R
Richard Bos
santosh said:
Because Kenny is, as usual, talking bullshit. Just killfile it.
Richard
Because Kenny is, as usual, talking bullshit. Just killfile it.
Richard
C
Christopher Layne
Richard said:
I do see Jacob beat up on by regulars subtlely and overtly in the past. Why
not give the guy a break?
K
Kenny McCormack
Careful now. Logic makes these guys' little psyches hurt.
R
Richard Heathfield
Christopher Layne said:
I don't. I see mistakes in his articles being corrected by regulars. It is
only because he makes so many mistakes that he is corrected so often.
Gladly. All he has to do is make fewer mistakes. Then he won't get corrected
so often. It's very simple.
I don't. I see mistakes in his articles being corrected by regulars. It is
only because he makes so many mistakes that he is corrected so often.
Gladly. All he has to do is make fewer mistakes. Then he won't get corrected
so often. It's very simple.
K
Kenny McCormack
Loony Richard Heathfield said:
What a tool!
C
Christopher Layne
Richard said:
The same rationale abusers use as well.
R
Richard Heathfield
Christopher Layne said:
When I make mistakes, I hope and expect that others will correct me. When
others make mistakes, then, it is only courteous for me to correct those
mistakes, if I happen to notice them and if there is time available to me
to do that. You can misdescribe the process as much as you wish, but that
doesn't change the facts.
When I make mistakes, I hope and expect that others will correct me. When
others make mistakes, then, it is only courteous for me to correct those
mistakes, if I happen to notice them and if there is time available to me
to do that. You can misdescribe the process as much as you wish, but that
doesn't change the facts.
K
Kenny McCormack
Funny how that works, innit?
K
Kenny McCormack
Spoken like a true abuser.
You are living proof of that.
M
Mark McIntyre
That doesn't make it wrong, merely hijacked.
Doesn't often happen of course...
--
Mark McIntyre
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
C
Cesar Rabak
Richard Heathfield escreveu:
'corrections' are about his opinions and not about correcteness or not
on the C language.
Then the endless cookie cutter posts about non topicallity and top posting.
OTOH, lenghty threads about some funny Latin word or the case of some
people felt hurt of the way his attibution on snipped material...
The issue here, folks seen from other's eyes is that a lot of
'corrections' are about his opinions and not about correcteness or not
on the C language.
Then the endless cookie cutter posts about non topicallity and top posting.
OTOH, lenghty threads about some funny Latin word or the case of some
people felt hurt of the way his attibution on snipped material...
R
Richard Heathfield
Cesar Rabak said:
I cannot answer for others, of course, but when I correct Mr Navia's
articles, it is either because they contain errors of fact about C or
because they are not topical in this newsgroup.
Mr Navia, as far as I can recall, does not indulge in top-posting. His
articles, however, frequently stray off-topic. There are other newsgroups
where the matters he wishes to discuss are topical. Let him use those to
discuss such matters, and this newsgroup to discuss C.
I cannot answer for others, of course, but when I correct Mr Navia's
articles, it is either because they contain errors of fact about C or
because they are not topical in this newsgroup.
Mr Navia, as far as I can recall, does not indulge in top-posting. His
articles, however, frequently stray off-topic. There are other newsgroups
where the matters he wishes to discuss are topical. Let him use those to
discuss such matters, and this newsgroup to discuss C.
D
Default User
I do think Richard likes to argue with Jacob a bit too much. It would
be better if he stuck to correcting the errors and then dropping it.
However, none of what he posts is off-topic, and he can certainly
pursue it as he wishes.
This is of course pure nonsense. Jacob is vitriolic personality who
distains the actual topics of the newsgroup in favor of his pet
project. As such, I killfiled him long ago. Richard's posts are not
abusive, in any way.
If you believe to the contrary, you should be able to post some
examples. Note that saying, "you're wrong" is not abusive.
Brian
be better if he stuck to correcting the errors and then dropping it.
However, none of what he posts is off-topic, and he can certainly
pursue it as he wishes.
This is of course pure nonsense. Jacob is vitriolic personality who
distains the actual topics of the newsgroup in favor of his pet
project. As such, I killfiled him long ago. Richard's posts are not
abusive, in any way.
If you believe to the contrary, you should be able to post some
examples. Note that saying, "you're wrong" is not abusive.
Brian
K
Kenny McCormack
Man, do you need to get a life!
Everything you post is pure BS.
R
Richard Heathfield
Default User said:
I wouldn't mind an argument, in the proper sense of the word - a real debate
- but that seems impossible. As it happens, I don't enjoy replying to Mr
Navia.
That's what I try to do. (It doesn't always pan out that way, but I do try.)
Quite - especially if that claim is backed up (or at least can easily be
backed up) by reference to the C Standard.
I wouldn't mind an argument, in the proper sense of the word - a real debate
- but that seems impossible. As it happens, I don't enjoy replying to Mr
Navia.
That's what I try to do. (It doesn't always pan out that way, but I do try.)
Quite - especially if that claim is backed up (or at least can easily be
backed up) by reference to the C Standard.
K
Kenny McCormack
The hell you don't!
Or, to put it another way, if you're *not* getting psychic jollies out
of your pointless posts, then you really *are* sick.
L
lane straatman
The famous last words of 3-cepio. LS
K
Keith Thompson
lane straatman said:
You post a lot of obscure comments. I know who C3PO is, I have no
idea what his "last words" might be, and I haven't a clue how this
might be relevant to the current discussion.
For future reference, I don't intend to spend a lot of time trying to
figure out what you mean. If you want to communicate, it's up to you
to do so clearly (and, preferably, relevantly).
D
Default User
Richard said:
I'll take your word for that.
Hmmm. When I see a thread with 10-15 Richard Heathfield posts, I can
pretty much guess who he's involved with, even with Navia plonked.
Brian
R
Richard Heathfield
Default User said:
Yes. I'm afraid they're usually along the lines of "<outrageous claim>",
"No, you're wrong because..." "<outraged reaction>" "No, that's not the
case because...", etc. Bunk, debunk, bunk, debunk, all the way down the
line. We all debunk nonsense, but Navia's bunk, like the hydra, sometimes
take a little longer to deal with, because every nonsense you cut down is
instantly replaced with two more nonsenses.
Why me? I think it's because most of the clueful regulars plonked the guy
years ago, so very few of us can see his articles. But those articles will
continue to mislead the unwary if not debunked. If you like, we can try an
experiment - assuming I remember, I'll *not* reply to the next Navia
nonsense, and we'll quietly count how many unrebutted nonsenses we get as a
result.
Yes. I'm afraid they're usually along the lines of "<outrageous claim>",
"No, you're wrong because..." "<outraged reaction>" "No, that's not the
case because...", etc. Bunk, debunk, bunk, debunk, all the way down the
line. We all debunk nonsense, but Navia's bunk, like the hydra, sometimes
take a little longer to deal with, because every nonsense you cut down is
instantly replaced with two more nonsenses.
Why me? I think it's because most of the clueful regulars plonked the guy
years ago, so very few of us can see his articles. But those articles will
continue to mislead the unwary if not debunked. If you like, we can try an
experiment - assuming I remember, I'll *not* reply to the next Navia
nonsense, and we'll quietly count how many unrebutted nonsenses we get as a
result.