What is wrong?

[Denis Kasak]

I read some helpful replies, and I read you refusing them. I certainly
can't see how it would be worth my time to go reread those; I myself
pointed out the problems with your code.

If I understood correctly, Suman and the OP are not the same person,
which is what you appear to be assuming. I presume that what Suman was
trying to point out to Richard Bos was that he didn't take into account
that a terminating newline is not being output on the stream in his
example and, therefore, that it is not certain that the output will be
displayed. His declaration of disbelief was probably in reference of
that fact.

 

[Suman]

Richard Bos wrote:
[ ...]
<fumes>
I don't understand why you'd need such an analogy, for all _I_ care.

If you reorganize that sentence, you said "For all I care, I don't

1> >> understand..." (I didn't change the grammatical meaning
whatsoever).

Then you might want to have said that.

What you instead said was "I don't understand why you need that analogy,
I don't care". Which makes no sense!

Alright! Now I see what went wrong.

Frankly, as a native english speaker, I was pretty confused as to what
you meant.

By teh way, if you plan to criticize people's code, you should make
your criticism explicit.

I didn't mean it to be so. Richard Bos, like most others, has a
penchant for
std-correctness when it comes to C, as far as I have noted. I had meant

my post to be supplementary material to Richard's post. At the same
time I had *tried* to express my surprise at the fact that Richard
missed out
on this. A rather harmless expression of astonishment that went wrong
due to a rather
obtuse (ab-)use of the English language.

"I don't believe you"

See above. Did you miss the link to Ben Pfaff's post?

and "I expect you to be
vigilant" without any supporting evidence does not give anyone any
reason to take your posts seriously.

Richard's reply confused me. I would've appreciated had he put a
easier-to-read
-for-non-native-English-speakers reply and owning up to the fact that
he was
relying on implementation dependant behavior and which in general is
frowned
upon in this newsgroup.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Suman said:

Richard Bos, like most others, has a penchant for std-correctness
when it comes to C,

Yes, and that's good.

Richard's reply confused me. I would've appreciated had he put a
easier-to-read-for-non-native-English-speakers reply

I hope you appreciate that Richard Bos is not a native English speaker, so
perhaps you should go easy on him. (As far as I'm aware, he's Dutch.)

<snip>

 

[Richard Bos]

I didn't mean it to be so. Richard Bos, like most others, has a penchant for
std-correctness when it comes to C, as far as I have noted. I had meant
my post to be supplementary material to Richard's post. At the same
time I had *tried* to express my surprise at the fact that Richard
missed out on this.

I had not; if you'd read correctly, you'd have noted that I only claimed
what that code did on _my_ system, plus the conclusion we can draw from
that - that it's not that code itself which was at fault.

Richard's reply confused me. I would've appreciated had he put a
easier-to-read-for-non-native-English-speakers reply

You don't read headers much, do you?

and owning up to the fact that

You make it sound like a crime. Don't be so silly.

Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

Which analogy? If you mean the pentagonal earth one, I think he was trying
to help you understand that you can't respond to helpful replies with "I
don't believe you" and expect to be taken seriouly.

Precisely. If Suman wants to disbelieve the plain truth, that's his
problem, not mine.

Richard

 

[Suman]

You don't read headers much, do you?

Never, actually. May I ask how relevant that is? The non-native English
speaker part
was a reference to myself. Read the previous sentence.It confused *me*.
So how does my not reading the header fit in here?Seems most people got
me
wrong.

You make it sound like a crime. Don't be so silly.

You sounded snooty (to me).

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Suman said:

Never, actually. May I ask how relevant that is?

Very. It would have given you a hint that Richard Bos is not a native
English-speaker himself, so your criticism of his English style is poorly
aimed.

The non-native English speaker part was a reference to myself.

You are not the only non-native English speaker here. Richard Bos is another
such person.

Read the previous sentence.It confused *me*. So how does my not reading
the header fit in here?

Reading the header would have helped you to learn that Richard Bos is not a
native English-speaker.

Seems most people got me wrong.

Seems you got Richard Bos wrong.

You sounded snooty (to me).

Perhaps that's because Richard Bos is not a native English-speaker, and thus
cannot reasonably be held to account for misunderstandings of tone.

In case you haven't worked it out yet, Richard Bos is not a native
English-speaker.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Never, actually. May I ask how relevant that is? The non-native English
speaker part was a reference to myself. Read the previous sentence.It
confused *me*. So how does my not reading the header fit in here?Seems
most people got me wrong.

Well, the logic, such as it is, goes like this. An NNSoE (non-native
speaker of English) makes a comment along the lines of "It is hard for
me, being an NNSoE, to understand what you wrote". This carries an
implication that the prose in question was not as clearly written as it
might have been (*). This, then, causes the friends of the poster (**) of
the prose in question, to gather around and get all upset at the
perceived insult (to the poster of the prose in question). They, then,
will come to the aid of their friend, and one way to do so is to point
out that the poster of the prose in question is an NNSoE and thus cannot
be held to the same standards of grammar/spelling/etc as would an NSoE.
That's what happened here. And, note that in the shuffle of this
process of this circling-of-the-wagons, the fact that the original
reference to an NNSoE was self-referential and not in any sense an
insult, gets lost.

(*) And note that this implication is usually correct.
(**) See, especially, the first URL quoted below.

Useful clc-related links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language

 

[Richard Bos]

Never, actually. May I ask how relevant that is?

It's relevant in that it was perfectly easy to read for _me_, also a
non-native speaker of English.

Richard