Signal to noise ratios

[Kenny McCormack]

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.

Yes, but you are an absolutely certifiably insane lunatic. This has
been shown over and over in your postings.

Therefore, your observations don't pull any weight.

 

[Default User]

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.

There are many posts like that, but I don't see that as a problem as
long as it's presented in a reasonable way. There are many of that sort
in clc++ as well, maybe more so than here because they have a larger
FAQ.

Some people do have the bizarre idea that "this is the wrong newsgroup"
or "your question is answered here in the FAQs" constitutes flaming,
but I don't subscribe to that.




Brian

 

[Kenny McCormack]

I invite you to point out some examples.

Anything by Dicky Heathfield.

(At your service!)

 

[Mark McIntyre]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:15:04 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Doug

(of various semi-trolls)

I generally enjoy reading their posts, until the custard
fights start.

Trouble is, quite often the posts contain fairly complex errors which,
if people didn't challenge them, newbies would not realise /were/
errors. And when challenged, these people tend to start ranting about
how they're always being picked on.

For example, I like Jacbo's thought-provoking 'what
would happen if I did this?' questions.

It might have been interesting, but it wasn't topical in CLC. It might
have been topical in comp.std.c, where the standard itself is
discussed.

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

A very very few. And a lot of trolls and people with limited knowledge
but no humility.

*and* some basic manners.

You try maintaining basic manners after having to say the same thing
week in week out to rude people who refuse to listen and do the usenet
equivalent of "nyah nyah I'm not listening, I'm humming..."
..
--
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]

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.

Imagine you've been posting here for 10+ years (as a fair few of the
regulars have, myself not quite included), and /then/ see if you feel
so calm about answering the same flippin' homework question.

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.

The difficulty with this is - imagine we /all/ left it to someone
else... the only answers would be from the clueless and trolls who
would surely NOT help the OP...

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.

And when the OT posters realise they can post OT questions here over
and over and over and over, and still get politely directed to the
right groups as if this were the Usenet Yellow Pages.....

--
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

 

[stdazi]

usefully abbreviated to IAFWAFIAWMWQ...

valuable to remember!