Re: To Peter Seibel

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by spinoza1111, Dec 22, 2009.

  1. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 12, 4:47 am, Francis Glassborow
    <> wrote:
    > spinoza1111wrote:
    > > On Dec 10, 2:54 am, Peter Seibel <> wrote:
    > >> On Dec 8, 11:24 pm,spinoza1111<> wrote:

    >
    > >>> I also call upon you to remove the attack on Schildt and replace it by
    > >>> an apology for the harm you have done.

    > See below.
    > >> Hmmmm. I'm not sure what you're referring to. (Strangely, I do have an
    > >> opinion about Schildt but I don't recall that I've ever published it
    > >> anywhere. Are you reading my mind!?)

    >
    > >> -Peter
    > >> --
    > >> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: -- you must
    > >> have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
    > >> or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line.  Sorry..

    >
    > > My mistake. I withdraw the thread claim. Peter SEEBACH posted the
    > > complaint about Schildt, Seibel is an Apress author. The two
    > > individuals are completely different. Peter Seibel, my apologies to
    > > you most sincerely. Seebach, please remove all posts not as a favor to
    > > me but as a courtesy to Seibel.

    >
    > > A professional moderator (like a professional editor) would have not
    > > posted my contribution because of its straightforward factual error,
    > > emailing me a query. But Seebach is not a professional moderator and
    > > is unqualified to manage clcm.

    >
    > No, certainly in all the newsgroups I post to it is not the job of a
    > moderator to reject a post because it is factually incorrect.


    Is that so? Actually, it is the job of a moderator to do so. I have
    interacted with Peter Neumann, the model of a good moderator at
    comp.risks, and he will consistently send an email to the originator
    if something is factually incorrect.

    >
    >  From time to time a moderator will check back with a poster of high
    > repute if they seem to have made a mistake but that is as far as it goes.
    >
    > In this case accepting your post seems to have been the right thing to
    > do as it showed just how careful you are when posting. The confusion of
    > the names is bad, particularly when for content such as the one in
    > question.


    Your vindictive behavior not only harmed me; it also harmed Seibel.
    You saw an opportunity for a cheap shot but you don't care about
    collegiality or respect.

    I don't care about professional reputation as a programmer since I've
    left the field in disgust with people like you, But you had a
    responsibility to Seibel to stop the posts as a moderator.

    >
    > In addition, if you knew much about the way things work these days you
    > would know that once posted a post cannot be withdrawn. Most
    > news-servers ignore cancellation requests because they have been heavily
    > abused in the past.


    This has been pointed out to me. It merely means I have no insight
    into the deep incompetence of the Web's design, because I am not at
    all impressed by its quality and would prefer knowing as little as
    possible about its errors...for the same reason I ceased being an
    expert on C after being asked to assist Nash. As Ted "Xanadu" Nelson
    has pointed out, you're asking for trouble with "efficient" one-way
    pointers and no real way of telling who originated what; in fact, the
    failure to adopt a Xanadu-like design explains why garbage like "C:
    the Complete Reference" goes viral and appears to be more than it is.
    And, to round out the picture, Ted Nelson was subject, by the thugs at
    Wired Magazine, to a systematic campaign of personal destruction in
    1998 merely for wanting to do a thorough design job on Xanadu, and not
    be the first thug to get rich.

    Peter's job was to send me an email questioning my confusion of him
    with Seibel. If you don't give a **** about how I look, you should
    have given a **** about Seibel as the innocent bystander. But Peter
    Seebach is incompetent as a moderator and appears to volunteer for
    jobs at which he is incompetent to make up for a deficient
    professional record that, in particular, lacks the educational
    background needed to criticise Schildt.


    > --
    > comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: -- you must
    > have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
    > or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line.  Sorry.

    --
    comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: -- you must
    have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
    or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
     
    spinoza1111, Dec 22, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "spinoza1111" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    <snip>
    >
    > Peter's job was to send me an email questioning my confusion of him
    > with Seibel. If you don't give a **** about how I look, you should
    > have given a **** about Seibel as the innocent bystander. But Peter

    <snip>

    So you'll be editing and reviewing your posts more carefully, I trust? :)

    Dennis

    Dennis

    ..
    --
    comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: -- you must
    have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
    or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
     
    Dennis \(Icarus\), Dec 22, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 23, 6:55 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <>
    wrote:
    > "spinoza1111" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    > <snip>
    >
    > > Peter's job was to send me an email questioning my confusion of him
    > > with Seibel. If you don't give a **** about how I look, you should
    > > have given a **** about Seibel as the innocent bystander. But Peter

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > So you'll be editing and reviewing your posts more carefully, I trust? :)


    As always, I shall be more diligent than most of you slobs. I am
    referring in particular to deliberate and malicious lack of diligence,
    which is the most pernicious type. Seebach doesn't want to do the real
    work of moderating a group.

    In this, he reminds me of the zany moderator "quertyuiop" at the
    placeblog site www.lamma.com.HK, who prefers to make homophobic
    remarks and disrupt posting to actually doing his job, and works for a
    site moderator whose English is so poor that his site regularly
    features bullying and abuse.

    [Cue Alan, the zany moderator, who watches for mentions of his silly
    name, to enter this discussion.]

    It is one thing to make a honest error. Indeed, being tolerant about
    errors (one's own and others') is a mark of the great programmer.

    But it is quite another to decide to do something stupid and
    malicious. Seebach has told us that as a moderator he will approve all
    or most posts without due diligence and this abuses the notion of a
    moderated group.

    The hatred of teachers here is part of the overall dysfunction.
    Somehow, people believe that they can be wise without teachers, and
    admonish their teachers because the computer, here, seems to be an
    independent check on what the teachers say.

    I find it hard to believe that Richard Heathfield's teacher, for
    example, told him that the end condition of a for loop is tested after
    or before each statement in the for loop, although given what Borstals
    he seems to have emerged from, one never knows. The problem is that
    for him, she's representative of all teachers, except him and his
    mates, of course.

    But it's logically impossible to know that you know "more than Dennis
    Ritchie about C" even if Dennis Ritchie tells you you do, as one clown
    here has claimed.

    Think about it. Knowledge is justified true belief save for the
    inapplicable Gettier counterexample, which proves nothing save the
    inadequacy of natural language. If Dennis Ritchie says you know more C
    than he, then Ritchie has a justified true belief that you know more
    about C.

    But how could Ritchie justify this belief? If he asked you questions
    to test you he'd have to know the answer. If he had you take an online
    test, he'd have to verify that the test was correct. I trusted
    Sparknotes to roughly evaluate Richard Heathfield's knowledge of C++
    last year but would not do so if he applied to me for a job.

    Ritchie's certification of your belief that you know more about C than
    he is worthless as knowledge. You know C if you regularly, unlike
    let's say me, produce loads of bug-free new code in C, and/or fix hard-
    to-fix errors in C code. But there's no way of verifying this apart
    from some final authority, more knowledgeable than you, examining your
    work and pronouncing it sound.

    In traditional engineering, this was usually the faculty of an
    engineering school, but here people tend not to recognize CS faculty
    as being qualified to do so.

    The problem is real. It is as described by a strange philosopher,
    Slavoj Zizek, from Slovenia: it is that capitalism is the one ideology
    that cannot be a super-ego, but must instead be part of the id.

    For if it were like Communism or Catholicism it would be questionable,
    we could ask it questions. But as it turns out, modern societies
    cannot even function without capitalism. Deng Xiao Peng discovered
    this in China.

    Circa 1970, young men wanted to be "free" of "authority" and "think"
    for "themselves". The computer came along in the knick of time to make
    young men appear smarter than old bastards. This was in my experience
    at the time insanely great, because it meant that contrary to my Dad's
    gloomy prognosis, I could get a well-paying job and move out of his
    house without getting a haircut.

    But today, it is bullshit, because it's irresponsible to attack a guy
    like Schildt, who learned to speak concretely of "the" stack in CS
    classes, based on nothing more than your own learning-disordered
    experience with C. This is because, dear Peter, your attack doesn't
    help the working educator in the slightest.

    I will credit your knowledge on C when and if you write an Apress book
    on how to code great and portable C on the model of your scripting
    book. I want to see a book that clearly sets out the variants and
    dialects of C, not some book that preaches the one true way. To
    prepare for writing this book, you should read Hans Kung, the Catholic
    theologian, on Islam, because Kung shows how to write about a
    polysemic text and its religion without saying "this is what it must
    mean". Oh, and by the way: you will need to study Microsoft C and C++
    to do an acceptable job, and I suggest one Herb Schildt as an
    authority in this.

    (Chortle).

    It doesn't help students to tell them that i = i++ + 1; is undefined
    if the compiler they use decides to do the postincrement before the
    add. This is because they are using the same direct experience with a
    constructed reality Kernighan et al. used when it works for them.

    Had you had real compiler experience, you would have noticed that the
    Standard is useless to compiler writers if it says that order of
    evaluation is indeterminate. Your own compiler would have had to
    either decide on a priority independent of the standard, or else
    randomize the choice.

    You were it seems afraid to be the Standard Father and overhaul C to
    be quite clear on precedence, for roughly the same reason Americans
    don't get health insurance: the greed of software vendors and
    insurance companies controls. To overhaul C, I believe, would have
    offended the new Gods; the capitalist vendors who would have been
    Offended (where this participle is overused today) had you and your
    mates decided that C needed to be truly standardized by announcing
    new, and incompatible precedence rules in place of sequence points.

    If the Father (whom Zizek calls the Big Other) is overthrown,
    "freedom" doesn't result. Instead the Horde of Sons who've killed the
    Father fall to fighting amongst themselves and (as in the story of
    Noah's drunkenness or Onan's "sin" in the Bible), the sons who seem to
    be "good" are punished; Ham for covering his naked father (and seeing
    his nakedness) and Onan for trying to avoid incest by jerking off.

    The point is actually the restoration of patriarchal authority which
    seemed to Kong-Fuzi (Confucius) to be necessary in an interregnum in
    which we find ourselves, and in this "period of warring states" or
    [Russian] "time of troubles" "bad" sons are sacrificed as was the
    reputation of Schildt.

    .... in the absence, in other words, of adult supervision.

    You want to be the new authority but in the case of C this would have
    been taking upon yourself the role of being the new Ritchie, and
    legislating the priority of preincrement or post-increment (or getting
    rid of them as a bad idea). But this would have created a crisis of
    legitimacy, for the rest of the Horde would have said, what's this guy
    doing? How DARE he tell us what C should be?

    Vendor economic power in the capitalist network would have done the
    rest of the job.
    >
    > Dennis
    >
    > Dennis
    >
    > .
    > --
    > comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: -- you must
    > have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
    > or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line.  Sorry.

    --
    comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: -- you must
    have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
    or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
     
    spinoza1111, Dec 23, 2009
    #3
  4. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 23, 3:40 am, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    > the Complete Reference" goes viral and appears to be more than it is.


    ....should read "C: the Complete Nonsense"
    --
    comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: -- you must
    have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
    or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
     
    spinoza1111, Dec 23, 2009
    #4
  5. spinoza1111

    John Bode Guest

    On Dec 22, 1:40 pm, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    > On Dec 12, 4:47 am, Francis Glassborow
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > > spinoza1111wrote:
    > > > On Dec 10, 2:54 am, Peter Seibel <> wrote:
    > > >> On Dec 8, 11:24 pm,spinoza1111<> wrote:

    >
    > > >>> I also call upon you to remove the attack on Schildt and replace it by
    > > >>> an apology for the harm you have done.

    > > See below.
    > > >> Hmmmm. I'm not sure what you're referring to. (Strangely, I do have an
    > > >> opinion about Schildt but I don't recall that I've ever published it
    > > >> anywhere. Are you reading my mind!?)

    >
    > > >> -Peter
    > > >> --
    > > >> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: -- you must
    > > >> have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
    > > >> or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line.  Sorry.

    >
    > > > My mistake. I withdraw the thread claim. Peter SEEBACH posted the
    > > > complaint about Schildt, Seibel is an Apress author. The two
    > > > individuals are completely different. Peter Seibel, my apologies to
    > > > you most sincerely. Seebach, please remove all posts not as a favor to
    > > > me but as a courtesy to Seibel.

    >
    > > > A professional moderator (like a professional editor) would have not
    > > > posted my contribution because of its straightforward factual error,
    > > > emailing me a query. But Seebach is not a professional moderator and
    > > > is unqualified to manage clcm.

    >


    Key word being "professional"; AFAIK, Seebs isn't being paid to
    moderated c.l.c.m; he has a day job (I'm assuming) that pays the
    bills, and performs moderation duties in his spare time.

    > > No, certainly in all the newsgroups I post to it is not the job of a
    > > moderator to reject a post because it is factually incorrect.

    >
    > Is that so? Actually, it is the job of a moderator to do so. I have
    > interacted with Peter Neumann, the model of a good moderator at
    > comp.risks, and he will consistently send an email to the originator
    > if something is factually incorrect.
    >


    It's up to the individual moderator to decide how he or she is going
    to moderate; there's no official Usenet rule book for moderation
    AFAIK. There's a whole spectrum of moderation behaviors, from laissez-
    faire to rigidly dictatorial. At one extreme you have talk.origins,
    which is moderated by a script that checks for excessive crossposts,
    crossposts to other moderated groups, posts by known incorrigible
    trolls who've exhibited *very* bad behavior in the past, and *nothing
    else* -- accuracy and topicality are simply not part of the moderation
    guidelines. That's by design of the moderator, DIG, who has
    repeatedly stated he would rather the group not be moderated at all.
    Somewhere towards the other end you have Neumann. Seebs seems typical
    of most Usenet moderators; screen for topicality or interest, and
    leave it up to the poster to check his or her own facts.

    If he were being *paid* to moderate, then you could demand higher
    standards. Until then, only you are responsible for your mistakes.

    >
    >
    > >  From time to time a moderator will check back with a poster of high
    > > repute if they seem to have made a mistake but that is as far as it goes.

    >
    > > In this case accepting your post seems to have been the right thing to
    > > do as it showed just how careful you are when posting. The confusion of
    > > the names is bad, particularly when for content such as the one in
    > > question.

    >
    > Your vindictive behavior not only harmed me; it also harmed Seibel.
    > You saw an opportunity for a cheap shot but you don't care about
    > collegiality or respect.
    >
    > I don't care about professional reputation as a programmer since I've
    > left the field in disgust with people like you, But you had a
    > responsibility to Seibel to stop the posts as a moderator.
    >


    Since your opinion carries very little weight with people who know
    what they're talking about, I don't think any harm has been done to
    Seibel. And you've harmed yourself far more effectively than anyone
    else.
    --
    comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: -- you must
    have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
    or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
     
    John Bode, Dec 23, 2009
    #5
  6. spinoza1111

    Seebs Guest

    On 2009-12-24, Erik Max Francis <> wrote:
    > Even then, no. _Moderation_ is not the same thing as _editing_.


    Exactly. clcm has no policy against stupidity, only against things that are
    sufficiently obviously off-topic. That's a pretty high standard, although
    I do bounce a few articles now and then. (About two to four a month.)

    So, for instance, we've omitted yet another newbie-question about ++i*++i,
    some detailed discussion of the protocol used to load compiled binaries to
    a TI89 calculator, and things like that.

    By contrast, Spinny's illucid rants are pretty much undeniably at least
    constructed using words which many people could use to write about C.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
    --
    comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: -- you must
    have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
    or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
     
    Seebs, Dec 24, 2009
    #6
  7. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 24, 10:42 am, Seebs <> wrote:
    > On 2009-12-24, Erik Max Francis <> wrote:
    >
    > > Even then, no.  _Moderation_ is not the same thing as _editing_.

    >
    > Exactly.  clcm has no policy against stupidity, only against things that are
    > sufficiently obviously off-topic.  That's a pretty high standard, although
    > I do bounce a few articles now and then.  (About two to four a month.)
    >
    > So, for instance, we've omitted yet another newbie-question about ++i*++i,
    > some detailed discussion of the protocol used to load compiled binaries to
    > a TI89 calculator, and things like that.


    I have a T-89 and I understand that it is programmable in C. In 1979 I
    programmed its predecessor to compile and to interpret the Mouse
    programming language.

    I'd guess that TI-89 C isn't at all Standard-conformant. Horrors.

    So, unlike Peter Neumann, you refuse from cowardice and laziness to
    review errors with the poster, and you automatically bounce things
    that many people (including the hundreds of thousands of teachers that
    use the TI-89 in math classes) need to know about?

    You need to RESIGN as moderator of clcm.
    >
    > By contrast, Spinny's illucid rants are pretty much undeniably at least


    "Illucid"? Not lucid, I'd say, and like "the 'heap' is a DOS term"
    direct evidence that you have no standing, especially when you seek to
    destroy people on the basis of their use of English or programming
    knowledge. The Compact OED lists "illegitimate" but not "illucid".

    Seeb the Feeb calls me illucid
    Editors find me pellucid
    Who are we to believe?
    Seeb the Feeb sez "heap" is a DOS term
    But: in a 1968 book this word did worm
    "Programming Systems and Languages"
    Edited by Saul Rosen and published by McGraw Hill
    Contains essays by many original maguses
    (Magi if you must) in which the word "heap"
    Doth on little cat feet creep.

    There was a fellow named Seebach
    Who wrote a rant and a pibroch
    'Bout Herbert Schildt
    And his programming guilt
    But Schildt laughed all the way to the bank, and...back.


    > constructed using words which many people could use to write about C.
    >
    > -s
    > --
    > Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / ://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
    > --
    > comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: -- you must
    > have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
    > or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line.  Sorry.

    --
    comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: -- you must
    have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
    or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
     
    spinoza1111, Dec 25, 2009
    #7
  8. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 24, 2:58 am, John Bode <> wrote:
    > On Dec 22, 1:40 pm,spinoza1111<> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Dec 12, 4:47 am, Francis Glassborow

    >
    > > <> wrote:
    > > > spinoza1111wrote:
    > > > > On Dec 10, 2:54 am, Peter Seibel <> wrote:
    > > > >> On Dec 8, 11:24 pm,spinoza1111<> wrote:

    >
    > > > >>> I also call upon you to remove the attack on Schildt and replace it by
    > > > >>> an apology for the harm you have done.
    > > > See below.
    > > > >> Hmmmm. I'm not sure what you're referring to. (Strangely, I do have an
    > > > >> opinion about Schildt but I don't recall that I've ever published it
    > > > >> anywhere. Are you reading my mind!?)

    >
    > > > >> -Peter
    > > > >> --
    > > > >> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: -- you must
    > > > >> have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
    > > > >> or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line.  Sorry.

    >
    > > > > My mistake. I withdraw the thread claim. Peter SEEBACH posted the
    > > > > complaint about Schildt, Seibel is an Apress author. The two
    > > > > individuals are completely different. Peter Seibel, my apologies to
    > > > > you most sincerely. Seebach, please remove all posts not as a favor to
    > > > > me but as a courtesy to Seibel.

    >
    > > > > A professional moderator (like a professional editor) would have not
    > > > > posted my contribution because of its straightforward factual error,
    > > > > emailing me a query. But Seebach is not a professional moderator and
    > > > > is unqualified to manage clcm.

    >
    > Key word being "professional"; AFAIK, Seebs isn't being paid to
    > moderated c.l.c.m; he has a day job (I'm assuming) that pays the
    > bills, and performs moderation duties in his spare time.
    >
    > > > No, certainly in all the newsgroups I post to it is not the job of a
    > > > moderator to reject a post because it is factually incorrect.

    >
    > > Is that so? Actually, it is the job of a moderator to do so. I have
    > > interacted with Peter Neumann, the model of a good moderator at
    > > comp.risks, and he will consistently send an email to the originator
    > > if something is factually incorrect.

    >
    > It's up to the individual moderator to decide how he or she is going
    > to moderate; there's no official Usenet rule book for moderation
    > AFAIK.  There's a whole spectrum of moderation behaviors, from laissez-
    > faire to rigidly dictatorial.  At one extreme you have talk.origins,
    > which is moderated by a script that checks for excessive crossposts,
    > crossposts to other moderated groups, posts by known incorrigible
    > trolls who've exhibited *very* bad behavior in the past, and *nothing
    > else* -- accuracy and topicality are simply not part of the moderation
    > guidelines.  That's by design of the moderator, DIG, who has
    > repeatedly stated he would rather the group not be moderated at all.
    > Somewhere towards the other end you have Neumann.  Seebs seems typical
    > of most Usenet moderators; screen for topicality or interest, and
    > leave it up to the poster to check his or her own facts.
    >
    > If he were being *paid* to moderate, then you could demand higher


    I believe based on what I've learned that Seebach volunteers to do
    things in order to appear to have professional qualifications he does
    not have. For example, one of the reasons that "C: The Complete
    Nonsense" went viral and was cited was that Seebach did actually serve
    on C standardization committees, whereas Herb, although he seemed to
    have initially joined, did not go to meetings.

    But then I learned, from Seebach himself, that Seebach hasn't any
    formal academic training in computer science. I've been called a
    "script kiddie" myself although I started out in machine language and
    I don't like the appelation, but Seebach not only has no academic
    training, he also has never developed compilers and his current area
    of expertise appears to be ... shell scripting.

    Shell scripting is real programming, just like Cobol; just as Dave
    Hanson told me that he respects Cobol programmers for their skill in
    making silk purses out of sow's ears, it takes brains to use a
    scripting language; I wrote a parser generator in Rexx.

    However, you need more experience in high-level languages other than
    C, as well as academic training, to criticise Herb Schildt, who has as
    I've said a BS and MSCS in computer science, and has written a
    compiler-interpreter for C. Especially if this is done with what a
    libel lawyer would say is "malice", that malice being shown in making
    game of a man's name.

    Peter may have found himself employable, willy-nilly, in programming
    after getting an unrelated degree. This is common. He worked hard to
    learn what he knows. Unfortunately, he attacked a professional to
    build his reputation, and it appears to me that he took on the jobs of
    moderator here, and member of the C standardization effort, from
    careerist motives. He may have worked hard on the C standard, but his
    performance as moderator here gets an F from me. Not only because he
    doesn't follow up on obvious errors but also because he attacks
    posters as "morons".

    > standards.  Until then, only you are responsible for your mistakes.


    Shut, your, yap. I don't see any real personal responsibility here. It
    would start with moderators acting even more collegial than posters,
    and it would start with a realization that real harm is done to people
    here. I happen to know that Schildt was psychologically injured and
    harmed for a long period of time by the byword that was made of his
    name, and personal responsibility is meaningless unless connected with
    interpersonal charity, basic decency, and doing your homework.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > >  From time to time a moderator will check back with a poster of high
    > > > repute if they seem to have made a mistake but that is as far as it goes.

    >
    > > > In this case accepting your post seems to have been the right thing to
    > > > do as it showed just how careful you are when posting. The confusion of
    > > > the names is bad, particularly when for content such as the one in
    > > > question.

    >
    > > Your vindictive behavior not only harmed me; it also harmed Seibel.
    > > You saw an opportunity for a cheap shot but you don't care about
    > > collegiality or respect.

    >
    > > I don't care about professional reputation as a programmer since I've
    > > left the field in disgust with people like you, But you had a
    > > responsibility to Seibel to stop the posts as a moderator.

    >
    > Since your opinion carries very little weight with people who know
    > what they're talking about, I don't think any harm has been done to


    Proclaiming that you are such people carries no weight with me. I
    could tell that my coworkers Bob Gaskins and Whitfield Diffie at Bell
    Northern Research were geniuses just by listening to them. When I
    looked at Nash's C code I was like, whoa. And neither Gaskins, nor
    Diffie, nor Nash at any time called other people "morons" or made
    crude curse-words out of other people's names. Quite the opposite in
    Nash's case. I saw John Horton "Game of Life" Conway treat Nash rather
    roughly just prior to the point where the Princeton community
    collectively realized who Nash was, and this was right after Conway
    had joined the faculty, so it was somewhat understandable...although
    it lowers Conway's greatness in my eyes.

    John McCarthy fucks with people as does Dave "Windows NT" Cutler and
    Steve Ballmer: we get from them Lisp (zzz), Windows (eek) and
    practical jokes including the persecution on the job of Gates, without
    whom Ballmer would be a middle manager.

    Edward Teller liked to **** with people and developed the (hopefully)
    unused H bomb; Albert Einstein didn't **** with people and developed
    the Theory of Relativity. I rest my case.

    As Kenny and "Richard" here have realized along with me, for you
    clowns to say you are in the know doesn't make you in the know. And
    fucking around with a man's reputation without standing doesn't make
    you a genius except by the most barbaric of measures, wherein the
    savage eats the heart of his enemy.

    So shut, your, trap.

    > Seibel.  And you've harmed yourself far more effectively than anyone
    > else.
    > --
    > comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: -- you must
    > have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
    > or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line.  Sorry.

    --
    comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: -- you must
    have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
    or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
     
    spinoza1111, Dec 25, 2009
    #8
  9. spinoza1111

    Moi Guest

    On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:52:08 -0600, spinoza1111 wrote:

    >Shut, your, yap. I don't see any real personal responsibility here. It
    >would start with moderators acting even more collegial than posters,
    >and it would start with a realization that real harm is done to people
    >here. I happen to know that Schildt was psychologically injured and
    >harmed for a long period of time by the byword that was made of his
    >name, and personal responsibility is meaningless unless connected with
    >interpersonal charity, basic decency, and doing your homework.


    You mean the decency of an author to correct known errors in a book, once
    a new edition goes into print ?
    You mean the decency of an author to actually thank people for pointing
    out errors ?
    (Knuth even gives you a 2.56$ check for that. Now, that's what I call decent!)

    HTH,
    AvK
     
    Moi, Dec 25, 2009
    #9
  10. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 25, 8:39 pm, Moi <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:52:08 -0600,spinoza1111wrote:
    > >Shut, your, yap. I don't see any real personal responsibility here. It
    > >would start with moderators acting even more collegial than posters,
    > >and it would start with a realization that real harm is done to people
    > >here. I happen to know that Schildt was psychologically injured and
    > >harmed for a long period of time by the byword that was made of his
    > >name, and personal responsibility is meaningless unless connected with
    > >interpersonal charity, basic decency, and doing your homework.

    >
    > You mean the decency of an author to correct known errors in a book, once
    > a new edition goes into print ?
    > You mean the decency of an author to actually thank people for pointing
    > out errors ?
    > (Knuth even gives you a 2.56$ check for that. Now, that's what I call decent!)
    >
    > HTH,
    > AvK


    The problem was that most of the "errors" posted by Peter Seebach in
    "C: The Complete Reference" and Clive Feather in "The Annotated
    Annotated C Standard" consisted of matters of style and interpretation
    and were suggestions as to how Herb "should" have written the book
    from an anti-Microsoft and pro-Standard bias. For example, Seebach
    didn't like Herb's use of the "stack" because the standard doesn't
    mention the stack, but the "stack" is in common use as an explanatory
    tool.

    McGraw Hill offered Seebach money to participate in a post-publication
    technical review, but he was too greedy to accept what he considered a
    too-small some; it's as if he was holding the company to ransom based
    on a jejune document. The actual errors he pointed out have been
    fixed. They are natural in a book of the length of "C: The Complete
    Nonsense".
     
    spinoza1111, Dec 26, 2009
    #10
  11. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 25, 11:24 pm, Joe Wright <> wrote:
    > Moi wrote:
    > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:52:08 -0600,spinoza1111wrote:

    >
    > >> Shut, your, yap. I don't see any real personal responsibility here. It
    > >> would start with moderators acting even more collegial than posters,
    > >> and it would start with a realization that real harm is done to people
    > >> here. I happen to know that Schildt was psychologically injured and
    > >> harmed for a long period of time by the byword that was made of his
    > >> name, and personal responsibility is meaningless unless connected with
    > >> interpersonal charity, basic decency, and doing your homework.

    >
    > > You mean the decency of an author to correct known errors in a book, once
    > > a new edition goes into print ?
    > > You mean the decency of an author to actually thank people for pointing
    > > out errors ?
    > > (Knuth even gives you a 2.56$ check for that. Now, that's what I call decent!)

    >
    > > HTH,
    > > AvK

    >
    > And Richard Heathfield has one of those checks framed on his wall.


    That's great! My kid is in Bjarne Stroustrup for finding errata. The
    problem is that shibboleths and artifacts are treated with barbaric,
    cargo-cult respect. My experience with Richard is that his programming
    intelligence, such as it is, is analytic and not synthetic. He might
    be good at finding errors, but I wouldn't trust him to develop
    software in the large.
    >
    > --
    > Joe Wright
    > "If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can depend on the support of Paul."
     
    spinoza1111, Dec 27, 2009
    #11
    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. Davisro
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    421
    bruce barker
    Apr 29, 2004
  2. Davisro
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    409
    George Ter-Saakov
    May 3, 2004
  3. Roedy Green

    Peter van der Linden

    Roedy Green, May 7, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    562
    marcus
    May 10, 2004
  4. Ken North
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    495
    Ken North
    Mar 1, 2004
  5. saywhat

    Hats off to Peter Bromberg

    saywhat, Jun 4, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    319
    saywhat
    Jun 4, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page