how execute exe in c

[A. Sinan Unur]

To review ...
chellappa wrote near the end of his message aksing for help (by
e-mail, no less):


....

The TIA cliche is well established in usenet postings, so it is no
surprise that many people use it as a "friendly" formula. But I doubt
very much that many posters use it before seeing it here. It is,
rather, from the lexicon of bill collectors, who use it and similar
formulae precisely because they set up a dominance relationship. It
asserts an expectation that certain acts are forthcoming, and that the
asker has a right to expect them. It further asserts that the time
and effort of the person answering is not worth bothering about; the
asker can't be bothered thanking for help received.

Very well put.

I tried making the same point once, but it seems the cliche has
become very popular:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.perl.misc/browse_thread/thread/713b4776c0523ab9/

 

[Kenny McCormack]

The TIA cliche is well established in usenet postings, so it is no
surprise that many people use it as a "friendly" formula. But I doubt
very much that many posters use it before seeing it here. It is, rather,
from the lexicon of bill collectors, who use it and similar formulae
precisely because they set up a dominance relationship. It asserts an
expectation that certain acts are forthcoming, and that the asker has a
right to expect them. It further asserts that the time and effort of
the person answering is not worth bothering about; the asker can't be
bothered thanking for help received. "I've posted a question. You
answer it. I'm too fucking important to bother with you beyond that."

I don't disagree with this, but wish to add some comments of my own.

Leaving aside the fact that CLC is a joke newsgroup which is constantly
being trolled by these pseudo-well-meaning-foreigners, let's consider what
the TIA thing means, or should mean, in real-life business email.

I think that, used correctly, it is a Good Thing. That is, if you are
sending email with the intent of getting other people to do something (that
is, contains "action items" for other people), then it makes sense to end
it (the email) with "Thanks.". As in, "Fred, I need you to run that report
today. Thanks." The "Thanks" is a signal (code, if you will) that Fred is
expected to do it - i.e., this message is not "for informational purposes
only". Used judiciously, this is a useful thing. Often, it is not
otherwise clear whether the expectation of action is there or not.

The problem is that some people abuse it. In the best of circumstances, it
should convey a message of "I did my part, now you do yours". Unfortunately,
some people end every email with "Thanks", to, as you allude to above,
sugar-coat an ugly message. Which is often, "you do this, you do that, you
do ... (without any 'I did my part' component)".

 

[Kenny McCormack]

The TIA cliche is well established in usenet postings, so it is no
surprise that many people use it as a "friendly" formula. But I doubt
very much that many posters use it before seeing it here. It is, rather,
from the lexicon of bill collectors, who use it and similar formulae
precisely because they set up a dominance relationship. It asserts an
expectation that certain acts are forthcoming, and that the asker has a
right to expect them. It further asserts that the time and effort of
the person answering is not worth bothering about; the asker can't be
bothered thanking for help received. "I've posted a question. You
answer it. I'm too fucking important to bother with you beyond that."

I don't disagree with this, but wish to add some comments of my own.

Leaving aside the fact that CLC is a joke newsgroup which is constantly
being trolled by these pseudo-well-meaning-foreigners, let's consider what
the TIA thing means, or should mean, in real-life business email.

I think that, used correctly, it is a Good Thing. That is, if you are
sending email with the intent of getting other people to do something (that
is, contains "action items" for other people), then it makes sense to end
it (the email) with "Thanks.". As in, "Fred, I need you to run that report
today. Thanks." The "Thanks" is a signal (code, if you will) that Fred is
expected to do it - i.e., this message is not "for informational purposes
only". Used judiciously, this is a useful thing. Often, it is not
otherwise clear whether the expectation of action is there or not.

The problem is that some people abuse it. In the best of circumstances, it
should convey a message of "I did my part, now you do yours". Unfortunately,
some people end every email with "Thanks", to, as you allude to above,
sugar-coat an ugly message. Which is often, "you do this, you do that, you
do ... (without any 'I did my part' component)".