I do not know what heathfield has against the GC.
The following links may be useful - especially the first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language
Anyway, Jacob, why do you punish yourself so? Why do you go around with
a kick-me sign on your backside? You could state that 2+2 = 4 and
heathfield would say it isn't so. That's just what it is.
And here's another thing (indirectly, from Wikipedia, which, as we know,
heathfield thinks is rubbish), on the subject of creationism (and that
oxymoron of oxymorons "creation science"). Note that there are many
good and deep parallels between creationists and cls regulars (although
they all, of course, deny it). But, the idea is this: some famous
scientish (I believe it was Richard Dawkins) holds that it is silly to
debate creationists for much the same reasons as why you don't debate
with clc regulars, er, I mean, pigs ("They like it" and "you just get
dirty"). But more specifically, Dawkins says that debate is a silly
activity, because the way to win is never to say another positive about
your own position, that is never to espouse a positive view, because if
you do, then you give the other side something to attack. Instead, all
you do it nitpick their position; that's how you score points.
The obvious analogy to heathfield and CLC regulars in general should be
numbingly obvious.
That's why heathfield will never claim to like or support anything
(e.g., valgrind, for which any sensible person would have taken his post
to be one of support, yet when questioned, claimed he never supported
it). Just generally: what a wuss.