A lurker's take on C.L.C pedantry

[jaiprabhu]

Let me give some input from someone who's a "regular" lurker on C.L.C
and someone who has gained enormously from the disucussions here. I am
not exactly a novice at C. In fact, I am quite proficient in the
language and I for one, absolutely agree with the "autistic-pedantry"
of C.L.C regulars who are in favor of:

1. Addressing queries that are strict C questions only

2. Point out what's implementation-specific, not C but C++,
platform-specific etc.

3. Redirecting people to the correct forum where a particular
question can be best addressed.

I love this neat seperation of concerns and the reason for this is as
follows. For someone who's not a scholar in C (C standard or
programming idioms, paradigms etc.), it's invaluable to know what the
exact bounds of a standard are, i.e. what's covered by the standard
and what is not. For people learning stuff, it's important to anchor
their understanding of a topic on a solid pillar, which in this case
is the standard.

If C.L.C *pedantic* regs do not point out what is and what is not
valid/legal C, as defined by the standard, then the person who's still
learning does not have the correct understanding of what C exactly IS,
what it offers, what are it's features etc.

If you do not make the explicit point of what belongs where then the
person with the query does not get a full picture or at least loses an
opportunity to get the proper theorectical background for the query.

Another problem with not imposing this restriction is that very soon
something that were only slightly off-topic would be considered
de-reguir for discussion and then something else and and then
something else too and so on.

I personally would not mind at all being redirected to some other
forum at all that might be more appropriate for the query I have. That
actually does two things for me:

1. The mere fact of me being turned away at the door too gives me a
valuable piece of information that tells me which universe my query
actually belongs to. For example, if I am told that this is a POSIX
issue, or a LINUX issue and not a C concern, that's a piece of
information too and is valuable for me.

2. Inspires confidence in me that the person redirecting me really
must know his topic so well as to confidently determine what is
off-topic.

How C.L.C does or does not help solve *real-world* C problems is not
exactly that big an attraction or deterrent. If I am confident enough
in a tool, I can easily branch out and investigate other uses of the
tool in other places where people specialize in discussing those
uses. For example, it's not very important for me where execXXX()
family is discussed. it could be C.L.C or some posix forum. I can
always rely on my intelligence to find the right place for my
question. What's more important for me is to get a rigorous answer for
the question that I have, not that I have a one-stop-shop for all my
queries.

I am not sure if I have made my view clear but here it is. I hope this
perspective is valuable to those who are slugging it out in the great
C.L.C topicality wars.

Regards and Thanks for all the C.L.C regulars who take time to answer
the questions. You are doing a great service.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

Let me give some input from someone who's a "regular" lurker on C.L.C
and someone who has gained enormously from the disucussions here. I am
not exactly a novice at C. In fact, I am quite proficient in the
language and I for one, absolutely agree with the "autistic-pedantry"
of C.L.C regulars who are in favor of:

1. Addressing queries that are strict C questions only

2. Point out what's implementation-specific, not C but C++,
platform-specific etc.

3. Redirecting people to the correct forum where a particular
question can be best addressed.

But do you agree with endless flamewars about topicality? Do you agree with ten
responses to a posting which is not /far/ off topic which do nothing to answer
the question, but only redirect it somewhere else?

Do you agree with double standards about what is topical? See, we are regulars.
You a lurker, perhaps long-time lurker. Me, long-time c.l.c. regular. Whee,
let's have a nother topicality debate.

And when we're done, let's go piss on someone for asking about fork and execve!

Is that how it's supposed to work?

If C.L.C *pedantic* regs do not point out what is and what is not
valid/legal C, as defined by the standard, then the person who's still
learning does not have the correct understanding of what C exactly IS,
what it offers, what are it's features etc.

If your only answer to a question is to point out that it's off topic (and not
actually answer it) and someone else has already done that, then maybe it's
better to refrain. One off-topic note is enough; better yet if it contains a
partial answer.

In this newsgroup there are those who have little actual clue about C, but are
prolific at yelling ``off topic''.

Another problem with not imposing this restriction is that very soon
something that were only slightly off-topic would be considered
de-reguir for discussion and then something else and and then
something else too and so on.

You have just naively invoked a well-known rhetorical fallacy known as a
``slippery slope argument''. Please read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

(See? Now we are having an off-topic discussion about rhetoric, not about C.)

2. Inspires confidence in me that the person redirecting me really
must know his topic so well as to confidently determine what is
off-topic.

Really? Do you think that for instance CBFalconer can connect two brain cells
together? Not from where I'm standing.

The biggest ``off topic'' yellers have the smallest clue.

The only thing that inspires confidence is when the person answering the
question has some kind of technical clue. He not only knows that the discussion
belongs in another newsgroup, but knows the answer too. Because he knows the
answer, the redirection is probably good too.

 

[jaiprabhu]

Kaz Kylheku wrote:

[snip]

But do you agree with endless flamewars about topicality? Do you agree with ten
responses to a posting which is not /far/ off topic which do nothing to answer
the question, but only redirect it somewhere else?

Do you agree with double standards about what is topical? See, we are regulars.
You a lurker, perhaps long-time lurker. Me, long-time c.l.c. regular. Whee,
let's have a nother topicality debate.

And when we're done, let's go piss on someone for asking about fork and execve!

Is that how it's supposed to work?


If your only answer to a question is to point out that it's off topic (and not
actually answer it) and someone else has already done that, then maybe it's
better to refrain. One off-topic note is enough; better yet if it contains a
partial answer.

In this newsgroup there are those who have little actual clue about C, but are
prolific at yelling ``off topic''.

Can't say I disagree. I guess one way would be for people who believe
that something is off-topic to simply point out that they believe a
query to be off-topic and then completely refrain from making any
comment in that thread at all. regs can then rely on the judgment of the
person asking the question to take whatever advice he/she is offered.

You have just naively invoked a well-known rhetorical fallacy known as a
``slippery slope argument''. Please read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

(See? Now we are having an off-topic discussion about rhetoric, not about C.)

*All* slippery-slope arguments are not inherently fallacious.

Also, from the very same article that you cite:

"While the logic in a slippery slope argument is invalid, its conclusion
may still be true."

Really? Do you think that for instance CBFalconer can connect two brain cells
together? Not from where I'm standing.

The biggest ``off topic'' yellers have the smallest clue.

The only thing that inspires confidence is when the person answering the
question has some kind of technical clue. He not only knows that the discussion
belongs in another newsgroup, but knows the answer too. Because he knows the
answer, the redirection is probably good too.

I have absolutely no intention of commenting of CBFalconer's
capabilities. I would say that you should leave it to the posters to
determine whether or not someone's input seems informed or not. I feel I
can reliably determine that and any reasonably intelligent person with
some history of spending time on the newsgroup would probably be able to
make that determination too.

 

[Franken Sense]

In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of Kaz Kylheku Did Inscribe:

You have just naively invoked a well-known rhetorical fallacy known as a
``slippery slope argument''. Please read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Good reading there:

Cost-lowering: Once all gun-owners have registered their firearms, the
government will know exactly from whom to confiscate them.

Legal rule combination: Previously the government might need to search
every house to confiscate guns, and such a search would violate the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Registration would eliminate
that problem.

Attitude altering: People may begin to think of gun ownership as a
privilege rather than a right, and thus regard gun confiscation less
seriously.

Small change tolerance: People may ignore gun registration because it
constitutes just a small change, but when combined with other small
changes, it could lead to the equivalent of confiscation.

Political power: The hassle of registration may reduce the number of gun
owners, and thus the political power of the gun-ownership bloc.

Political momentum: Once the government has passed this gun law it becomes
easier to pass other gun laws, including laws like confiscation.
--
Frank

And just like in 1984, where the enemy is switched from Eurasia to
Eastasia, Bush switched our enemy from al Qaeda to Iraq. Bush's War on
Terror is a war against whomever Bush wants to be at war with.
~~ Al Franken,

 

[CBFalconer]

Kaz Kylheku wrote:
.... snip ...


I have absolutely no intention of commenting of CBFalconer's
capabilities. I would say that you should leave it to the posters
to determine whether or not someone's input seems informed or not.
I feel I can reliably determine that and any reasonably
intelligent person with some history of spending time on the
newsgroup would probably be able to make that determination too.

Good for you. As far as I am concerned Kylheku is a troll, and has
been plonked here. Some years ago there was another person with
the same (I think) name, who was knowledgeable and helpful. He was
a student in Helsinki, as I recall. This one has snuck in with the
same (or similar) name.

The point is to avoid posting any answers (other than redirection)
to off-topic enquiries. Off topic answers will not get properly
vetted, as they will on the appropriate newsgroup. I have been
known to be to quick to mark a query as off-topic, because it
revolves around off-topic code, or something similar. That does
little harm, because someone marks my answer as being in error.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Good for you. As far as I am concerned Kylheku is a troll, and has
been plonked here. Some years ago there was another person with
the same (I think) name, who was knowledgeable and helpful. He was
a student in Helsinki, as I recall. This one has snuck in with the
same (or similar) name.

[...]

I'm reasonably sure he's the same person (to the extent that anyone is
"the same person" after some years have passed). I seem to recall he
has stated so himself, and I think Richard Heathfield has cited
independent evidence in support of that.

 

[CBFalconer]

Good for you. As far as I am concerned Kylheku is a troll, and
has been plonked here. Some years ago there was another person
with the same (I think) name, who was knowledgeable and helpful.
He was a student in Helsinki, as I recall. This one has snuck
in with the same (or similar) name.

[...]

I'm reasonably sure he's the same person (to the extent that
anyone is "the same person" after some years have passed). I
seem to recall he has stated so himself, and I think Richard
Heathfield has cited independent evidence in support of that.

My theory is that he read the newsgroup and decided to appropriate
the id. I could be wrong, but the previous version didn't pull the
games he has.

 

[CBFalconer]

Keith Thompson said:

Good for you. As far as I am concerned Kylheku is a troll, and
has been plonked here. Some years ago there was another person
with the same (I think) name, who was knowledgeable and helpful.
He was a student in Helsinki, as I recall. This one has snuck
in with the same (or similar) name.

[...]

I'm reasonably sure he's the same person (to the extent that
anyone is "the same person" after some years have passed). I
seem to recall he has stated so himself, and I think Richard
Heathfield has cited independent evidence in support of that.

I checked via email. So unless Kaz's email account has been
cracked (which I doubt), it's the same guy, yes.

And no, he was not a student in Helsinki. CBFalconer has confused
him with Joona Palaste (who, like Kaz, was knowledgeable and
helpful).

That could be. Kaz is not, IMO.

 

[Tony]

Let me give some input from someone who's a "regular" lurker on C.L.C
and someone who has gained enormously from the disucussions here. I am
not exactly a novice at C. In fact, I am quite proficient in the
language and I for one, absolutely agree with the "autistic-pedantry"
of C.L.C regulars who are in favor of:

1. Addressing queries that are strict C questions only

2. Point out what's implementation-specific, not C but C++,
platform-specific etc.

3. Redirecting people to the correct forum where a particular
question can be best addressed.

I love this neat seperation of concerns and the reason for this is as
follows. For someone who's not a scholar in C (C standard or
programming idioms, paradigms etc.), it's invaluable to know what the
exact bounds of a standard are, i.e. what's covered by the standard
and what is not. For people learning stuff, it's important to anchor
their understanding of a topic on a solid pillar, which in this case
is the standard.

How do you feel about the design discussions about strings? They discuss
practical usage of C and refer to the history of C. But they do imply
building or using an alternative to the language's string paradigm. Maybe
you are trying to say with the above passage that "there is one and only and
there is no other choice allowed, for the one and only already exists by the
decrement of a standard"? Let's take that further... Perhaps all references
to other languages, i.e., C++, should be filtered out completely and
anything even remotely not related to the ISO C standard along with it?
Maybe the NG should be moved to a website or somewhere where total isolation
from thought outside of the holy standard is less likely to occur, e.g., N.
Korea?

I don't have a point; I was just giving "food for thought".

Tony

 

[jaiprabhu]

<snip>

Thoughtful post. A few points, though:

1. Since this newsgroup has no charter, what gives someone the right to
say that this newsgroup is purely for the discussion of ISO C? More
specifically, what gives that person more authority than someone who has a
looser topicality opinion? Here's a rational form of coexistence:

The people with a stricter topicality opinion can...

i) ignore threads they consider off-topic; or
ii) mention another group

The people with a looser topicality opinion can...

i) answer questions they consider on-topic

There's no reason either side has to attack the other. Since it's the
people with the stricter topicality opinion who don't seem keen on that
form of coexistence, the onus is on *them* to provide rational arguments
for making a stricter topicality opinion universal on this newsgroup.
That's only fair, isn't it? I have invited rational arguments for a
universal stricter topicality on many occasions, but nobody has been able
to supply any. All I got were insults.
[snip]
I'm always open to healthy debate about why others and I should stop
answering non-ISO C questions. I am fair and I do appreciate rational
arguments. If I see any rational arguments, I'll change my ways in an
instant.

Yours,
Han from China

My opinion is that this particular debate is utterly futile. You can
argue till all the free-range livestock comes home, you will never reach
a consensus. The best thing to do is probably just stop engaging in an
argument about topicality at all. What I am suggesting is that if you do
believe a post to be on topic then just simply keep responding in that
thread. There's no point baiting regs with stricter topicality opinions
with derogatory remarks or calling their stance idiotic, hypocritical,
old-fashioned or some such silly appellation if they remark that the
query is OT.

This obviously goes the other way round too, where people with stricter
topicality opinions simply mark a post as OT in their response and leave
it at that. People like me, who are actually interested in getting an
opinion on topicality, will automatically assemble all the opinion and
over time can start judging reasonably accurately which NG a query be
directed to.

At least on this forum, I have always found the phenomenon of people
trading insults quite curious. Well, I guess it goes back to something
more primitive in all of us. The need to protect your territory and all
of that. I feel that any reasonably intelligent person who has spent a
reasonable amount of time on the NG and is posting a query is quite able
to determine who the capable, knowledgeable respondent are. If that's
the case, then why should the regs feel the need to insult one another
to prove a point. Just expressing your opinion or simply responding to a
query and moving on is just as powerful a testament of your abilities
and a statement of your opinion.

+Jai

 

[dfighter]

> There's no reason either side has to attack the other. Since it's the
people with the stricter topicality opinion who don't seem keen on that
form of coexistence, the onus is on *them* to provide rational arguments
for making a stricter topicality opinion universal on this newsgroup.
That's only fair, isn't it? I have invited rational arguments for a
universal stricter topicality on many occasions, but nobody has been able
to supply any. All I got were insults.

IMHO the problem with off-topic is that off-topic discussion effectively
robs ppl their time which could be spent on actually helping someone who
is asking on-topic questions. IMHO it is rude to say the least.

 

[user923005]

But do you agree with endless flamewars about topicality? Do you agree with ten
responses to a posting which is not /far/ off topic which do nothing to answer
the question, but only redirect it somewhere else?

Do you agree with double standards about what is topical? See, we are regulars.
You a lurker, perhaps long-time lurker. Me, long-time c.l.c. regular.  Whee,
let's have a nother topicality debate.

And when we're done, let's go piss on someone for asking about fork and execve!

Is that how it's supposed to work?

I think that everything should be tempered with common sense. I think
that (for instance with your fork() and execve() example) that a
*polite* redirection, perhaps with hints attached is the best
approach. The 'jump down their throat with both boots kicking'
approach is less desirable from an overall efficiency standpoint, in
my opinion.

If your only answer to a question is to point out that it's off topic (and not
actually answer it) and someone else has already done that, then maybe it's
better to refrain. One off-topic note is enough; better yet if it contains a
partial answer.

In this newsgroup there are those who have little actual clue about C, but are
prolific at yelling ``off topic''.

There is nothing that can be done about stupid people. Every group
has them, so we have to live with them. On the other hand, they may
eventually become more civil and softly say 'off topic' instead of
yelling.

You have just naively invoked a well-known rhetorical fallacy known as a
``slippery slope argument''. Please read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

(See? Now we are having an off-topic discussion about rhetoric, not about C.)


Really?  Do you think that for instance CBFalconer can connect two brain cells
together?  Not from where I'm standing.

Another thing I would like to see diminished is the pointless
denigration of others. I think that if everyone could be as smart as
Dan Pop and yet as kind and polite as Tanmoy B. then clc would be a
better place.

The biggest ``off topic'' yellers have the smallest clue.

The only thing that inspires confidence is when the person answering the
question has some kind of technical clue. He not only knows that the discussion
belongs in another newsgroup, but knows the answer too.  Because he knows the
answer, the redirection is probably good too.

You can dim and still cough up the right answer on occasion. I try to
weigh the answer rather than the person.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Their hypocrisy aside, that is in fact the goal of some of the
posters here. There's nothing inherently wrong with that topicality
opinion. What's needed is a rational argument for why *others* should
hold and act on the same topicality opinion. Until there is such a
rational argument, there shouldn't be any surprise that others
will hold and act on a different topicality opinion. "Because
we say so" doesn't count as a rational argument.

Well, this really is the core of it. Traditionally, Usenet has always
followed the "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose"
theory - generally known as "live and let live" - i.e., if you don't
like something, just hit the "forget" (or "delete" or "killfile" or
whatever) key on your keyboard and move on. I.e., you assume that you
will find things that you like and other will find things that they like
and it is no crime if these are different or even totally disjoint sets.

But religion is the other way around. Religion is based on the core
idea that God sees everything and when God sees things he doesn't like,
He gets very irate. And when God gets irate, crops fail, stocks
decline, factories start laying workers off, and swarms of locusts
descend upon the land. So, clearly, if you believe this stuff, you
can't adapt a "live and let live" philosophy of life. Now, what any
member of the community does, affects everybody. This is why the Church
spent so much time and effort hunting down and persecuting and executing
so-called "heretics". Because the mere presence of these heretics
threatened everybody's livelihood - as I've said, God is a vengeful sort.
And, lest you feel inclined to say "But the Church doesn't do that
anymore" (in the 20th and 21st Centuries), I say, "They would if they
could". Their core philosophy hasn't changed; it is just that they
aren't running the world's governments like they used to (The recent
Raygun/Bush/Bush admins notwithstanding).

And so it is in CLC. Note that the verbiage from the "regs" has toned
down a bit in recent months (because, like the Church, they are losing
ground - and they know it), but again, their basic philosophy has not
changed. They very much believe that they are protecting something
important (as does/did the Church, see above) and that conformance by
all is necessary to that end. In the past, they have been very explicit
about the need to squelch any heresy, er, I mean, off-topicness, at the
source - to use strong-arm tactics if necessary (and they have not been
shy about using them - in the form of Messrs Ambuhl and McIntire) in
order to achieve compliance. Among other things, they have often cited
comp.lang.c++ as an example, and have alluded to each other knowingly
about the horrible things that happened therein as a result of allowing
heresies (er, I mean, well you know what I mean by now...)

Now, having said all that, is there hope? Yes, in that, as I've said,
like the Church before them, they are losing ground. Also, some
well-spoken newcomers have arrived on the scene with some respect for
the concept of the faith, but not for the uniformity of thought required
by the regs. These people correspond to "Modern Christians" who treat
religion as a "do what you want, it is a personal decision" sort of
thing. I.e., the watered-down (and largely ineffective) version of real
religion. Still, they are our best hope (both in the context of CLC and
in the world as a whole).

 

[Kenny McCormack]

My opinion is that this particular debate is utterly futile. You can
argue till all the free-range livestock comes home, you will never reach
a consensus. The best thing to do is probably just stop engaging in an
argument about topicality at all. What I am suggesting is that if you do
believe a post to be on topic then just simply keep responding in that
thread. There's no point baiting regs with stricter topicality opinions
with derogatory remarks or calling their stance idiotic, hypocritical,
old-fashioned or some such silly appellation if they remark that the
query is OT.

But that's just it. You seem to be of the "live and let live" contingent.
You have to understand that that is just not the perspective held by the
hard-core CLC regs. Like 15th Century Dominicans, they aren't happy
until every last heresy has been hunted down and every last heretic has
been executed.

See my other post today for a longer treatment of this.

 

[BartC]

Let me give some input from someone who's a "regular" lurker on C.L.C
and someone who has gained enormously from the disucussions here. I am
not exactly a novice at C. In fact, I am quite proficient in the
language and I for one, absolutely agree with the "autistic-pedantry"
of C.L.C regulars who are in favor of:

1. Addressing queries that are strict C questions only

2. Point out what's implementation-specific, not C but C++,
platform-specific etc.

3. Redirecting people to the correct forum where a particular
question can be best addressed.

I love this neat seperation of concerns

C is perhaps too small and simple a language to keep the experts here fully
occupied, so threads degenerate into endless discussions of Standards
minutiae, when they are not about topicality, ie. variations of your 1,2,3.

Unfortunately some people find posts about topicality and Standards equally
uninteresting, so they welcome anything out of the ordinary: pushing the
boundaries of the topic, dealing with real, practical problems, talking
about why the language can't also do this and that, and so on, without
worrying a great deal about straying off-topic.

I deal with uninteresting threads by simply not reading them. (And yes I
know my posting on a subject I admit to finding dull, a bit of a paradox)

 

[Flash Gordon]

C is perhaps too small and simple a language to keep the experts here fully
occupied,

I have other things to keep me occupied, I only read/post here in my
spare time.

so threads degenerate into endless discussions of Standards
minutiae, when they are not about topicality, ie. variations of your 1,2,3.

There is more than just minutia.

Unfortunately some people find posts about topicality and Standards
equally uninteresting, so they welcome anything out of the ordinary:
pushing the boundaries of the topic, dealing with real, practical
problems, talking about why the language can't also do this and that,
and so on, without worrying a great deal about straying off-topic.

You are allowed to subscribe to other news groups as well as comp.lang.c
you know.

I deal with uninteresting threads by simply not reading them. (And yes I
know my posting on a subject I admit to finding dull, a bit of a paradox)

Well, most of the time as soon as topicality is mentioned several of
those who say topicality should be widened start insulting either
everyone who thinks it should not or specific individuals who think it
should not.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

That could be. Kaz is not, IMO.

On the topic of who is knowledgeable and who isn't, there was nice a thread
here in late February, subject line: ``interesting math problem''.

The only one who solved the problem, giving a correct algorithm in the form of
working C code (ISO standard and all) was me. Moreover, in doing so, I
independently discovered the Catalan numbers, previously unknown to me, their
connection to the enumeration of permutations of binary trees, and one of the
recurrence relations which generates them.

Most of the other regs pretended they didn't see the thread, knowing well that
it would be embarrassing to enter it without a solution in hand. For some
inexplicable reason, a few didn't mind piping up with long-winded versions of
``I don't quite know how to solve this''.

I recall that Falconer piped up with some completely inane, impertinent
comment. It's all in the archives.

It was shocking. Nobody else in this group actually knew how to solve a
moderately complex, self-contained programming problem that can be coded in a
few dozen lines of strictly conforming ISO C---i.e. nothing approaching
the complexity of some real-world software engineering problem.

Good grief. No wonder it's devolved into regurgitating the standard and
enforcing the topic.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

C is perhaps too small and simple a language to keep the experts here fully
occupied

That is the major reason why we left years ago.

so threads degenerate into endless discussions of Standards
minutiae,

Those aren't the real experts, but mere document regurgitators.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

This obviously goes the other way round too, where people with
stricter topicality opinions simply mark a post as OT in their
response and leave it at that. People like me, who are actually
interested in getting an opinion on topicality, will automatically
assemble all the opinion and over time can start judging
reasonably accurately which NG a query be directed to.

Unfortunately that doesn't work. One point about topicality is to
keep the c.l.c content down to a manageable size. The language is
adequately defined by the standard, and that provides an easily
verified topicality guide. Anything beyond it can lead anywhere at
all.

At least on this forum, I have always found the phenomenon of
people trading insults quite curious. Well, I guess it goes back
to something more primitive in all of us. The need to protect your
territory and all of that. I feel that any reasonably intelligent
person who has spent a reasonable amount of time on the NG and is
posting a query is quite able to determine who the capable,
knowledgeable respondent are. If that's the case, then why should
the regs feel the need to insult one another to prove a point.
Just expressing your opinion or simply responding to a query and
moving on is just as powerful a testament of your abilities and a
statement of your opinion.

Well, I do attempt (sometimes unsuccessfully) to restrain my urge
to insult. Variations in opinion are just that, and sacrosanct.
Similarly trolls are just that, and no real restrictions apply.

I get highly indignant when people refuse to accept comments as
ordinary English, and carp accordingly. Correction and expansion
is another matter.

 

[CBFalconer]

any. All I got were insults.

IMHO the problem with off-topic is that off-topic discussion effectively
robs ppl their time which could be spent on actually helping someone who
is asking on-topic questions. IMHO it is rude to say the least.

Please avoid silly abbreviations such as ppl.

Han gets insults because of his trolling history. If he behaves
for something like six months he might find himself getting
accepted. At any rate, most (including myself) have him plonked,
and so never see anything he posts. That also means we don't
bother insulting him.