Re: Seeking computer-programming job (Sunnyvale, CA)

[Willem]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
)<[email protected]>
)
) Dated 30 May, roughly two weeks ago.
)
) That's my initial response to the first potshot by Richard Heathfield.
) As you can see, it tries to be calm and reasonable and polite, and
) apparently succeeds.

In that post, you firstly (and falsely) accused Richard of dereferencing
an uninitialized pointer, which is tantamount to calling him an idiot.

Secondly, you also patronized him with your remark about floating point
0.0, which is hardly polite.

That is hardly 'being reasonable', is it ?


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[Adlai]

Yes, and these problems have names:

Richard Heathfield
MarkH
Ben Pfaff
Thomas Mertes
Lars Enderin
Nick Keighley
Paul Donnelly
Duane
Kaz Kylheku
ChrisF

I didn't make the list???

I guess I need to practice my trollbaiting, and not give up so early
on in the fight.

 

[Seamus MacRae]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
) Willem wrote:
)> Here are some excerpts that clearly indicate the nature of Seamus.
)
) Yes, an intelligent man but one with little patience for certain sorts
) of nonsense coming from other people.

Then why do you

Why do you keep harassing me?

 

[Seamus MacRae]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
) Lars Enderin wrote:
)> Seamus MacRae wrote:
)>> Except nothing. C99 did, indeed, add variable-length arrays.
)>
)> Which is irrelevant
)
) Clearly not, as demonstrated.

How ?

Read my previous posts.

 

[Seamus MacRae]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
) I am never rude in response to politeness, so you are in error. No doubt
) you were rude to me, but mistakenly thought you were being polite.
)
) Helpful hint: Any personal criticisms, expressed or implied, would have
) sufficed to make your post impolite.

So, if I understand you correctly, if anybody disagrees
with you in any way, they are being impolite ?

You do not understand me correctly.

I said personal criticisms, not disagreement. In particular,
disagreement is fine if phrased in such a way as to allow for the
possibility that I'm not wrong.

 

[Seamus MacRae]

I don't see why not. It can contain any other data type.

[babble deleted]

A repeated assertion is not the same thing as a rationale.

 

[Seamus MacRae]

Seamus MacRae said:

Because it's a constraint violation, as has already been pointed
out.

That's not an explanation; that's some kind of word games.

 

[Seamus MacRae]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
) It doesn't make sense when you misquote my post to make it not make sense.

*you* misquoted *my* post, remember ?

No. I indicated editorial comments in square brackets, a commonly
accepted practise. I did not quietly alter quoted material without
giving any indication of having done so. You did.

I just put back what I wrote in the first place.

The problem is, your post made my "I'm neither" look nonsensical, and
then pointed out its supposed nonsensical nature, when in actual fact in
its actual context my "I'm neither" was perfectly understandable. In
short, you dishonestly misquoted my message to make something I said
*look* nonsensical that never actually was.

Why are you misquoting other people's posts anyway ?

I am not. You are, remember?

 

[Seamus MacRae]

I didn't make the list???

I based the list on those active in the Richard-Heathfield-and-fanbois
attack thread, not the Lisp vs. Java one. As near as I can tell, two
partially separate cliques, theirs from comp.programming and yours from
comp.lang.lisp. Only Paul, Duane, Lars, and Kaz seem to overlap both groups.

Furthermore, I limited it to those who have attacked me recently. You
had quieted down, so you were not (any longer) a problem of mine.

[insult deleted]

That, of course, puts you squarely back on my list of problems. Since
that's what you apparently wanted, you should feel free to not attack me
for having done so and to ignore this post instead.

 

[Lars Enderin]

Read my previous posts.

Which do nothing to defend your standpoint.

 

[Seamus MacRae]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
)<[email protected]>
)
) Dated 30 May, roughly two weeks ago.
)
) That's my initial response to the first potshot by Richard Heathfield.
) As you can see, it tries to be calm and reasonable and polite, and
) apparently succeeds.

In that post, you firstly (and falsely) accused

I have never falsely accused anyone of anything. Unlike you.

Since it is clearly based on an erroneous premise, the rest of your post
has been deleted unread.

I now repeat my previous message:

<[email protected]>

Dated 30 May, roughly two weeks ago.

That's my initial response to the first potshot by Richard Heathfield.
As you can see, it tries to be calm and reasonable and polite, and
apparently succeeds.

 

[Lars Enderin]

You do not understand me correctly.

I said personal criticisms, not disagreement. In particular,
disagreement is fine if phrased in such a way as to allow for the
possibility that I'm not wrong.

That would be dishonest, since there is no such possibility.

 

[Willem]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
) Willem wrote:
)> Seamus MacRae wrote:
)> ) It doesn't make sense when you misquote my post to make it not make sense.
)>
)> *you* misquoted *my* post, remember ?
)
) No. I indicated editorial comments in square brackets, a commonly
) accepted practise. I did not quietly alter quoted material without
) giving any indication of having done so. You did.

You removed quoted material and then replaced them with your so-called
'editorial comments'. The commonly accepted practise for editorial
comments is to *leave the original quote in place*. What you did was
dishonest and deceitful, and can only be explained as intentionally
misquoting somebody. Basically, you knowingly claimed I said something I
did not say, which is a lie.

That proves that you a liar. I believe Richard proved the same earlier.

)> I just put back what I wrote in the first place.
)
) [Calls me a liar]

What I just did here is the same as what you started.

)> Why are you misquoting other people's posts anyway ?
)
) I am not. You are, remember?

I am not. You are, remember? See above for the explanation.
(Also see my previous post from which you snipped the explanation of why
my changing of *my own* quote, *back to what it was* is not misquoting.)


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[Willem]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
) I have never falsely accused anyone of anything. Unlike you.
)
) Since it is clearly based on an erroneous premise, the rest of your post
) has been deleted unread.

You accused Richard of dereferencing an uninitialized pointer, did you not ?


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[Bruce C. Baker]

Richard, Willem, et al: Is this comp.programming, or comp.bedlam? And if the
latter, what does that make us?

"The lunatics were first called "patients" in 1700, and "curable" and
"incurable" wards were opened in 1725-34. In the 18th century people used to
go to Bedlam to stare at the lunatics. For a penny one could peer into their
cells, view the freaks of the "show of Bethlehem" and laugh at their antics,
generally of a sexual nature or violent fights. Entry was free on the first
Tuesday of the month. Visitors were permitted to bring long sticks with
which to poke and enrage the inmates. In 1814 alone, there were 96,000 such
visits."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlem_Royal_Hospital

 

[Lars Enderin]

Seamus MacRae said:

Ben Pfaff wrote:
Ben Pfaff wrote:
A struct cannot contain a variable-length array.
I don't see why not. It can contain any other data type.
[babble deleted]
A repeated assertion is not the same thing as a rationale.

He didn't give you a rationale.

Exactly my point.

No rationale is necessary. It's enough that the standards say that a
struct cannot contain a VLA. If you're clever enough, you can figure out
a rationale.

And you failed to divert the answer...

 

[Willem]

(NB: Followups were set to a different newsgroup, without notice. This, in
and of itself is deceitful.)

Seamus MacRae wrote:
) Willem wrote:
)> You removed quoted material and then replaced them with your
)> 'editorial comments'.
)
) Yes, I believe I said that. So?
)
)> dishonest and deceitful
)
) Yes, you are. I *had* noticed.

As seen right here, you even go as low as to quote parts of a sentence out
of context, thus giving them a different meaning. In other words, claiming
I said something which I did not.

)> Basically, you knowingly claimed I said something I did not say, which is a lie.
)
) I did not.

You did it again, just a few lines above.

) I did reduce what you said to the bits that I found
) important, namely your calling me two particular names,

I did not actually call you those names. *You* did, in your so-called
'editorial comments'. In other words,

) and ignored the rest, but that is perfectly normal;

You did not 'reduce' what I said. You *completely* deleted it and replaced
it with your so-called 'editorial comments'. You write 'Willem wrote:',
followed *only* by things that *you* wrote, and *nothing* that I wrote.

As far as I can tell, you are prefectly aware of this, so stop lying about
it and own up.


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[Willem]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
) Not that it matters. Now its alt.fucknozzles.

Setting followups without notification is deceitful and dishonest.


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[Willem]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
) Willem wrote:
)> Seamus MacRae wrote:
)> ) I have never falsely accused anyone of anything. Unlike you.
)> )
)> ) Since it is clearly based on an erroneous premise, the rest of your post
)> ) has been deleted unread.
)>
)> You accused Richard
)
) I accused nobody of anything

Then what do you call your comment involving sizeof and dereferencing
of a pointer ? You know, the one in your post which started all this ?


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[Moi]

Seamus MacRae wrote:
) Willem wrote:
)> Seamus MacRae wrote:
)> ) I have never falsely accused anyone of anything. Unlike you. )> )
)> ) Since it is clearly based on an erroneous premise, the rest of your
post )> ) has been deleted unread.
)>
)> You accused Richard
)
) I accused nobody of anything

Then what do you call your comment involving sizeof and dereferencing of
a pointer ? You know, the one in your post which started all this ?

Well, to me this whole thread proves that VLA's were a bad invention
after all.
* They serve no purpose (since they are forbidden inside structs, there
will still be a need for 'struct hacks')
* they change the semantics of sizeof
* they drive people to a condition that is close to insanity.
* they cause grown up man to cry and start eating babies.
* they accelerate the decline of usenet.

IMHO, VLA's have 'designed by committee' written all over them.

HTH,
AvK