"use CGI " hangs "CGI time out "

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Please, if you want to discuss C, comp.lang.c is the place. There
was no reason to bring C into this thread (which you originally
did, and which is why I marked my response to you OT).

I have lost patience.

*PLONK*

If you had taken the trouble to look around you you would have seen
that this is in c.l.c, where any mention of perl is OT. Since you
failed to set follow-ups, that is obviously just fine with you.

 

[pete]

Eric Sosman wrote:

Doesn't this depend on the compiler and platform?

In C, no.

 

[Tad McClellan]

reason I added comp.lang.c to the ng list was that I wanted to move the
discussion to the c group, but not leave out the folks in c.l.p.m who
were following it out in the cold,

Did you note in the message body that you were exanding
the Newsgroups header?

which to me would seem like a rude
thing to do.

Not doing so is well established as being a rude thing to do.

 

[Tassilo v. Parseval]

Also sprach A. Sinan Unur:

My comments were not related to your theorizing regarding the value of
an uninitialized variable. I have been trying to point out that this
topic is not appropriate for c.l.p.misc for a while now.

For a while? You mentioned it exactly once, after having contributed to
the thread yourself.

I am so sorry that my attempt at correcting your bogus explanation of
why the OP my the mistake of declaring variables as in

my $x, $y, $z;

has led to this to the materialization of this thread.

Please, if you want to discuss C, comp.lang.c is the place. There was no
reason to bring C into this thread (which you originally did, and which
is why I marked my response to you OT).

I have lost patience.

*PLONK*

Sane newsreaders allow you to killfile a whole thread if you feel you
must. I suggest you do that in cases like this, and you do it silently.

There's always the danger of looking foolish when handing out killfile
entries for individuals so easily. Also, you didn't seem to have
killfiled the other regulars who have taken part in that C-ish
digression.

[ This message should probably have a follow-up set but I couldn't think
of a suitable one. ]

Tassilo

 

[Alfred Z. Newmane]

Did you note in the message body that you were exanding
the Newsgroups header?

My apologies. I didn't seem necessary as it seemed to be going that way,
and I left the c.l.p.m in the list so those here following it wouldn't
get cut off. I also thought it might be good to get input from those in
a group where the topic at hand would be more topical, while not
abandoning the people who were already following it in c.l.m.p.

Not doing so is well established as being a rude thing to do.

How so? If you are following a topic of interest (even though it may
have branched off from the central topic of the tread into a sub
thread), how would you like it if you were suddenly and unexpected cut
off from replies before realizing they were redirected to another group?
Forgive me, but is this one of the points of the cross posting, to allow
for the sharing of a topic among groups?

Again, I apologize for not reporting the newgroups header change.

 

[Tad McClellan]

My apologies. I didn't seem necessary

How so?

Imagine you are talking to your boss, who is in the conference room,
on the phone.

Think it might lead to embarrassment, or worse, if he was to switch
on the speaker phone without your knowledge?


And in fact, there was just such a mixup in this thread as a result
of your silently expanding the thread's audience.

If you are following a topic of interest (even though it may
have branched off from the central topic of the tread into a sub
thread), how would you like it if you were suddenly and unexpected cut
off from replies before realizing they were redirected to another group?

The "prime directive" of effective communication is considering your
audience. That is hard to do when the audience's composition has
changed dramatically without your being aware of it.

Again, I apologize for not reporting the newgroups header change.

'Nuff said then.