why do the following crash

[Dann Corbit]

I've been watching. I figure that if they hang around long
enough, they won't be able to help learning enough to help
/somebody/ with /something/.

I think that they are genuinely incapable. Otherwise, we would have seen it
by now.

 

[Default User]

Ed wrote:
) On Mar 31, 11:22 am, (e-mail address removed) (Kenny McCormack)
) wrote:
)> Yes. We all understand that.
)
) It was not clear from your posts that you understood that.

You're confusing Kenny-the-Troll, who is nothing but a troll,
with Just-Richard, who's an okay chap although he often has
opinions I don't share.

You mean Riley. Uh, no. Also a troll.




Brian

 

[CBFalconer]

(e-mail address removed) (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
.... snip ...


But not every new thread by new comers has an answer in the FAQ.

BTW I noticed that you only responded to RH complaining about his
post. You never bothered to answer the OP. Maybe next time you
will lead by example rather than complain?

McCormack is a pure troll. Best plonked. Never feed.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

You mean Riley. Uh, no. Also a troll.

The modern definition of a troll is someone whose views you disagree
with, so you're saying the same thing. It's just that Default Loser is a
showing himself yet again to be a pathetic little worm.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Ed wrote:
) On Mar 31, 11:22 am, (e-mail address removed) (Kenny McCormack)
) wrote:
)> Yes. We all understand that.
)
) It was not clear from your posts that you understood that.

You're confusing Kenny-the-Troll, who is nothing but a troll,
with Just-Richard, who's an okay chap although he often has
opinions I don't share.

I incline to disagree - just-richard has also shown himself to be a
troll, as in this thread, where instead of either answering the OP or
noticing that Philip Potter's comment was entirely correct, he flamed
him for no reason at all.

 

[Old Wolf]

You're confusing Kenny-the-Troll, who is nothing but a troll,
with Just-Richard, who's an okay chap although he often has
opinions I don't share.

This 'Richard' is surely a troll. Philip Potter
answered a frequently-asked question by linking
to an exact entry in the FAQ, and 'Richard' flamed
him for it.

 

[Jack Klein]

Just looking for a little clarification - and guess I got it.

After Willem's post, upthread, I momentarily considered unplonking
Richard. Fortunately the moment passed quickly, even before I
followed this last little exchange you had with him...

I was temporarily insane, but I'm better now.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html

 

[Philip Potter]

BTW I noticed that you only responded to RH complaining about his
post. You never bothered to answer the OP. Maybe next time you will
lead by example rather than complain?

It seems Mr Heathfield's notoriety has grown to the point that he is
credited with actions he had nothing to do with...

In any case, I stand by my original post. I agree that for a newbie (or
even an oldbie) it can be difficult to find the correct question in the
FAQ [1] - especially since some questions are rather cross-category, so
there's no shame in not finding the answer in the FAQ. Similarly, when
the FAQ has already answered the question, there seems little point in
repeating the information myself - especially since I could easily make
a mistake when answering. The FAQ is tried-and-tested, and the number of
mistakes it makes are probably much less than the number I make. If the
OP doesn't understand the FAQ answer, or has further questions, he is
free to ask in a followup.

I meant my question "Did you read the FAQ?" as a genuine
request-for-information, not a rhetorical device, though I can see that
it may have seemed a bit short with him. I'll try to improve the style
of my posting, but I see no reason to change the content.

Philip

[1] Incedentally, this is precisely the reason that an autoresponder
would be a bad idea.