Another note about Peter Seebach's network behavior

[spinoza1111]

Seebach has lost the argument on two major points this past week:

* He was forced to concede that void main() is standard C in a
freestanding environment, which completely undercuts 15 years of
saying that it's not standard C

* He was forced to withdraw "C: the Complete Nonsense" because of
complaints, and not only from me, that it was about the wrong edition
of "C: the Complete Reference" and it has been for fifteen
years...that Seebach has, in effect, allowed it to be cited in both
wikipedia and a published book of C FAQs despite the fact that
Schildt's latest edition came out in 2000.

But when an infant like Seebach loses he throws a temper tantrum. He
hastily cobbled together a new polemic and changed the Herb Schildt
wikipedia article to reference, as its major reference, this new
polemic despite the fact that citing a polemic is in direct violation
of wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policies.

He also posted (at http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=833865)
claims that I'm a "net.kook" because that's what losers do.

Yet in a court of law he'd naturally be asked to reconcile these
statements:

* At http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=833865:
"Edward G. Nilges is a Usenet Kook. An epic kook. He has an astounding
talent for getting things wrong, really beyond anything you're likely
to anticipate. It is a wonder and a miracle to behold."

* At http://www.seebs.net/c/c_tcn4e.html: "I must of course credit
Edward Nilges, whose tireless crusade against the deficiencies of the
previous version made it clear that a more complete treatment was
needed. "

Note that attorneys are like cops. Literal-minded and deaf to
sarcastic overtones as regards a written document.

 

[Seebs]

I agree one hundred percent.

I'd just like to clarify something for the folks in CLC:

I specifically wrote that, knowing that he searches for references to
himself, in the hopes that it would get him to come interact with me
somewhere where it's less of a disruption for the rest of you all. With
any luck, he can be induced to spend time talking to people who care,
or who find him amusing, whichever comes first.

-s

 

[rigs]

Such quick Google work is a sign of the high level narcissism found
only in the finest of internet kooks.

 

[spinoza1111]

I'd just like to clarify something for the folks in CLC:

I specifically wrote that, knowing that he searches for references to
himself, in the hopes that it would get him to come interact with me
somewhere where it's less of a disruption for the rest of you all.  With
any luck, he can be induced to spend time talking to people who care,
or who find him amusing, whichever comes first.

Actually, since over the past few months I've relearned C, I find it
more amusing to stay here and watch you and Keith Thompson turn away
genuine questions, claiming that the OP has come to the wrong place,
because you can't answer the question.

Your answer to the OP with a question about YACC was hilarious, since
a competent C programmer will know enough YACC to see that his problem
was that his professor doesn't know how to implement operator
precedence in a formal grammar (another programmer with no computer
science?). I used yacc with C years ago and realized it was better to
write one's own generator (did so in Rexx) or write the parser
manually.

Kiki also tried to get rid of the OP whose call to odbc was pretty
obviously wrong.

As to doing us a favor: I don't believe you, based on your track
record. You like to ensure that a person's name is replicated and
becomes a byword, because you're incompetent as a programmer and this
in my experience how incompetent programmers flourish.

 

[Ian Collins]

But they are perfectly capable of reading the Usenet thread in which you
carried out your crusade, and perfectly capable of deducing that you're
an idiot.

They will then send you a hefty bill for discovering the blindingly obvious.

 

[Seebs]

I don't recall him ever denying it.

Indeed, I even defended Nilges on that point -- not that it's
relevant, because Schildt was unambiguously writing about a hosted
environment:

* He never refers to the distinction at all.
* He uses <stdio.h> functionality, which is only meaningful in a hosted
environment.
* He fixed the error in the 4th edition.

Please. My lawyer needs the lulz.

I do not share your optimism. A lawyer dumb enough to ask a question
that stupid is, in terms of sheer lulz, beyond the dreams of avarice.

But they are perfectly capable of reading the Usenet thread in which you
carried out your crusade, and perfectly capable of deducing that you're
an idiot.

Sure, but that statement is fractally wrong anyway.

1. Lawyers often have a great sense of humor.
2. Who cares whether attorneys get sarcasm? Decisions are made
by judges and juries.
3. Says a judge:

Despite the continued shortcomings of Plaintiff's supplemental
submission, the Court commends Plaintiff for his vastly improved
choice of crayon -- Brick Red is much easier on the eyes
than Goldenrod, and stands out much better amidst the mustard
splotched about Plaintiff's briefing. But at the end of the day, even
if you put a calico dress on it and call it Florence, a pig is still
a pig.
4. It doesn't matter whether the judge, or any attorney, thinks it's
funny; at most, what would matter is whether *I* appeared to think it
was funny, and I do not believe I would have any trouble convincing
a jury of my peers that I have a, shall we say, broad-ranging sense
of humor.
5. Imagine that all of the above don't apply, and I can't reconcile the
statements. So what?

Seriously, though, Nilges, I waved your magic search terms around on that
forum in the hopes that you'd come over there and play.

-s

 

[Peter Nilsson]

...Seriously, though, Nilges, I waved your magic search
terms around on that forum in the hopes that you'd come
over there and play.

But you announced it in this forum, clearly not willing to
take his googling success for granted; leaving the door open
to continue the noise in clc.

 

[Peter Nilsson]

They will then send you a hefty bill for discovering the
blindingly obvious.

This incessant and habitual need to reaffirm opinions that
have been made many times over *years*, not just months, is
beyond tiresome. It is *no less* damaging to clc than the
troll's habitual reaffirmations of solidarity, since the
motivation and outcomes are the precisely the same.

 

[Seebs]

But you announced it in this forum, clearly not willing to
take his googling success for granted; leaving the door open
to continue the noise in clc.

I don't recall announcing it here. I recall commenting on why I did
it in response to his post about it. I also recall mentioning that I'd
rather play in another forum more suited to goofing off. I don't recall
announcing that message board post here, though.

-s

 

[spinoza1111]

Indeed, I even defended Nilges on that point -- not that it's
relevant, because Schildt was unambiguously writing about a hosted
environment:

* He never refers to the distinction at all.

His target audience doesn't need to know, since its entry-level.
Furthermore, the distinction was made for political reasons.

* He uses <stdio.h> functionality, which is only meaningful in a hosted
  environment.

Your lack of education is showing, since you don't comprehend "modal"
logic. The Standard says that the freestanding environment does not
have to implement the libraries (which is a good thing since the
libraries suck and preserve bad habits from the dawn of time).
However, freestanding environments MAY support any or all C libraries.

"In a freestanding environment (in which C program execution may [but
doesn't have to] take place without any benefit of an operaring
system, the name and type of the function called at program startup
are implementation-defined. Any library facilities available to a
freestanding program, other than the minimal set required by clause 4,
are implementation-defined." 5.1.2.1

Therefore the implementation MAY define stdio.h.

In fact, this seems to have been K & R's intention: that the libraries
be modular and selected or changed as needed.

* He fixed the error in the 4th edition.


Please.  My lawyer needs the lulz.


I do not share your optimism.  A lawyer dumb enough to ask a question
that stupid is, in terms of sheer lulz, beyond the dreams of avarice.

Hmm, did you study law while shitcanning computer science? I've used a
legal process twice, and twice I have won, since lawyers tend to
prefer my more "verbose" (more literate) way of expressing myself.

Sure, but that statement is fractally wrong anyway.

1.  Lawyers often have a great sense of humor.
2.  Who cares whether attorneys get sarcasm?  Decisions are made
    by judges and juries.

Most judges are lawyers and most cases never go to a jury trial. My
lawyer will demonstrate to you that you have committed a civil libel
of long duration in the matter of Schildt, and your lawyer will
settle, in all probability, if it comes to that.

3.  Says a judge:

        Despite the continued shortcomings of Plaintiff's supplemental
        submission, the Court commends Plaintiff for his vastly improved
        choice of crayon -- Brick Red is much easier on the eyes
        than Goldenrod, and stands out much better amidst the mustard
        splotched about Plaintiff's briefing. But at the end of the day, even
        if you put a calico dress on it and call it Florence, a pig is still
        a pig.
4.  It doesn't matter whether the judge, or any attorney, thinks it's
    funny; at most, what would matter is whether *I* appeared to think it
    was funny, and I do not believe I would have any trouble convincing
    a jury of my peers that I have a, shall we say, broad-ranging sense
    of humor.
5.  Imagine that all of the above don't apply, and I can't reconcile the
    statements.  So what?

Seriously, though, Nilges, I waved your magic search terms around on that
forum in the hopes that you'd come over there and play.

**** you, asshole. And grow up.

 

[spinoza1111]

Seebs was right - "fractally wrong" is a very good way to describe you.
Here's a quote from the book's preface:

"This C reference is designed for all C programmers, regardless of their
experience level."

Or are you claiming that this quote is yet another example of a Schildt
error?

Learn to read. "Regardless of your experience level" means that you
can be a complete beginner; it emphasizes that the book is entry level
while it can be used by more experienced people.

Again, your lack of education means that you're effectively unaware of
the modal distinction between "must" and "may". Technical education
for the lower middle class, in my experience, tends to occlude this
distinction, transforming half of all "mays" into "musts" and the
other 50% into "must not" since it's assumed (often rightfully) that
low level white collar people are indisciplined deep down, their
surface repression only increasing the internal chaos.

In fact, Herb's books might be good for you. You should zip up and
test each code snippet step by step.

 

[spinoza1111]

Learn to read. It claims to be a *complete reference*. The phrase gives
no scope for omissions for the sake of the less experienced reader.



Well, it's a kind thought, but I prefer Calvin and Hobbes.


Let's get this straight - you want me to point out *even more* of
Schildt's errors?

No, because your track record is so poor. We have established that
while you and your friends find errors in Schildt's books, you dredge
up so much trivia and shibboleth that one has to root through your
laundry lists for anything of value. A more productive use of our time
would be the same way we read, say, Johnson's Dictionary: critical
reading, that takes responsibility for finding Samuel Johnson's errors
whilst learning from them.

It is more valuable for the tyro to test Schildt's code snippets.
Unless you can find one that executes a command to erase a hard disk,
the testing is safe and fun and any errors found give the sufficiently
motivated tyro that energy which comes from the creation or
reconstruction of knowledge.

You make significant errors in finding errors, the most infamous being
your claim that void main() isn't standard. You add with your childish
mockery to the sum total of confusion and actual unhappiness in this
world.

 

[mowgli]

To make something clear right from the beginning:
I am not an expert in C programming and I don't consider myself to be
one.

I subscribed to this group thinking that I will learn more about C
programming by following the topics under discussion, which I have.
However, this process has basically come to an end since an average of
3 out of the 5 most discussed topics of the day (sometimes all 5) are
concerned with spinoza111 vs Seebs vs "The author of a book who has
never appeared himself in this group (at least since I follow it)" and
others who join in.

To make it short: THIS SUCKS!

Though I have no doubt that the programming skills as well as the
knowledge concerning English law of spinoza111 exceed mine by far IT
STILL SUCKS. Why don't you just open another group and move your
discussions, which are almost purely motivated from personal
reluctance to this group. Like this, the group comp.lang.c could deal
again with things the group name indicates.

A second thing...
Why does anyone answer to spinoza111? Don't you think you feed his
anger (or whatever) with every answer. Ignore him! Like this he will
not appear in the digest and most people will not even notice his
posts! After a couple of weeks even he will get tired (okok in (t)his
special case it might take longer but at least it will not be fun
anymore if nobody bothers to answer)

PS:
To be consistent, don't answer my post!