very much new to c need ur help

[Golden California Girls]

My wife teaches middle-school English (children approximately
ages 11 to 13). A surprising number of students try to turn in
homework assignments written in SMSese. These students are
summarily told to rewrite them in English.

That is incorrect. They should be given them back with a large F across the top
and an attached recommendation for remedial English class with a note to see a
counselor and schedule a parent teacher conference. When you allow them a
second shot at doing the work you don't teach them the facts of life, there is
no second chance at a first impression. Can you see them later in life filling
out an employment application in SMSese? Can you see society giving them
welfare because they can't write English? Nip it in the bud and 99% of them
will become productive members of society.

Not that I know how to teach mind you.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

I have heard the claim that it's too difficult to
compose and type English properly at the kind of speed that prevails
in some IRC channels, but this is not in keeping with my experience.

[/QUOTE]

I will grant that RH is well educated and a native speaker of English.
Many are not so fortunate.

And if everyone typed in proper English there would be no need for these
silly abbreviations. Granted bandwidth usage would increase by a
fraction, but I doubt that it's of concern to even dial-up modem users.

Barring exceptional cases I can't think of any benefits in using these
abbreviations.

In most cases, it's the only English they know. If not for SMS speak,
they'd be posting in their native language (some Indian dialect, or, if
we're lucky, Hindi)

 

[Charlie Gordon]

I was raising a point against CBFalconer's assertion that the post was a
deliberate foul-up. It's certainly a foul-up but I would
replace "deliberate" with "ignorant", at least until it's established
that the OP was trolling.


As do I, one the rare occasions that I find myself using SMS.

Apparently SMS is charged by the character, so abbreviations are
tolerable there. But it soon gets to be a nasty habit contaminating all
written communication.

That's not the real reason: SMS is charged by the message, itself limited in
size to about 160 characters. Telegrams used to be charged by the word, and
prompted the telegraphese style where one only keeps meaningful words and
drops articles, prepositions, verbs...

What prompted SMSese is more likely the awkwardness of the input medium: the
cell phone keypad. Typing u instead of you is indeed much quicker and
simpler. If people posted on Usenet from regular cell-phones (no
blackberries ;-) SMSese would become ubiquitousm and no amount of ranting
would stop it. Thankfully, most posters do it from PCs, so we can try and
enforce a minimum of style, and stop this nasty contamination.

 

[Charlie Gordon]

My wife teaches middle-school English (children approximately
ages 11 to 13). A surprising number of students try to turn in
homework assignments written in SMSese. These students are
summarily told to rewrite them in English.

Do they submit them via email ?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Do they submit them via email ?

No, by cell phone...

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

Do snip
anything in quotes that is not relevant to your reply, which
especially includes sigs. Sigs are everything following the "-- "
sig marker.

The first or the last?
Bye, Jojo

 

[Mark McIntyre]

The first or the last?

Thats like saying, "which null is the end of the string, the first or
the last ?".

Axiomatically there /is/ only one sig marker. Everything after that is
not part of the message.

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

Thats like saying, "which null is the end of the string, the first or the
last ?".

Axiomatically there /is/ only one sig marker. Everything after that is not
part of the message.

My question was a subtle (and apparently too subtle) hint at Chuck's too
long double sig.
He, who refuses to get that fixed, still gives advice to others to fix their
postings.

 

[Tarique]

Richard Heathfield wrote:
...snip..

If
(e-mail address removed) wishes to seek advice from C experts (which is
how I have chosen to interpret his posting of "i want to be the best in
watever i do" in this newsgroup), he would do well to learn how to
communicate effectively with them. If he is satisfied with the kind of
experts you get in other fora, well, that's his choice.

Just to correct you,Ratika(Its an Indian name) seems to be a *she* ,a
rarity in this ng!

 

[Keith Thompson]

Joachim Schmitz wrote:
[...]

My question was a subtle (and apparently too subtle) hint at Chuck's
too long double sig. He, who refuses to get that fixed, still gives
advice to others to fix their postings.

And, as it happens, his advice is usually correct.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

Joachim Schmitz wrote:
[...]

My question was a subtle (and apparently too subtle) hint at Chuck's
too long double sig. He, who refuses to get that fixed, still gives
advice to others to fix their postings.

And, as it happens, his advice is usually correct.

Actually, in my experience Chuck's advice is /not/ "usually correct". It is
/often/ correct, true - but his mistakes are not as few and far between as
we all would wish. And his most common mistake is that of giving advice to
others that he is not prepared to take himself.

 

[Richard]

Thats like saying, "which null is the end of the string, the first or
the last ?".

Axiomatically there /is/ only one sig marker. Everything after that is
not part of the message.

The sig is measured from the bottom of the page. Everyone knows that.
And is why two of the oldest, most stable newsreaders don't correctly
snip that idiots double signature. He has been pointed to numerous free
usenet services but is too full of himself and his own self importance
to heed the advice.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Keith Thompson said:

Joachim Schmitz wrote:
[...]

My question was a subtle (and apparently too subtle) hint at Chuck's
too long double sig. He, who refuses to get that fixed, still gives
advice to others to fix their postings.

And, as it happens, his advice is usually correct.

Actually, in my experience Chuck's advice is /not/ "usually correct". It is
/often/ correct, true - but his mistakes are not as few and far between as
we all would wish. And his most common mistake is that of giving advice to
others that he is not prepared to take himself.

The latter is not the kind of "mistake" I'm talking about. By
"correct", I merely mean "factually correct".

To put it differently, most of the advice Chuck gives would be
considered correct and unobjectionable (except to the trolls) were it
not for his signature issue.

(And let's not start yet another long discussion about this.)

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

To put it differently, most of the advice Chuck gives would be
considered correct and unobjectionable (except to the trolls) were it
not for his signature issue.

Do the math.

(And let's not start yet another long discussion about this.)

Hear hear.

 

[Walter Roberson]

The sig is measured from the bottom of the page. Everyone knows that.

Citation? Because that's not what the Usenet RFC's say.

 

[Richard]

Citation? Because that's not what the Usenet RFC's say.

Sigh.

Forget it.

3 possibilities:

(a) slrn and gnus (to name but 2) get rewritten/changed to cope with Mr
CBFalconer's double signature or
(b) he moves to a new server which doesn't add that ridiculous spam or
(c) he removes his signature asking for work.

The point is this : his and only his posts break the signature clipping.

It also makes MUCH more sense to clip from the bottom going up. I won't
argue the toss with you as to why but the most obvious thing is that IF
someone with signature inadvertently puts a sig delimiter in the message
body then it wont be snipped there.

Common sense. Common decency. Simple really.

Why you would defend something so idiotic yet trivial is a surprise to
me.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Common sense. Common decency. Simple really.

Why you would defend something so idiotic yet trivial is a surprise to
me.

No, it's not (that much of surprise, considering the source).

 

[Charlie Gordon]

Keith Thompson said:

Joachim Schmitz wrote:
[...]
My question was a subtle (and apparently too subtle) hint at Chuck's
too long double sig. He, who refuses to get that fixed, still gives
advice to others to fix their postings.
And, as it happens, his advice is usually correct.

Actually, in my experience Chuck's advice is /not/ "usually correct". It
is /often/ correct, true - but his mistakes are not as few and far
between as we all would wish. And his most common mistake is that of
giving advice to others that he is not prepared to take himself.

The latter is not the kind of "mistake" I'm talking about. By "correct",
I merely mean "factually correct".

To put it differently, most of the advice Chuck gives would be considered
correct and unobjectionable (except to the trolls) were it not for his
signature issue.

Showing off code where getc(fp) gets stored into an unsigned variable and
then compared to EOF does not constitute good advice. It may qualify as a
quiz or a puzzle (how can you make this code break on a DS9K).

 

[Walter Roberson]

(e-mail address removed)-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:

Forget it.

Are you able to provide a citation to back up your claim, or
are you not able to provide a citation to back up your claim?
I have, in the past, quoted the relevant paragraphs from the Usenet
RFCs: do you have a citation from a superceeding RFC or other relevant
standards document? If I base my interpretation upon the wording
of the Usenet RFCs, and you are not able to provide a superior
citation, then in what way is my interpretation "idiotic"?

3 possibilities:

(a) slrn and gnus (to name but 2) get rewritten/changed to cope with Mr
CBFalconer's double signature or

There is a research area called "Common Factor Analysis". It shows
that it is not uncommon for more than one person (or programming team)
to make the same mistake (thus substantially weakening the position
that having competing teams write the same application is sufficient
protection against bugs.) You can find more information about
Common Factor Analysis in RISKS Digest (comp.risks)

(b) he moves to a new server which doesn't add that ridiculous spam or
(c) he removes his signature asking for work.

Let us examine Chuck's portion of the signature that triggered
this subthread. It read:

Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

Could you indicate to me exactly which portion of that signature
represents Chuck "asking for work"? Is there a language that
I happen to be unfamiliar with in which "cbfalconer" is a word
that would translate into English as "C coder for sale or rent" ??

The point is this : his and only his posts break the signature clipping.

I find that assertion doubtful, but even if it were true, the
question would remain as to whether you are able to provide a citation
to establish that his signatures are incorrect.

It also makes MUCH more sense to clip from the bottom going up. I won't
argue the toss with you as to why but the most obvious thing is that IF
someone with signature inadvertently puts a sig delimiter in the message
body then it wont be snipped there.

And the probability of someone with a sig "inadvertently" putting a
sig delimiter in a message is?

Why you would defend something so idiotic yet trivial is a surprise to
me.

If you cannot establish your "facts" by reference to credible
standards, then do not claim that "Everybody knows" your "facts" to
be true.

 

[Richard]

(e-mail address removed)-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:

Are you able to provide a citation to back up your claim, or
are you not able to provide a citation to back up your claim?
I have, in the past, quoted the relevant paragraphs from the Usenet
RFCs: do you have a citation from a superceeding RFC or other relevant
standards document? If I base my interpretation upon the wording
of the Usenet RFCs, and you are not able to provide a superior
citation, then in what way is my interpretation "idiotic"?

You dont seem to get it : I dont care what the RFC says. I do care that
his sigs break some news readers and end up getting requoted. Common
sense over anal retentive I guess.

There is a research area called "Common Factor Analysis". It shows
that it is not uncommon for more than one person (or programming team)

I am well aware of that. So what? The point is that the error is there.

to make the same mistake (thus substantially weakening the position
that having competing teams write the same application is sufficient
protection against bugs.) You can find more information about
Common Factor Analysis in RISKS Digest (comp.risks)

I am not in the least bit interested. I used to be. In fact I did a lot
of work for the MOD in this area. Although why you quoting such in
anyway makes falconer's double sig any the more bearable is beyond me.

Let us examine Chuck's portion of the signature that triggered
this subthread. It read:

Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

Could you indicate to me exactly which portion of that signature
represents Chuck "asking for work"? Is there a language that
I happen to be unfamiliar with in which "cbfalconer" is a word
that would translate into English as "C coder for sale or rent" ??

You are right. He altered his sig. Regardless. The second sig.

I find that assertion doubtful, but even if it were true, the

So you are now saying I and others are lying when we say his sigs dont
get properly trimmed?

question would remain as to whether you are able to provide a citation
to establish that his signatures are incorrect.

You must be a bundle of laughs when building SW. "The standard says
this", "But is breaks the system", "But the standard says this" etc etc
etc.

And the probability of someone with a sig "inadvertently" putting a
sig delimiter in a message is?

Your point being what? my point is that HIS doubel sigs break my quoting
system and others.

If you cannot establish your "facts" by reference to credible
standards, then do not claim that "Everybody knows" your "facts" to
be true.

Oh, grow up and stop being so prissy. His double sigs break peoples news
readers. End of subject.

You can show me all the standards in the world - I don't really care. He
has been asked by many people nicely to remove that second sig. He
won't. He is in my killfile again.