A suggestion

Discussion in 'C++' started by Keith Thompson, Jan 9, 2011.

  1. Most of "Paul"'s postings here are followups.

    If everyone stopped replying to him, he just might stop posting.

    Or maybe he wouldn't, but that problem is easily solved by the use
    of a killfile.

    How likely is it that the *next* followup will be the one that
    makes him change his mind, hmm?

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    Keith Thompson, Jan 9, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Keith Thompson

    Dombo Guest

    Op 09-Jan-11 11:07, Keith Thompson schreef:
    > Most of "Paul"'s postings here are followups.
    >
    > If everyone stopped replying to him, he just might stop posting.
    >
    > Or maybe he wouldn't, but that problem is easily solved by the use
    > of a killfile.
    >
    > How likely is it that the *next* followup will be the one that
    > makes him change his mind, hmm?


    Frankly I'm a bit surprised that otherwise intelligent people keep
    arguing with him, while it is obvious from his first few postings that
    will lead to nowhere.
     
    Dombo, Jan 9, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Keith Thompson

    red floyd Guest

    On 1/9/2011 6:10 AM, Paavo Helde wrote:

    >> Frankly I'm a bit surprised that otherwise intelligent people keep
    >> arguing with him, while it is obvious from his first few postings that
    >> will lead to nowhere.

    >
    > I'm sure they enjoyed it. It was a nice opportunity to demonstrate ones'
    > own invincible logic... and to re-demonstrate it - and again and again!
    >


    http://xkcd.com/386
     
    red floyd, Jan 9, 2011
    #3
  4. Keith Thompson

    gwowen Guest

    On Jan 9, 10:07 am, Keith Thompson <> wrote:

    > How likely is it that the *next* followup will be the one that
    > makes him change his mind, hmm?


    Well said.

    Here's what I try to do: whenever I see someone like Paul trolling on
    the internet, I try and go out and use that energy I might otherwise
    have spent arguing pointlessly, to do something nice for someone else,
    preferably away from my computer -- donate to a worthy cause, make a
    loved one a cup of tea, do the ironing... it doesn't matter. But it
    might turn internet trolling into a net force for good in the
    universe.

    There, that's my hippy twaddle for the day.
     
    gwowen, Jan 10, 2011
    #4
  5. On Jan 9, 9:24 am, red floyd <> wrote:
    > On 1/9/2011 6:10 AM, Paavo Helde wrote:
    >
    > >> Frankly I'm a bit surprised that otherwise intelligent people keep
    > >> arguing with him, while it is obvious from his first few postings that
    > >> will lead to nowhere.

    >
    > > I'm sure they enjoyed it. It was a nice opportunity to demonstrate ones'
    > > own invincible logic... and to re-demonstrate it - and again and again!

    >
    > http://xkcd.com/386


    Too true, too true.
     
    Joshua Maurice, Jan 10, 2011
    #5
  6. Keith Thompson

    Öö Tiib Guest

    On Jan 9, 4:10 pm, Paavo Helde <> wrote:
    > Dombo <> wrote in news:4d299005$0$30705$5fc3050
    > @news.tiscali.nl:
    >
    > > Op 09-Jan-11 11:07, Keith Thompson schreef:
    > >> Most of "Paul"'s postings here are followups.

    >
    > >> If everyone stopped replying to him, he just might stop posting.

    >
    > >> Or maybe he wouldn't, but that problem is easily solved by the use
    > >> of a killfile.

    >
    > >> How likely is it that the *next* followup will be the one that
    > >> makes him change his mind, hmm?

    >
    > > Frankly I'm a bit surprised that otherwise intelligent people keep
    > > arguing with him, while it is obvious from his first few postings that
    > > will lead to nowhere.

    >
    > I'm sure they enjoyed it. It was a nice opportunity to demonstrate ones'
    > own invincible logic... and to re-demonstrate it - and again and again!


    Was fun to read at first how everybody were classified totally
    incorrect, confused and stupid. Sadly the subject was too simple and
    so it was getting repetitive and boring quick.

    > I think Paul hoped that some people are fool enough to support him. He
    > was much nicer to the responders who showed even minor understanding to
    > his ideas. Maybe he was hoping to tear the group into parties all
    > fighting each other.


    Maybe. Usually they pick something more dim for such purpose.
    Something about threads, exceptions, character encodings, signedness,
    programming patterns, garbage collection or the like.
     
    Öö Tiib, Jan 11, 2011
    #6
  7. On Jan 10, 5:28 pm, Öö Tiib <> wrote:
    > On Jan 9, 4:10 pm, Paavo Helde <> wrote:
    > > I think Paul hoped that some people are fool enough to support him. He
    > > was much nicer to the responders who showed even minor understanding to
    > > his ideas. Maybe he was hoping to tear the group into parties all
    > > fighting each other.

    >
    > Maybe. Usually they pick something more dim for such purpose.
    > Something about threads, exceptions, character encodings, signedness,
    > programming patterns, garbage collection or the like.


    Dunno. I think I was Paul recently in a thread on comp.lang.c
    recently, being unkind to apparently renowned experts in an argument
    over the appropriate definition of "to define a type". Unlike Paul at
    least, I could see the other side's case. (I simply disagreed.) Remind
    me never to do that again.
     
    Joshua Maurice, Jan 11, 2011
    #7
  8. On 09-Jan-11 11:07, Keith Thompson wrote:
    > >> Most of "Paul"'s postings here are followups.

    >
    > >> If everyone stopped replying to him, he just might
    > >> stop posting.

    >
    > >> Or maybe he wouldn't, but that problem is easily
    > >> solved by the use of a killfile.

    >
    > >> How likely is it that the *next* followup will
    > >> be the one that makes him change his mind, hmm?


    Dombo wrote:
    > > Frankly I'm a bit surprised that otherwise intelligent
    > > people keep arguing with him, while it is obvious
    > > from his first few postings that
    > > will lead to nowhere.


    Paavo Helde wrote:
    > I'm sure they enjoyed it. It was a nice opportunity to demonstrate
    > ones' own invincible logic... and to re-demonstrate it - and
    > again and again!


    Once I had a discussion with the famous Mr. Newcomer in
    microsoft.public.vc.mfc where we came to the topic of OCD (obsessive-
    compulsive disorder). I hold the believe that the percentage of
    programmers that suffer from OCD is increased with regard to the mean
    percentage. I think that programming requires a high degree of
    strictness in order to get the computer to do what he wants him to do
    (in contrast to a conversation with a human being, where one can be a
    lot more imprecise).

    When I see Paul's postings I get the feeling that he is quite
    emotionally involved while at the same time he is open to arguments.
    This looks very much like OCD to me (although I am by no means a
    psychologist), and this would explain why he persists in arguing.

    Regards,
    Stuart
     
    Stuart Redmann, Jan 12, 2011
    #8
  9. On 11 Jan., Joshua Maurice wrote:
    > Dunno. I think I was Paul recently in a thread on comp.lang.c
    > recently, being unkind to apparently renowned experts in an argument
    > over the appropriate definition of "to define a type". Unlike Paul at
    > least, I could see the other side's case. (I simply disagreed.) Remind
    > me never to do that again.


    Gosh, we may even end up establishing a new proverb in this newsgroup:
    Don't you Paul me!

    Regards,
    Stuart
     
    Stuart Redmann, Jan 12, 2011
    #9
  10. Keith Thompson

    Paul Guest

    "Stuart Redmann" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 09-Jan-11 11:07, Keith Thompson wrote:
    >> >> Most of "Paul"'s postings here are followups.

    >>
    >> >> If everyone stopped replying to him, he just might
    >> >> stop posting.

    >>
    >> >> Or maybe he wouldn't, but that problem is easily
    >> >> solved by the use of a killfile.

    >>
    >> >> How likely is it that the *next* followup will
    >> >> be the one that makes him change his mind, hmm?

    >
    > Dombo wrote:
    >> > Frankly I'm a bit surprised that otherwise intelligent
    >> > people keep arguing with him, while it is obvious
    >> > from his first few postings that
    >> > will lead to nowhere.

    >
    > Paavo Helde wrote:
    >> I'm sure they enjoyed it. It was a nice opportunity to demonstrate
    >> ones' own invincible logic... and to re-demonstrate it - and
    >> again and again!

    >
    > Once I had a discussion with the famous Mr. Newcomer in
    > microsoft.public.vc.mfc where we came to the topic of OCD (obsessive-
    > compulsive disorder). I hold the believe that the percentage of
    > programmers that suffer from OCD is increased with regard to the mean
    > percentage. I think that programming requires a high degree of
    > strictness in order to get the computer to do what he wants him to do
    > (in contrast to a conversation with a human being, where one can be a
    > lot more imprecise).
    >
    > When I see Paul's postings I get the feeling that he is quite
    > emotionally involved while at the same time he is open to arguments.
    > This looks very much like OCD to me (although I am by no means a
    > psychologist), and this would explain why he persists in arguing.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Stuart
    >

    WRONG!
     
    Paul, Jan 12, 2011
    #10
  11. "Stuart Redmann" wrote:
    > > When I see Paul's postings I get the feeling that he is quite
    > > emotionally involved while at the same time he is open to arguments.
    > > This looks very much like OCD to me (although I am by no means a
    > > psychologist), and this would explain why he persists in arguing.

    >
    > > Regards,
    > > Stuart



    On 12 Jan., "Paul" wrote:
    > WRONG!


    Would you help us to understand the driving power behind your latest
    postings? Do you want to get the C++ Standard corrected because you
    think that it is misleading?

    Regards,
    Stuart
     
    Stuart Redmann, Jan 12, 2011
    #11
  12. Keith Thompson

    Paul Guest

    "Stuart Redmann" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Stuart Redmann" wrote:
    >> > When I see Paul's postings I get the feeling that he is quite
    >> > emotionally involved while at the same time he is open to arguments.
    >> > This looks very much like OCD to me (although I am by no means a
    >> > psychologist), and this would explain why he persists in arguing.

    >>
    >> > Regards,
    >> > Stuart

    >
    >
    > On 12 Jan., "Paul" wrote:
    >> WRONG!

    >
    > Would you help us to understand the driving power behind your latest
    > postings? Do you want to get the C++ Standard corrected because you
    > think that it is misleading?
    >

    What is the driving force behind this posting you have made?


    As per the standards a big part of the problem *here* is the way in which
    people attempt to quote the standards word for word often out of context
    and/or misinterpreting.

    The way we speak about programming is not in the same as the the C++
    standards. And some reasonable level of intelligence must often be used when
    reading the standards to understand what they mean in their context.
    Put basically , the context of the standards is not the primary context
    here, as some people often incorrectly state.

    Often terms like
    a) C++ has no knowledge of that
    b) This is off topic here because the C++ standards do not cover it.
    c) you are using a term in a different context form the C++ standards
    therefore you are wrong.
    d) the rules of this newsgroup are....
    etc etc
    are used, when that is simply rubbish. To suggest that is actually wrong and
    its some kind of double negative.
    I was one told that I was wrong for using ASCII in this forum, because the
    C++ didn't cover it. What kind of narrow minded nonsense is that and what
    will it ever achieve, except some persons ego to be boosted from correcting
    another.

    That kind of attitude displays a very limited imagination to me and it
    frankly pretty dull and boring.

    Anyway this *IS* a troll thread and I never started it so toodle pip. :)
     
    Paul, Jan 12, 2011
    #12
  13. "Stuart Redmann" wrote:
    > > Would you help us to understand the driving power behind your latest
    > > postings? Do you want to get the C++ Standard corrected because you
    > > think that it is misleading?



    On 12 Jan., "Paul" wrote:
    > As per the standards a big part of the problem *here* is the way
    > in which people attempt to quote the standards word for word often
    > out of context and/or misinterpreting.
    >
    > The way we speak about programming is not in the same as the
    > the C++ standards. And some reasonable level of intelligence must
    > often be used when reading the standards to understand what they
    > mean in their context.
    > Put basically , the context of the standards is not the primary context
    > here, as some people often incorrectly state.


    The snippets of the standard that have been cited this far in various
    postings make me shiver, it is quite apparently laywer-speak.
    Personally, I use C++ for more than 10 years, and I only had to ask
    once or twice whether something is according to the standard or not (I
    don't even own a copy of it).

    This does not mean that I think that the people who work on the
    standard do useless work (maybe badly written, but not useless). I
    think that these people who work at the standard will react quite
    harsh when somebody posts here not using the vocabulary of the
    standard. That is something that I can ignore quite well (having to
    work with dozens of physicists every day makes one quite immune to
    lacking social skills ;-)

    > Often terms like
    > a) C++ has no knowledge of that
    > b) This is off topic here because the C++ standards do not cover it.
    > c) you are using a term in a different context form the C++ standards
    > therefore you are wrong.
    > d) the rules of this newsgroup are....
    > etc etc
    > are used, when that is simply rubbish. To suggest that is actually wrong and
    > its some kind of double negative.


    Yeah, I know what you mean. I think that this newsgroup should not
    dedicate to standard-compliant coding only, but a lot of the "key
    users" think otherwise. Since I have not been criticised for posting
    platform dependent code yet, I think that I am tolerated.

    > I was one told that I was wrong for using ASCII in this forum, because the
    > C++ didn't cover it. What kind of narrow minded nonsense is that and what
    > will it ever achieve, except some persons ego to be boosted from correcting
    > another.
    >
    > That kind of attitude displays a very limited imagination to me and it
    > frankly pretty dull and boring.


    Maybe because *they* have a streak of OCD in them. Maybe the usenet
    serves as a kind of substitute for a peer group for these people, so
    they think that they will get credit for their contributions even if
    the contribution is only a rebuke. Who knows.

    Regards,
    Stuart
     
    Stuart Redmann, Jan 13, 2011
    #13
  14. I just read some of the follow-ups in one of your recent threads
    ("Newbies don't learn C++ Optionen"), and I glimpsed something that
    caught my attention. One of the points in the discussion was whether a
    member function is "part of" an object or not (the "member functions"
    thread), where "part of" could be interpreted quite differently
    depending on the personal point of view of the reader.

    A scenario where a member function will most probably be considered as
    "part of" an object by everyone would be if it was possible to give
    each object a separate "copy" of the same member function, so that
    each object can modify it (self-modifying code).

    This would mean that the compiler had to use some form of dispatch
    mechanism for non-virtual member functions, too. I know that no C++
    compiler provides such a mechanism, but the C++ standard doesn't
    forbid it to do so.

    Regards,
    Stuart
     
    Stuart Redmann, Jan 13, 2011
    #14
  15. On 13 jan, 13:12, Stuart Redmann <> wrote:
    > I just read some of the follow-ups in one of your recent threads
    > ("Newbies don't learn C++ Optionen"), and I glimpsed something that
    > caught my attention. One of the points in the discussion was whether a
    > member function is "part of" an object or not (the "member functions"
    > thread), where "part of" could be interpreted quite differently
    > depending on the personal point of view of the reader.
    >
    > A scenario where a member function will most probably be considered as
    > "part of" an object by everyone would be if it was possible to give
    > each object a separate "copy" of the same member function, so that
    > each object can modify it (self-modifying code).


    A copy of what ? In the c++ model, functions are not object and thus
    cannot be contained within a object. You can store objects (ex:
    function pointer or lambda) that achieves what you say but they are
    member objects, not member functions.

    > This would mean that the compiler had to use some form of dispatch
    > mechanism for non-virtual member functions, too. I know that no C++
    > compiler provides such a mechanism, but the C++ standard doesn't
    > forbid it to do so.


    AFAIS this would be some kind of dynamic/multiple instance linkage
    which is not covered by the C++ standard. This is no longer C++.

    --
    Michael
     
    Michael Doubez, Jan 13, 2011
    #15
  16. Keith Thompson

    Paul Guest

    "Michael Doubez" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 13 jan, 13:12, Stuart Redmann <> wrote:
    >> I just read some of the follow-ups in one of your recent threads
    >> ("Newbies don't learn C++ Optionen"), and I glimpsed something that
    >> caught my attention. One of the points in the discussion was whether a
    >> member function is "part of" an object or not (the "member functions"
    >> thread), where "part of" could be interpreted quite differently
    >> depending on the personal point of view of the reader.
    >>
    >> A scenario where a member function will most probably be considered as
    >> "part of" an object by everyone would be if it was possible to give
    >> each object a separate "copy" of the same member function, so that
    >> each object can modify it (self-modifying code).

    >
    > A copy of what ? In the c++ model, functions are not object and thus
    > cannot be contained within a object. You can store objects (ex:
    > function pointer or lambda) that achieves what you say but they are
    > member objects, not member functions.


    An object is the concept of a data structure which consists of member data
    and member functions. This is as much a fact as the fact that the sky is
    blue.
    C++ was designed to be, or support, object orientated programing in the
    context of my above definition. This is the main reason why member functions
    exist and this is primarily what a member function is used for. Any use of a
    member function, other than as an objects member function, is not its
    primary intended use.
    For this reason alone a member function is part of an object as much as the
    sky is blue.

    C++ did *not* set out to support the idea that an object was simply a region
    of stroage and did not contain member functions. This is simply bollocks.

    People can argue the sky is not blue and its only the refracted light that
    enters our eyeballs that appears to be blue. But they are wrong, the sky
    *IS* blue.
    People can argue that a member function is not part of an object because the
    opcode of the function is not actually stored inside the object. But they
    are wrong because an object *does* contain functions.

    The fact that a small group of people cannot understand the obvious and
    misinterpet the standards by quoting out of context does not make them
    correct.
    Please do not be influenced by their idiotic and moronic way of thinking.
    :)
    >
    >> This would mean that the compiler had to use some form of dispatch
    >> mechanism for non-virtual member functions, too. I know that no C++
    >> compiler provides such a mechanism, but the C++ standard doesn't
    >> forbid it to do so.

    >
    > AFAIS this would be some kind of dynamic/multiple instance linkage
    > which is not covered by the C++ standard. This is no longer C++.
    >

    Because something is not covered by the C++ standards does not mean it is
    not C++. To state this suggests you do not understand what a standard is, or
    it's intended purpose.
     
    Paul, Jan 13, 2011
    #16
  17. Paul wrote:
    > "Michael Doubez" <> wrote:
    >> In the c++ model, functions are not object and thus cannot be
    >> contained within a object. You can store objects (ex: function
    >> pointer or lambda) that achieves what you say but they are
    >> member objects, not member functions.

    >
    > An object is the concept of a data structure which consists of member
    > data and member functions. This is as much a fact as the fact that the
    > sky is blue.


    The sky is black here. Oh, and you are ignoring an important part of the
    statement you are trying to refute: "In the c++ model". Is it sooo hard to
    understand the difference between this and general OOP lingo?
     
    Ulrich Eckhardt, Jan 13, 2011
    #17
  18. Keith Thompson

    Paul Guest

    "Ulrich Eckhardt" <> wrote in message
    news:-berlin.de...
    > Paul wrote:
    >> "Michael Doubez" <> wrote:
    >>> In the c++ model, functions are not object and thus cannot be
    >>> contained within a object. You can store objects (ex: function
    >>> pointer or lambda) that achieves what you say but they are
    >>> member objects, not member functions.

    >>
    >> An object is the concept of a data structure which consists of member
    >> data and member functions. This is as much a fact as the fact that the
    >> sky is blue.

    >
    > The sky is black here. Oh, and you are ignoring an important part of the
    > statement you are trying to refute: "In the c++ model". Is it sooo hard to
    > understand the difference between this and general OOP lingo?
    >

    You are ignoring the very reason a member function exists in C++. That is to
    support the OOP concept of an object.
    I am not ignoring or refuting anything as I clearly acknowledge the C++
    standards but I also understand the difference in context in which the
    standards are written.
    Unofrtunately, for you, you don't understand anything I have said because of
    your lower level of intelligence and lack of understanding.
     
    Paul, Jan 13, 2011
    #18
  19. Paul wrote:
    > "Ulrich Eckhardt" <> wrote in message
    > news:-berlin.de...
    >> Paul wrote:
    >>> "Michael Doubez" <> wrote:
    >>>> In the c++ model, functions are not object and thus cannot be
    >>>> contained within a object. You can store objects (ex: function
    >>>> pointer or lambda) that achieves what you say but they are
    >>>> member objects, not member functions.
    >>>
    >>> An object is the concept of a data structure which consists of member
    >>> data and member functions. This is as much a fact as the fact that the
    >>> sky is blue.

    >>
    >> The sky is black here. Oh, and you are ignoring an important part of
    >> the statement you are trying to refute: "In the c++ model". Is it sooo
    >> hard to understand the difference between this and general OOP lingo?
    >>

    > You are ignoring the very reason a member function exists in C++. That
    > is to support the OOP concept of an object.


    How is that relevant to a statement made in the context of _The C++ Object
    Model_ which is different from the one used for OOP? Again, if you
    restrict a statement to the C++ object model, in which (as you have been
    told numerous times) the term "object" refers to something else than what
    the "object" in OOP refers to, then your arguing in the general OOP
    context is simply out of place. You know, there are reasons the C++ object
    model defines an object as it does, because that has many subtle
    consequences that only become apparent when looking at the whole standard.
    To me though, it seems that you don't even know half of it, considering
    the knowledge about e.g. member function pointers you showed elsethreads.

    Pauly, what you are repeatedly doing is taking a statement made in one
    context and proving it wrong in a different context. However, that proves
    nothing! You just didn't reason coherently because by transplanting the
    statement to a different context you also changed its meaning, so any
    proof doesn't verify or falsify the original statement.

    Also, that is the reason that people call you a troll, you are repeatedly
    being told that but not only fail to apply that information but even
    violently and insultingly argue against anyone that points out your
    incoherent arguing. The question that comes up whether that is
    intentional, which would would qualify you as a troll.

    Uli
     
    Ulrich Eckhardt, Jan 13, 2011
    #19
  20. Keith Thompson

    Paul Guest

    "Ulrich Eckhardt" <> wrote in message
    news:-berlin.de...
    > Paul wrote:
    >> "Ulrich Eckhardt" <> wrote in message
    >> news:-berlin.de...
    >>> Paul wrote:
    >>>> "Michael Doubez" <> wrote:
    >>>>> In the c++ model, functions are not object and thus cannot be
    >>>>> contained within a object. You can store objects (ex: function
    >>>>> pointer or lambda) that achieves what you say but they are
    >>>>> member objects, not member functions.
    >>>>
    >>>> An object is the concept of a data structure which consists of member
    >>>> data and member functions. This is as much a fact as the fact that the
    >>>> sky is blue.
    >>>
    >>> The sky is black here. Oh, and you are ignoring an important part of
    >>> the statement you are trying to refute: "In the c++ model". Is it sooo
    >>> hard to understand the difference between this and general OOP lingo?
    >>>

    >> You are ignoring the very reason a member function exists in C++. That
    >> is to support the OOP concept of an object.

    >
    > How is that relevant to a statement made in the context of _The C++ Object
    > Model_ which is different from the one used for OOP? Again, if you
    > restrict a statement to the C++ object model, in which (as you have been
    > told numerous times) the term "object" refers to something else than what
    > the "object" in OOP refers to, then your arguing in the general OOP
    > context is simply out of place.


    How can the reason a member function exists in C++ not be relevant.
    The C++ object model *is* restriced , not by me , by the fact the C++
    standard does not go into implementation specifics. The tiny piece of the
    document that describes the C++ object model is by no means a complete
    description of how C++ objects work.
    Additionally the C++ standard cannot and never will state that a member
    function is not a member of an object.

    >You know, there are reasons the C++ object
    > model defines an object as it does, because that has many subtle
    > consequences that only become apparent when looking at the whole standard.
    > To me though, it seems that you don't even know half of it, considering
    > the knowledge about e.g. member function pointers you showed elsethreads.
    >

    The C++ is does not define an object in an opposite context from an OOP
    object, the C++ is very carefull not to do this becuase it would directly
    imply C++ did not support OOP.
    I don't need to know what the rest of the standards say, and by the looks of
    thing I don't want to if they cannot make a clear distintion between objects
    of a UDT and objects at compiler level. I cannot believe that has still not
    been sorted after all those years.

    > Pauly, what you are repeatedly doing is taking a statement made in one
    > context and proving it wrong in a different context. However, that proves
    > nothing! You just didn't reason coherently because by transplanting the
    > statement to a different context you also changed its meaning, so any
    > proof doesn't verify or falsify the original statement.


    Im not changing any context. Im talking cleary about objects in the sense of
    OOP.

    >
    > Also, that is the reason that people call you a troll, you are repeatedly
    > being told that but not only fail to apply that information but even
    > violently and insultingly argue against anyone that points out your
    > incoherent arguing. The question that comes up whether that is
    > intentional, which would would qualify you as a troll.
    >

    This is the problem this attitude that I 'am being told' and I don't listen.
    You don''t seem to understand that I am telling you something, its you that
    is wrong here not me.

    A member function is called so because it is a member of a object.
    What else is would it be a member of? Do you want to suggest its a member of
    a class again, please do so I can once again prove that a C++ class doesn't
    even exist at runtime.

    The very fact that you call me a troll is in itself an insult , I have not
    insulted you and to suggest I have been violent towards you is just
    laughable.
    When I have a large group of morons all ganging up on me and not only
    insulting me , but my recently dead mom, and continuing to insult her after
    I said.
    I am quite within my right to give some back. So don't give me that one
    sided nonsense.
    And also you seem to forget the original argument that started with numerous
    insults towards me.

    If you think you can insult me in a way that is acceptable to this group
    then you're wrong. AN insult is an inult whether it a nasty fuckin swearword
    is used or not. Grow Up!
     
    Paul, Jan 14, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Santastp

    Suggestion groups??

    Santastp, Sep 18, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    400
    Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]
    Sep 18, 2003
  2. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    559
    Ray Andraka
    Mar 3, 2005
  3. scadav
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    444
    scadav
    Jul 3, 2004
  4. Michael
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    294
    Sabre
    Aug 2, 2003
  5. Hardy Wang

    Suggestion needed for huge DataGrid

    Hardy Wang, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    345
Loading...

Share This Page