Getting nanoseconds in a process

[Default User]

Nelu wrote:

Quite the opposite, as can be seen from the last post on a *dead and
buried* branch of the thread. Why dig it out? I am not the only one
correcting people that are considered trolls.

That is known as "feeding the trolls". Seriously.




Brian

 

[Phil Carmody]

Quite the opposite, as can be seen from the last post on a *dead and
buried* branch of the thread.

It was perfectly fresh to my newsreader.

Why dig it out?

One doesn't 'dig' posts out, one simply refreshes the group from
the server. Lots of your posts appeared, none of Han's did. However,
upon reading your posts, they were all inane responses to Han.

That was simply a fact, as the evidence I posted demonstrates. (There
were many more than the ones I included, but upon fetching an unfetched
parent post, GNUS changes its view about the order of siblings in the
tree, and so what used to be consecutive posts end up spread all over
the place.)

Perhaps you were just excited at having a new idiot to argue with.
Hopefully the novelty value will wear off quickly.

Phil

 

[Nelu]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:14:56 +0200, Phil Carmody wrote:

Perhaps you were just excited at having a new idiot to argue with.
Hopefully the novelty value will wear off quickly.

I switched to pan. Now I can see the difference between using and not
using a killfile. I can now see where you're coming from . Sorry about
that.

 

[Phil Carmody]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:14:56 +0200, Phil Carmody wrote:


I switched to pan. Now I can see the difference between using and not
using a killfile. I can now see where you're coming from . Sorry about
that.

No problem. I'm a rampant killfiler, all the doofera are gone,
and so the single most annoying thing to me now is _intelligent_
people who follow up to trolls.

Pax,
Phil

 

[Richard]

No problem. I'm a rampant killfiler, all the doofera are gone,
and so the single most annoying thing to me now is _intelligent_
people who follow up to trolls.

Pax,
Phil

Intelligent people do not follow up to "real Trolls". They do however
follow up to people who offer some good to this group and are not bowed
by big headed topicality monitors with ideas of self worth like
you. Anyone who refers to themselves as "intelligent" invariably is
not. I congratulate you for your ability to counter your own claims with
that very claim. Amazing.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Then why don't you get a clue and learn how to set up a *proper*
killfile that handles that case instead of revealing yourself to
be a whining technically inept idiot?

Um, because that would take all the fun out of reading CLC?

Oh, that, and because he *is* a whining technically inept idiot.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

This would make a fascinating area of study for a sociologist. A
conversation / debate where half of the participants have blocked
themselves from hearing the other half. It's the sort of thing that
only the medium of Usenet allows.

The whole government/people "conversation" is a non-Usenet example.

 

[Phil Carmody]

This would make a fascinating area of study for a sociologist. A
conversation / debate where half of the participants have blocked
themselves from hearing the other half. It's the sort of thing that
only the medium of Usenet allows.

What makes you think a conversation or debate is being mutually
attempted in such situations. Do you not understand the reasons
why people killfile others?

Phil

 

[James Kuyper]

This would make a fascinating area of study for a sociologist. A
conversation / debate where half of the participants have blocked
themselves from hearing the other half. It's the sort of thing that only
the medium of Usenet allows.

Actually, it's quite normal in other media as well. Just think of a
typical cocktail party - most of the participants can hear dozens of
conversations all at once, but they filter out all of the conversations
except the one they are participating in. It's really a very impressive
bit of of signal processing - I'm probably way behind the times, but
many years ago I read that no electronic system currently available
could match the human brains' ability to perform such filtering.

 

[Ian Collins]

Malcolm McLean wrote:.

This would make a fascinating area of study for a sociologist. A
conversation / debate where half of the participants have blocked
themselves from hearing the other half. It's the sort of thing that only
the medium of Usenet allows.

Most legislative bodies follow the same practice!

 

[CBFalconer]

This would make a fascinating area of study for a sociologist. A
conversation / debate where half of the participants have blocked
themselves from hearing the other half. It's the sort of thing
that only the medium of Usenet allows.

No it isn't. The same sort of thing goes on in almost all
meetings. You sit and listen, and decide whether to continue
listening, jump in with comments, or go on to another group. That
tends to separate the idiots from the knowing.

 

[Richard]

No it isn't. The same sort of thing goes on in almost all
meetings. You sit and listen, and decide whether to continue
listening, jump in with comments, or go on to another group. That
tends to separate the idiots from the knowing.

No wonder you site at home pretending to be a C god if that's what you
think meetings between engineers work. Hint. That's NOT how they work
and your analogy is garbage.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

No it isn't. The same sort of thing goes on in almost all
meetings. You sit and listen, and decide whether to continue
listening, jump in with comments, or go on to another group. That
tends to separate the idiots from the knowing.

No wonder you site at home pretending to be a C god if that's what you
think meetings between engineers work. Hint. That's NOT how they work
and your analogy is garbage.[/QUOTE]

Well, to be fair, as anyone who has actually held a real world job
knows, there are 2 kinds of "meetings":

1) Small meetings, in which everybody participates and something
is actually accomplished.
2) Big meetings, in which a small group presents and the rest
just listen. Or at least pretend to...

Chuck was talking about the second type.

 

[Richard]

No wonder you site at home pretending to be a C god if that's what you
think meetings between engineers work. Hint. That's NOT how they work
and your analogy is garbage.

Well, to be fair, as anyone who has actually held a real world job
knows, there are 2 kinds of "meetings":

1) Small meetings, in which everybody participates and something
is actually accomplished.
2) Big meetings, in which a small group presents and the rest
just listen. Or at least pretend to...

Chuck was talking about the second type.[/QUOTE]

2) Is more a presentation than a meeting. A specific type. One tends not
to "jump in with comments" in a presentations. That is for the Q&A
period afterwards.

Chuck referenced "almost all meetings".

 

[Kenny McCormack]

2) Is more a presentation than a meeting. A specific type. One tends not
to "jump in with comments" in a presentations. That is for the Q&A
period afterwards.

Chuck referenced "almost all meetings".

Actually, where I work (at least), there are meetings (and they are
referred to as meetings), in which in theory everybody talks, but in
practice, it is understood that only the core should speak.

Much like CLC.

 

[Guest]

No wonder you site at home pretending to be a C god if that's what you
think meetings between engineers work. Hint. That's NOT how they work
and your analogy is garbage

but wouldn't it be so cool! Listen, not listen, butt in, butt out and
if
the meeting really bores you, just go to another one!

Meanwhile back on earth...

 

[CBFalconer]

but wouldn't it be so cool! Listen, not listen, butt in, butt
out and if the meeting really bores you, just go to another one!

I guess that was Richard the nameless trolls largely unread
comment. Give it the respect it deserves - i.e. ignore it.

 

[Richard]

I guess that was Richard the nameless trolls largely unread
comment. Give it the respect it deserves - i.e. ignore it.

Actually no. It was what YOU said meetings were. Try to get a life
Chuck.