Maybe you should consider this

[Tech07]

You and the horse you rode in on. Get the **** out of my face.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

I have sent an abuse report to teranews regarding this article

My god, you really are an old woman Heathfield. Did you send a message
to your mom as well? "Bad Tech07 said a naughty word!"

 

[Seebs]

My god, you really are an old woman Heathfield. Did you send a message
to your mom as well? "Bad Tech07 said a naughty word!"

Eh, I don't see a problem. Tech07 seems to do nothing but post angry
rants while drunk. I would personally suggest that this is a bad idea,
but I'm not sure what else I'd do. On the other hand, someone to whom
obscene messages have been directed could legitimately gripe about them,
and I don't think Usenet would suffer for it.

-s

 

[Keith Thompson]

Eh, I don't see a problem. Tech07 seems to do nothing but post angry
rants while drunk. I would personally suggest that this is a bad idea,
but I'm not sure what else I'd do. On the other hand, someone to whom
obscene messages have been directed could legitimately gripe about them,
and I don't think Usenet would suffer for it.

In case you're not aware (you've been away for a while), "Antoninus
Twink" is a troll. Most of us have found that ignoring him, via
a killfile or otherwise, is the best course of action.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

In case you're not aware (you've been away for a while), "Antoninus
Twink" is a troll. Most of us have found that ignoring him, via
a killfile or otherwise, is the best course of action.

You mean, of course, that most of "us" have found that pretending to
ignore him, by lying about having a killfile or otherwise ...

 

[Seebs]

In case you're not aware (you've been away for a while), "Antoninus
Twink" is a troll. Most of us have found that ignoring him, via
a killfile or otherwise, is the best course of action.

It took nearly a full three seconds into that post for me to spot the
troll, and the header spoor of a likely sock. But who cares? I have
found that if I respond to posts, rather than posters, I enjoy Usenet
more.

-s

 

[Keith Thompson]

That is your opinion; mine is that he is a fairly accurate critic
of the current comp.lang.c zeitgeist. That said, one may as well
ignore him.

Seriously?

I seem to recall that he's proclaimed himself to be a troll. Perhaps
he's changed since I stopped reading him, but that seems unlikely.

 

[Keith Thompson]

He and others of that merry little band dissidents have referred
to themselves as trolls, but clearly as a form of mockery. In my
view, they aren't trolls, they are critics. Again, in my view,
their criticism is pointless because (a) nobody is listening, and
(b) they aren't very good critics.

Not to mention the forgeries, the childish insults, the lies,
the personal attacks, the paranoid conspiracy theories about "the
regulars", and the lack of any significant technical contribution,
and the contempt for those who value accuracy.

Comp.lang.c tends to be
somewhat of a snakepit, littered with anger, abuse, smugness,
self-righteousness, and obsession with control. In short, it
suffers from endemic internet behaviour disease. There is
nothing that can be done about it - the infection warps the self
perception of the infected.

With all due respect (and I mean that), I disagree nearly 100%.

As a practical matter there is no need for you to call people
trolls - others can make their own choices; they don't need your
guidance. That said, if it's your thing, go for it.

People are free to make their own decisions, but input from others
can be useful.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Comp.lang.c tends to be
somewhat of a snakepit, littered with anger, abuse, smugness,
self-righteousness, and obsession with control. In short, it
suffers from endemic internet behaviour disease. There is
nothing that can be done about it - the infection warps the self
perception of the infected.

With all due respect (and I mean that), I disagree nearly 100%.[/QUOTE]

Of course you do. Re-read his last sentence (above).

 

[Seebs]

Of course you do. Re-read his last sentence (above).

Well, yes.

Interestingly, that could apply to any or all of the parties involved.
Perhaps it would be useful to look at questions such as "what are the
usual mechanisms by which peoples' self-perception and perception of
others can become inaccurate, and how can we detect, prevent, or mitigate
those flaws?"

Useful practices in essentially any environment involving at least one human
and at least one thing external to that human.

-s

 

[Tech07]

On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:31:43 -0700, Keith Thompson
[the usual]

Eh, I don't see a problem. Tech07 seems to do nothing but post
angry rants while drunk. I would personally suggest that this is
a bad idea, but I'm not sure what else I'd do. On the other
hand, someone to whom obscene messages have been directed could
legitimately gripe about them, and I don't think Usenet would
suffer for it.

In case you're not aware (you've been away for a while), "Antoninus
Twink" is a troll. Most of us have found that ignoring him, via
a killfile or otherwise, is the best course of action.

That is your opinion; mine is that he is a fairly accurate critic
of the current comp.lang.c zeitgeist. That said, one may as well
ignore him.

Seriously?

I seem to recall that he's proclaimed himself to be a troll. Perhaps
he's changed since I stopped reading him, but that seems unlikely.

He and others of that merry little band dissidents have referred
to themselves as trolls, but clearly as a form of mockery. In my
view, they aren't trolls, they are critics. Again, in my view,
their criticism is pointless because (a) nobody is listening, and
(b) they aren't very good critics. Comp.lang.c tends to be
somewhat of a snakepit, littered with anger, abuse, smugness,
self-righteousness, and obsession with control.

I don't believe that. Not that I wanna pretend to be your saviour. This
group is this group. Not "C" at al, but C is not a god. Not that that was my
point, just that I took heart in the passage.

(Should I get hit by truck, for the record, I'm not a troll).

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Not to mention the forgeries, the childish insults, the lies,
the personal attacks, the paranoid conspiracy theories about "the
regulars", and the lack of any significant technical contribution,
and the contempt for those who value accuracy.

Come on Keith. Every one of these accusations is a LIE.

Do you think people are so stupid that they can't see through your wild
accusations?

 

[Nick Keighley]

Why are Christian SW engineers
invariably so intolerably smug and self obsessed?

Most of the ones I've met seemed fine.
Do you have a problem with Christians?

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Most of the ones I've met seemed fine. Do you have a problem with
Christians?

In my experience Nick, god-botherers are their own worst enemy in PR
terms. When you preach to others and then behave badly yourself, you add
hypocrisy on top of all your other faults.

Heathfield is an excellent example - he's always banging on about his
god in this group, but he's arrogant and unpleasant to everyone he
encounters, and is the ring-leader in a particularly nasty bullying
campaign in this group that doesn't accord very well with most people's
idea of right and wrong, whether or not they are christians.

 

[Seebs]

Come on Keith. Every one of these accusations is a LIE.

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

You might be able to demonstrate that some of them are untrue, but unless
you're psychic, you can't know them to be lies.

Do you think people are so stupid that they can't see through your wild
accusations?

Oddly, I might ask you the same question.

-s

 

[Seebs]

In my experience Nick, god-botherers are their own worst enemy in PR
terms. When you preach to others and then behave badly yourself, you add
hypocrisy on top of all your other faults.

Perhaps so, but...

Heathfield is an excellent example - he's always banging on about his
god in this group, but he's arrogant and unpleasant to everyone he
encounters, and is the ring-leader in a particularly nasty bullying
campaign in this group that doesn't accord very well with most people's
idea of right and wrong, whether or not they are christians.

So, we've got someone anonymously posting under a pseudonym claiming
this, and we've got Heathfield being courteous and correct. So I suppose
the theory is that you feel that "god-botherers" are doing so badly at
PR that you regard it as a challenge, and wish to try to compete with them?

-s

 

[Seebs]

As for hypocrisy, *everybody* is a hypocrite, but the worst are those
who pretend not to be.

An excellent insight. It's like stupid mistakes; the worst people aren't
the ones who make stupid mistakes, but the ones who "don't". Which turns
out to mean "do, but aren't able to admit it, and thus can't mitigate the
harm from their mistakes."

-s

 

[Seebs]

Yes. They're normally smug self righteous dickheads

I take it as an article of faith that, some day, I will see someone use the
adjectives "smug" and "self righteous" (with or without the hyphen) as
descriptors for someone else without doing so in a manner which is both smug
and self-righteous.

Apparently, today is not that day.

who believe in an
all loving God which lets his subjects suffer and die.

This has nothing to do with C. (Well, maybe; I think we could argue that
the subtle semantic changes between C89 and C99 with respect to whether a
given string of numbers is a signed or unsigned integer constant could form
the basis of a really compelling go at the Problem of Evil.)

Why?

Well, I guess because no one here really cares about your personal religious
or irreligious bigotry. If some of the other clc folks and I want to kill
each other over disputes about the nature of invisible men, we'll handle it
in an appropriate forum. It's not relevant. I neither know nor particularly
care (at least in this context) whether the objects of your attack are
Christians, Muslims, Rastafarians, Pastafarians, or what. If they are
promoting incorrect views about C, I'm all for talking about that. If they
are participating in a way which makes Usenet less pleasant, that's something
that could be worth talking about.

But personal lives just plain aren't topical. By bringing up someone's
religion as part of a general attempt to, so far as I can tell, try to make
him look bad, you're actually demonstrating yourself to be further from
good Usenet etiquette than he's yet been shown to be.

Hint: Look at the newsgroup title. Does it start with either "alt.religion"
or "soc.religion"? If not, then peoples' religions are generally off-topic.

-s

 

[Nick Keighley]

And the anonymous claim is incorrect. As far as I can recall, I have
*never* introduced theological strands into any thread on this
newsgroup, ever; and it is certainly not true that I'm "always
banging on" about the subject. In other words, the anonymous coward
is wrong - as usual.

I was going to post something along those lines. I think you have
barely mantioned your beliefs on this ng. And I was only putting
in the "barely" because some people seemed so sure you had. You do not
"bang on" about the subject on this ng. The only way your belief
system can be found is by reading your website (well I'm sure there
are
other ways but you know what i mean). I'll accept your statement
that you have never done this.

"nasty bullying ringleader" is of course a view that can't be shifted
from
those that have it.

As for hypocrisy, *everybody* is a hypocrite, but the worst are those
who pretend not to be.

I usually find and a good response to "you're a hypocrite!" to be
"and who isn't?".

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

 

[Nick Keighley]

Yes. They're normally smug self righteous dickheads who believe in an
all loving God which lets his subjects suffer and die.

thanks that was all I needed to know