Why is it "mov eax, 25h" in the first line of NtCreateFile?

[Seebs]

I can't see it myself.

There's a lot of similarity of voice and beliefs, as well as similar posting
patterns.

Look at it this way: How many people do you think there are who hate
Richard Heathfield, are occasionally capable of giving substantive advice,
but usually don't give real advice because they're busy railing against
the "regular clique", and who think that it is insane for people to not
place their personal social status at the top of every conceivable priority
queue, and all of whom use anonymizing free email services for their
public identities?

I somehow doubt that we have found as many such people as would appear to
be posting here. Tack on the fact that they can all spell (which is unusual
in Usenet)... And how many of them predate the much-vaunted "Han from China"?

-s

 

[Seebs]

Nice appeal to (non-existent) authority. Every functional Usenet
group I've ever taken part in (since about 1991) has insisted on far
less rigidity than you're attempting to impose here.

The amount of rigidity expected of groups tends to vary widely with both
topic and scope. In this case, experiments were tried in the distant past
with not pushing the issue much, and the net result was that the group
got swamped by posts which were of even potential interest to only a minority
of participants.

And you'd never be caught doing that, would you. If you wish to impose
standards on others, you'll find you'll get more traction if you make
a token effort to stick to them yourself.

A token effort, but...

For example:
i) don't get involved in a long discussion about the naming of a UNIX
daemon (take it comp.unix!)

I did, in fact, frequently set followups, and I studiously avoided the
substantial Unix content that would have occurred if I'd been writing in
a Unix group.

ii) don't continually respond to the off-topic ramblings of spinoza111
with the sole defence that "It's funny"

I would argue that the underlying substance of those discussions was
topical -- comments on the quality of C books and of reviews of them is
topical. However, you'll note that about the second or third time that
someone asked me to stop, I plonked him and stopped. (Second or third
time, because I wanted to think about it a bit. I did eventually conclude
that there was no risk at all of him convincing anyone sane.)

Otherwise, you'll just look like a complete hypocrite.

I could hardly hope. I think, like every other living human, I'll have to
settle for a partial hypocrite.

-s

 

[Antoninus Twink]

There's a lot of similarity of voice and beliefs, as well as similar
posting patterns.

That's pretty vague for a conspiracy theory. Specifically, which posters
do you think are the same person? I'd really be entertained to hear.

Look at it this way: How many people do you think there are who hate
Richard Heathfield

Err, pretty well everyone who's ever encountered him?

And how many of them predate the much-vaunted "Han from China"?

Huh? What's the implication here meant to be?

 

[Phil Carmody]

That merely explains why it would not be surprising if "fora" were
used. It does not in any way imply that "forums" is incorrect.

Now that's a straw man if anything is.

What's more, I doubt your assertion. The OED does not appear to have
an entry for "fora", nor does it mention it under "forum". All the
quotations (the first is dated 1647) use "forums". Fowler does not
list it as a word having a Latin plural.

Odd, as it's defined in the 1500s. Search harder.

Phil

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Odd, as it's defined in the 1500s. Search harder.

Ah, blind assertion, the perfect answer to actual evidence!

Asshole.

 

[Phil Carmody]

What plural forms do you use for:

crux

I don't use a plural.

lemma

lemmata. Plenty of those in my maths degree.

hiatus

Don't use a plural

syllabus
Syllabi

arena

You got me - arenas.

octopus?

That was never a classical word anyway, merely a lookalike. And
as it was trying to fit into a latinate context while being apparently
greek, it was never going to have a sane plural. I.e. I think I've use
them all at one point or another.

I ask just because I wonder how much of a classical education is
required to avoid what might seem to be, to your ears, monstrosities.

I don't know, but I do know that when I used to go drinking in
Cambridge, discussions about the quality of the beer in some of
the dodgier pubs would take place in Latin or Greek.

Most educated writers accept that both forms can be used in most
cases. There are a few examples where one form has become almost
universal (for example "strata" and "rhinoceroses" are one of each).
Sometimes the context determines the preferred form ("appendix" is a
case in point) and sometimes simple euphony determines the preference
("bases" and "crises" for example) but in the absence of any such
reason, both the borrowed and the anglicised forms are considered
perfectly acceptable. In the case of forums and fora, the first
greatly outnumbers the second in quotations used in the on-line
OED[1]. I use that simply as an accessible corpus of educated English
usage.

Much of the 'educated' usage was make-it-up-as-you-go-along in those
days. There was nobody in earshot to contradict or correct. OED has
some flaws - I'd say not including a cite which defines fora under
the head entry for that word would be one of them.

Phil

 

[Antoninus Twink]

[more utter horseshit]

Asshole.

 

[Richard Tobin]

That merely explains why it would not be surprising if "fora" were
used. It does not in any way imply that "forums" is incorrect.

[/QUOTE]

Now that's a straw man if anything is.

I've no idea what you're getting at. Are you not claiming that
"forums" is incorrect?

Odd, as it's defined in the 1500s. Search harder.

Defined where? The first OED quotation for "forum" is 1460. The
first for "forums" is 1647. It doesn't have any quotations for
"fora" under "forums".

"Fora" appears in three quotations for other words; the oldest is
1677.

-- Richard

 

[Phil Carmody]

Now that's a straw man if anything is.

I've no idea what you're getting at. Are you not claiming that
"forums" is incorrect?[/QUOTE]

I think I used the word abomination rather than incorrect.

Defined where? The first OED quotation for "forum" is 1460. The
first for "forums" is 1647. It doesn't have any quotations for
"fora" under "forums".

"Fora" appears in three quotations for other words; the oldest is
1677.

It was years ago I did the search. I'm on a text console now and
can't perform it again. It's under another word's entry, and it's
from the 1500s, that's all I remember. Search again, explicitly
for 'fora'.

Phil

 

[jacob navia]

Antoninus Twink a écrit :

[more utter horseshit]

Asshole.

This is not correct. As everybody knows asses (and their holes)
have a very important function and are very useful.

Comparing them with Mr Carmody is an insult....

 

[Seebs]

This is not correct. As everybody knows asses (and their holes)
have a very important function and are very useful.

Comparing them with Mr Carmody is an insult....

If you have a really big personal gripe with the guy, you might consider
keeping it to email, since I doubt anyone else really cares. Me, I think
you're both pretty smart people who are sometimes jerks. I don't really
see any benefit to the group of watching you guys trade unjustified
insults.

-s

 

[Seebs]

Vanishingly few, but they can be VERY LOUD if you let them.

Is this an AND? If so, the number just plummeted.
Yup.

That rules out Antoninus Twink on a second count, since he can't even
spell my name right. (He claims it's deliberate, but then he lies
about so many things that I assume he's lying about that, too.)

He can spell ordinary words.

It's unusual full stop. What you don't know, however, is whether they
can spell without using a spell-checker.

They don't make the mistakes people usually get when they rely on a
spell checker, or at least, not often enough for me to notice.
(Although that would offer an explanation for "heath field".)

Um, all of them, I think.

Interesting. I'd not seen them, but then, I hadn't been here for a while.

-s

 

[Richard Bos]

Well, in this case because, as the OP pointed out, the appropriate
forums (fora?) to which he was being directed are no use to man nor
beast.

And how is that different, prey, from _this_ shithole?

Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

What plural forms do you use for:

octopus?

Hexadecapus.

HTH; HAND.

Richard

 

[Default User]

Interesting. I'd not seen them, but then, I hadn't been here for a
while.

I guess I'm not sure why it matters. Whether they're all individuals or
some level of sockpuppets, none have anything worthwhile to add. The
group would be far better off if everyone ignored them.

Trolls are happy when you reply. Good or bad, doesn't matter.



Brian

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Vanishingly few

You really do lack self-awareness to a quite remarkable degree, don't
you?