This is the end

[tmp123]

I hope any of my post helps someone, specially to people who is
learning C.

Thanks to people who has teach me things I didn't know before.

And to all... all... and all others, too much posts about nothing, too
much calls to "skin" and "group habits". Something not seen in other
usenet groups. Too much for my taste.

I must end posting on this group.

Bye.

[tmp123]

I hope any of my post helps someone, specially to people who is
learning C.

Thanks to people who has teach me things I didn't know before.

And to all... all... and all others, too much posts about nothing, too
much calls to "skin" and "group habits". Something not seen in other
usenet groups. Too much for my taste.

Sorry if any of my comments has been offensive for someone.

I must end posting on this group.

Bye.

[slebetman]

tmp123 wrote:

I hope any of my post helps someone, specially to people who is
learning C.

Thanks to people who has teach me things I didn't know before.

And to all... all... and all others, too much posts about nothing, too
much calls to "skin" and "group habits". Something not seen in other
usenet groups. Too much for my taste.

Sorry if any of my comments has been offensive for someone.

I must end posting on this group.

Too bad. We've all been burned here before (and in my case still get
burned sometimes). In my opinion, this is the best place to learn about
the subtleties of C.

I've been programming C code professionally for 5 years and was amazed
at how wrong some of my understanding of C was when I first read this
newsgroup. There are things that they don't teach you in your software
engineering class at university. And there are things that they DO
teach you at university that are just plain wrong.

There's something here for all to learn. Just have humility and don't
act like a troll. The resident experts have little patience for
arrogant trolls who inisit on invoking UB.

[Eric Sosman]

sl*******@yahoo.com wrote On 01/02/06 21:40,:

There's something here for all to learn. Just have humility and don't
act like a troll. The resident experts have little patience for
arrogant trolls who inisit on invoking UB.

One of C's strengths is that it's fairly easy to get
access to implementation-specific features. Initialize a
pointer with a magic integer, and you can muck with memory-
mapped hardware registers. Invoke system-specific operations
like fork() by making what seem to be perfectly ordinary
function calls. Use fdopen() to connect FILE* streams to
sockets. And so on, and so on. If C were unable to do
such things, it would never have become such an important
programming language.

A drawback of all this is that people easily lose sight
of what things are "C" and what are "C with extras." You
use the extras (because they help with what you're trying
to do), and you forget -- if you ever knew -- that they
aren't part of C. And when you can't get curses to change
font colors or you can't get a named pipe to buffer the
way you want, you take your difficulty to a C forum. After
all, these things are all declared in perfectly normal C
headers like <unistd.h> and <graphics.h>, so why should
they be any different from the things in <stdlib.h>?

And then there's another matter. We make much of the
facts that two's complement representation is not universal,
that time_t need not be a count of seconds, that auto
variables need not be allocated on a stack, and so on. But
you can write C for years and years and years and never run
into an implementation where any of these facts are apparent.
Data point: I last saw a ones' complement machine in the
mid-1970's, and haven't seen a signed-magnitude machine since
1968 (it was decimal, by the way). Data point: Every time_t
I have ever seen was a count of seconds, even if the system
actually kept time differently "under the hood." Data point:
Every C implementation I've ever seen used a stack for auto
variables (those that didn't disappear into registers). If
a person sees hundreds and hundreds of crows and all of them
are black, he can be forgiven for jumping to the conclusion
that all crows are black even if crow DNA doesn't guarantee it.

The point of all this is that ignorance is forgiveable
and should be forgiven. Newbies are not to be scorned, but to
be helped; nobody is born an expert. It can be exasperating
to correct `void main' for the skillionth time, but it is wrong
to blame a first-time offender for following the examples he
sees all about him, never knowing that they're bad examples.

Let us reserve our flamage for those who truly deserve it:
the apostates who have been told that fflush(stdin) is wrong
but who inisit [sic] on doing it anyhow, who protest that what
is true of their own machine must be true of all, and who keep
trying to pass off C-with-extras as C. Those who will not
learn are not in the same class as those who have not learned.

(I apologize for using the word "class" in c.l.c. Please
don't flame me for it.)

--
Er*********@sun.com

[Richard Heathfield]

Eric Sosman said:

(I apologize for using the word "class" in c.l.c. Please
don't flame me for it.)

Why /shouldn't/ you use it? It's not as if it's reserved or anything.

--
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)

[rayw]

"Eric Sosman" <er*********@sun.com> wrote in message
news:dp**********@news1brm.Central.Sun.COM...
<snip>

The point of all this is that ignorance is forgiveable
and should be forgiven. Newbies are not to be scorned, but to
be helped

<snip>

Laudable *or* Laughable?

I totally agree with your comments - and I think they were very well put,
and I certainly appreciate them.

BUT ...

Maybe it's that the coffee shop sold out of double-extra/caf mochas today,
or that someone's finally had enough of saying 'you shouldn't cast
malloc()'. Or - maybe the night before just wasn't a good time of the month
for someone? But, it seems to me that too often someone rolls out of bed on
the wrong side here!

Since I've been taking part in c.l.c (and 'contributing' positively, I hope
(but seldom, I admit - as I mostly 'listen')), I've noticed that often
(IMHO) scorn and offensive comments *win* over respectful ones ... not in
*number* - far from it - but often in 'holier than thou' attitudes, and in
'the oi, you numbnuts!, where's the context!' etc that I think are
unwelcomely submitted here. For instance - is it deliberate that when
someone makes a OP point - that's perfectly valid - that someone else then
comes along and basically (deliberately?) reads something else into the
reply, and pisses on the perfectly reasonable answer someone just gave!?

I've also noticed that this group gets its fair share of 'you assholes'
comments (slightly paraphrased!) and I am just a little bit upset at that
(as there's plenty of great advice here from knowledgeable people), esp. as
it's often due, I think, to an overly anal, and retrograde attitude amongst
some members. For example - I've never understood the 'thou shalt not top
post' thing - is it a fashion, habit, a religion - or what? Ok, so,
***include context***, but what's wrong in top posting - it's the 21st
century for goodness sakes? I for one am often well aware of what's been
(already) said, and I'm personally 'pissed' that I often have to scroll over
stuff I've already seen numerous times in order to see a reply - often
doubly pissing-me-off' if it's ultimately a one liner! Surely, if everyone
top-posted, it would be 'optimal' ---- it'd save an awful lot of scrolling
and show things in a naturally temporal order?

As far as I can see/tell, this group is in some ways a 'mine is bigger than
yours' pissing-post, and I note with interest that ppl don't seem to be able
to lighten up much either - or have any 'sense of community' or can't post
in any other way than capriciously, e.g., note the O/T lack of Reponses to
any Happy Christmas/Holidays/New Year here.

It's a shame!

Ok, flame away, abuse, and *not* consider the collective attitude - let's
see how far you might cogitate now?

For those that can't resist posting without due reflection (reading the
entire post) - it's a shame.

Let's be 'nice' to people - or else, just NOT post!

[Emmanuel Delahaye]

sl*******@yahoo.com a écrit :

Too bad. We've all been burned here before (and in my case still get
burned sometimes). In my opinion, this is the best place to learn about
the subtleties of C.

I've been programming C code professionally for 5 years and was amazed
at how wrong some of my understanding of C was when I first read this
newsgroup. There are things that they don't teach you in your software
engineering class at university. And there are things that they DO
teach you at university that are just plain wrong.

There's something here for all to learn. Just have humility and don't
act like a troll. The resident experts have little patience for
arrogant trolls who inisit on invoking UB.

This is a nice testimony. I like it. Actually, I lived about the same
experience.

--
A+

Emmanuel Delahaye

[Richard Heathfield]

rayw said:

<big old snip>

For example - I've never understood the 'thou shalt not top
post' thing - is it a fashion, habit, a religion - or what?
For the record, up to this point in your article I've been more or less
nodding in agreement. Okay, so here we go, on top-posting...
Ok, so,
***include context***, but what's wrong in top posting - it's the 21st
century for goodness sakes?
..dnuor yaw gnorw eht sgniht gnittup htiw gnorw gnihton yletulosba s'erehT

..tnetnoc hcus daer ot yrassecen naht redrah eb nac ti tuB

lanoitanretnI ti sI .ecnereffid yna sekam yrutnec eht woh erus ton ma I
?etaretillI eht fo yrutneC
I for one am often well aware of what's been
(already) said, and I'm personally 'pissed' that I often have to scroll
over stuff I've already seen numerous times in order to see a reply -
We don't just advocate context-based posting, for comprehension. We also
advocate proper trimming of material not relevant to the reply, for
brevity.
often
doubly pissing-me-off' if it's ultimately a one liner! Surely, if
everyone top-posted, it would be 'optimal' ---- it'd save an awful lot of
scrolling and show things in a naturally temporal order?
It would show everything *upside-down*, and it would show *everything*
upside-down, because nobody would bother to snip irrelevant stuff any more.

<snip>
e.g., note the O/T lack of
Reponses to any Happy Christmas/Holidays/New Year here.
A lot of comp.lang.c people are traditionalists. For a very long time, the
*only* date of celebration recognised all over Usenet was 1st April. In
comp.lang.c that is still more or less the case.

<snip>
Let's be 'nice' to people - or else, just NOT post!

You would get on well with Stefan Wilms.

--
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)

[Keith Thompson]

"rayw" <ra**********@gmail.com> writes:
[...]

For example - I've never understood the 'thou shalt not top
post' thing - is it a fashion, habit, a religion - or what? Ok, so,
***include context***, but what's wrong in top posting - it's the 21st
century for goodness sakes? I for one am often well aware of what's been
(already) said, and I'm personally 'pissed' that I often have to scroll over
stuff I've already seen numerous times in order to see a reply - often
doubly pissing-me-off' if it's ultimately a one liner! Surely, if everyone
top-posted, it would be 'optimal' ---- it'd save an awful lot of scrolling
and show things in a naturally temporal order?

[...]

Bottom-posting without trimming quoted material isn't much better than
top-posting. The correct way to post a followup is to quote *only*
what's relevant to your followup, followed by any new text (as I've
done here). This allows each article to be read naturally from top to
bottom.

You're suggesting that all the extraneous quoted material that nobody
wants to re-read should be relegated to the bottom of the article,
where it's easier to ignore. If you expect it to be ignored, do your
readers a favor and just don't post it (i.e., trim what's irrelevant).
By choosing which parts of the parent article are relevant, you're
exercising some editorial control and, again, making your own article
much easier to read. Since most of us spend more time reading
articles than writing them, any extra time you spend making things
just a little easier for your readers is a net gain.

It's what we've been doing here for many years, and it works very
well.

--
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.

[Walter Roberson]

In article <Op*******************@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk >,
rayw <ra**********@gmail.com> wrote:

For example - I've never understood the 'thou shalt not top
post' thing - is it a fashion, habit, a religion - or what? Ok, so,
***include context***, but what's wrong in top posting - it's the 21st
century for goodness sakes? I for one am often well aware of what's been
(already) said, and I'm personally 'pissed' that I often have to scroll over
stuff I've already seen numerous times in order to see a reply - often
doubly pissing-me-off' if it's ultimately a one liner! Surely, if everyone
top-posted, it would be 'optimal' ---- it'd save an awful lot of scrolling
and show things in a naturally temporal order?

Perhaps my memory is not as good as yours, but I *don't* remember
the detailed context or exact wording of many threads; I need
the properly trimmed and interspersed quoting to refocus my attention.

Yes, the exact wording is important, not just the "gist" of the words.
In technical discussions, small differences in wordings can indicate
completely different conceptions of what is really happening. In
non-technical discussions, small differences in wording are important
if one is to avoid "putting words in someone else's mouth".

If you find that you are able to remember the details to your satisfaction,
then I would inquire about the volume of messages you read, and how
closely you follow them. Typically, I'm following several hundred -new-
threads simultaneously on any one day. The average thread that I follow
has an active lifespan of -about- four days -- but there are some
discussions that I follow that involve literally -months- of heavy posting
(e.g., more than 7500 concentrated postings in news.groups in less than
4 months.)

I would speculate that you probably do not read more than a small
fraction of the number of messages that some of us do.
--
All is vanity. -- Ecclesiastes

[Randy Howard]

rayw wrote
(in article <Op*******************@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>) :

Maybe it's that the coffee shop sold out of double-extra/caf mochas today,
or that someone's finally had enough of saying 'you shouldn't cast
malloc()'. Or - maybe the night before just wasn't a good time of the month
for someone? But, it seems to me that too often someone rolls out of bed on
the wrong side here!

If you have thin skin and can't stand controversy, Usenet is not
for you. If on the other hand, you can take things "with a
grain of salt", then it can be a useful medium, at least in the
very few remaining newsgroups which manage to stay on-topic.

Admittedly people exhibit short tempers here, just as they do
elsewhere. However, I think a lot of the frustration is against
those that use it as a free version of "rentacoder" wherein you
ask for help in violating your school's rules about cheating on
assignments, ignore requests to at least abide by the basics of
Usenet posting etiquette, etc.

Remember that a large number of the regulars here were around
back when Usenet was used by and large only by more technical
professional people and by students that were serious about
learning, not just trying to graduate by hook or by crook.
Missing that environment probably adds to the exasperation.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

[Chuck F.]

Emmanuel Delahaye wrote:

sl*******@yahoo.com a écrit :

Too bad. We've all been burned here before (and in my case
still get burned sometimes). In my opinion, this is the best
place to learn about the subtleties of C.

I've been programming C code professionally for 5 years and
was amazed at how wrong some of my understanding of C was when
I first read this newsgroup. There are things that they don't
teach you in your software engineering class at university.
And there are things that they DO teach you at university that
are just plain wrong.

There's something here for all to learn. Just have humility
and don't act like a troll. The resident experts have little
patience for arrogant trolls who inisit on invoking UB.

This is a nice testimony. I like it. Actually, I lived about the
same experience.

I think that applies to virtually everyone who has been around here
for more than a few months.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>

[slebetman]

Eric Sosman wrote:

sl*******@yahoo.com wrote On 01/02/06 21:40,:

There's something here for all to learn. Just have humility and don't
act like a troll. The resident experts have little patience for
arrogant trolls who inisit on invoking UB. And then there's another matter. We make much of the
facts that two's complement representation is not universal,
that time_t need not be a count of seconds, that auto
variables need not be allocated on a stack, and so on. But
you can write C for years and years and years and never run
into an implementation where any of these facts are apparent.
Data point: I last saw a ones' complement machine in the
mid-1970's, and haven't seen a signed-magnitude machine since
1968 (it was decimal, by the way). Data point: Every time_t
I have ever seen was a count of seconds, even if the system
actually kept time differently "under the hood." Data point:
Every C implementation I've ever seen used a stack for auto
variables (those that didn't disappear into registers). If
a person sees hundreds and hundreds of crows and all of them
are black, he can be forgiven for jumping to the conclusion
that all crows are black even if crow DNA doesn't guarantee it.

I'd like to add another datapoint here:

1. C on PowerPC doesn't necessarily use a stack to pass parameters to
functions. In fact, IBM recommends that as far as possible parameters
should be passed via registers. This probably have something to do with
the fact that stack manipulation is cumbersome on the PPC and the CPU
itself have tons of programmer accessible registers. IBM's compiler
does this. Apple's implementation of gcc (Xcode) does this. I'm not
sure about official gcc.
The point of all this is that ignorance is forgiveable
and should be forgiven. Newbies are not to be scorned, but to
be helped; nobody is born an expert. It can be exasperating
to correct `void main' for the skillionth time, but it is wrong
to blame a first-time offender for following the examples he
sees all about him, never knowing that they're bad examples.

If forgiven is the same as not telling him he's wrong then I disagree.
If forgiven is to tell him gently then it's up to the person telling
him.
Let us reserve our flamage for those who truly deserve it:
the apostates who have been told that fflush(stdin) is wrong
but who inisit [sic] on doing it anyhow, who protest that what
is true of their own machine must be true of all, and who keep
trying to pass off C-with-extras as C. Those who will not
learn are not in the same class as those who have not learned.

I agree. Those who refuse to learn after repeated advice deserve to be
flamed.

[clayne]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

.dnuor yaw gnorw eht sgniht gnittup htiw gnorw gnihton yletulosba s'erehT

.tnetnoc hcus daer ot yrassecen naht redrah eb nac ti tuB

lanoitanretnI ti sI .ecnereffid yna sekam yrutnec eht woh erus ton ma I
?etaretillI eht fo yrutneC
Yea, now c'mon. This isn't even a reasonable comparison. Look, whether
someone replies on top or on bottom, it's the SAME thing. Scope is what
matters. The real issue here is that we have a good amount of just
plain inflexible people who cannot think outside of the box for just 5
minutes to realize the following:

"When I read a reply to someone... Let me first read the part with the
quote-symbol delimited content first (">"), and then read the unquoted
new content section."

If you haven't formed this into a motor function by now, I don't know
what to tell you. Honestly, I think the real beef is that people just
don't want the new content showing up to their eyes before the
context.. some kind of perverse control thing... ("no, let ME determine
the order in which I read new things!" type of deal). Learn a new
adaptive method, learn a new coping mechanism instead of pumping the NG
full of replies telling people who to reply/quote when the issue is
insignificant (granted, I don't see you as a significant contributor to
this, I see Keith Thompson as the main curator).
It would show everything *upside-down*, and it would show *everything*
upside-down, because nobody would bother to snip irrelevant stuff any more.
I regularly clip the long history of people's email at work when some
Outlook user decides to quote the entire message, followed by everyone
else doing it. It makes no difference on the actual content I'm
quoting, however. Once again though, we're back to that Asperger's
Syndrome-like fear that the whole world will jump off a top-posting
bridge the second it's not chastised at every corner.
A lot of comp.lang.c people are traditionalists. For a very long time, the
*only* date of celebration recognised all over Usenet was 1st April. In
comp.lang.c that is still more or less the case.
s/traditionalists/androids/g
You would get on well with Stefan Wilms.

--
Richard Heathfield

But probably not with Dick Heathfield, right?

[clayne]

rayw wrote:

Maybe it's that the coffee shop sold out of double-extra/caf mochas today,
or that someone's finally had enough of saying 'you shouldn't cast
malloc()'. Or - maybe the night before just wasn't a good time of the month
for someone? But, it seems to me that too often someone rolls out of bed on
the wrong side here!

A perfect example of this:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....5e929edd864a6a

Almost every single person who replied to the guy was basically a jerk
to him. Even after he was being fairly understanding and recognizing. I
find it funny that people will spend more time authorizing dick replies
than just NOT replying at all to someone who is definitely posting in
the wrong NG.

[Richard Heathfield]

clayne said:

Sure it is. [Actually clayne didn't say that, but bear with me here. You'll
soon work it out, I think.] Are you not flexible enough to cope with text
that is the other way around to the way you usually see it? Don't you think
you have a duty to put up with it because I happen to like doing it that
way? Or would it make more sense for me to make my text easier to read if I
wish to communicate effectively with people rather than jar them off all
the time?

Yea, now c'mon. This isn't even a reasonable comparison.
No, it's not the same at all. One reply is in the right place, the place
that makes it easy to follow the discussion - and the other one isn't.
Look, whether
someone replies on top or on bottom, it's the SAME thing.
Scope isn't all that important if you reduce the amount of quoted text to
the minimum necessary to remind people of the context of the discussion. By
reducing the amount of scope people have to deal with, you'll reduce it to
the point where it's hardly relevant. But when you start putting things the
wrong way up, that doesn't make things easier for people; it makes them
harder.

In fact, if you have a particularly long paragraph or series of paragraphs,
it may well be that, by the time you get to the end of it, the stuff you as
a top-poster left in might seem very strange indeed, since if it bears any
relevance at all to your reply, that relevance - that connection - is much
more likely to be associated with the beginning of your paragraph rather
than the end.

As an example of this, please observe the following statement (to which this
set of paragraphs is a reply), and note how your mind is jarred back to the
beginning of this set of paragraphs, rather than having the reply flowing
smoothly /from/ the prompting text.
Scope is what matters.
Well, no, it isn't a question of thinking outside of the box; the real issue
here is that we have one person who thinks he knows best and a whole bunch
of people who have years of experience of helping people to learn better C,
and the whole bunch of people have for many years settled on a style which
they think works efficiently, allowing them to answer a large number of
questions with considerable speed.

Anything which *slows them down* is going to reduce the usefulness of
comp.lang.c - and we don't want that. (Please remember that we don't get
paid for this. We want to help people. Lots of people. But we can't spend
all day doing it.)

Top-posting certainly slows /me/ down, which is why I don't like it, and I
don't suppose other regular contributors here are much different to me in
their reasoning. And one last thing about your statement: did you not, in
your upside-down world, mean to write "the preceding" rather than "the
following"?
The real issue here is that we have a good amount of just
plain inflexible people who cannot think outside of the box for just 5
minutes to realize the following:
Yes, whoever wrote that is right; it does indeed make a lot more sense to
see the question before you see the answer.
"When I read a reply to someone... Let me first read the part with the
quote-symbol delimited content first (">"), and then read the unquoted
new content section."
We have. But our automatic response is to look /below/ the question for the
answer. When we don't find it there, we have to search for it consciously.
It may only take a moment longer. But some of us can do a lot in a moment.
Like, we could be answering other people's questions. (Incidentally, the
only reason I'm bothering to explain all this to you is that I'm far too
ill today to focus on writing good code.)
If you haven't formed this into a motor function by now, I don't know
what to tell you.
That's right, that's precisely what we don't want - but for good reasons.
Honestly, I think the real beef is that people just
don't want the new content showing up to their eyes before the
context..
Well, it's not so much that, and more because it's common sense to have the
question appear before the answer.
some kind of perverse control thing...
Is it not incumbent on the technical writer to present the reader with the
material in the order that the reader expects it, so that he will gain the
most value from it in the shortest possible time?
("no, let ME determine
the order in which I read new things!" type of deal).
Try popping down to your local garage to get free tips on what you're doing
wrong in car maintenance. While you're there, straighten the guy's tie -
or, if he's not wearing one - take one and tie it on him yourself. Whenever
he says something, make sure you're standing on your head before replying.
If he thinks you're nuts, tell him to stand on his head too. Tell him he's
got Asperger's Syndrome, and is not being flexible. Tell him to learn a new
adaptive method - like standing on his head, for example. And don't forget
to act all surprised and hurt when he tells you to drop dead and refuses to
give you any more personalised free advice.
Learn a new adaptive method,
Wouldn't it be easier for you to learn a new coping mechanism instead of
banging on about top-posting when it's obvious we're not about to adopt a
less efficient convention just because somebody asks us to?
learn a new coping mechanism instead of pumping the NG
full of replies telling people who to reply/quote when the issue is
insignificant
In fact, I hardly mention it at all. (Are you wondering what I mean by "it"
yet? You wouldn't be, if I'd written this reply in the traditional way.)

And the reason I hardly mention it (what?) at all is that I know from
experience that arguing with top-posters is almost always a waste of time.
And so, instead of arguing with them, I generally *don't bother answering
their questions*. I'm not religious about it, but I generally find myself
skipping past articles that don't provide context in the place I expect to
find it.

So now what are you going to do? Insist that I engage with top-posters?
Remember you're not paying me for this. It may not sound very fair to you,
but I don't recall seeing anything about "fair" on the box lid. There's
nothing in the rules to force me to engage with clueless people.

Maybe you'll argue that, by refusing to engage with top-posters, I'm not
learning anything from them. Well, that's fine by me because I tend to be a
giver of advice here rather than a recipient, and in any case all the
clueful regular contributors here know how to write Usenet articles
properly, so if ever I do have a question about C, there are plenty of
knowledgeable people ready to answer it, without my having to rely on the
(generally flawed) knowledge of people who can't even learn which way round
a question and answer should go. So - no loss there either, from my point
of view.

Maybe there are other people in this newsgroup who have the same strategy as
me: silently ignoring most top-posted articles. I don't know. But if there
are, then top-posting in comp.lang.c becomes a way to reduce significantly
your chances of getting good-quality help and advice.

Keith Thompson is actually doing newcomers a service by drawing their
attention to the customs and mores of the regular contributors to this
group. It's a thankless task, on the whole, and one which he has been
performing quietly for quite a while, as well as helping people to
understand C better. Although I have never met Keith, I feel as if I have
come to know him quite well, and I would just like him to know how much I
appreciate his contributions to this newsgroup.
(granted, I don't see you as a significant contributor to
this, I see Keith Thompson as the main curator).
I don't know. I never heard of anyone by that name. <shrug> For your
information, though, Stefan Wilms was the founder of the campaign against
excessive grumpiness in comp.lang.c.
But probably not with Dick Heathfield, right?

That was exhausting and confusing. I hope I never have to write another
reply like it.

--
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)

[clayne]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

clayne said:

Sure it is. [Actually clayne didn't say that, but bear with me here. You'll
soon work it out, I think.] Are you not flexible enough to cope with text
that is the other way around to the way you usually see it? Don't you think
you have a duty to put up with it because I happen to like doing it that
way? Or would it make more sense for me to make my text easier to read if I
wish to communicate effectively with people rather than jar them off all
the time?

[all other explicitly top-posted replies and my original context clipped]

Richard, I think you've got a good head on your shoulders. I will
concede that the order in which you wrote the reply did do it's job. I
think I should clarify my gripe a bit more:

When people quote a small-section or just a paragraph and reply on top,
I really don't think it's a big deal, it's a single question/answer
response or interact. However, when people leave 4 pages of quoted
material - I think that's an annoying waste of bandwidth. I will agree
with everyone on that.

I think an entirely answer->question style reply is out of the norm for
almost everyone to write in western writing style. I don't really even
come across it *that* often. IT's when people get bent out of shape
over a single top-post answer (on top of a single question or segment)
that gets on my nerves. It's just not worth it and some of us are
actually tired of reading the mother-like nagging.

[Richard Heathfield]

clayne said:

I will concede that the order in which you wrote the reply did do
it's job.
Thank heaven for that. I wouldn't have wanted to do that again.
I think I should clarify my gripe a bit more:

When people quote a small-section or just a paragraph and reply on top,
I really don't think it's a big deal, it's a single question/answer
response or interact.
It's still a nuisance, and so I still ignore such articles. I don't bother
to try to engage with such replies. It's not a good use of my time.
However, when people leave 4 pages of quoted
material - I think that's an annoying waste of bandwidth. I will agree
with everyone on that.
Fine, so you're halfway home. Well done. :-)
I think an entirely answer->question style reply is out of the norm for
almost everyone to write in western writing style. I don't really even
come across it *that* often.
I've now shown you two different ways in which changing the order of a reply
can make it harder to read. Top-posting (of the kind you are talking about)
is merely a third way.
IT's when people get bent out of shape
over a single top-post answer (on top of a single question or segment)
that gets on my nerves. It's just not worth it and some of us are
actually tired of reading the mother-like nagging.

There's an easy solution - just add anyone whose replies you don't like into
your killfile. But you'll probably find yourself killfiling some of the
most useful and clueful people in the newsgroup. There's a lesson there
somewhere.
--
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)

[rayw]

"clayne" <cl****@anodized.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

rayw wrote:

Maybe it's that the coffee shop sold out of double-extra/caf mochas
today,
or that someone's finally had enough of saying 'you shouldn't cast
malloc()'. Or - maybe the night before just wasn't a good time of the
month
for someone? But, it seems to me that too often someone rolls out of bed
on
the wrong side here!

A perfect example of this:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....5e929edd864a6a

Almost every single person who replied to the guy was basically a jerk
to him. Even after he was being fairly understanding and recognizing. I
find it funny that people will spend more time authorizing dick replies
than just NOT replying at all to someone who is definitely posting in
the wrong NG.

Actually, you found the exact thread that I had in mind, and which
instigated my comment. I also know that at least one member here
[ashamedly, not me] sent the guy an email apologizing for the shit he took
here.

[Keith Thompson]

Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> writes:
[snip]

Keith Thompson is actually doing newcomers a service by drawing their
attention to the customs and mores of the regular contributors to this
group. It's a thankless task, on the whole, and one which he has been
performing quietly for quite a while, as well as helping people to
understand C better. Although I have never met Keith, I feel as if I have
come to know him quite well, and I would just like him to know how much I
appreciate his contributions to this newsgroup.

Thanks for the kind words. (*blush*)

--
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.

[slebetman]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

clayne said:

Sure it is. [Actually clayne didn't say that, but bear with me here. You'll
soon work it out, I think.] Are you not flexible enough to cope with text
that is the other way around to the way you usually see it? Don't you think
you have a duty to put up with it because I happen to like doing it that
way? Or would it make more sense for me to make my text easier to read if I
wish to communicate effectively with people rather than jar them off all
the time?

Yea, now c'mon. This isn't even a reasonable comparison.

No, it's not the same at all. One reply is in the right place, the place
that makes it easy to follow the discussion - and the other one isn't.

Look, whether
someone replies on top or on bottom, it's the SAME thing.

<snipped a whole bunch of top posted answers>

I don't know. I never heard of anyone by that name. <shrug> For your
information, though, Stefan Wilms was the founder of the campaign against
excessive grumpiness in comp.lang.c.

But probably not with Dick Heathfield, right?

That was exhausting and confusing. I hope I never have to write another
reply like it.

:-D this is funny. Excellent example of the evils of top posting.
Recently there was the small debate between Steve Jobs and Nitesh
Dhanjani about garbage collection and objective-C which I thought was
another fine (bad?) example of top posting. By the time you finish
reading the email exchange you realise that the whole conversation is
in reverse and have to re-order the debate in your head. The email
exchanges "start" with:

I look forward to the improvements! Thanks

and "end" with:

Will it ever be easy to write native OSX GUI apps? Objective C sucks.

the emails have since been deleted from Nitesh's site but it lives on
(for now) on slashdot:

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl...22223&from=rss

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <11**********************@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
clayne <cl****@anodized.com> wrote:
....

Almost every single person who replied to the guy was basically a jerk
to him. Even after he was being fairly understanding and recognizing. I
find it funny that people will spend more time authorizing dick replies
than just NOT replying at all to someone who is definitely posting in
the wrong NG.

Totally agree. I have often thought (and sometimes posted to the effect)
that if the "regulars" were serious about wanting the ng to stay on topic,
they would just ignore the OT stuff. As they say, "don't feed the trolls".
If they just silently ignored the nonsense (posted by "dorky 3rd
worlders"), it would just go away.

But then, there'd be nothing left to do here.

P.S. You're dead-on about the AS stuff. I'll probably post more on this
(in response to your other post) when I get a chance.

[Alastair]

Totally agree. I have often thought (and sometimes posted to the effect)
that if the "regulars" were serious about wanting the ng to stay on topic,
they would just ignore the OT stuff. As they say, "don't feed the trolls".
If they just silently ignored the nonsense (posted by "dorky 3rd
worlders"), it would just go away.

But then, there'd be nothing left to do here.

P.S. You're dead-on about the AS stuff. I'll probably post more on this
(in response to your other post) when I get a chance.

Hey - thanks guys!

That was my thread earlier - I couldn't believe the replies I was
getting - becuase the first thing I said was that I was new! (meaning -
go easy on me!).

Glad to know some people care!

Alastair

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <dp**********@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:

clayne said:

Sure it is. [Actually clayne didn't say that, but bear with me here. You'll
soon work it out, I think.] Are you not flexible enough to cope with text
that is the other way around to the way you usually see it? Don't you think
you have a duty to put up with it because I happen to like doing it that
way? Or would it make more sense for me to make my text easier to read if I
wish to communicate effectively with people rather than jar them off all
the time?

You misspelled: I was wrong and I am sorry.

(Happens a lot on the Usenet)

[Keith Thompson]

ga*****@yin.interaccess.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
[snip]

P.S. You're dead-on about the AS stuff. I'll probably post more on this
(in response to your other post) when I get a chance.

Kenny, even you can't possibly believe that Asperger's Syndrome is
topical in comp.lang.c. I just might have to start using a killfile
after all.

--
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.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:

ga*****@yin.interaccess.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
[snip]

P.S. You're dead-on about the AS stuff. I'll probably post more on this
(in response to your other post) when I get a chance.

Kenny, even you can't possibly believe that Asperger's Syndrome is
topical in comp.lang.c.

Of course it is. If it explains the "culture" here (*), then discussion of
it would be very beneficial to all.

(*) And, yes, I do believe it does. You are free to disagree, of course,
but your doing so won't make any difference to me.

[Mark McIntyre]

On 3 Jan 2006 21:53:46 -0800, in comp.lang.c , "clayne"
<cl****@anodized.com> wrote:

whether someone replies on top or on bottom, it's the SAME thing.
Counter example:

-Would you like me to hit you with a hammer?
- yes.
- Do you like Chocolate?
- No.
- Is battery acid good for you?
- yes
- is your pseudonym clayne?
I regularly clip
You may do, but most top-posters do not, simply because there's no
incentive.
..the long history of people's email at work when some
Outlook user decides to quote the entire message, followed by everyone
else doing it. It makes no difference on the actual content I'm
quoting, however.
An office environment is extremely different. I suspect that in your
office you don't get 1000 emails a day, on 300 radically different
subjects, with replies to each of your mails coming separately from a
dozen people over a period of days.

And for what its worth, I frequently find myself in the office
searching my sent mail and folders for previous messages in a thread,
because some nit has snipped too much context out and a comment made
by someone is now hard to decipher.
Once again though, we're back to that Asperger's Syndrome

Childish insults won't get you anywhere. And Aspergers is no laughing
matter.
Mark McIntyre
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-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 =----

[Richard Heathfield]

Kenny McCormack said:

You misspelled:
No, I didn't. I never, ever do that. On very, very rare occasions, I hit a
wrong key, but that's a typographical error, not a misspelling.
I was wrong and I am sorry.

Your retraction and apology are accepted. The matter is now closed.

--
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]

Keith Thompson wrote:

ga*****@yin.interaccess.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
[snip]

P.S. You're dead-on about the AS stuff. I'll probably post more on this
(in response to your other post) when I get a chance.

Kenny, even you can't possibly believe that Asperger's Syndrome is
topical in comp.lang.c. I just might have to start using a killfile
after all.

Keith I envy you. For some reason Mozilla Thunderbird does not properly
obey a killfile (which is not really a killfile - more like a graphical
interface where you can add an email address and supposedly block
someone). You may be able to ignore the troll, I on the other hand am
forced to view his nonsense. Such a waste of space should be a criminal
offense.

Joe

[Chuck F.]

Joe Estock wrote:

Keith Thompson wrote:

ga*****@yin.interaccess.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

[snip]

P.S. You're dead-on about the AS stuff. I'll probably post
more on this (in response to your other post) when I get a
chance.

Kenny, even you can't possibly believe that Asperger's
Syndrome is topical in comp.lang.c. I just might have to
start using a killfile after all.

Keith I envy you. For some reason Mozilla Thunderbird does not
properly obey a killfile (which is not really a killfile - more
like a graphical interface where you can add an email address
and supposedly block someone). You may be able to ignore the
troll, I on the other hand am forced to view his nonsense. Such
a waste of space should be a criminal offense.

Tell the filter to mark him 'read'. Then it won't be selected when
you advance with the spacebar or the n key. Unfortunately Tbird
won't forgo downloading him in the offline mode, as Netscape 4.5
would, but Tbird is better at compacting.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>