DJ Bernstein's str library

[Peter Davies]

Hi all,

Plagued by the (to me) non-obvious functionality of DJB's str.h library, I
started looking at the source and what I saw took a while to make sense.

Each function runs an infinite loop, which iterates though a char* - in
order to search for needles or calculate a string length or whatever. What
got me was that each of the infinite loops held 4 identical statements:

for (;;) {
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
}
(in str_chr.c) and

for (;;) {
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
}
(in str_len.c)

Does anyone have any ideas as to why this is done? All I can think of is
that 4 chars=32bits and that nicely fills a register.

--
Peter Davies

[Michael Wojcik]

In article <sl*******************@random.yi.org>, Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> writes:

On 2005-10-27, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:

Poldie wrote:

Isn't it
Isn't what? Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
sees your post has seen the message you are responding to.

And that is why the References: header was invented.

Nonsense. The References header was introduced to permit threading
readers. It has no effect on the issue Flash raised: not everyone
will have seen the message that is being referred to.

This is a basic fact of Usenet, and it is amazing that so many
people who have used Usenet for any significant length of time still
do not understand it.
yes, it's irritating. so is reading people complaining about it.

Not nearly as irritating as reading people who fail to understand
why it's a problem.

--
Michael Wojcik mi************@microfocus.com

See who I'm! -- Jackie Chan and unknown subtitler, _Dragons Forever_

[Default User]

Jordan Abel wrote:

On 2005-10-28, Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jordan Abel wrote:

"Your post is wrong and you are an asshole for posting it" is not
"instruction" by any stretch of the imagination
This is a lie. Neither I nor anyone else posted anything like this.

He took offense, and my point was that it was [apparently] the
reason for his reaction. Whether it was intended that was is
immaterial.

This is sheer bullshit. He may have taken offense, but none was offered
and nothing in the original posts could have been taken by a reasonable
person to be anything like what you said we posted.

You lied, pure and simple, and owe us an apology.
You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your name
in it - and in any case, why not put it in a proper sig?

Another lie.

Brian

--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.

[Default User]

Jordan Abel wrote:

On 2005-10-28, Dave Vandervies <dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your
name in it -

Oh? What do you call this, then?

[snipped]

Sure looks like a .sig to me.

A "pseudo-sig" written to fit the particular post. It wasn't
attached to his other posts.

A real .sig, that I choose to manually delete when I don't think it
necessary. It's none of your business how often it's displayed, and a
pathetic attempt to deflect attention away from your outrageous
behavior.

You're wrong. You've lied. You are not worth listening to.

This *plonk* is for YOU.

Brian

--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.

[Dave Vandervies]

In article <sl*******************@random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

On 2005-10-28, Dave Vandervies <dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your name
in it -

Oh? What do you call this, then?

[snipped]

Sure looks like a .sig to me.

A "pseudo-sig" written to fit the particular post. It wasn't
attached to his other posts.

So signing off with his name is The Wrong Thing because it should be in
his .sig, because he doesn't normally have a .sig.
And this would somehow be different if he normally posted with a
nonempty .sig?

I'm obviously too thick to follow your reasoning; you'll have to spell
it out for me. Feel free to use small words.
dave
(and random content-related comments go here, not in the .sig)

--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Since we like to argue a lot on comp.lang.c figuring out who said what
and when is very important, so we can properly scoff at the right person.
--Daniel Fox in comp.lang.c

[Keith Thompson]

Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> writes:

On 2005-10-28, Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jordan Abel wrote:

"Your post is wrong and you are an asshole for posting it" is not
"instruction" by any stretch of the imagination

This is a lie. Neither I nor anyone else posted anything like this.

He took offense, and my point was that it was [apparently] the
reason for his reaction. Whether it was intended that was is
immaterial.

By putting the words

Your post is wrong and you are an asshole for posting it

in quotation marks, you implied that it was a quotation, i.e., that
someone else had written those exact words. I'm reasonably sure that
nobody did. Perhaps it wasn't your intent to imply that it was an
actual quotation.

I'm not aware of anything anyone said for which "Your post is wrong
and you are an asshole for posting it" would be an appropriate
paraphrase. Following the direct chain of parent articles, I see
nothing resembling the kind of insult you allege.

Jordan, I suggest you carefully re-read the thread, particularly the
direct chain of parent articles upthread from this one, and consider
whether you've misstated something.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-28, Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jordan Abel wrote:

On 2005-10-28, Dave Vandervies <dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> > You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your
> > name in it -
>
> Oh? What do you call this, then? [snipped]

> Sure looks like a .sig to me.

A "pseudo-sig" written to fit the particular post. It wasn't
attached to his other posts.

A real .sig, that I choose to manually delete when I don't think it
necessary. It's none of your business how often it's displayed, and a
pathetic attempt to deflect attention away from your outrageous
behavior.

You're wrong. You've lied. You are not worth listening to.

This *plonk* is for YOU.

Way to not give me a chance to answer your accusations. I saw at
least one message without it attached, and its content did happen to
be related to the present discussion [and didn't seem like the type
of thing someone would have for their general-use .sig], so i guess
i jumped to a conclusion. That is the ONLY thing i did. Calling me a
liar and *plonk*ing without offering me so much as a chance to
answer that accusation was uncalled for.

Reviewing the original thread, the original response to "Poldie" by
"Flash Gordon" was not as hostile as i [mis]remembered. However,
some of the responses immediately afterwards, both to him and to
myself, and the attitude prevailing as various people took up sides
[as exemplified by the hair trigger on your *plonk* button after
Peter Davies complained that this argument was off-topic] did reach
the level of hostility i was referring to.

You still haven't explained why your name, which is for all intents
and purposes part of your sig, is above the line.

Incidentally, i'd like to take this opportunity to reply to a post
that i missed the first time around.

Keith Thompson wrote: in quotation marks, you implied that it was a quotation, i.e.,
that someone else had written those exact words. I'm reasonably
sure that nobody did. Perhaps it wasn't your intent to imply that
it was an actual quotation.
The only mark which is reasonably widely-understood to signify an
exact quote on usenet is >, not ". [that's not quite true -
generally you can use any left-margin mark and it'll be understood
to mean that unless stated otherwise]. On a C language newsgroup of
all places it should be known that "" can mean something other than
a quote of something someone says.
I'm not aware of anything anyone said for which "Your post is
wrong and you are an asshole for posting it" would be an
appropriate paraphrase. Following the direct chain of parent
articles, I see nothing resembling the kind of insult you allege.
It's not a matter of what was said - it's the attitude behind it.
"Default User" was fairly quick to resort to [implied] profanity in
the ensuing argument, even if he didn't say it directly to the
original offender

Or are you going to tell me that

Default User wrote: Bull.

doesn't mean "bullshit"?

[Mark McIntyre]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:22:13 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

I can hit meta-p to fetch previous article,

provided its available on your news server. This is far from always
the case on my provider.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:22:04 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

On 2005-10-28, Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:

What about it? My .sig has that. I choose to make my name part of
the regular post, because my moniker is somewhat distinct from it.

You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your name
in it

Yes he does. Your newsreader must be broken if you're not seeing it.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:35:41 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

On 2005-10-28, Dave Vandervies <dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your name
in it -

Oh? What do you call this, then?

[snipped]

Sure looks like a .sig to me.

A "pseudo-sig" written to fit the particular post. It wasn't
attached to his other posts.

First you claim he has no sig at all. Then you complain that he
changed it.
Like many people here, Brian changes his .sig from time to time. Since
when was that a crime?
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mark McIntyre]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:33:31 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

There is something inherently trollish about shouting "plonk!" as if
anyone cares.
Jordan, you started off making some quite useful postings here.
However you're rapidly becoming persona non grata due to your
attitude. Perhaps you might want to reconsider the wisdom of attacking
the regulars and gurus in a group?
Also, if you want to get technical about usenet etiquette, how about
putting a proper dash before your sig? it's "-- \n".

He has one. Your newsreader is broken.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mark McIntyre]

On 28 Oct 2005 04:13:21 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "Poldie"
<Po****@gmail.com> wrote:

the conventions of Usenet, rather than just telling one person who'd
insulted me and posted a non-sequitor
where to get off.

You need to remember that usenet is not a point-to-point personal
messaging system. You post a rude message, it gets read by everyone.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Poldie]

Flash Gordon wrote:

You then snipped it back to:

|> Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
|> sees your post
|
|etc etc
|
|Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.

Which reads as you saying that you don't care about whether other people
know what you are respond to.
It's ambiguous as to how many people I don't care about - there isn't
enough information to determine this with any degree of accuracy.
If you object to the way I phased it or think I insulted you then you
should say that rather than saying that you don't care about whether
people can tell when you are replying to.

People respond to (what they perceive as) abuse directed towards them
in different ways. Clearly if I'd known that I would start a chain of
events that resulted in 58 (and counting) posts, many of which are far
more insulting than your or my post and resulted in several people
being killfiled I would have phrased it slightly differently - not even
the most deranged of trolls could have dreamed of such a result from 6
little words! (I'm still one of only four people who have actually
addressed the post which started this thread, which amuses me.)

I used to laugh at the `campaign for grumpiness where grumpiness is
due` sig-files but now it's being directed at me it's not so funny...!

It is not `campaign for grumpiness where grumpiness is due` it is an
attempt to educate people in how to make their posts legible.

Don't worry - perhaps you weren't reading this group back then.

Apologies to anyone I genuinely offended!

I'm not so easily offended.

Sweet. Sadly however it seems that several other people have become
offended on your behalf.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:17:33 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

On 2005-10-28, Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jordan Abel wrote:

A "pseudo-sig" written to fit the particular post. It wasn't
attached to his other posts.
A real .sig, that I choose to manually delete when I don't think it
necessary. ....
This *plonk* is for YOU.

Way to not give me a chance to answer your accusations.

You had your chances earlier on.
You still haven't explained why your name, which is for all intents
and purposes part of your sig, is above the line.
He has, but you're evidently unable to understand.

And by the way, there's no law that says your name has to be in your
sig. Many people don't do it that way.
The only mark which is reasonably widely-understood to signify an
exact quote on usenet is >, not ".
Thats absolutely incorrect - a quoted section of post might be marked
with chevrons, a quotation in a post would follow the normal
conventions.

I'm not aware of anything anyone said for which "Your post is
wrong and you are an asshole for posting it"

Here you actually *show* a counterexample to your remark above!
Astonishing !
Or are you going to tell me that

Default User wrote:

Bull.

doesn't mean "bullshit"?

And since when was bullshit profanity these days? Get with the
program!
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Default User]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:17:33 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

On 2005-10-28, Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jordan Abel wrote:

A "pseudo-sig" written to fit the particular post. It wasn't
attached to his other posts.

A real .sig, that I choose to manually delete when I don't think it
necessary. ...
This plonk is for YOU.

Way to not give me a chance to answer your accusations.

You had your chances earlier on.

That's exactly right, he had his chance to retract that outrageous
statement, instead he pretends that it doesn't mean what he said.

You still haven't explained why your name, which is for all intents
and purposes part of your sig, is above the line.

He has, but you're evidently unable to understand.

And by the way, there's no law that says your name has to be in your
sig. Many people don't do it that way.

It doesn't matter, as I said this is all a smoke screen to deflect away
from his own behavior.

Default User wrote:

Bull.

doesn't mean "bullshit"?

And since when was bullshit profanity these days? Get with the
program!

It's a sad day when using a euphemism to try and avoid unnecessarily
inflaming the discussion is considered a bad thing. Again, just another
way for Jordan to try and steer the discussion away from HIS actions.

Nothing I see in what you've quoted makes me regret my decision to
place him in the ol' bozo bin.

Brian

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

Nothing I see in what you've quoted makes me regret my decision to
place him in the ol' bozo bin.

On the other hand, please consider the following facts:

1) Jordan has already shown that he knows a fair bit about C, and is thus a
potentially valuable addition to the group;
2) He is very new to comp.lang.c, and it is not uncommon for newcomers to
the group to have one or two teething problems as they acclimatise to our
existing sub-culture;
3) We are rapidly approaching the season of goodwill (in some countries,
probably including yours).

For all these reasons, I suggest that you re-consider your decision. I
happen to think Jordan is in the wrong in this case, but I don't agree that
his "crime" is beyond redemption, and I suggest that an embarrassed "sorry"
on his part and a bit of slack-cutting on yours will go a long way towards
encouraging comp.lang.c to become a happier, bouncier, tiggerier group.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Default User]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

For all these reasons, I suggest that you re-consider your decision.
I happen to think Jordan is in the wrong in this case, but I don't
agree that his "crime" is beyond redemption, and I suggest that an
embarrassed "sorry" on his part and a bit of slack-cutting on yours
will go a long way towards encouraging comp.lang.c to become a
happier, bouncier, tiggerier group.

If he apologizes, then I'm sure someone will be happy to reply with
that quoted. Should that happen, I'd be more than willing to accept
that and move on.

We shall see.


Brian

[Skarmander]

Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>

[..] it is not uncommon for newcomers to the group to have one or two
teething problems as they acclimatise to our existing sub-culture;

Which is one of inhospitability and impatience, weakly justifying this
with its impeccable collective expertise, expressed as an almost
obsessive equation of ego with the ability to embody an objective authority.

Well, as I see it. It's also a good place for getting questions on C
answered. :-)

S.

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <sl*******************@random.yi.org> Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> writes:
....

Way to not give me a chance to answer your accusations. I saw at
least one message without it attached, and its content did happen to
be related to the present discussion [and didn't seem like the type
of thing someone would have for their general-use .sig], so i guess
i jumped to a conclusion. That is the ONLY thing i did. Calling me a
liar and *plonk*ing without offering me so much as a chance to
answer that accusation was uncalled for.
Then why did you put your comment: Repeat after me: hyphen hyphen space newline.

Normally I wouldn't bother, but you know what they say about casting
the first stone and all that.

in direct follow-up to an article that *did* have the sig? See:
<news:3s************@individual.net>, to which your respone was
directed. Or do I not understand you? As long as I have seen Default
User use this sig he in general uses it mainly in cases where he points
out to somebody that his quoting through googlegroups is inadequate.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Richard Heathfield]

Skarmander said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>

[..] it is not uncommon for newcomers to the group to have one or two
teething problems as they acclimatise to our existing sub-culture;

Which is one of inhospitability and impatience,

Not everyone here is inhospitable. Not everyone here is impatient. I agree,
however, that these characteristics are unnecessarily and regrettably
prevalent. On the other hand, it's never too late to change.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

For all these reasons, I suggest that you re-consider your decision.
I happen to think Jordan is in the wrong in this case, but I don't
agree that his "crime" is beyond redemption, and I suggest that an
embarrassed "sorry" on his part and a bit of slack-cutting on yours
will go a long way towards encouraging comp.lang.c to become a
happier, bouncier, tiggerier group.

If he apologizes, then I'm sure someone will be happy to reply with
that quoted. Should that happen, I'd be more than willing to accept
that and move on.

I was hoping you'd be a little less hard-hearted than that and be the first
to hold out an olive branch. Ah well - I guess it's a bit early for
Christmas.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-28, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:33:31 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

There is something inherently trollish about shouting "plonk!" as if
anyone cares.

Jordan, you started off making some quite useful postings here.
However you're rapidly becoming persona non grata due to your
attitude. Perhaps you might want to reconsider the wisdom of attacking
the regulars and gurus in a group?

Public notice of a "*plonk*ing" is at best entirely unnecessary and
at worse an attempt to hurt the 'victim' more through groupthink.

Also, if you want to get technical about usenet etiquette, how about
putting a proper dash before your sig? it's "-- \n".

He has one. Your newsreader is broken.

It's in the middle of his sig, rather than preceding it, and the
section below it is [by his admission] sometimes not present.

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-28, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

First you claim he has no sig at all. Then you complain that he
changed it.
Like many people here, Brian changes his .sig from time to time.
Since when was that a crime?

I've explained the [spurious] reasoning behind my mistake and
apologized. I still don't appreciate being called a liar and plonked
when it was an honest mistake.

I wouldn't have brought it up in the first place if not for the fact
that the thread was already about what I perceived to be a nitpicky
detail of usenet etiquette.

Also, my statement "It's more annoying to read about people
complaining about it", while I did not mean it in that sense, seems
almost prescient in the face of the fact that that one complaint
ballooned into a flamewar of many dozens of posts which has shoved
aside the original question and IIRC infringed on at least one other
thread besides the original.

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-28, Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:

For all these reasons, I suggest that you re-consider your
decision. I happen to think Jordan is in the wrong in this case,
but I don't agree that his "crime" is beyond redemption, and I
suggest that an embarrassed "sorry" on his part

One more time, in light of the fact that others may not perceive my
previous attempts as being sincere [To be completely honest, if i
were in a bad mood i wouldn't]:

I screwed up and i'm sorry.

[Netocrat]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:26:00 +0000, Default User wrote:

If he apologizes, then I'm sure someone will be happy to reply with
that quoted. Should that happen, I'd be more than willing to accept
that and move on.
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 09:21:39 +0000, with Message-ID
<sl*******************@random.yi.org>, Jordan Abel wrote:
I screwed up and i'm sorry.

--
http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat

[Richard Heathfield]

Jordan Abel said:

On 2005-10-28, Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:

For all these reasons, I suggest that you re-consider your
decision. I happen to think Jordan is in the wrong in this case,
but I don't agree that his "crime" is beyond redemption, and I
suggest that an embarrassed "sorry" on his part

One more time, in light of the fact that others may not perceive my
previous attempts as being sincere [To be completely honest, if i
were in a bad mood i wouldn't]:

I screwed up and i'm sorry.

Brian - that seems pretty unequivocal to me. How about some grace here?

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Joe Estock]

Jordan Abel wrote:

On 2005-10-27, Martin Ambuhl <ma*****@earthlink.net> wrote:

Poldie wrote:

Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who sees
your post

etc etc

Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.

Guess what - you have just shown your disdain for the other
readers of this newsgroup. Good luck with any questions you might
have in the future. The people who know the answers but whom you
have told to fuck off will not be reading your posts.

What are you on about? He didn't tell _you_ to "fuck off" - and,
yes, it's annoying, but it's not like his post didn't have a
References header. It's more annoying to read half a dozen posts
complaining about it than to hit alt-p and fetch the original post
in the first place. He might also have been more inclined to listen
to a friendly "Here's how to get google to let you quote context -
you know, for future reference" then what was basically "go to hell,
you're an asshole for not quoting and oh you wanna know how? search
the goddamn web yourself - and by the way the ideas in your post
also suck". If anyone was told "fuck off" by anyone first, it was
him.

Perhaps, however it is not our fault that he is obviously a mornon who
knows nothing about usenet etiquette. Alt-p is a great idea, I wonder
why none of us thought of that before - oh wait, some clients DO NOT
SUPPORT THAT furthermore, even in the clients that do support it some
usenet providers do not keep messages for that long. In fact, some only
keep the last 2 or 3 messages in a thread. Big surprise, eh?

This is not the newsgroup to grow some balls in so do us all a favor and
learn the proper netiquette around here.

-Joe

[Mike Wahler]

"Jordan Abel" <jm****@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:sl*******************@random.yi.org...

On 2005-10-28, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:33:31 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

There is something inherently trollish about shouting "plonk!" as if
anyone cares.
Jordan, you started off making some quite useful postings here.
However you're rapidly becoming persona non grata due to your
attitude. Perhaps you might want to reconsider the wisdom of attacking
the regulars and gurus in a group?

Public notice of a "*plonk*ing" is at best entirely unnecessary and
at worse an attempt to hurt the 'victim' more through groupthink.

Also, if you want to get technical about usenet etiquette, how about
putting a proper dash before your sig? it's "-- \n".

He has one. Your newsreader is broken.

It's in the middle of his sig,

Any text preceding the "-- \n" delimiter is *not*
part of a sig, so no, it's *not* "in the middle"
of his sig. *He* gets to decide what goes in his
sig, not you.
rather than preceding it, and the
section below it is [by his admission] sometimes not present.

It's also *his* decision, not yours, whether to always
use the same sig, or use one at all.

Get a clue.

-Mike

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-29, Mike Wahler <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote:

Any text preceding the "-- \n" delimiter is *not* part of a sig,
so no, it's *not* "in the middle" of his sig. *He* gets to decide
what goes in his sig, not you.
You know what? I've dropped it. I don't care. I never really cared,
and I explained at the time my reason why, *despite* not caring, I
pointed it out.

However, your claim is basically defining the issue out of
existence, along with ALL instances of people failing to include the
sig-dash - why have the rule - or indeed any rules, at all, if we're
going to define all rulebreaking cases out of existence? One could
just as well say that posts that don't quote text aren't really in
reply, and therefore aren't required to quote text.
-Mike

That is a sig.
--
And this is not. Though I admit it was indeed a mistake, my mistake
about the second half of his sig was a matter of the facts, not of
the principle.

[Mike Wahler]

"Jordan Abel" <jm****@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:sl*******************@random.yi.org...

On 2005-10-29, Mike Wahler <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote:

Any text preceding the "-- \n" delimiter is *not* part of a sig,
so no, it's *not* "in the middle" of his sig. *He* gets to decide
what goes in his sig, not you.
You know what? I've dropped it. I don't care. I never really cared,
and I explained at the time my reason why, *despite* not caring, I
pointed it out.

However, your claim is basically defining the issue out of
existence, along with ALL instances of people failing to include the
sig-dash - why have the rule - or indeed any rules, at all, if we're
going to define all rulebreaking cases out of existence? One could
just as well say that posts that don't quote text aren't really in
reply, and therefore aren't required to quote text.

-Mike

That is a sig.

Not it is not, using the Usenet definition of 'sig'. But
feel free to perpetuate your ignorance.

The text below (beginning with "-- ") does comprise a 'sig', regardless of
the
content or meaning of that text.

-Mike
--
And this is not. Though I admit it was indeed a mistake, my mistake
about the second half of his sig was a matter of the facts, not of
the principle.

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-29, Mike Wahler <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote:

"Jordan Abel" <jm****@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:sl*******************@random.yi.org...

On 2005-10-29, Mike Wahler <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote:

Any text preceding the "-- \n" delimiter is *not* part of a sig,
so no, it's *not* "in the middle" of his sig. *He* gets to decide
what goes in his sig, not you.
You know what? I've dropped it. I don't care. I never really cared,
and I explained at the time my reason why, *despite* not caring, I
pointed it out.

However, your claim is basically defining the issue out of
existence, along with ALL instances of people failing to include the
sig-dash - why have the rule - or indeed any rules, at all, if we're
going to define all rulebreaking cases out of existence? One could
just as well say that posts that don't quote text aren't really in
reply, and therefore aren't required to quote text.

-Mike

That is a sig.

Not it is not, using the Usenet definition of 'sig'. But
feel free to perpetuate your ignorance.

I would like to see a cite for your "Usenet definition" - Yours is
the extraordinary claim since it invalidates an entire section of
commonly-observed etiquette rules, but I'll cite evidence for my
case anyway:

http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/sig-block.html does not mention
the dash

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block lists the dash as a
requirement, not a prerequisite. [i.e. (paraphrase) "Sig blocks must
be delimited from the message with the dash" NOT "a sig block is any
text preceded by the dash"]

It is arguable that if either yours or his are not automatically
inserted they do not fit the letter of the definition, but let's
keep in mind the _spirit_ i.e. the actual reason for requiring the
dash - it's so that content which is not part of the message and not
generally considered to be something someone would reply to will be
automatically removed from the quoted text when hitting reply.

I'm also unconvinced by his rationale for having his name above the
sig line.
The text below (beginning with "-- ") does comprise a 'sig', regardless of
the content or meaning of that text.

--
You have not provided evidence for that other assertion, either.

[Keith Thompson]

Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> writes:

On 2005-10-29, Mike Wahler <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote:

Any text preceding the "-- \n" delimiter is *not* part of a sig,
so no, it's *not* "in the middle" of his sig. *He* gets to decide
what goes in his sig, not you.

You know what? I've dropped it. I don't care. I never really cared,
and I explained at the time my reason why, *despite* not caring, I
pointed it out.

[...]

No, you haven't dropped it, but I encourage you to do so.

"I've dropped it" followed by more discussion is not dropping it.

"I've dropped it." not followed by anything is dropping it.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 09:03:36 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

On 2005-10-28, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:33:31 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

There is something inherently trollish about shouting "plonk!" as if
anyone cares.

Jordan, you started off making some quite useful postings here.
However you're rapidly becoming persona non grata due to your
attitude. Perhaps you might want to reconsider the wisdom of attacking
the regulars and gurus in a group?

Public notice of a "*plonk*ing" is at best entirely unnecessary and
at worse an attempt to hurt the 'victim' more through groupthink.

You're quite wrong. Ask yourself how else the plonkee would know
they'd been plonked. Which surely they ought to be made aware of?

He has one. Your newsreader is broken.

It's in the middle of his sig, rather than preceding it, and the
section below it is [by his admission] sometimes not present.

By definition, his sig is the bit below the "-- ". The fact that he
chooses to ALSO put his human readable name at teh foot of each
message is irrelevant.

Many people's sigs don't contain their actual name but for them its
less relevant as they've chosen to make their moniker visible through
their posting ID.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:33:14 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block
That font of unproofread, opinionated pseudo-knowledge...
lists the dash as a
requirement, not a prerequisite.
When you can explain the difference between a requirement and a
prerequisite in this context, I'll understand your point.
[i.e. (paraphrase) "Sig blocks must
be delimited from the message with the dash" NOT "a sig block is any
text preceded by the dash"]
Hm? By definition ,if a sig block must be delimited by the dash, then
any text /after/ the dash must be a sig block.

I'm also unconvinced by his rationale for having his name above the
sig line.

Since when was it your choice where he chooses to type his name?
Arrogant idiot.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 09:18:37 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

On 2005-10-28, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

First you claim he has no sig at all. Then you complain that he
changed it.
Like many people here, Brian changes his .sig from time to time.
Since when was that a crime?
I've explained the [spurious] reasoning behind my mistake and
apologized. I still don't appreciate being called a liar

When you make false statements, or redistribute the actuality or
whatever one wants to call it, expect pedants to notice.
and plonked
when it was an honest mistake.

I suspect that this is because you apologised exceptionally late in
the thread, after much bluster. If, much earlier on, you'd said
"whoops, my mistake", this would have been done days ago without
killfiling.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-29, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:

Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> writes:

On 2005-10-29, Mike Wahler <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote:

Any text preceding the "-- \n" delimiter is *not* part of a sig,
so no, it's *not* "in the middle" of his sig. *He* gets to decide
what goes in his sig, not you.

You know what? I've dropped it. I don't care. I never really cared,
and I explained at the time my reason why, *despite* not caring, I
pointed it out.

[...]

No, you haven't dropped it, but I encourage you to do so.

"I've dropped it" followed by more discussion is not dropping it.

"I've dropped it." not followed by anything is dropping it.

I dropped it and he brought it back up.

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-29, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

Hm? By definition ,if a sig block must be delimited by the dash,
then any text /after/ the dash must be a sig block.

And thus any text after the dash which is not a sig block is in
violation of the standard.

--
Like this text. See?

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-29, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:33:31 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:
There is something inherently trollish about shouting "plonk!"
as if anyone cares.
Public notice of a "*plonk*ing" is at best entirely unnecessary
and at worse an attempt to hurt the 'victim' more through
groupthink.

You're quite wrong. Ask yourself how else the plonkee would know
they'd been plonked. Which surely they ought to be made aware of?

Surely there are more polite ways than a public "*plonk*"

How about "You have irritated me and thus are added to my
newsreader's ignore list for thirty (30) days, ending 28 November
2005"? ...via email. because it's really nobody else's business.
By definition, his sig is the bit below the "-- ". The fact that
he chooses to ALSO put his human readable name at teh foot of each
message is irrelevant.

Many people's sigs don't contain their actual name but for them
its less relevant as they've chosen to make their moniker visible
through their posting ID.

Except that the requirement that a sig be preceded by "-- " is
meaningless if nothing can be considered a "sig" for purposes of
that rule without already being preceded by it, nor to be considered
not to be a sig if...--

You know what? Screw it. I give up. I will no longer attempt to
convince people not to use spurious circular reasoning to define
etiquette rules out of existence. Happy?

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:41:34 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

On 2005-10-29, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

Hm? By definition ,if a sig block must be delimited by the dash,
then any text /after/ the dash must be a sig block.
And thus any text after the dash which is not a sig block is in
violation of the standard.

You have this about-face. /ANY/ text appearing after "-- " is a sig
block.

What you put in it is entirely up to you - many people use it for
humorous quotes, or pointers to useful info. A sig block need not be
merely ones signature. Mine isn't.
--
Like this text. See?

This is a sig block .

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:50:03 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

Surely there are more polite ways than a public "*plonk*"
None that work.
How about "You have irritated me and thus are added to my
newsreader's ignore list for thirty (30) days, ending 28 November
2005"? ...via email.
And when their email is set to "pr*******@whitehouse.gov" or
"no****@nowhere.com"? Or not set at all? Or they junk all mail from
unknown senders?
because it's really nobody else's business.

On the contrary.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Netocrat]

Jordan Abel : Any content following '-- ' is required to be a signature.
Mark McIntyre: Any content following '-- ' is defined to be a signature.

The egg has wings.
Implicit meaning and convention collide in ambiguity.

--
http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:35:43 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Netocrat
<ne******@dodo.com.au> wrote:

Jordan Abel : Any content following '-- ' is required to be a signature.
Mark McIntyre: Any content following '-- ' is defined to be a signature.

The egg has wings.
Implicit meaning and convention collide in ambiguity.

:-)
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-30, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:35:43 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Netocrat
<ne******@dodo.com.au> wrote:

Jordan Abel : Any content following '-- ' is required to be a signature.
Mark McIntyre: Any content following '-- ' is defined to be a signature. Also, "Any signature must be preceded by '-- '" vs "Any text not
preceded by '-- ' is not a signature"
The egg has wings.
Implicit meaning and convention collide in ambiguity.

:-)

I've already conceded that it's not worth fighting over and never
really was in the first place. Sorry for dragging it out so long

--
I still think you're wrong, though.

[Default User]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Jordan Abel said:

I screwed up and i'm sorry.

Brian - that seems pretty unequivocal to me. How about some grace here?

That's fine. I'll undo things next week and reply more directly to
Jordan then.

Brian