Why is it "mov eax, 25h" in the first line of NtCreateFile?

[Phil Carmody]

Well, in this case because, as the OP pointed out, the appropriate
forums (fora?)

As we're meta already - yes, `fora'. The word came into the english
language with both its singular and plural form stolen wholesale.
`Forums' is a fucking monstrosity to anyone with even a modicum of
classical education.

Romanes eunt domus,
Phil
(NTS falacy refutations expected, but will be ignored.)

 

[Antoninus Twink]

[the usual garbage]

Thank you for pouring gasoline on the fire.

Carmody is a psycho. What did you expect him to do - sing a happy song
and smile at the flowers?

 

[Antoninus Twink]

`Forums' is a fucking monstrosity to anyone with even a modicum of
classical education.

Bullshit.

It's only a monstrosity to smug dickheads who are so far up their own
asses that they can't see the sunshine outside.

You should think about anger management classes, Phil. I mean, like,
seriously.

 

[Phil Carmody]

Thank you for pouring gasoline on the fire.

I've got a can of WD40 and a ciggy lighter too!

If you've not put him in your killfile, then it's not my
loss. I reserve the right to pour as much ether as I like
on any OT responses you make to him.

Phil

 

[bartc]

As we're meta already - yes, `fora'. The word came into the english
language with both its singular and plural form stolen wholesale.
`Forums' is a fucking monstrosity to anyone with even a modicum of
classical education.

What's wrong with it? If I have to put up with people using 'paninis'
instead of 'panini', which is already plural, then you should be able to
live with 'forums' (which I think is an accepted plural form as well as
fora).

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Which bit of that do you not understand?

The fact that it's completely bogus?

I perfectly able to live with other people being ignorant twonks.

Once again, your grammar does a wonderful job of illustrating the
results of your "classical education".

Asshole.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

If you're referring to Spinny, then you're dead right there, Buster.
I've never seen so much turgid clap-trap in all my life.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

But that is par for the course for you.

 

[bartc]

Panini came into the english language as a singlular, with paninis
as its plural. Forum came into the english language as a singular,
with fora as its plural. Which bit of that do you not understand?

My Chambers dictionary lists the plurals of forum as both forums and fora.

It's too old to list panino/panini but Italian is a contemporary, living
language, there isn't any excuse..

 

[Richard Tobin]

Panini came into the english language as a singlular, with paninis
as its plural. Forum came into the english language as a singular,
with fora as its plural.

That merely explains why it would not be surprising if "fora" were
used. It does not in any way imply that "forums" is incorrect.

What's more, I doubt your assertion. The OED does not appear to have
an entry for "fora", nor does it mention it under "forum". All the
quotations (the first is dated 1647) use "forums". Fowler does not
list it as a word having a Latin plural.

-- Richard

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

As we're meta already - yes, `fora'. The word came into the english
language with both its singular and plural form stolen wholesale.
`Forums' is a fucking monstrosity to anyone with even a modicum of
classical education.

What plural forms do you use for:

crux
lemma
hiatus
syllabus
arena
octopus?

I ask just because I wonder how much of a classical education is
required to avoid what might seem to be, to your ears, monstrosities.

Most educated writers accept that both forms can be used in most
cases. There are a few examples where one form has become almost
universal (for example "strata" and "rhinoceroses" are one of each).
Sometimes the context determines the preferred form ("appendix" is a
case in point) and sometimes simple euphony determines the preference
("bases" and "crises" for example) but in the absence of any such
reason, both the borrowed and the anglicised forms are considered
perfectly acceptable. In the case of forums and fora, the first
greatly outnumbers the second in quotations used in the on-line
OED[1]. I use that simply as an accessible corpus of educated English
usage.

[1] 17 to 3. Forums occurs 19 times but two of these are in the
citation and would therefore have to quoted exactly even if the usage
were entirely wrong. Fora occurs 7 times but only 3 of these refer to
the usage in question.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

What's wrong with it? If I have to put up with people using 'paninis'
instead of 'panini', which is already plural, then you should be able to
live with 'forums' (which I think is an accepted plural form as well as
fora).

This is so boring, it's worthy of not just one ho-hum, but several ho-ha.

 

[Nick Keighley]

Looks like the OP got two very nice informative
responses already. One was from jacob [navia] and the
other from gwowen.
The quality of the responses serves as a
counterexample to your claim which is thus
refuted.

Not necessarily; we don't know how good the responses in a better-suited
newsgroup would have been.

Who is "we"?

who isn't "we"?

 

[Nick Keighley]

That's an interesting theory.  I would grant that at least two of them appear
to be the same person.

I can't see it myself

 

[Nick Keighley]

Are you referring to that twerp Spinoza?

just google "Han from China"

 

[gwowen]

That's a fascinating theory. I recommend you build a time machine and go
back to the formation of Usenet and argue that point.

Nice appeal to (non-existent) authority. Every functional Usenet
group I've ever taken part in (since about 1991) has insisted on far
less rigidity than you're attempting to impose here. If you want
comp.lang.c.moderated, you know where to find it.

Because, it turns out, as soon as you do, you've started talking about
something that's relevant only to a small subset of the readership, and
no longer really C-related.  In most cases (and certainly in this case),
it turns out that the answer to the question is completely unrelated to C..

And you'd never be caught doing that, would you. If you wish to impose
standards on others, you'll find you'll get more traction if you make
a token effort to stick to them yourself.

For example:
i) don't get involved in a long discussion about the naming of a UNIX
daemon (take it comp.unix!)
ii) don't continually respond to the off-topic ramblings of spinoza111
with the sole defence that "It's funny"

Otherwise, you'll just look like a complete hypocrite.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

For example:
i) don't get involved in a long discussion about the naming of a UNIX
daemon (take it comp.unix!)
ii) don't continually respond to the off-topic ramblings of spinoza111
with the sole defence that "It's funny"

Otherwise, you'll just look like a complete hypocrite.

Gee, ya think? No chance of *that* happening, is there?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

I don't know. And I don't care, because I rather suspect that it won't
be the cluster**** that is the newsgroup in its present state. If we
were being overrun with on-topic posts, rather than pathetic
spinoza-induced partissan bickering, you'd have a point.[/QUOTE]

You're wrong about this particular attribution. Spinoza isn't the
problem. Heathfield, Thompson, Seebs, etc are. Spinoza just took them
way too seriously, and didn't seem to have an inhibitions about posting
pages and pages of rants against them (that nobody, including myself on
several occasions, couldn't/didn't understand). But again, make no mistake,
Spinoza is part of the solution, not the problem.

If the newsgroup as envisioned by the on-topic mavens worked as anything
other than as an archetype of a deeply dysfunctional online community, I
would have no interest in demuring from their views.

In mathematics, they say that "from a false premise, you can prove
anything". Similarly, from a false definition, you can derive any
position. Or, to put it another way, if you can choose your definitions
as you please, you can make any position seem obviously true.

See my other posts for why, given their definitions, this newsgroup
can't possibly be anything other than what it is - as you say, a
dysfunctional community, composed of and run by severely psychologically
damaged individuals. Note incidentally, that, in fact, many are
self-admittedly psychologically damaged.

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> In mathematics, they say that "from a false premise, you can prove
> anything". Similarly, from a false definition, you can derive any
> position.

Except that in mathematics such a thing as a "false definition" does not
exist. A definition can be inconsistent in itself or with other
definitions, but never false.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

...

Except that in mathematics such a thing as a "false definition" does not
exist. A definition can be inconsistent in itself or with other
definitions, but never false.

True, but basically irrelevant.

My point is that if you start your mathematics with a definition that
2+2=15, you can (and will) derive a whole new kind of mathematics that
may make you happy and may even make you famous, but won't have much
relevance to the mathematics as practiced by just about everybody else.

Similarly, Heathfield, Thompson, et al, have constructed a world in CLC
that bears no relevance to what most people see as the job of learning
and working in the real world with the programming language C.

And, of course, the reasons why they have done so has been well
documented by me in various other posts over the past months and years.
So, I need not repeat those reasons here.

 

[Default User]

but >> here's the answer anyway", I am unapologetic in saying that I
am going >> to choose the latter. (I didn't say "That's off topic"
in my reply to >> this question, because shock it had already been
said).

I don't know. And I don't care, because I rather suspect that it
won't be the cluster**** that is the newsgroup in its present state.
If we were being overrun with on-topic posts, rather than pathetic
spinoza-induced partissan bickering, you'd have a point.

You're mixing up differen things though. I do wish that people here
would stop engaging the trolls and idiots in protracted, repetitive
debate. That doesn't mean that what's needed instead is expanded
topicality.



Brian