By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
446,194 Members | 811 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,194 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

An apology to Mr Paul Hsieh

P: n/a
My recent replies to Paul Hsieh have been unnecessarily inflammatory. His
views on C do not even remotely coincide with my own, but nevertheless I
should have taken the effort to reply civilly to his points, or refrained
from replying at all. Mr Hsieh, I apologise to you and to any comp.lang.c
subscribers who feel, as I now do, that I over-reacted to your articles.

--
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)
Sep 26 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
6 Replies


P: n/a

Richard Heathfield wrote:
My recent replies to Paul Hsieh have been unnecessarily inflammatory. His
views on C do not even remotely coincide with my own, but nevertheless I
should have taken the effort to reply civilly to his points, or refrained
from replying at all. Mr Hsieh, I apologise to you and to any comp.lang.c
subscribers who feel, as I now do, that I over-reacted to your articles.

--
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)
And in our next episode: Will Brad dump Jennifer? And who's the
father of Kate's baby? Also, will Tiffany be able to convince Justin
that only losers use drugs, before it's too late? Tune in next week to
comp.lang.c!

Sep 27 '06 #2

P: n/a
In article <11**********************@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
<st**********@yahoo.comwrote:
>
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>My recent replies to Paul Hsieh have been unnecessarily inflammatory. His
views on C do not even remotely coincide with my own, but nevertheless I
should have taken the effort to reply civilly to his points, or refrained
from replying at all. Mr Hsieh, I apologise to you and to any comp.lang.c
subscribers who feel, as I now do, that I over-reacted to your articles.

--
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)

And in our next episode: Will Brad dump Jennifer? And who's the
father of Kate's baby? Also, will Tiffany be able to convince Justin
that only losers use drugs, before it's too late? Tune in next week to
comp.lang.c!
Bravo! Bravo!

Of course, you all know that the only reason he posted this was an
attempt to wheedle Gotham into making a fool of himself by "apologizing"
to Thompson. Crafty, but very, very sleazy.

Sep 27 '06 #3

P: n/a
st**********@yahoo.com wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>My recent replies to Paul Hsieh have been unnecessarily inflammatory. His
views on C do not even remotely coincide with my own, but nevertheless I
should have taken the effort to reply civilly to his points, or refrained
from replying at all. Mr Hsieh, I apologise to you and to any comp.lang.c
subscribers who feel, as I now do, that I over-reacted to your articles.

--
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)

And in our next episode: Will Brad dump Jennifer? And who's the
father of Kate's baby? Also, will Tiffany be able to convince Justin
that only losers use drugs, before it's too late? Tune in next week to
comp.lang.c!
Ah, don't listen to him. I think this is a first on CLC, and I hope it
presages future conduct here. In the way of ego programmers are right
up there with movie stars and for an apology like this to appear, well,
it shows character - something sadly lacking around here at times.

--
Regards,
Stan Milam
================================================== ===========
Charter Member of The Society for Mediocre Guitar Playing on
Expensive Instruments, Ltd.
================================================== ===========
Sep 27 '06 #4

P: n/a

<st**********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>My recent replies to Paul Hsieh have been unnecessarily inflammatory. His
views on C do not even remotely coincide with my own, but nevertheless I
should have taken the effort to reply civilly to his points, or refrained
from replying at all. Mr Hsieh, I apologise to you and to any comp.lang.c
subscribers who feel, as I now do, that I over-reacted to your articles.
And in our next episode: Will Brad dump Jennifer? And who's the
father of Kate's baby? Also, will Tiffany be able to convince Justin
that only losers use drugs, before it's too late? Tune in next week to
comp.lang.c!
Jennifer and Kate won't be reading this, which may contribute to the reasons
that one occasionally flies off the handle in clc: it's a sausage party. I
get more solid laughs per unit time reading Heathfield than anyone on
usenet. EC
Sep 27 '06 #5

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
My recent replies to Paul Hsieh have been unnecessarily inflammatory. His
views on C do not even remotely coincide with my own, but nevertheless I
should have taken the effort to reply civilly to his points, or refrained
from replying at all. Mr Hsieh, I apologise to you and to any comp.lang.c
subscribers who feel, as I now do, that I over-reacted to your articles.
Well there is only one possible response to that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzdccjXleXg

Specifically at time indexes 2:40, 3:34 and 4:03. :)

--
Paul Hsieh

Sep 27 '06 #6

P: n/a
<we******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@i42g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Richard Heathfield wrote:
My recent replies to Paul Hsieh have been unnecessarily inflammatory.
His
views on C do not even remotely coincide with my own, but nevertheless I
should have taken the effort to reply civilly to his points, or
refrained
from replying at all. Mr Hsieh, I apologise to you and to any
comp.lang.c
subscribers who feel, as I now do, that I over-reacted to your articles.

Well there is only one possible response to that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzdccjXleXg

Specifically at time indexes 2:40, 3:34 and 4:03. :)
Nothing beats 5:04!

I could only think of Keith Thompson during that bit. ;-)

--
Mabden

Oct 1 '06 #7

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.