Can we overload on return types

[Panks]

Hey All

Its one of basic questions? i read in a book "Thinking in C++" it says
" Overloading solely on return value is a bit
too subtle, and thus isn't allowed in C++." on page 323. While i
tried overloading on VC++ compiler i was able to overload on return
types.

Please comment
Pankaj

[Victor Bazarov]

Panks wrote:

Its one of basic questions? i read in a book "Thinking in C++" it says
" Overloading solely on return value is a bit
too subtle, and thus isn't allowed in C++." on page 323. While i
tried overloading on VC++ compiler i was able to overload on return
types.

Please give us the example of your success. Or did you mistakenly
omit the "not" between "was" and "able"?

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[sharmaharish]

Pankaj,

I don't think that is allowed by C++ language or by any of its
conforming compilers. TICPP mentions this correctly. However, there is
a way by which you can get similar behaviour, by using templates. eg.

template <class T>
T overloaded_on_return_type()
{
T var;
cout << "\n" << var;
return var;
}

The type used to call the template function has to be either an
intrinsic type or it should be some UDT that has the insertion operator
overloaded for it (atleast for this example).

Calling this function is as simple as
'overloaded_on_return_type<int>();'.

Regards,
Harish Sharma

[Pete Becker]

sh**********@gmail.com wrote:

>
Calling this function is as simple as
'overloaded_on_return_type<int>();'.

Despite the name, that's not overloading.

[Panks]

Thanks Victor i didnt miss any don'ts in my post.

Here is the code snippet and it works wen u compile with VC++ 6.0
compiler.
struct a {
int i;
};

void fun1(int i)
{
printf("\n Hello void ret");
}

float fun1(int i,int j)
{
printf("\n Hello float ret");
return 4.5;
}

a fun1(int i,double p)
{
a op;
printf("\n Hello UDD ret");
return op;
}

int _tmain(int argc, TCHAR* argv[], TCHAR* envp[])
{
int nRetCode = 0;
fun1(10);
fun1(10,10);
fun1(10,10.0f);

return nRetCode;
}

Hope for QuickReply
Pankaj

Victor Bazarov wrote:

Panks wrote:

Its one of basic questions? i read in a book "Thinking in C++" it says
" Overloading solely on return value is a bit
too subtle, and thus isn't allowed in C++." on page 323. While i
tried overloading on VC++ compiler i was able to overload on return
types.

Please give us the example of your success. Or did you mistakenly
omit the "not" between "was" and "able"?

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[Victor Bazarov]

Panks wrote:

Thanks Victor i didnt miss any don'ts in my post.

First of all, please don't top-post. Second, please don't quote sigs.
If you don't feel the need in any of the contents of the post to which
you're replying, please take time to remove it before hitting "send".

Thanks.

Here is the code snippet and it works wen u compile with VC++ 6.0
compiler.

Oh, I have no doubt of that. Except for the missing 'include' and
the wrong definition of the 'main' function, it's normal C++ and should
compile anywhere.

>

struct a {
int i;
};

void fun1(int i)
{
printf("\n Hello void ret");
}

float fun1(int i,int j)
{
printf("\n Hello float ret");
return 4.5;
}

a fun1(int i,double p)
{
a op;
printf("\n Hello UDD ret");
return op;
}

int _tmain(int argc, TCHAR* argv[], TCHAR* envp[])
{
int nRetCode = 0;
fun1(10);
fun1(10,10);
fun1(10,10.0f);

So, could you explain to me why do you think that you're overloading
*on* the return value type rather than on the number and the types of
the arguments here? What *role* does the return value type play in
the compiler's selecting the right function to call?

>
return nRetCode;
}

Hope for QuickReply
Pankaj

Victor Bazarov wrote:

>Panks wrote:

>>Its one of basic questions? i read in a book "Thinking in C++" it
says " Overloading solely on return value is a bit
too subtle, and thus isn't allowed in C++." on page 323. While i
tried overloading on VC++ compiler i was able to overload on return
types.

Please give us the example of your success. Or did you mistakenly
omit the "not" between "was" and "able"?

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[Noah Roberts]

Panks wrote:

Hey All

Its one of basic questions? i read in a book "Thinking in C++" it says
" Overloading solely on return value is a bit
too subtle, and thus isn't allowed in C++." on page 323. While i
tried overloading on VC++ compiler i was able to overload on return
types.

It is only possible when you are overriding a function in a base class
with a return value that derives from the return of the target
function:

struct A {};
struct B : A {};

struct C
{
A * whatever();
};

struct D : C
{
B * whatever();
};

More commonly you use this to implement a polymorphic copy function.

I know of no other condition that allows this...I am not sure if being
a pointer or reference is a requirement though it wouldn't surprise me
if it was.

[Panks]

Hi

I thought to remind you of post anyways. There is no foul play in
original post a gave you strict statement from a books that overloading
on return type is not supported.
Ok if now if i am able to compile the code and run it hence compiler
accepts this overloaded definition. No matter i have overloaded it on
parameters also. You can add code to accept the return values it runs
even that also error free.

Point is why is the contradiction? Rather looking for header file
stement i hope you focus on core issue.

Pankaj

[Victor Bazarov]

Panks wrote:

I thought to remind you of post anyways. There is no foul play in
original post a gave you strict statement from a books that
overloading on return type is not supported.
Ok if now if i am able to compile the code and run it hence compiler
accepts this overloaded definition. No matter i have overloaded it on
parameters also. You can add code to accept the return values it runs
even that also error free.

Point is why is the contradiction? Rather looking for header file
stement i hope you focus on core issue.

I can barely understand what your point is. Let me explain what is
meant by "overloading on return value". If we remove all other function
signature differences (name, number and types of arguments), all that
remains is the return value type. Now, given that two functions *only*
differ in the return value type, is it allowed? If it were allowed, the
following would be legal code:

int foo();
double foo();

int main() {
return foo();
}

and the function 'foo' chosen in the 'main' function would be the one
that retuns an int. Now, since it _isn't_ allowed, the compiler will
refuse to compile this code.

In your example functions had different number and types of arguments.
And that's how the compiler knows which function to use. Return value
types play _no_role_ there. You can make them all the same, you can
make them different, it *does not matter*.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[Victor Bazarov]

Noah Roberts wrote:

Panks wrote:

>Hey All

Its one of basic questions? i read in a book "Thinking in C++" it
says " Overloading solely on return value is a bit
too subtle, and thus isn't allowed in C++." on page 323. While i
tried overloading on VC++ compiler i was able to overload on return
types.

It is only possible when you are overriding a function in a base class
with a return value that derives from the return of the target
function:

struct A {};
struct B : A {};

struct C
{
A * whatever();
};

struct D : C
{
B * whatever();
};

More commonly you use this to implement a polymorphic copy function.

I know of no other condition that allows this...I am not sure if being
a pointer or reference is a requirement though it wouldn't surprise me
if it was.

I am not sure why you gave this example. There is no *overloading* in
your code. None. Whatsoever.

The only time where return value types begin playing some role in the
function signature (and therefore in picking which function to use) is
in pointer-to-function conversions from a template. Observe:

template<class T,class UT foo(U) { return T(); }

int main() {
double (*p)(int) = foo;
}

Here, the template argument 'T' is deduced from the function type, and
that's the only place where it matters.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[Panks]

Thanks Harish

but pls below code and it executes wen compiled by VC++ compiler

struct a {
int i;
};

void fun1(int i)
{
printf("\n Hello void ret");
}

float fun1(int i,int j)
{
printf("\n Hello float ret");
return 4.5;
}

a fun1(int i,double p)
{
a op;
printf("\n Hello UDD ret");
return op;
}

int _tmain(int argc, TCHAR* argv[], TCHAR* envp[])
{
int nRetCode = 0;
fun1(10);
float f=fun1(10,10);
a vara=fun1(10,10.0f);
return nRetCode;
}
Its overloading right? Here along with parameter overloading is done
also on return types. Isnt this the contradiction of statement TICPP.
Although i accept overloading of type :
void fun();
int fun();

is not allowed. Please comment

Pankaj

[Panks]

Thanks Harish

but pls below code and it executes wen compiled by VC++ compiler

struct a {
int i;
};

void fun1(int i)
{
printf("\n Hello void ret");
}

float fun1(int i,int j)
{
printf("\n Hello float ret");
return 4.5;
}

a fun1(int i,double p)
{
a op;
printf("\n Hello UDD ret");
return op;
}

int _tmain(int argc, TCHAR* argv[], TCHAR* envp[])
{
int nRetCode = 0;
fun1(10);
float f=fun1(10,10);
a vara=fun1(10,10.0f);
return nRetCode;
}
Its overloading right? Here along with parameter overloading is done
also on return types. Isnt this the contradiction of statement TICPP.
Although i accept overloading of type :
void fun();
int fun();

is not allowed. Please comment

Pankaj

[Victor Bazarov]

Panks wrote:

Thanks Harish

but pls below code and it executes wen compiled by VC++ compiler

struct a {
int i;
};

void fun1(int i)
{
printf("\n Hello void ret");
}

float fun1(int i,int j)
{
printf("\n Hello float ret");
return 4.5;
}

a fun1(int i,double p)
{
a op;
printf("\n Hello UDD ret");
return op;
}

int _tmain(int argc, TCHAR* argv[], TCHAR* envp[])

This is not C++. Please when posting to comp.lang.c++ try to
remove any compiler-specific elements. Example: _tmain is MS,
and so is TCHAR. We here prefer this definition of 'main':

int main()

(no need for arguments which you aren't using).

{
int nRetCode = 0;
fun1(10);
float f=fun1(10,10);
a vara=fun1(10,10.0f);
return nRetCode;
}
Its overloading right?

Yes.

Here along with parameter overloading is done
also on return types.

No. Return value types have *nothing* to do with the overloading
that you have happening there.

Isnt this the contradiction of statement TICPP.
Although i accept overloading of type :
void fun();
int fun();

is not allowed. Please comment

Done. And please don't post twice.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[shadowman615]

Panks wrote:

Its overloading right? Here along with parameter overloading is done
also on return types. Isnt this the contradiction of statement TICPP.
Although i accept overloading of type :
void fun();
int fun();

is not allowed. Please comment

Pankaj

No,. read the statement you quoted again (emphasis mine) :
"Overloading ***SOLELY*** on return value is a bit too subtle, and thus
isn't allowed in C++."

[Panks]

Victor Bazarov

Had enough of you. Pls dont reply to my post as i put up question for
Harish Sharma. Oversmartness is harmfull too health.

No need too reply.

Pankaj

[Panks]

Ok shadowman

Now you make things clear.

"Overloading ***SOLELY*** on return value is a bit too subtle, and thus
isn't allowed in C++."

Victor
I m sorry as i sounded harsh but thanks for ur help too

Thanks a lot
Pankaj
61*@comcast.net wrote:

Panks wrote:

Its overloading right? Here along with parameter overloading is done
also on return types. Isnt this the contradiction of statement TICPP.
Although i accept overloading of type :
void fun();
int fun();

is not allowed. Please comment

Pankaj

No,. read the statement you quoted again (emphasis mine) :

[Noah Roberts]

Victor Bazarov wrote:

I am not sure why you gave this example. There is no *overloading* in
your code. None. Whatsoever.

Whatever, Vic.

[Victor Bazarov]

Noah Roberts wrote:

Victor Bazarov wrote:

>I am not sure why you gave this example. There is no *overloading*
in your code. None. Whatsoever.

Whatever, Vic.

Please don't address me "Vic" until we drink ourselves to a stupor together.
If you need an explanation of the difference between overloading,
overriding,
and hiding, and what happens in your example, just ask.

[Noah Roberts]

Victor Bazarov wrote:

Noah Roberts wrote:

Victor Bazarov wrote:

I am not sure why you gave this example. There is no *overloading*
in your code. None. Whatsoever.

Whatever, Vic.

Please don't address me "Vic" until we drink ourselves to a stupor together.

Whatever, VIC.

[Frederick Gotham]

Noah Roberts posted:

>I am not sure why you gave this example. There is no *overloading*
in your code. None. Whatsoever.

Whatever, Vic.

Please don't address me "Vic" until we drink ourselves to a stupor
together.

Whatever, VIC.

Victor is correct. You're incorrect. To compound the matter, you've
decended into imbecilic name-calling. How mature.

Perhaps take Victor up on his kind offer of explaining overloading,
overriding, and hiding; you'll learn from it -- plus you'll be
demonstrating to the group that you can admit when you're wrong, and learn
from the experience.

If you'd like to address me derogatorily as a response to this post, may I
suggest one of:

Freddie
Poo face
Fred
Stupey head

Forgive me, it's been a few decades since I've called people names so I
don't come out with the best material.

--

Frederick Gotham

[Noah Roberts]

Frederick Gotham wrote:

Noah Roberts posted:

I am not sure why you gave this example. There is no *overloading*
in your code. None. Whatsoever.

Whatever, Vic.

Please don't address me "Vic" until we drink ourselves to a stupor
together.

Whatever, VIC.

Victor is correct. You're incorrect.

Woohoo...great for Vic.

To compound the matter, you've
decended into imbecilic name-calling. How mature.

Interesting. That is just a little too....PC, or something, for me.
(Is calling someone their name pollitically incorrect?)

>
Perhaps take Victor up on his kind offer of explaining overloading,
overriding, and hiding; you'll learn from it -- plus you'll be
demonstrating to the group that you can admit when you're wrong, and learn
from the experience.

I really don't care to learn from such an ass. This is a pretty minor
detail you guys are harping about and both are being rather
confrontational and rude about it.

>
If you'd like to address me derogatorily as a response to this post, may I
suggest one of:

Freddie
Poo face
Fred
Stupey head

Forgive me, it's been a few decades since I've called people names so I
don't come out with the best material.

Ok, uh...whatever I call you...obviously can't use your name....I guess
I'll just call you carbon based unit #234789012345632. At any rate,
have a nice day and...whatever...get a life.

[Frederick Gotham]

Noah Roberts posted:

>Victor is correct. You're incorrect.

Woohoo...great for Vic.

I had a feeling that there was some sort of imagined contest going on in your
head. Most of us here, myself included, aim to learn from one another. If
that means revealing our mistakes, then so be it.

>To compound the matter, you've
decended into imbecilic name-calling. How mature.

Interesting. That is just a little too....PC, or something, for me.
(Is calling someone their name pollitically incorrect?)

Victor's name is Victor. My name is Frederick.

Vic is a diminutive form of Victor. Addressing someone by a diminutive (or
otherwise variant) form of their name has social implications. A lot of us
here are from different countries and different cultures, and so we cannot
presume to judge how appropriate another participant may find it if we are to
address them by anything other than the name under which they post. A
manifestation of this is Victor's direct request to you that you not address
him as Vic.

By declining his request, you portray yourself a certain way.

>Perhaps take Victor up on his kind offer of explaining overloading,
overriding, and hiding; you'll learn from it -- plus you'll be
demonstrating to the group that you can admit when you're wrong, and learn
from the experience.

I really don't care to learn from such an ass.

Learn how to deal with people -- your own method works up about until the age
of five or six... but from then on, things start to fall apart.

This is a pretty minor detail you guys are harping about and both are
being rather confrontational and rude about it.

The feeling of being ganged-up-upon is a manifestation of your own refusal to
admit you are wrong.

Ok, uh...whatever I call you...obviously can't use your name....I guess
I'll just call you carbon based unit #234789012345632. At any rate,
have a nice day and...whatever...get a life.

You may address me as Frederick, and refer to me as Frederick Gotham.

--

Frederick Gotham

[Alex Buell]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:28:46 GMT, I waved a wand and this message
magically appeared from Frederick Gotham:

Ok, uh...whatever I call you...obviously can't use your name....I
guess I'll just call you carbon based unit #234789012345632. At
any rate, have a nice day and...whatever...get a life.

You may address me as Frederick, and refer to me as Frederick Gotham.

Utter peasants. You may call me Lord Alex, now get off my land.
--
http://www.munted.org.uk

Take a nap, it saves lives.

[red floyd]

Panks wrote:

Victor Bazarov

Had enough of you. Pls dont reply to my post as i put up question for
Harish Sharma.

1. Please don't use "txt-speek". Please use full words.
2. If you intended your question for Harish Sharma, then you should
have emailed it to him, instead of posting it to the newsgroup.

No need too reply.

tough.

[Robert J. Hansen]

Noah Roberts wrote:

I really don't care to learn from such an ass.

Let me imagine for a second that you wrote instead, "I really don't
care to learn from a Jew." Or "I really don't care to learn from
someone who's gay." Or "I really don't care to learn from the space
aliens from Zarbnulax". Whatever. Pick your poison.

People would rightfully call you narrowminded. Some would call you
more unpleasant things, but let's stick with narrowminded. Your
statement--whether it's "I really don't care to learn from such an ass"
or "I really don't care to learn from such an Episcopalian" (just to
pick on my religion)--tells people that you would rather be ignorant
than you would deal in a grown-up manner with people with whom you
disagree, or even despise.

Victor is often caustic, withering and cutting.

He is also, very often, _right_.

If you choose to deal with him in a professional and grown-up manner,
you have the possibility to learn a great deal from him. If you choose
to disregard what he says on the basis of his flaws, that says a lot
more about your lack of wisdom than it does his manner of sharing his
knowledge.

[Phlip]

Noah Roberts wrote:

>I really don't care to learn from such an ass.

I vote with Noah. I have had VB killfiled for a very long time. The
occassional bits of wisdom just aren't worth the attitude.

--
Phlip
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!

[Noah Roberts]

Robert J. Hansen wrote:

Noah Roberts wrote:

I really don't care to learn from such an ass.

Let me imagine for a second that you wrote instead, "I really don't
care to learn from a Jew."

That is QUITE a stretch from what I actually said and I find the
comparison very offensive. I happen to have Jewish heritage; my
grandmother's ancestors emigrated here from Germany in the 1800's to
flee persecution at the hands of German Luthrans. The branch of the
family that stayed was never heard from again after WWII.

Persecuting people because of their religion and heritage is several
orders of magnitude distant from calling someone that goes around
acting like an ass, an ass. I've always thought of myself as a bit of
a pessimist when it comes to guaging the intelligence of the average
person and often feel guilty for assuming that most people are
unintelligent ass-monkeys, but then someone like you comes along and
fails to live up to even my low expectations. I don't know why I'm
surprised but I always am.

[Noah Roberts]

Alex Buell wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:28:46 GMT, I waved a wand and this message
magically appeared from Frederick Gotham:

Ok, uh...whatever I call you...obviously can't use your name....I
guess I'll just call you carbon based unit #234789012345632. At
any rate, have a nice day and...whatever...get a life.

You may address me as Frederick, and refer to me as Frederick Gotham.

Utter peasants. You may call me Lord Alex, now get off my land.

Heheheh...yeah, that about sums it up.

[Frederick Gotham]

Noah Roberts posted:

>Let me imagine for a second that you wrote instead, "I really don't
care to learn from a Jew."

That is QUITE a stretch from what I actually said and I find the
comparison very offensive.

Q. What kind of person takes offence when no offence was intended?
A. A narrow-minded person.

Robert J. Hansen quite obviously used "a Jew" as a demographic of people --
he could just as easily have said "a carpenter", or "a mechanic", or "a
negro", or "a Christian", or "a businessman".

I happen to have Jewish heritage; my grandmother's ancestors emigrated
here from Germany in the 1800's to flee persecution at the hands of
German Luthrans. The branch of the family that stayed was never heard
from again after WWII.

Irrelevant here, try soc.culture.jewish.*

Persecuting people because of their religion and heritage is several
orders of magnitude distant from calling someone that goes around
acting like an ass, an ass.

The topic is "learning from other people" regardless of who they are, or
what their favourite colour is, or whether they've webbed feet, or whether
they're from Scotland, or whether their father owns a yacht, or whether
they had their dog neutered.

I've always thought of myself as a bit of a pessimist when it comes to
guaging the intelligence of the average person and often feel guilty for
assuming that most people are unintelligent ass-monkeys, but then
someone like you comes along and fails to live up to even my low
expectations. I don't know why I'm surprised but I always am.

What about "social intelligence"? You've already demonstrated your lack of
ability to deal with people.

--

Frederick Gotham

[Robert J. Hansen]

That is QUITE a stretch from what I actually said and I find the

comparison very offensive.

I regret that you find what you wrote so offensive. However, all I did
was show the offensiveness of your position.

Persecuting people because of their religion and heritage is several
orders of magnitude distant from calling someone that goes around
acting like an ass, an ass.

If you were to tell Victor that he was being rude and caustic, I think
most of us would agree with you. But that's not what you said. What
you said was that you did not care to learn from such an ass.

One of the things every programmer worth his or her salt has learned is
that computers have no feelings. They don't care about anything
because they can't care. They're machines, nothing more. They operate
according to concrete, deterministic rules and they apply those rules
with absolute, inflexible rigidity.

A consequence of this is that everything in computer science is
demonstrable, provable, verifiable. There are no "maybes", only "I
don't know how to prove that yet".

Proofs do not care about your race, religion, nationality, or whether
you're a nice human being. Proofs simply are. They exist. Period.
It's up to us to evaluate proofs for correctness without any
concern--and I mean none whatsoever--for the character or traits of the
person bringing the proof.

When someone comes to me with a proof, I don't ask if they're Jewish or
Catholic or Scottish or if they're pleasant or if they're rude. The
only thing I ask is whether the proof is correct.

I credit my entire success as a programmer and software engineer to
this principle. I heartily recommend it to everyone who wants to make
their living working with the most fascinating machines on the planet.
But for people who are unwilling or unable to follow this principle, I
recommend they stay far away from computers.

I've always thought of myself as a bit of
a pessimist when it comes to guaging the intelligence of the average
person and often feel guilty for assuming that most people are
unintelligent ass-monkeys, but then someone like you comes along and
fails to live up to even my low expectations. I don't know why I'm
surprised but I always am.

I would like for you to read the following sentence very carefully, and
as many times as you need for the message to sink in:

_There is nothing you can say to me which will make me treat you as
poorly as you are treating others._

[Noah Roberts]

Frederick Gotham wrote:

Noah Roberts posted:

Let me imagine for a second that you wrote instead, "I really don't
care to learn from a Jew."

That is QUITE a stretch from what I actually said and I find the
comparison very offensive.

Q. What kind of person takes offence when no offence was intended?
A. A narrow-minded person.

Robert J. Hansen quite obviously used "a Jew" as a demographic of people --
he could just as easily have said "a carpenter", or "a mechanic", or "a
negro", or "a Christian", or "a businessman".

All of them equally ignorant, offensive, and completely disparate from
what I said. It would be like comparing what you said to:

Q: What kind of person takes offense when no offense was intended?
A: A Jew.

Now, since what you said is exactly the same thing as that I would have
to say you're a biggot and a very ignorant person. Keep in mind of
course we can replace "Jew" with any demographic of people such as
"negro" or "Christian".

Since you agree with this interpretation (since it is yours) I'm going
to assume that is what you actually meant and figure you're just an
ignorant racist who hates everybody. Based on that conclusion, I have
nothing else to say to you and don't want to hear anything you have to
say.

More to the point, is a tomato a fruit or vegetable?

[Frederick Gotham]

Noah Roberts posted:

All of them equally ignorant, offensive, and completely disparate from
what I said. It would be like comparing what you said to:

Q: What kind of person takes offense when no offense was intended?
A: A Jew.

I'm not Jewish myself, nor have I had much contact with Jews, so I am not
in a position to support or contradict any stereotypes pertaining to Jews.
Irrespective, none of that is relevant here.

If you take offence from people using "a Jew" as an example of a category
of persons, then perhaps you should ask your therapist why you feel
threatened every time Judaism is mentioned.

Should I take offence every time someone mentions Irish people, or white
people, or male people, or people who speak English, or people who aren't
disabled, or people who can swim, or people who play the guitar, or people
who drink alcohol?

Now, since what you said is exactly the same thing as that I would have
to say you're a biggot and a very ignorant person.

Noah, say and think whatever you like about me. At present, I've no respect
for you, so I've little regard.

Perhaps you parents should have sent you off to Summer camp to brush up on
your social skills?

Keep in mind of course we can replace "Jew" with any demographic of
people such as "negro" or "Christian".

YOU'RE RACIST AND ANTI-CHRISTIAN! Opps, sorry, I was in Noah-mode for a
moment there, and felt the urge to accuse people of ill-will every time
they mention a particular category of people.

You've a very immature attitude if you think a person's skin colour or
religion cannot be mentioned without causing offence.

If someone asks me to describe the man who was walking his dog, am I racist
if I say, "He was black, about 6 foot tall."?

Since you agree with this interpretation (since it is yours) I'm going
to assume that is what you actually meant and figure you're just an
ignorant racist who hates everybody.

Brilliant assumption! Good luck with that.

Based on that conclusion, I have nothing else to say to you and don't
want to hear anything you have to say.

"A kill file (also killfile, bozo bin or twit list) is a per-user file used
by some Usenet reading programs (originally Larry Wall's rn) to discard
summarily (without presenting for reading) articles matching some
particularly uninteresting (or unwanted) patterns of subject, author, or
other header lines.

Thus to add a person (or subject) to one's kill file is to arrange for that
person to be ignored by one's newsreader in the future. By extension, it
may be used for a decision to ignore the person or subject in other media.
Sometimes more than one kill file will be used. Some newsreader programs
also allow you to specify a time period to keep an author in the kill file.

Newer newsreader software often provides a more advanced form of filter
known as a score file, which can use multiple rules to determine which
articles are shown."

More to the point, is a tomato a fruit or vegetable?

HOW DARE YOU INSULT MY FATHER! My father was a tomato farmer; I can't
believe you have the audacity to mention tomatoes on this newgroup --
YOU'RE A BIGGOT!

Everybody, shun Noah for mentioning tomatoes -- I've already undergone
seventeen years of therapy to overcome psychological trauma pertaining to
my father's profession -- he must an ignorant racist who hates everybody!

--

Frederick Gotham

[Noah Roberts]

Frederick Gotham wrote:

[ a book ]
Wow...yeah, get a life. I can't even make it through your epic.
Suffice it to say you see no difference between calling someone an ass
and degrading people based on race and creed. I do. Who's the more
socially adept? At this point I don't even care...

I'll leave you to the straw man you think is real and let him have his
fun with you.