Question on device driver ?

[CBFalconer]

Oh, great, so she's just a thief then.

It's interesting that someone who makes his living selling
non-free software should have such a casual attitude to piracy.
It's also interesting that a human being should be so unconcerned
that he has failed to instil any basic sense of honesty into one
of his children.

This ridiculous habit of producing further insiduous (and almost
certainly false) insults does not improve the atmosphere around
here. Why don't c.l.c readers just control their baser urges.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Chuck has criticised others for having sigs that exceed four lines.

I can't remember ever so doing, unless it was a minor addition.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

I can't remember ever so doing, unless it was a minor addition.

If I tell you the date of one such criticism: 1 January 2004, and the
newsgroup: comp.lang.c, you should not find it hard to pin down.

 

[Default User]

CBFalconer wrote:

To Mark: Ignore the following, it's for other people.

A 6 line sig above.

You feeling picked-on too?





Brian

 

[Default User]

Um, if you don't want to read his prose, you need to put him in your
killfile.

Which, I might add, helps those of us who do have Navia in the old
"bozo bin". Seeing his drivel by proxy is no more interesting than
directly.




Brian

 

[Mark McIntyre]

A 6 line sig above.

I'm assuming you refer to my sig. The actual sig is only 4 lines. The
other two are my name and the whitespace separator.


--
Mark McIntyre

"The lusers I know are so clueless, that if they were dipped in clue
musk and dropped in the middle of pack of horny clues, on clue prom
night during clue happy hour, they still couldn't get a clue."
--Michael Girdwood, in the monastery

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Mr "old wolf" (anonymous coward)

Thats a gratuitous insult. Posting using a moniker in usenet is
perfectly acceptable, and its contemptible of you to imply otherwise.
You should bear in mind that there's no proof that anyone posts using
their real name, not even you.

--
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]

quite as clear to others as I had thought. But I think Chuck is the only
regular contributor to this group who does not observe the four-line sig
block.

Nope - there are plenty that sneak in 5 or 6 line sigs.

But this is a stupid debate. Chuck's sig is artificially extended by
processes outside his reasonable control. If it offends people that
much, they could killfile him. But its not like he's posting a
100-line diatribe or huge ascii art like I've seen some people do.
--
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]

Chuck has criticised others for having sigs that exceed four lines.

In my memory, very very infrequently, and only in extreme cases.

He can't have it both ways.

Sure he can - after all, you seem to want to on occasion.

I also think its outrageous to be pillorying someone for additions
made by his news provider and which are beyond his control.
--
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]

It is with regret that I see that I am still not in your killfile.
....
Please do so. I would be glad to no longer read your prose.

Unfortunately I find that you post incorrect information too often to
leave you killfiled. It would be unfair to newbies who would be
unaware of your personal agenda and bias.
--
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

 

[CBFalconer]

In my memory, very very infrequently, and only in extreme cases.


Sure he can - after all, you seem to want to on occasion.

I also think its outrageous to be pillorying someone for additions
made by his news provider and which are beyond his control.

Lo, our minds have met!

 

[Richard Harter]

Thats a gratuitous insult. Posting using a moniker in usenet is
perfectly acceptable, and its contemptible of you to imply otherwise.
You should bear in mind that there's no proof that anyone posts using
their real name, not even you.

Uh HUh. "Old WOlf" made a gratuitous and vile comment about
Jacob's daughter and you attack Jacob. Posting using a moniker
is indeed quite acceptable. Posting vile and gratuitous comments
is not. Using anonymity as a cover for posting vile, gratuitous
insults is particularly despicable.

YMMV.

 

[Old Wolf]

Mr "old wolf" (anonymous coward)

Posting under this name does not make me an anonymous
coward. I could change my name to it by deed poll and
you would be no better off as to knowing personal
details about me (why would you want to know them anyway?)

Put me in your killfile so I do not have to read
your nonsense.

I'm not an expert on Usenet protocols, but surely
if you do not want to read my posts then it would
be you who adds me to your killfile, not the other
way around?

My daughter
is 15 years old, and "mangas" are just japanese comics.

Not pornography.

I apologize for the comments about your daughter. All
the "manga" I have encountered so far has featured
things like drawings of androgynous children with large
penises squirting various fluids out, and so forth.
Some googling revealed that there seem to be non-sexual
varieties of it, however.

 

[Default User]

Unfortunately I find that you post incorrect information too often to
leave you killfiled. It would be unfair to newbies who would be
unaware of your personal agenda and bias.

Unfortunately, you don't confine yourself to corrections of his
misstatements. You engage in protracted, acrimonious, and repetious
debate with him.

As I said, this is extremely annoying to those of his who don't wish to
read his drivel, either directly or by proxy.




Brian

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Uh HUh. "Old WOlf" made a gratuitous and vile comment about
Jacob's daughter and you attack Jacob.

I commented on Jacob's gratuitous and vile use of the word "coward".
Since when did two wrongs make a right?

Posting using a moniker
is indeed quite acceptable. Posting vile and gratuitous comments
is not.

Quite.

Using anonymity as a cover for posting vile, gratuitous
insults is particularly despicable.

Old wolf however did no such thing. He (or she) has been using that
moniker for a considerable time.
--
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]

Unfortunately, you don't confine yourself to corrections of his
misstatements. You engage in protracted, acrimonious, and repetious
debate with him.

True, sadly. However when he makes egregious offtopic, offensive or
disingenuous postings which might mislead newcomers, its pretty hard
to completely ignore. When he responds with hyperbolic insults, I
guess I should post a short, pithy reply and ignore him but I do hold
out some foolish hope that eventually he'll grow up.
--
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

 

[Keith Thompson]

Thats a gratuitous insult.

[...]

Since nobody else has mentioned this:

On slashdot.org, and probably on other web forums, uses can post
comments under their own account names, or they can post anonymously
without logging in. If you post without logging in, your post is
automatically signed "Anonymous Coward". In that context, it's a mild
joke, not an insult.

I don't know whether jacob was referring to that usage, but let's all
just assume that he was and move on.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

Unfortunately I find that [JN posts] incorrect information too often to
leave [JN] killfiled. It would be unfair to newbies who would be
unaware of [JN's] personal agenda and bias.

Unfortunately, you don't confine yourself to corrections of his
misstatements. You engage in protracted, acrimonious, and [repetitious]
debate with him.

Neither does Mr Navia confine himself to simple misstatements. He engages
in protracted, acrimonious, and repetitious debate. If it is wrong for
Mark to do this, it is also wrong for Mr Navia to do it. To criticise one
without criticising the other for the same behaviour is not a balanced
response.

As I said, this is extremely annoying to those of [us] who don't wish to
read his drivel, either directly or by proxy.

Quite so, but it may be an annoyance we must tolerate, since /someone/ has
to correct Mr Navia's junk, and it's difficult to do that without getting
tangled up in protracted, acrimonious, and repetitious debate with him,
because Mr Navia almost never acknowledges and corrects his errors,
preferring to defend them and making new errors as he does so (that's a
recipe for protracted if ever I saw one) as well as repeating some old
ones (which is a recipe for repetitious). Acrimonious seems to go with any
debate involving Mr Navia, since acrimones ooze from his every pore. So I
don't see that there's anything else Mark can do, except plonk Mr Navia
completely. And then who will correct him? Are *you* offering?