Signal to noise ratios

[Mark Bluemel]

Can I suggest that people remember an old Malagasy proverb (which I
learnt about elsewhere)?

"In a fight with a fool it's a wise man who quits."

usefully abbreviated to IAFWAFIAWMWQ...

 

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Can I suggest that people remember an old Malagasy proverb (which I
learnt about elsewhere)?

"In a fight with a fool it's a wise man who quits."

I suggest "Don't feed the trolls" as a modern alternative.

 

[Mark Bluemel]

I suggest "Don't feed the trolls" as a modern alternative.

Part of the the point about IAFWAFIAWMWQ is that it doesn't just apply
to trolls. It applies once you're into a "dialogue of the deaf", which
is currently (as I see it) what's happening between some contributors.

 

[santosh]

Can I suggest that people remember an old Malagasy proverb (which I
learnt about elsewhere)?

"In a fight with a fool it's a wise man who quits."

usefully abbreviated to IAFWAFIAWMWQ...

This is one acronym that's not worth learning. The expansion is far easier
to remember.

 

[Default User]

Can I suggest that people remember an old Malagasy proverb (which I
learnt about elsewhere)?

"In a fight with a fool it's a wise man who quits."

usefully abbreviated to IAFWAFIAWMWQ...

I basically agree with you. I wish people would stop engaging Jacob or
"plain Richard" (not to be confused with Mr. Heathfield, Mr. Bos, or
other fine Richards that have contributed here).

I can understand that it may be important to post corrections to
off-topic posts from this people, but the constant debate that rehashes
old arguments is pointless and destructive.

It would be far better in my opinion to ignore these people other than
stock responses output whenever an off-topic message appears.





Brian

 

[Doug]

I basically agree with you. I wish people would stop engaging Jacob or
"plain Richard" (not to be confused with Mr. Heathfield, Mr. Bos, or
other fine Richards that have contributed here).

<snip>

I'm afraid I'm on the other side. I've found Jacob to be polite and a
fairly nice guy (and I don't feel he pushes lcc-win32 here one little
bit, to be honest). Chris and "plain Richard", too, and plenty of
others. I generally enjoy reading their posts, until the custard
fights start. For example, I like Jacbo's thought-provoking 'what
would happen if I did this?' questions. Adds colour to the usual 'i =
i++' posts we see. However, I don't bother posting because I don't
feel like being drawn into personal battles over Usenet.

I think the fine contributors you are thinking of would be better
posting to a new group, comp.lang.c.rude, and leave the rest of us in
peace.

We all acknowledge they know their C. I'm sure they know it much
better than I, Jacob or "plain Richard". But there would still remain
a few regulars with excellent C knowledge *and* some basic manners.
And maybe we could have some interesting dicsussions, instead of the
constant nit-picking, snide and arrogance.

Just a thought.

Doug

 

[Default User]

Doug wrote:

I'm afraid I'm on the other side. I've found Jacob to be polite and a
fairly nice guy (and I don't feel he pushes lcc-win32 here one little
bit, to be honest). Chris and "plain Richard", too, and plenty of
others. I generally enjoy reading their posts, until the custard
fights start. For example, I like Jacbo's thought-provoking 'what
would happen if I did this?' questions. Adds colour to the usual 'i =
i++' posts we see. However, I don't bother posting because I don't
feel like being drawn into personal battles over Usenet.

All the people you mention wish to change the base topicality of this
newsgroup. From our related group, comp.lang.c++, we know that is a
recipe for disaster. It took that group a lot of effort to climb out of
their morass.




Brian

 

[Doug]

Doug wrote:
All the people you mention wish to change the base topicality of this
newsgroup. From our related group, comp.lang.c++, we know that is a
recipe for disaster. It took that group a lot of effort to climb out of
their morass.

Hiya,

Ok, I can see that aspect of things (although I don't think they
really want to change it, just stretch its boundary every once in a
while).

But I lurk over at c.l.c++ too, and that's a much more pleasant group
to be in, by several orders of magnitude. Pick pretty much any post
at random and there's so much help, so little nit-picking. The
posters come across as being very eager to help. That's pretty much
completely different from here, where many give the appearance of
treating it as their personal ego playground.

Doug

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Doug wrote:



All the people you mention wish to change the base topicality of this
newsgroup. From our related group, comp.lang.c++, we know that is a
recipe for disaster. It took that group a lot of effort to climb out of
their morass.

That's what you (and the other hardcode regs) always say.

Doesn't make it true, though.

 

[Default User]

Hiya,

Ok, I can see that aspect of things (although I don't think they
really want to change it, just stretch its boundary every once in a
while).

No, that's NOT what they want.

But I lurk over at c.l.c++ too, and that's a much more pleasant group
to be in, by several orders of magnitude. Pick pretty much any post
at random and there's so much help, so little nit-picking. The
posters come across as being very eager to help. That's pretty much
completely different from here, where many give the appearance of
treating it as their personal ego playground.

This is a bizzare perspective. I've never known clc++ to be
particularly helpful to off-topic request, nor clc to be anything but
extremely helpful for on-topic ones.

Perhaps you could point out a few examples where questions here did not
get a good, full response?




Brian

 

[Kenneth Brody]

On Jul 26, 7:19 pm, "Default User" <[email protected]> wrote:

[... topicality in comp.lang.c++ ...]

But I lurk over at c.l.c++ too, and that's a much more pleasant group
to be in, by several orders of magnitude. Pick pretty much any post
at random and there's so much help, so little nit-picking. The
posters come across as being very eager to help. That's pretty much
completely different from here, where many give the appearance of
treating it as their personal ego playground.

I used to lurk over there as well, but I haven't had time recently.

What sort of questions are asked there? Do they get homework-type
questions often? (ie: write sizeof w/o using "sizeof", or what will
be the output of this program after overflowing an array [with the
assumption that the student will be using the same platform and
compiler as the instructor], and so on.) Do they get posters asking
the same inane "explain the output of this [often UB-invoking] code"
questions over and over? Do they get the same platform-specific
questions over and over? Does an answer need to use the phrase "over
and over" over and over?

Intelligent questions get intelligent answers. Even OT questions
will get answers pointing them to the right place to ask, if they
are intelligently written. Overall, there is wide acceptance of
poorly-written posts when it is obvious that English is not the
poster's native language, as long as the effort is there. (And I'm
sure their English is better than any attempt I might make in their
native language, even with Babelfish's help.)

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:[email protected]>

 

[Doug]

No, that's NOT what they want.

I suspect they have been vilified, somewhat. In my time lurking here
they've at least seemed pleasant enough and on-topic enough to me.
One or two feet wrong here or there, but no worse and arguably much
better than the replies to spam some others post.

This is a bizzare perspective. I've never known clc++ to be
particularly helpful to off-topic request, nor clc to be anything but
extremely helpful for on-topic ones.

They're a heck more polite about it though!

Perhaps you could point out a few examples where questions here did not
get a good, full response?

Sorry, that's not what I intended to get across. We do get full
responses here - they're just laden with scorn. They are also usually
so obliquely stated that an inexperienced person would never be able
to figure them out anyway.

Doug

 

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

I basically agree with you. I wish people would stop engaging Jacob or
"plain Richard" (not to be confused with Mr. Heathfield, Mr. Bos, or
other fine Richards that have contributed here).

Well, one problem is that one of those Richards is a frequent engager
of "plain Richard" and other annoying posters. The Richard in
question also does more battle with Mr. Navia than is really necessary
IMHO...

I can understand that it may be important to post corrections to
off-topic posts from this people, but the constant debate that rehashes
old arguments is pointless and destructive.

....resulting in a significant amount of said constant pointless
debate. I find that the Richard in question is in general a fine
contributor to the group, for the record, which makes his digressions
forgivable but unfortunate nevertheless.

It would be far better in my opinion to ignore these people other than
stock responses output whenever an off-topic message appears.

Heartily agreed.

 

[Doug]

Doug wrote:

What sort of questions are asked there? Do they get homework-type
questions often? (ie: write sizeof w/o using "sizeof", or what will
be the output of this program after overflowing an array [with the
assumption that the student will be using the same platform and
compiler as the instructor], and so on.) Do they get posters asking
the same inane "explain the output of this [often UB-invoking] code"
questions over and over? Do they get the same platform-specific
questions over and over? Does an answer need to use the phrase "over
and over" over and over?

Intelligent questions get intelligent answers. Even OT questions
will get answers pointing them to the right place to ask, if they
are intelligently written. Overall, there is wide acceptance of
poorly-written posts when it is obvious that English is not the
poster's native language, as long as the effort is there. (And I'm
sure their English is better than any attempt I might make in their
native language, even with Babelfish's help.)

I do see your point. I just don't see the need to get heated up about
it.

The "do my howework" posts - yep, they're fair game for anything.
Same for spam. Let's ignore them completely.

The repeated questions about UB and platform-specific dependant stuff
might be tedious, yes. But are they really that troublesome? A
quick, polite pointer to the FAQ would do just fine. And if you can't
be bothered this time, just chill out and move on to the next post -
someone else will deal with it, I'm sure.

I don't see how this would lead to melt-down. OT posts are still
being directed to the right groups - no-one's seeing red mist over it,
that's all. The noise level comes from the ensuing tit-for-tat
battles. Not that I'm helping in that respect with this post or
anything.

Doug

 

[Default User]

Sorry, that's not what I intended to get across. We do get full
responses here - they're just laden with scorn. They are also usually
so obliquely stated that an inexperienced person would never be able
to figure them out anyway.

I invite you to point out some examples.



Brian

 

[Default User]

Well, one problem is that one of those Richards is a frequent engager
of "plain Richard" and other annoying posters. The Richard in
question also does more battle with Mr. Navia than is really necessary
IMHO...

I would not disagree, and I've expressed that to him in the past.

...resulting in a significant amount of said constant pointless
debate. I find that the Richard in question is in general a fine
contributor to the group, for the record, which makes his digressions
forgivable but unfortunate nevertheless.

When people are in trolling mode, you can't beat them by arguing with
them. Their goal is exactly to get you to respond, to distract you from
other things, and in general to disrupt the newsgroup. The only way to
"win" against a troll is to ignore it within the bounds of correctness
(for a technical group).

Heartily agreed.

In general this would make the newsgroup a "friendlier" place as Doug
seems to want. I believe that perceived problem isn't in the answers
given to newbies, but the general argumentation. Were I a new
participant, I'd find of lot of these threads off-putting.




Brian

 

[Doug]

I invite you to point out some examples.

I'm sorry, I'll have to decline. I don't want to pick out any
posters. You are free to take that as an indication it's not true -
I'm not really up for arguing, I'm just waiting for code to compile.

The recent mugging of poor Jacob might be an example of what i'm on
about - made me feel rather sorry for the poor chap. I will be trying
out his compiler the next time I run any code on Windows. At least I
know that if there are any issues, then he's reachable and reasonable.

Looks like it's finished. More later, I'm sure.

Doug

 

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

I would not disagree, and I've expressed that to him in the past.

Me too; hopefully this will serve as a friendly reminder.

In general this would make the newsgroup a "friendlier" place as Doug
seems to want. I believe that perceived problem isn't in the answers
given to newbies, but the general argumentation. Were I a new
participant, I'd find of lot of these threads off-putting.

Quite, although I think Doug may also be referring to the common
RTFFAQ posts that newbies often unwittingly invite. My personal
feeling is that the more FAQ's are answered on group, the lower the
incentive to actually read the document.

 

[Keith Thompson]

The repeated questions about UB and platform-specific dependant stuff
might be tedious, yes. But are they really that troublesome? A
quick, polite pointer to the FAQ would do just fine. And if you can't
be bothered this time, just chill out and move on to the next post -
someone else will deal with it, I'm sure.

[...]

I do agree that we sometimes don't make good enough use of the FAQ.
If someone asks about 'i=i++;', the only response needed is a pointer
to the relevant question in the FAQ (and a reminder to check the FAQ
before posting).

 

[Ian Collins]

On Jul 26, 7:19 pm, "Default User" <[email protected]> wrote:

[... topicality in comp.lang.c++ ...]

But I lurk over at c.l.c++ too, and that's a much more pleasant group
to be in, by several orders of magnitude. Pick pretty much any post
at random and there's so much help, so little nit-picking. The
posters come across as being very eager to help. That's pretty much
completely different from here, where many give the appearance of
treating it as their personal ego playground.

I used to lurk over there as well, but I haven't had time recently.

What sort of questions are asked there?

The range of questions is much broader, due to the extra complexity of
the language. So the ratio of new interesting to repeated mundane
questions is much higher. This leads to much more on topic technical
discussion and much less off topic bickering.

Usage patterns for C++ are constantly changing, which helps keep the
group from becoming stale.

Do they get homework-type questions often?

Not as many as here.

Do they get the same platform-specific questions over and over?

Yes, but they are quickly redirected.