purge like utility in c

[Richard Heathfield]

Frederick Gotham said:

It's the transmitter's responsibility to transmit intelligibly.

I did so.

It's the receiver's responsibility to interpret intelligibly.

Some did, and some didn't.

By not clarifying the tone in which a sentence should be spoken, you're
neglecting your resonsibility as transmitter, and forfeiting your right to
complain when people misinterpret you.

Nonsense. And you are in no position to give lessons on proper Usenet usage.

 

[Frederick Gotham]

Richard Heathfield posted:

Nonsense. And you are in no position to give lessons on proper Usenet
usage.

I'm the _inventor_ of Usenet, of course I'm in such a position!

I haven't got too much pretentious pride to clarify the manner in which I
communicate.

 

[Chris Dollin]

Chris Dollin posted:


Then don't complain when you're misinterpreted.

Don't be silly: such an overly-general rule is unhelpful.

A particular sentence can
have a dozen meanings depending on intonation, tone of voice, etc.

Wow, really? I didn't know that.

-- smileys and short phrases such as "haha" provide clarification for the written word.

I've not said otherwise. Did you think I had?

When the human mind encounters a sentence which could constitue an ambiguous
parse, it tends not to notice -- it simply takes the first meaning which
comes to mind. This is problematic for the written word, which lacks
intonation, tone of voice, etc., which would otherwise indicate the intended
meaning.

Ah. That explains the smilies found in /Pride and Prejudice/, /Sourcery/,
/Expecting Someone Taller/, and /Much Ado About Nothing/. I had thought
that it was dreadful copy-editing.

When writing a sentence, if you believe that it is necessary to convey tone
of voice, etc., then it's pertinent to use smileys and the like.

As I do - for some value of "the like". I just very rarely use smilies.
I don't mind if /you/ do, or if Tak-Shing Chan does, or well pretty
much anyone (it may affect my opinion of their writing, of course),
but what I said above was "believe that there is no such obligation"
to use them.

 

[Chris Dollin]

Chris Dollin said:


You're right, Chris. There isn't.


Yup. Those who understand, understand. If some people can't grok it without
a smiley, that's their problem, not mine (or yours).

To be fair, sometimes it /is/ our problem: we can't
realistically expect all the audience to be able to
pick up on the clues, especially if they haven't
followed our style. There's a line to walk, and sometimes
some course-correction is needed.

Why is why my comp.lang.c style has less implicit humour
then my evil twin's rec.arts.sf.composition style. I
think.

 

[Chris Dollin]

Richard Heathfield posted:


I'm the _inventor_ of Usenet, of course I'm in such a position!

Hell's teeth, what kind of egomaniac are you to claim that you invented
Usenet? Three minutes with Google is enough to refute it. Bah.

 

[Richard Tobin]

I /strongly/ disagree, and believe that there is no such
obligation. (I am of course biased, since I too generally
avoid smilies in postings & mailings.)

[/QUOTE]

Then don't complain when you're misinterpreted.

So just what misinterpretation did Tak-Shing Chan make? As soon as I
pointed out that it was humour, he said that was off-topic. It seems
to me that he didn't in fact misinterpret it at all, but just
pretended to.

A particular sentence can
have a dozen meanings depending on intonation, tone of voice, etc. -- smileys
and short phrases such as "haha" provide clarification for the written word.

Can you give *any* realistic alternative meaning of the sentence in
question?

-- Richard

 

[Tak-Shing Chan]

Hell's teeth, what kind of egomaniac are you to claim that you invented
Usenet? Three minutes with Google is enough to refute it. Bah.

I think Frederick is trying to demonstrate his point that
without smiley or the like it is very easy to misinterpret the
``I'm the __inventor__ of Usenet'' joke.

Tak-Shing

 

[Tak-Shing Chan]

Then don't complain when you're misinterpreted.

So just what misinterpretation did Tak-Shing Chan make? As soon as I
pointed out that it was humour, he said that was off-topic. It seems
to me that he didn't in fact misinterpret it at all, but just
pretended to.[/QUOTE]

You did not ``point out'' that it was humour. Rather, you
asked three loaded questions, one of which is ``have you come
across the concept named "humour"'', insinuating that I am
humour-impaired.

Tak-Shing

 

[Chris Dollin]

I think Frederick is trying to demonstrate his point that
without smiley or the like it is very easy to misinterpret the
``I'm the __inventor__ of Usenet'' joke.

In that case he failed: it was obvious that he was joking, which is
why I responded as I did - using the same signalling technique to
show that it was humour.

 

[Frederick Gotham]

Tak-Shing Chan posted:

I think Frederick is trying to demonstrate his point that
without smiley or the like it is very easy to misinterpret the
``I'm the __inventor__ of Usenet'' joke.

The other reason was to invite the question: What difference does it make if
I _didn't_ invent Usenet -- that is, who should nominate those who _are_ in a
position to give lessons on proper Usenet usage?

This newsgroup has seen its fair share of bullshit from newcomers, regulars
and trolls alike.

 

[Richard Tobin]

You did not ``point out'' that it was humour. Rather, you
asked three loaded questions, one of which is ``have you come
across the concept named "humour"'', insinuating that I am
humour-impaired.

Either you didn't know it was humour, in which case you *are*
humour-impaired, or you did know it was humour, in which case your
comments were stupid.

-- Richard

 

[Tak-Shing Chan]

In that case he failed: it was obvious that he was joking, which is
why I responded as I did - using the same signalling technique to
show that it was humour.

I failed to catch your signal---it was somehow lost in
translation. But I did catch Frederick's, because he used
underscores to mark the false bits.

Tak-Shing

 

[Tak-Shing Chan]

Either you didn't know it was humour, in which case you *are*
humour-impaired, or you did know it was humour, in which case your
comments were stupid.

You have to take into account that English is not my first
language. If I tell you a Chinese joke, and you failed to get
it, would you be insulted if I call you a humour-impaired person?

Tak-Shing

 

[Richard Tobin]

You have to take into account that English is not my first
language. If I tell you a Chinese joke, and you failed to get
it, would you be insulted if I call you a humour-impaired person?

If I spoke excellent Chinese, and I said I was "fully aware" of the
meaning of the relevant word, then you would probably be right to call
me humour-impaired.

But if this is just a misunderstanding, I apologise for criticising
you.

-- Richard

 

[Tak-Shing Chan]

If I spoke excellent Chinese, and I said I was "fully aware" of the
meaning of the relevant word, then you would probably be right to call
me humour-impaired.

It is entirely possible that one could speak ``excellent
Chinese'' and become ``fully aware of the meaning of the relevant
word'' but still managed to miss the joke. It does not
necessarily imply humour-impairment---it could mean that his/her
Chinese enculturation is incomplete, which makes it difficult to
grasp the subtle nuances of some signifiers (of jokes).

In fact, even within the domain of Chinese jokes, some jokes
works in mainland China but not in Taiwan (and vice versa),
regardless of the fact that they speak the *same* language
natively. I think culture is more than just language.

But if this is just a misunderstanding, I apologise for criticising
you.

Apologies accepted. I should also apologise for taking this
subthread far too seriously, to the point where it becomes
offensive to some of you.

Tak-Shing

 

[Tak-Shing Chan]

Tak-Shing Chan posted:



The other reason was to invite the question: What difference does it make if
I _didn't_ invent Usenet -- that is, who should nominate those who _are_ in a
position to give lessons on proper Usenet usage?

I guess you just need to stick around. I envisage that 10-20
years from now you could well be the respected regular
prescribing netiquette lessons to newcomers.

This newsgroup has seen its fair share of bullshit from newcomers, regulars
and trolls alike.

Is this a joke? <-- a smiley here

Tak-Shing

 

[Keith Thompson]

If netiquette reminders are seen as trolls then I think I
am in the wrong group.

It was a joke, ok? It was no more or less topical than the portion of
the thread leading up to it.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

With or without the quotes, Chris Dollin is absolutely right
in saying that generic slurs have no place in any newsgroups.

You really do have no sense of humour do you? Richard was making a
joke.

Suggesting otherwise, like you did, is an implied incitement to
violate netiquette,

Bollocks. Thats the sort of nonsensical idea that makes people afraid
to send birthday cards in case they're accused of ageism.

I was talking about netiquette, which is always on-topic.

No you weren't, you were being pompous.
--
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

 

[Mark McIntyre]

If netiquette reminders are seen as trolls then I think I
am in the wrong group.

It was a joke. If you choose to interpret it otherwise then you're
either a fool or a knave. I have a small bet placed on which.
--
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

 

[Mark McIntyre]

You have to take into account that English is not my first
language.

This defebce would only work if you had a poor grasp of english, or
were posting from China. You don't and you aren't - not unless SE
London has mysteriously moved continents.

If I tell you a Chinese joke, and you failed to get
it, would you be insulted if I call you a humour-impaired person?

Nope, but then I speak zero words of Chinese, whereas you have better
a grasp of english than my daughter, and she would have got that joke.

You're on a hiding to nothing and should cut your losses. And don't
try to pretend you don't know what that means
--
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