Dev-C++ compiling problem

[Keith Thompson]

Please snip signatures.

[...]
...not something _you_ should be telling him.

Why not? Sure, Chuck's signature is too long, and it happens to have
an embedded "-- "; that has no bearing on whether signatures should be
snipped when posting followups.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

Please snip signatures.

[...]
...not something _you_ should be telling him.

Why not? Sure, Chuck's signature is too long, and it happens to have
an embedded "-- "; that has no bearing on whether signatures should be
snipped when posting followups.

It's called "hypocrisy", Keith. Chuck is telling people to observe
netiquette conventions, even though his signature block violates those
same conventions.

 

[CBFalconer]

Keith Thompson said:

Please snip signatures. [...]
...not something _you_ should be telling him.

Why not? Sure, Chuck's signature is too long, and it happens to
have an embedded "-- "; that has no bearing on whether signatures
should be snipped when posting followups.

It's called "hypocrisy", Keith. Chuck is telling people to observe
netiquette conventions, even though his signature block violates
those same conventions.

No it doesn't. It leaves here with a perfectly compliant
signature. What the various systems do in the process of passing
it on (and sometimes delaying it for a week) has nothing whatsoever
to do with my sig. You know this and are just troublemaking.


---------- END of sig as transmitted here ----------

 

[Richard]

Please snip signatures.

[...]
...not something _you_ should be telling him.

Why not? Sure, Chuck's signature is too long, and it happens to have
an embedded "-- "; that has no bearing on whether signatures should be
snipped when posting followups.

How many times do you have to be reminded that "Chuck" posts with two
signatures thus not allowing some major newsreaders to correctly snip
the signature?

He is the ONLY person I know to do this and I must conclude that he is a
troll.

And yes we KNOW that teranews adds the second.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Please snip signatures. [...]
...not something _you_ should be telling him.

Why not? Sure, Chuck's signature is too long, and it happens to have
an embedded "-- "; that has no bearing on whether signatures should be
snipped when posting followups.

How many times do you have to be reminded that "Chuck" posts with two
signatures thus not allowing some major newsreaders to correctly snip
the signature?

Once was quite enough. Either snip it yourself or stop replying to
his articles.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

That is...


...not something _you_ should be telling him.

Richard

Indeed. Welcome to the group of CLC posters who have realized what a
hypocritical turd CBF is. Hope you enjoy your stay.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Please snip signatures.

[...]
...not something _you_ should be telling him.

Why not? Sure, Chuck's signature is too long, and it happens to have
an embedded "-- "; that has no bearing on whether signatures should be
snipped when posting followups.

And Larry Craig should be allowed to maintain his position as defender
of "family values" and "moral behavior".

There are some who agree with you on that position. But the rest of us
are entitled to call "hypocrite".

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Keith Thompson said:

Please snip signatures. [...]
...not something _you_ should be telling him.

Why not? Sure, Chuck's signature is too long, and it happens to have
an embedded "-- "; that has no bearing on whether signatures should be
snipped when posting followups.

It's called "hypocrisy", Keith. Chuck is telling people to observe
netiquette conventions, even though his signature block violates those
same conventions.

And here I find myself (gasp!) agreeing with Heathfield.
Will wonders never cease.

P.S. I just *love* it when the two main CLC chicks (KT,RH) fight.

 

[Richard]

Keith Thompson said:

(e-mail address removed) (Richard Bos) writes:
[...]
Please snip signatures.
[...]
...not something _you_ should be telling him.

Why not? Sure, Chuck's signature is too long, and it happens to have
an embedded "-- "; that has no bearing on whether signatures should be
snipped when posting followups.

It's called "hypocrisy", Keith. Chuck is telling people to observe
netiquette conventions, even though his signature block violates those
same conventions.

And here I find myself (gasp!) agreeing with Heathfield.
Will wonders never cease.

Actually I agree with RH a lot. It's just the prissy "off topic" garbage
which gets my goat. Give him his due, he knows his C better than most.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

And here I find myself (gasp!) agreeing with Heathfield.
Will wonders never cease.

Actually I agree with RH a lot. It's just the prissy "off topic" garbage
which gets my goat. Give him his due, he knows his C better than most.[/QUOTE]

Well, that, and the incessant Navia-bashing, from which he obviously
derives great psychic pleasure.

Now, mind you, I'm not really a Navia fan/supporter - he reminds me of
nothing so much as the proverbial guy walking around with a "Kick Me!"
sign on his back. But still, I find Heathfield's (and his sock puppets')
attacks pretty juvenile.

 

[Peter Pichler]

That is...


...not something _you_ should be telling him.

It may not be his fault. Have you actually read his sig?

 

[Keith Thompson]

It may not be his fault. Have you actually read his sig?

Um, have you read the endless discussions about his sig?

Chuck uses a free Usenet provider, teranews.com. His provider
automatically appends a signature to each article he posts; this is in
addition to his own signature. (In my opinion this is poor behavior
on the part of teranews.com.) There has been a great deal of futile
debate about whether a signature may contain an internal "-- " line;
if so, Chuck's signature is merely too long, and if not, either it's
ill-formed, or only the stuff added by teranews is really a signature.
Some newsreaders apparently treat the second "-- " as the beginning of
his signature. Personally, I think far too big a deal has been made
of that point; manually snipping the remainder of the signature(s) is
trivially easy and not worth complaining about, and failing to do so
is rude.

It's been suggested that Chuck should switch to a different Usenet
provider. Specific offers have been made.

It's also been suggested that Chuck's alleged violation of netiquette
(an overly long and/or ill-formed signature) implies that he's not
entitled to point out other violations of netiquette (such as failing
to snip signatures when posting followups).

All this has been argued at tedious length by people who *have*
actually read his sig.

 

[Peter Pichler]

Um, have you read the endless discussions about his sig?

All this has been argued at tedious length by people who *have*
actually read his sig.

No, I have not followed the discussion. I meant to suggest that
such a discussion would be pointless, but, as it seems, those
participating in it already know it. I'll get my coat. Sorry.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...


Um, have you read the endless discussions about his sig?

As to the suggestions on changing news-servers, there are
ancilliary reasons here for not doing so, involving my personal
convenience and record keeping. I may decide differently later,
but that is really my affair.

 

[Charlie Gordon]

Please snip signatures. [...]
...not something _you_ should be telling him.

Why not? Sure, Chuck's signature is too long, and it happens to have
an embedded "-- "; that has no bearing on whether signatures should be
snipped when posting followups.

How many times do you have to be reminded that "Chuck" posts with two
signatures thus not allowing some major newsreaders to correctly snip
the signature?

He is the ONLY person I know to do this and I must conclude that he is a
troll.

And yes we KNOW that teranews adds the second.

What if Chucks signature did not end with a newline ?
The teranews footer would not appear flush left and the newsreaders would
not misinterpret it as his signature.

 

[Keith Thompson]

(e-mail address removed) (Richard Bos) writes:
[...]
Please snip signatures.
[...]
...not something _you_ should be telling him.

Why not? Sure, Chuck's signature is too long, and it happens to have
an embedded "-- "; that has no bearing on whether signatures should be
snipped when posting followups.

How many times do you have to be reminded that "Chuck" posts with two
signatures thus not allowing some major newsreaders to correctly snip
the signature?

He is the ONLY person I know to do this and I must conclude that he is a
troll.

And yes we KNOW that teranews adds the second.

What if Chucks signature did not end with a newline ?
The teranews footer would not appear flush left and the newsreaders would
not misinterpret it as his signature.

My suspicion is that the teranews footer includes one or more blank
lines before the "-- " delimiter. If Chuck's own signature does end
in a newline, deleting it would probably make the composite signature
one line shorter, which would be an improvement.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Keith Thompson said:

Please snip signatures. [...]
...not something _you_ should be telling him.

Why not? Sure, Chuck's signature is too long, and it happens to have
an embedded "-- "; that has no bearing on whether signatures should be
snipped when posting followups.

It's called "hypocrisy", Keith.
Gratuitous.

Chuck is telling people to observe
netiquette conventions, even though his signature block violates those
same conventions.

We've been over this. Chuck's signature is modified outside his
control. Obviously he could swap newsfeeds, or post with no sig - but
who are we do dicate his choice of newsfeed, or to demand he be
sigless. Plenty of us have sigs, and some of us occasionally use
lengthy ones. At least Chuck's isn't a 2000-line diatribe.

--
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

 

[Kenny McCormack]

We've been over this. Chuck's signature is modified outside his
control. Obviously he could swap newsfeeds, or post with no sig - but
who are we do dicate his choice of newsfeed, or to demand he be
sigless. Plenty of us have sigs, and some of us occasionally use
lengthy ones. At least Chuck's isn't a 2000-line diatribe.

It's really very simple. People in glass houses should not throw
stones, EVEN IF it is not their fault that their house is made of glass.

In this case, the combination of Chuck's every other posting being a
bash on sigs and/or other form-not-substance topics, while himself having a
ridiculous sig, is just too good to pass up.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

Keith Thompson said:

(e-mail address removed) (Richard Bos) writes:
[...]
Please snip signatures.
[...]
...not something _you_ should be telling him.

Why not? Sure, Chuck's signature is too long, and it happens to
have an embedded "-- "; that has no bearing on whether signatures
should be snipped when posting followups.

It's called "hypocrisy", Keith. Chuck is telling people to observe
netiquette conventions, even though his signature block violates
those same conventions.

No it doesn't. It leaves here with a perfectly compliant
signature.

I go by what I see in the newsgroup. That's all I *can* go by. And
according to what I see here, your sig block is twice the recommended
maximum number of lines. But see below.

What the various systems do in the process of passing
it on (and sometimes delaying it for a week) has nothing whatsoever
to do with my sig.

I am responsible for the articles I post here, and you are responsible for
yours. If my news service habitually hacked my articles to add
advertisements, I'd find a different news service.

You know this and are just troublemaking.

No, Chuck, I'm not, and you ought to know me better than that. I don't give
two hoots about how long your sig is, since it doesn't affect me one bit
(I'm on broadband nowadays). What I do give two hoots about is the
contrast between your demands that other people should observe netiquette
conventions and your own special pleading that netiquette conventions do
not apply to you. It's hypocritical. If you cannot, for whatever reason,
enforce the conventions of netiquette on your own articles, then you are
in no position to demand such enforcement from others.

 

[Charlie Gordon]

As to the suggestions on changing news-servers, there are
ancilliary reasons here for not doing so, involving my personal
convenience and record keeping. I may decide differently later,
but that is really my affair.

This is really the response to your question on a different thread:

Why do people keep using these obsolete formats, when there exists
an ISO standard for the operation (close to the Japanese format)?

Because there are ancillary reasons everywhere for not changing local use:
personal habits, convenience, record keeping, local consistency... Even if
people were to agree that a change might bring improvements, they want to
keep it their affair when and how to change, or even to change at all. Just
think of the metric system for a perfect example.