otherwise, what you end up doing instead of holding them responsible for their intent, the products of their mind, and so on, is attempting to hold them responsible for the products of your mind.