By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
440,760 Members | 955 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 440,760 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

_JoyDef and _Control

P: n/a
Hello, I'm trying to get the source from a old dos game (Rise Of The
Triad) to compile with openwatcom, and keep getting the undefined
symbol error for _JoyDef and _Control. Now I assume this means I'm
missing a library somewhere, does anyone know which one it could be?

Thanks!
Oct 13 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
74 Replies


P: n/a
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrote:
Hello, I'm trying to get the source from a old dos game (Rise Of The
Triad) to compile with openwatcom, and keep getting the undefined
symbol error for _JoyDef and _Control. Now I assume this means I'm
missing a library somewhere, does anyone know which one it could be?
(It's not very likely that anyone here does. You may have quite a
research project on your hands...)

Your post is off-topic for comp.lang.c. Please visit

http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt
http://c-faq.com
http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html

for posting guidelines and frequently asked questions. Thank you.

--
C. Benson Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
cbmanica(at)gmail.com | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Oct 13 '06 #2

P: n/a
In article <rt********************************@4ax.com>,
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrote:
>Hello, I'm trying to get the source from a old dos game (Rise Of The
Triad) to compile with openwatcom, and keep getting the undefined
symbol error for _JoyDef and _Control. Now I assume this means I'm
missing a library somewhere, does anyone know which one it could be?

Thanks!
Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.

Useful clc-related links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language

Oct 13 '06 #3

P: n/a
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:49:11 +0000 (UTC),
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>In article <rt********************************@4ax.com>,
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrote:
>>Hello, I'm trying to get the source from a old dos game (Rise Of The
Triad) to compile with openwatcom, and keep getting the undefined
symbol error for _JoyDef and _Control. Now I assume this means I'm
missing a library somewhere, does anyone know which one it could be?

Thanks!

Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.

Useful clc-related links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language
No need to be nasty about it you dick
Oct 13 '06 #4

P: n/a

Displacer wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:49:11 +0000 (UTC),
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
In article <rt********************************@4ax.com>,
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrote:
>Hello, I'm trying to get the source from a old dos game (Rise Of The
Triad) to compile with openwatcom, and keep getting the undefined
symbol error for _JoyDef and _Control. Now I assume this means I'm
missing a library somewhere, does anyone know which one it could be?

Thanks!
Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.

Useful clc-related links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language

No need to be nasty about it you dick
Amusingly, he was trying (I think) to be funny (or at least sarcastic).

To return to your original question (which is indeed, somewhat
off-topic here), you'd probably get more help from a group related to
the DOS platform, or perhaps an emulator group, than a generic C
language group.

Oct 13 '06 #5

P: n/a
In article <t1********************************@4ax.com>,
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrote:
>On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:49:11 +0000 (UTC),
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>>In article <rt********************************@4ax.com>,
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrote:
>>>Hello, I'm trying to get the source from a old dos game (Rise Of The
Triad) to compile with openwatcom, and keep getting the undefined
symbol error for _JoyDef and _Control. Now I assume this means I'm
missing a library somewhere, does anyone know which one it could be?

Thanks!

Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.

Useful clc-related links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language

No need to be nasty about it you dick
I'm just saying the same thing as what the so-called "regulars" say,
dozens of times each day, but without the pseudo-sugar coating that makes
it sound like it is actually helpful, when we all know the obvious
content is "Ha! Bagged another one!".

The regs will, of course, deny that this is their intent, but we
all know they are lying. And, worst of all, we know *why* they are lying.

Further, the links that I provide are actually quite helpful for the
newbie in trying to comprehend why they get the weird responses that
they get here.

Oct 13 '06 #6

P: n/a
On 13 Oct 2006 06:21:11 -0700, ma**********@pobox.com wrote:
>
Displacer wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:49:11 +0000 (UTC),
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>In article <rt********************************@4ax.com>,
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrote:
Hello, I'm trying to get the source from a old dos game (Rise Of The
Triad) to compile with openwatcom, and keep getting the undefined
symbol error for _JoyDef and _Control. Now I assume this means I'm
missing a library somewhere, does anyone know which one it could be?

Thanks!

Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.

Useful clc-related links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language

No need to be nasty about it you dick

Amusingly, he was trying (I think) to be funny (or at least sarcastic).

To return to your original question (which is indeed, somewhat
off-topic here), you'd probably get more help from a group related to
the DOS platform, or perhaps an emulator group, than a generic C
language group.
Yes, I'll look around for dos specific. I looked through the faq for
this group before I posted, but apparently not well enough. Anyway
sorry about the off topic post.
Oct 13 '06 #7

P: n/a
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrote:
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>(The usual Kenny BS)
No need to be nasty about it you dick
Mr. McCormack is in fact such as you called him, as well as a resident
troll and a general idiot. You may wish to join many regular posters
and add him to your newsreader's killfile; it certainly spares one
much annoyance.

--
C. Benson Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
cbmanica(at)gmail.com | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Oct 13 '06 #8

P: n/a
Kenny McCormack said:
In article <t1********************************@4ax.com>,
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrote:
>>On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:49:11 +0000 (UTC),
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>>>Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.

Useful clc-related links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language

No need to be nasty about it you dick

I'm just saying the same thing as what the so-called "regulars" say,
Mr McCormack is in error here. Whilst the "regulars" do indeed point out
topicality issues, they very often endeavour to provide the name of a
newsgroup that is more relevant to the OP's question, something Mr
McCormack never seems to bother with...
dozens of times each day, but without the pseudo-sugar coating that makes
it sound like it is actually helpful,
....but redirection /is/ actually helpful, since it serves to match an OP up
with a relevant newsgroup where his question is topical and stands a chance
of being answered correctly.
when we all know the obvious
content is "Ha! Bagged another one!".
We don't all know any such thing, because it's not true. When I redirect
(which is rare nowadays), I do so in the hope that the redirection will
prove useful to the OP. "Bagged another one" doesn't enter into it. The
ascribing of motives to others is always a shaky practice, and Mr McCormack
has got it badly wrong here.
The regs will, of course, deny that this is their intent, but we
all know they are lying. And, worst of all, we know *why* they are lying.
Mr McCormack's accusation of deception is groundless, although it may well
be that he does not realise this.
Further, the links that I provide are actually quite helpful for the
newbie in trying to comprehend why they get the weird responses that
they get here.
Actually, this is partly true - *one* of the links Mr McCormack provides is
at least mildly relevant (the C language entry in the Wiki), although I
would hesitate to recommend that link myself.

But the clique thing is an obvious canard, since comp.lang.c has
traditionally proved very accepting of anyone and everyone who has taken
the time and trouble to learn the C language and is able to distinguish (or
learn to distinguish) clearly between the only barely related concepts of
"language", "implementation", and "third-party stuff".

As for the Asperger's link, I am not aware that Mr McCormack has any
credentials as a psychiatrist, so his opinions on psychiatric matters must
be taken with a colossal pinch of salt. To use "Asperger's Syndrome" as an
insult is to demean genuine sufferers of that condition. Some friends of
mine have a young child who has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome (by
a competent psychiatrist), and I am therefore well aware that it is a not
even remotely amusing condition. It is not something to joke about. We may
reasonably conclude that, when a person labels another with Asperger's
Syndrome without having the relevant professional credentials so to do, it
is in fact the labeller who suffers... from Clueless Buffoon Syndrome.

--
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)
Oct 13 '06 #9

P: n/a
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrites:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:49:11 +0000 (UTC),
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
[the usual crap]
No need to be nasty about it you dick
Kenny McCormack is simply a troll. I strongly recommend ignoring him.

--
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.
Oct 13 '06 #10

P: n/a
Displacer wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 06:21:11 -0700, ma**********@pobox.com wrote:
>Displacer wrote:
>>On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:49:11 +0000 (UTC),
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

In article <rt********************************@4ax.com>,
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrote:
Hello, I'm trying to get the source from a old dos game (Rise Of The
Triad) to compile with openwatcom, and keep getting the undefined
symbol error for _JoyDef and _Control. Now I assume this means I'm
missing a library somewhere, does anyone know which one it could be?
>
Thanks!
Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.
<snip>
Yes, I'll look around for dos specific. I looked through the faq for
this group before I posted, but apparently not well enough. Anyway
sorry about the off topic post.
Actually, if your question is considered to have an implicit, "I don't
know if these symbols are provided as standard and I'm doing something
wrong or they are non-standard" then the question is in my opinion
topical, it's just that the only topical answer is that they are not
standard and so you have to ask else where for more help.

However, your apology is appreciated and even more appreciated is that
you are accepting the redirect gracefully.

The following link give information about what a number of the regulars
consider topical, although there is a vocal minority who disagree,
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/intro_to_clc

The comp.lang.c FAQ, which provides a vast amount of useful information
about C, is available from http://c-faq.com/ and Steve Summit deserves
thanks for making the result of his efforts available for free to all.
--
Flash Gordon
Hosting the comp.lang.c Wiki as a free service to all
Oct 13 '06 #11

P: n/a

"Displacer" <as****@the.switchwrote in message
news:rt********************************@4ax.com...
Hello, I'm trying to get the source from a old dos game (Rise Of The
Triad) to compile with openwatcom, and keep getting the undefined
symbol error for _JoyDef and _Control. Now I assume this means I'm
missing a library somewhere, does anyone know which one it could be?
OpenWatcom lacks some of the libraries that were available in Watcom. Those
libraries weren't owned by Sybase. That could be the issue here. You'd
need to ask users who programmed in Watcom. OW's newsgroups are on a
proprietary server which, occasionally, doen't sync well with outside
newservers. So, I'd recommend your newsclient connecting directly to
nntp://news.openwatcom.org and then subscribe to openwatcom.users.c_cpp.
Rod Pemberton
Oct 14 '06 #12

P: n/a

"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote in message
news:1J******************************@bt.com...
Kenny McCormack said:
In article <t1********************************@4ax.com>,
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrote:
>On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:49:11 +0000 (UTC),
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.

Useful clc-related links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language

No need to be nasty about it you dick
I'm just saying the same thing as what the so-called "regulars" say,

Mr McCormack is in error here. Whilst the "regulars" do indeed point out
topicality issues, they very often endeavour to provide the name of a
newsgroup that is more relevant to the OP's question, something Mr
McCormack never seems to bother with...
Nor you, even though you should be fully aware of openwatcom.users.c_cpp
from prior conversations with me, Paul Hsieh, etc.?
But the clique thing is an obvious canard, since comp.lang.c has
traditionally proved very accepting of anyone and everyone who has taken
the time and trouble to learn the C language and is able to distinguish
(or
learn to distinguish) clearly between the only barely related concepts of
"language", "implementation", and "third-party stuff".
So, you're saying there isn't a small group of individuals, I mean
"regulars," who attempt to suppress free speech here? BS.
As for the Asperger's link, I am not aware that Mr McCormack has any
credentials as a psychiatrist, so his opinions on psychiatric matters must
be taken with a colossal pinch of salt. To use "Asperger's Syndrome" as an
insult is to demean genuine sufferers of that condition. Some friends of
mine have a young child who has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome
(by
a competent psychiatrist), and I am therefore well aware that it is a not
even remotely amusing condition. It is not something to joke about. We may
reasonably conclude that, when a person labels another with Asperger's
Syndrome without having the relevant professional credentials so to do, it
is in fact the labeller who suffers... from Clueless Buffoon Syndrome.
Although they may not suffer from the an extreme (and disheartening) case of
Asperger's such as your friends' child, there are many here who exhibit very
close characteristics to Asperger's. They may therefore have a mild form of
it or another similar psychiatric problem which hasn't been diagnosed and
isn't being properly treated. So, what is the harm in educating them?
Rod Pemberton
Oct 14 '06 #13

P: n/a
Rod Pemberton said:
>
"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote in message
news:1J******************************@bt.com...
>>
Whilst the "regulars" do indeed point out
topicality issues, they very often endeavour to provide the name of a
newsgroup that is more relevant to the OP's question, something Mr
McCormack never seems to bother with...

Nor you,
I beg to differ. I have on many occasions offered alternative newsgroups
where the OP might get a better answer to his question. A Google Groups
search on this newsgroup will reveal many occasions when I have suggested
that people continue their quest for information on, say,
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 or comp.unix.programmer or whatever.
even though you should be fully aware of openwatcom.users.c_cpp
from prior conversations with me, Paul Hsieh, etc.?
Actually, I'd never heard of it. You will observe, however, that (partly
because I did not know where to redirect the OP) I didn't post a
redirection on this occasion.
>But the clique thing is an obvious canard, since comp.lang.c has
traditionally proved very accepting of anyone and everyone who has taken
the time and trouble to learn the C language and is able to distinguish
(or
>learn to distinguish) clearly between the only barely related concepts of
"language", "implementation", and "third-party stuff".

So, you're saying there isn't a small group of individuals, I mean
"regulars," who attempt to suppress free speech here?
Nobody here attempts to suppress free speech. Not those who complain about
non-topicality. Not those who complain about those people who complain
about non-topicality. And not even those who complain about those people
who complain about those people who complain about non-topicality.

Free speech does not imply the right to demand that people respond to your
question or statement in a particular way. People can, and do, post
whatever they like here, and that applies to the reactions that people post
to other people's articles. If you believe in free speech, you should
support people's right to redirect off-topic enquiries to more appropriate
newsgroups, since to forbid them that right would be to suppress /their/
freedom of speech.
BS.
You only think so because you haven't thought it through.
>As for the Asperger's link, I am not aware that Mr McCormack has any
credentials as a psychiatrist, so his opinions on psychiatric matters
must be taken with a colossal pinch of salt. To use "Asperger's Syndrome"
as an insult is to demean genuine sufferers of that condition. Some
friends of mine have a young child who has been diagnosed with Asperger's
Syndrome
(by
>a competent psychiatrist), and I am therefore well aware that it is a not
even remotely amusing condition. It is not something to joke about. We
may reasonably conclude that, when a person labels another with
Asperger's Syndrome without having the relevant professional credentials
so to do, it is in fact the labeller who suffers... from Clueless Buffoon
Syndrome.

Although they may not suffer from the an extreme (and disheartening) case
of Asperger's such as your friends' child, there are many here who exhibit
very
close characteristics to Asperger's. They may therefore have a mild form
of it or another similar psychiatric problem which hasn't been diagnosed
and
isn't being properly treated. So, what is the harm in educating them?
You are begging the question (by which I mean that, in your "what is the
harm?" question, you are assuming the truth of the very claim that is being
challenged). Unless you have credentials as a professional psychiatrist, I
see no reason to give any weight to your claims about whether or not people
in this newsgroup are suffering from Asperger's Syndrome or some related
psychiatric illness.

As for the possible harm involved in unqualified non-psychiatrists
attempting to diagnose or treat putative psychiatric conditions of Usenet
contributors, or "educate" people about such putative conditions, I suppose
it's no worse than the possible harm involved in unqualified
non-electricians giving people advice on how to rewire their home. That is,
it is at best very unwise, and could possibly cause real and lasting
damage. Here in comp.lang.c we regularly see the stupidities that amateur C
programmers manage to inflict on their computers. No sane person would want
such people to mess with his computer. Likewise, no sane person would want
a bumbling quack psychiatrist to mess with his head.

Let's leave psychiatry to the psychiatrists, and focus on C programming
instead. It's what we're good at.

--
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)
Oct 14 '06 #14

P: n/a

"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote in message
news:a8********************@bt.com...
Rod Pemberton said:

"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote in message
news:1J******************************@bt.com...
>
Whilst the "regulars" do indeed point out
topicality issues, they very often endeavour to provide the name of a
newsgroup that is more relevant to the OP's question, something Mr
McCormack never seems to bother with...
Nor you,

I beg to differ. I have on many occasions offered alternative newsgroups
where the OP might get a better answer to his question. A Google Groups
search on this newsgroup will reveal many occasions when I have suggested
that people continue their quest for information on, say,
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 or comp.unix.programmer or whatever.
even though you should be fully aware of openwatcom.users.c_cpp
from prior conversations with me, Paul Hsieh, etc.?

Actually, I'd never heard of it. You will observe, however, that (partly
because I did not know where to redirect the OP) I didn't post a
redirection on this occasion.
But the clique thing is an obvious canard, since comp.lang.c has
traditionally proved very accepting of anyone and everyone who has
taken
the time and trouble to learn the C language and is able to distinguish
(or
learn to distinguish) clearly between the only barely related concepts
of
"language", "implementation", and "third-party stuff".
So, you're saying there isn't a small group of individuals, I mean
"regulars," who attempt to suppress free speech here?

Nobody here attempts to suppress free speech. Not those who complain about
non-topicality. Not those who complain about those people who complain
about non-topicality. And not even those who complain about those people
who complain about those people who complain about non-topicality.

Free speech does not imply the right to demand that people respond to your
question or statement in a particular way. People can, and do, post
whatever they like here, and that applies to the reactions that people
post
to other people's articles. If you believe in free speech, you should
support people's right to redirect off-topic enquiries to more appropriate
newsgroups, since to forbid them that right would be to suppress /their/
freedom of speech.
Doubletalk. You just stated that is acceptable that one group uses their
freedom of speech to suppress the freedom of speech of others. That is the
entire problem...

But there is a difference between the two groups: politeness and respect.
If you aren't interested in the conversation, be polite: shut up, be
respectful: shut up, let those who are talk without interruption or
harassment. The conversation will end in due course.
BS.

You only think so because you haven't thought it through.
More BS. What do you think my IQ is? Given that "genius" is usually four
standard deviations above the mean, tell me how many standard deviations
above the mean you think mine is. I want to see how close to "genius" you
place me...
As for the Asperger's link, I am not aware that Mr McCormack has any
credentials as a psychiatrist, so his opinions on psychiatric matters
must be taken with a colossal pinch of salt. To use "Asperger's
Syndrome"
as an insult is to demean genuine sufferers of that condition. Some
friends of mine have a young child who has been diagnosed with
Asperger's
Syndrome
(by
a competent psychiatrist), and I am therefore well aware that it is a
not
even remotely amusing condition. It is not something to joke about. We
may reasonably conclude that, when a person labels another with
Asperger's Syndrome without having the relevant professional
credentials
so to do, it is in fact the labeller who suffers... from Clueless
Buffoon
Syndrome.
Although they may not suffer from the an extreme (and disheartening)
case
of Asperger's such as your friends' child, there are many here who
exhibit
very
close characteristics to Asperger's. They may therefore have a mild
form
of it or another similar psychiatric problem which hasn't been diagnosed
and
isn't being properly treated. So, what is the harm in educating them?

You are begging the question (by which I mean that, in your "what is the
harm?" question, you are assuming the truth of the very claim that is
being
challenged).
No. I'm trying to get you to realize that potentially helping one
individual through his or her own self-diagnose of mental illness, correct
or not, by reading about Asperger's is important. I would think that given
that you actually know someone with Aspergers, that it'd be especially
important to you to have the whole World read up on it. Why do you seem so
cold or indifferent? Do you care about your friend's child?
Unless you have credentials as a professional psychiatrist, I
see no reason to give any weight to your claims about whether or not
people
in this newsgroup are suffering from Asperger's Syndrome or some related
psychiatric illness.
You are viewing this as a "Me" vs. "Pemberton" issue. You seem to be
missing the point that someone will say: "What is this Asperger's that
McCormack keeps posting links to?" and then read it. And, perhaps,
recognize that they have a problem and seek professional help.
As for the possible harm involved in unqualified non-psychiatrists
attempting to diagnose or treat putative psychiatric conditions of Usenet
contributors, or "educate" people about such putative conditions, I
suppose
it's no worse than the possible harm involved in unqualified
non-electricians giving people advice on how to rewire their home. That
is,
it is at best very unwise, and could possibly cause real and lasting
damage.
You presume that most people have common sense or sufficient experience.
Most don't. They need to fail or have something indicate that they have a
problem that needs to be fixed. Without reading an article on Asperger's,
how would someone with a mild case ever become aware of it? The answer is:
they wouldn't. They aren't going to seek professional help unless they
believe there is an existing problem.

<snip>
Let's leave psychiatry to the psychiatrists, and focus on C programming
instead. It's what we're good at.
I'm not saying that I agree 100%, but it's a fair enough ideology. The
problem is that the "regulars" only seem to apply it to others when it suits
you. You never apply it to yourselves. Do you see no contradiction to your
currently stated ideology with the statements you made the other day in "Get
Pedia"?
Rod Pemberton
Oct 14 '06 #15

P: n/a
Rod Pemberton said:
"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote in message
news:a8********************@bt.com...
<snip>
>Free speech does not imply the right to demand that people respond to
your question or statement in a particular way. People can, and do, post
whatever they like here, and that applies to the reactions that people
post
>to other people's articles. If you believe in free speech, you should
support people's right to redirect off-topic enquiries to more
appropriate newsgroups, since to forbid them that right would be to
suppress /their/ freedom of speech.

Doubletalk. You just stated that is acceptable that one group uses their
freedom of speech to suppress the freedom of speech of others.
Not so. I just stated that it is acceptable for people to use their freedom
of speech to request that other people observe Usenet conventions. No
suppression is involved. Off-topic articles *do* appear here. Therefore,
they are not being suppressed. This is obvious, yes? (And if they did not
appear, that would not necessarily mean they are being suppressed. It might
just mean that everybody finally got clued up to the importance of
topicality. Not that that's terribly likely...)
That is the entire problem...
No, the problem is that people need to learn to look for bananas in a
greengrocer's shop rather than an ironmongery.
>
But there is a difference between the two groups: politeness and respect.
If you aren't interested in the conversation, be polite: shut up,
Now who's trying to suppress free speech?

<snip>
What do you think my IQ is?
I shudder to think.

<snip>
They may therefore have a mild form of [Asperger's] or another
similar psychiatric problem which hasn't been diagnosed and
isn't being properly treated. So, what is the harm in educating them?

You are begging the question (by which I mean that, in your "what is the
harm?" question, you are assuming the truth of the very claim that is
being challenged).

No. I'm trying to get you to realize that potentially helping one
individual through his or her own self-diagnose of mental illness, correct
or not, by reading about Asperger's is important.
Pop psychiatry is damaging.
I would think that
given that you actually know someone with Aspergers, that it'd be
especially
important to you to have the whole World read up on it. Why do you seem
so
cold or indifferent?
It is not indifference or coldness that leads me to suggest that psychiatry
should be left to psychiatrists. Rather, it is plain ordinary common sense.
Do you care about your friend's child?
Naturally. And he is not well served by non-psychiatrists who pollute the
environment of discourse by using the term "Asperger's Syndrome"
inappropriately.
>Unless you have credentials as a professional psychiatrist, I
see no reason to give any weight to your claims about whether or not
people
>in this newsgroup are suffering from Asperger's Syndrome or some related
psychiatric illness.

You are viewing this as a "Me" vs. "Pemberton" issue.
Not so. After all, it was not you who misused the term in this way.

<snip>
You presume that most people have common sense or sufficient experience.
Most don't.
I guess I have more faith in people than you do.
<snip>
>Let's leave psychiatry to the psychiatrists, and focus on C programming
instead. It's what we're good at.

I'm not saying that I agree 100%, but it's a fair enough ideology. The
problem is that the "regulars" only seem to apply it to others when it
suits
you. You never apply it to yourselves. Do you see no contradiction to
your currently stated ideology with the statements you made the other day
in "Get Pedia"?
Okay, you lost me (because I can't remember what I said). Feel free to point
out the alleged contradiction more explicitly if you wish. If you do, I'll
consider then whether I agree that there is a contradiction.

--
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)
Oct 14 '06 #16

P: n/a
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 03:52:26 -0400, "Rod Pemberton"
<do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote:
>
"Displacer" <as****@the.switchwrote in message
news:rt********************************@4ax.com.. .
>Hello, I'm trying to get the source from a old dos game (Rise Of The
Triad) to compile with openwatcom, and keep getting the undefined
symbol error for _JoyDef and _Control. Now I assume this means I'm
missing a library somewhere, does anyone know which one it could be?

OpenWatcom lacks some of the libraries that were available in Watcom. Those
libraries weren't owned by Sybase. That could be the issue here. You'd
need to ask users who programmed in Watcom. OW's newsgroups are on a
proprietary server which, occasionally, doen't sync well with outside
newservers. So, I'd recommend your newsclient connecting directly to
nntp://news.openwatcom.org and then subscribe to openwatcom.users.c_cpp.
Rod Pemberton
Yes I found what I needed there. Seems I opened a can of worms here,
but being pointed to a site on mental illness for asking a off topic
question was uncalled for. Of course my rude reply to that was rather
childish, and I apologize for that.

With that being said I thank everyone for pointing me in the direction
I needed to go.

Oct 15 '06 #17

P: n/a

"Displacer" <as****@the.switchwrote in message
news:l0********************************@4ax.com...
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 03:52:26 -0400, "Rod Pemberton"
<do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote:
Yes I found what I needed there
Yes, I read that. They were actually _surprisingly_ nice to you. They
probably had fond memories of that game.
but being pointed to a site on mental illness for asking a off topic
question was uncalled for.
You'd have to take that up with McCormack. FYI, you shouln't take it
personally. This is a _recurring_ argument between McCormack and Heathfield
(every 4 to 6 months, Healthfield can't seem to remember past that
point...). As I stated to Healthfield, I think it's important that people
learn about Aspergers. And, there are some people here who need to read it.
Rod Pemberton
Oct 16 '06 #18

P: n/a
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrote:
Yes I found what I needed there. Seems I opened a can of worms here,
but being pointed to a site on mental illness for asking a off topic
question was uncalled for. Of course my rude reply to that was rather
childish, and I apologize for that.
As I noted in my reply, and as Mr. Heathfield also implied, Mr.
McCormack is a troll, the post you are referring to being but one of
many damning pieces of evidence against Mr. McCormack. Please do not
interpret Mr. McCormack's behavior as typical of comp.lang.c posters.

--
C. Benson Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
cbmanica(at)gmail.com | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Oct 16 '06 #19

P: n/a
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:53:57 +0000 (UTC), Christopher Benson-Manica
<at***@ukato.freeshell.orgwrote:
>Displacer <as****@the.switchwrote:
>Yes I found what I needed there. Seems I opened a can of worms here,
but being pointed to a site on mental illness for asking a off topic
question was uncalled for. Of course my rude reply to that was rather
childish, and I apologize for that.

As I noted in my reply, and as Mr. Heathfield also implied, Mr.
McCormack is a troll, the post you are referring to being but one of
many damning pieces of evidence against Mr. McCormack. Please do not
interpret Mr. McCormack's behavior as typical of comp.lang.c posters.
Nope, everyone else is very polite and helpful.
Another question if I may, I'm running into a lot of other errors
which have to do with C syntax and such, is it ok to post questions on
those issues here? (nothing to do with compilers)

Thanks again!
Oct 16 '06 #20

P: n/a
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrote:
Another question if I may, I'm running into a lot of other errors
which have to do with C syntax and such, is it ok to post questions on
those issues here? (nothing to do with compilers)
Sure. As long as it's ISO C, and not a problem with, say, the POSIX
libraries, comp.lang.c is the place for it. And if not, we'll usually
know where the place is.

Richard
Oct 16 '06 #21

P: n/a
Displacer said:

<snip>
Another question if I may, I'm running into a lot of other errors
which have to do with C syntax and such, is it ok to post questions on
those issues here? (nothing to do with compilers)
Yes, that's fine. Obviously, it makes sense to try to work it out yourself
first, using your C book as a guide (if it's a good book!), but to post
questions about C syntax is very common and widely accepted here. Nobody -
er, make that "almost nobody"! - will criticise you for asking C questions
in a C newsgroup.

--
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)
Oct 16 '06 #22

P: n/a
Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@ukato.freeshell.orgwrites:
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrote:
>Yes I found what I needed there. Seems I opened a can of worms here,
but being pointed to a site on mental illness for asking a off topic
question was uncalled for. Of course my rude reply to that was rather
childish, and I apologize for that.

As I noted in my reply, and as Mr. Heathfield also implied, Mr.
McCormack is a troll, the post you are referring to being but one of
many damning pieces of evidence against Mr. McCormack. Please do not
interpret Mr. McCormack's behavior as typical of comp.lang.c posters.
Except McCormack's reply, albeit tongue in cheek and inflammatory, was
right about one thing. This was not a C question : it was about
compiling a platform specific DOS game using a specific compiler and
platform compiler specific subsystem specific libraries. Off Topic.

Oct 16 '06 #23

P: n/a
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:39:31 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
>Displacer said:

<snip>
>Another question if I may, I'm running into a lot of other errors
which have to do with C syntax and such, is it ok to post questions on
those issues here? (nothing to do with compilers)

Yes, that's fine. Obviously, it makes sense to try to work it out yourself
first, using your C book as a guide (if it's a good book!), but to post
questions about C syntax is very common and widely accepted here. Nobody -
er, make that "almost nobody"! - will criticise you for asking C questions
in a C newsgroup.
Yes, thats what I'm doing, and by looking over someone elses source
with a reference book at my side I'm learning quite a bit.

With that said it appears this source is relying on the compiler to
declare some of its code for it (guess this was common in the past)
anyway heres what I have in the .h file:

#define LEVELZONESIZE 250000

And in the .c file:

static levelzonesize=LEVELZONESIZE;

which triggers a warning. Should I make this:

static int levelzonesize=LEVELZONESIZE;
or
static long levelzonesize=LEVELZONESIZE;

or does it matter which?
Oct 16 '06 #24

P: n/a
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:49:36 +0200, Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
>Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@ukato.freeshell.orgwrites:
>Displacer <as****@the.switchwrote:
>>Yes I found what I needed there. Seems I opened a can of worms here,
but being pointed to a site on mental illness for asking a off topic
question was uncalled for. Of course my rude reply to that was rather
childish, and I apologize for that.

As I noted in my reply, and as Mr. Heathfield also implied, Mr.
McCormack is a troll, the post you are referring to being but one of
many damning pieces of evidence against Mr. McCormack. Please do not
interpret Mr. McCormack's behavior as typical of comp.lang.c posters.

Except McCormack's reply, albeit tongue in cheek and inflammatory, was
right about one thing. This was not a C question : it was about
compiling a platform specific DOS game using a specific compiler and
platform compiler specific subsystem specific libraries. Off Topic.
Yes I know now and have spanked myself accordingly ;)
Oct 16 '06 #25

P: n/a
Displacer said:

<snip>
anyway heres what I have in the .h file:

#define LEVELZONESIZE 250000

And in the .c file:

static levelzonesize=LEVELZONESIZE;

which triggers a warning. Should I make this:

static int levelzonesize=LEVELZONESIZE;
or
static long levelzonesize=LEVELZONESIZE;
C guarantees that ints can represent values in the range -32767 to +32767 -
you might get a wider range or you might not. But long ints are guaranteed
to represent values in the range -2147483647 to +2147483647.

So the answer is: the second one.

--
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)
Oct 16 '06 #26

P: n/a
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:16:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
>Displacer said:

<snip>
>anyway heres what I have in the .h file:

#define LEVELZONESIZE 250000

And in the .c file:

static levelzonesize=LEVELZONESIZE;

which triggers a warning. Should I make this:

static int levelzonesize=LEVELZONESIZE;
or
static long levelzonesize=LEVELZONESIZE;

C guarantees that ints can represent values in the range -32767 to +32767 -
you might get a wider range or you might not. But long ints are guaranteed
to represent values in the range -2147483647 to +2147483647.

So the answer is: the second one.
Thats what I thought as the define was for 250000
Thanks!
Oct 16 '06 #27

P: n/a
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrites:
[...]
With that said it appears this source is relying on the compiler to
declare some of its code for it (guess this was common in the past)
anyway heres what I have in the .h file:

#define LEVELZONESIZE 250000

And in the .c file:

static levelzonesize=LEVELZONESIZE;

which triggers a warning.
In C90 and earlier, a declaration with no type defaults to int
("implicit int"). C99 removed this feature, and it wasn't a very good
idea even in C90.
Should I make this:

static int levelzonesize=LEVELZONESIZE;
or
static long levelzonesize=LEVELZONESIZE;

or does it matter which?
It matters which, but it's not clear which you should use. If you
want to be sure levelzonesize can hold the value 250000 on all
platforms, you need to declare it as long; int is only guaranteed to
be able to hold values in the range -32767 .. +32767. But if other
code in the program assumes levelzonesize is an int, for example:

printf("levelzonesize = %d\n", levelzonesize);

then changing levelzonesize to long could break such code.

The safest approach is to make levelzonesize a long, then go through
the entire program and check all references to 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.
Oct 16 '06 #28

P: n/a

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrites:
[...]
With that said it appears this source is relying on the compiler to
declare some of its code for it (guess this was common in the past)
anyway heres what I have in the .h file:

#define LEVELZONESIZE 250000

And in the .c file:

static levelzonesize=LEVELZONESIZE;

which triggers a warning.

In C90 and earlier, a declaration with no type defaults to int
("implicit int"). C99 removed this feature, and it wasn't a very good
idea even in C90.
IMO, the problem wasn't "implicit int" but the LALR(1) conflict created when
typedef's were added to C.
Rod Pemberton
Oct 16 '06 #29

P: n/a
"Rod Pemberton" <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrites:
"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
>Displacer <as****@the.switchwrites:
[...]
With that said it appears this source is relying on the compiler to
declare some of its code for it (guess this was common in the past)
anyway heres what I have in the .h file:

#define LEVELZONESIZE 250000

And in the .c file:

static levelzonesize=LEVELZONESIZE;

which triggers a warning.

In C90 and earlier, a declaration with no type defaults to int
("implicit int"). C99 removed this feature, and it wasn't a very good
idea even in C90.

IMO, the problem wasn't "implicit int" but the LALR(1) conflict created when
typedef's were added to C.
Who says there can't be more than one problem?

In my opinion, taking advantage of C90's permission to omit the
keyword "int" in a declaration is a bad idea. It's always better to
specify "int" explicitly. One reason is that using implicit int makes
code incompatible with C99. Another is that avoiding implicit int
makes the code clearer and more explicit.

(I'm not saying that supporting implicit int in the C90 standard was a
bad idea; it was necessary to support existing code.)

The syntactical issues created by typedef (which was added long before
C90) are another problem; I don't see how that's related to implicit
int.

--
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.
Oct 16 '06 #30

P: n/a

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
"Rod Pemberton" <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrites:
"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrites:
[...]
With that said it appears this source is relying on the compiler to
declare some of its code for it (guess this was common in the past)
anyway heres what I have in the .h file:

#define LEVELZONESIZE 250000

And in the .c file:

static levelzonesize=LEVELZONESIZE;

which triggers a warning.

In C90 and earlier, a declaration with no type defaults to int
("implicit int"). C99 removed this feature, and it wasn't a very good
idea even in C90.
IMO, the problem wasn't "implicit int" but the LALR(1) conflict created
when
typedef's were added to C.

Who says there can't be more than one problem?

In my opinion, taking advantage of C90's permission to omit the
keyword "int" in a declaration is a bad idea. It's always better to
specify "int" explicitly. One reason is that using implicit int makes
code incompatible with C99. Another is that avoiding implicit int
makes the code clearer and more explicit.
I agree.

But, if it weren't for typedef's, we'd still have a default type of implicit
ints, because they don't create any serious language issues without
typedef's.

Also, if we want to completely eliminate ambiguity in the grammar (true
LALR(1)) we need two more tokens. One for an explicitly terminated if and
another for the use of a typedef as a type qualifier since we can't use
'typedef' itself (i.e., typedefname).

As I said to Torek (using an example of his), it's very easy to fix the
grammar:

#define typedefname ut
typedef int x;
int *a;
ut x *b; /* typedefname x *b */
int **p = &b;

void f(x); /* int x */
void f(ut x); /* typedefname x */

It's even portable:

#define ut
(I'm not saying that supporting implicit int in the C90 standard was a
bad idea; it was necessary to support existing code.)

The syntactical issues created by typedef (which was added long before
C90) are another problem; I don't see how that's related to implicit
int.
It was my understanding (?), that implicit int's were removed to help solve
the ambiguities of a determining an implicit int versus a typedef.

C++ "GETTING RID OF DEFAULT INT" 3)b) :
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...1993/N0358.asc
From what I'm able to locate, it appears that typedef's were added after
implicit int's.

C in 1977 or so, typedef's added:
http://www.darwinsys.com/history/hist.html

C in 1974-5 has implicit int's, but no typedef's ("13. Implicit
declarations"):
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/cman.pdf
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/cman74.pdf
Rod Pemberton
Oct 16 '06 #31

P: n/a
"Rod Pemberton" <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrites:
"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
>"Rod Pemberton" <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrites:
[...]n
IMO, the problem wasn't "implicit int" but the LALR(1) conflict
created when typedef's were added to C.

Who says there can't be more than one problem?

In my opinion, taking advantage of C90's permission to omit the
keyword "int" in a declaration is a bad idea. It's always better to
specify "int" explicitly. One reason is that using implicit int makes
code incompatible with C99. Another is that avoiding implicit int
makes the code clearer and more explicit.

I agree.

But, if it weren't for typedef's, we'd still have a default type of implicit
ints, because they don't create any serious language issues without
typedef's.

Also, if we want to completely eliminate ambiguity in the grammar (true
LALR(1)) we need two more tokens. One for an explicitly terminated if and
another for the use of a typedef as a type qualifier since we can't use
'typedef' itself (i.e., typedefname).

As I said to Torek (using an example of his), it's very easy to fix the
grammar:

#define typedefname ut
typedef int x;
int *a;
ut x *b; /* typedefname x *b */
int **p = &b;

void f(x); /* int x */
void f(ut x); /* typedefname x */

It's even portable:

#define ut
(Why "ut"?)

Yes, I suppose requiring "typedefname foo" rather than just "foo"
would probably solve the syntax problem -- though it would largely
defeat some of the purpose of having typedefs in the first place. At
least nobody would bother with:

typedef struct foo { ... } foo;

if it only meant being to refer to the type as either "struct foo" or
"typedefname foo".
>(I'm not saying that supporting implicit int in the C90 standard was a
bad idea; it was necessary to support existing code.)

The syntactical issues created by typedef (which was added long before
C90) are another problem; I don't see how that's related to implicit
int.

It was my understanding (?), that implicit int's were removed to help solve
the ambiguities of a determining an implicit int versus a typedef.

C++ "GETTING RID OF DEFAULT INT" 3)b) :
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...1993/N0358.asc
It's always been my assumption that implicit int was removed just
because it's ugly (my word, not the committee's). The web page you
cited (which, BTW, discusses C++ not C, but the issues are very
similar) gives 4 major reasons for getting rid of implicit int. Two
of them have nothing to do with parsing issues, and IMHO those are the
strongest reasons.
From what I'm able to locate, it appears that typedef's were added after
implicit int's.

C in 1977 or so, typedef's added:
http://www.darwinsys.com/history/hist.html

C in 1974-5 has implicit int's, but no typedef's ("13. Implicit
declarations"):
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/cman.pdf
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/cman74.pdf
Right, so C has had implicit int since time immemorial, and typedef
since 1977 or so. It survived from 1977 to 1999 with both typedef and
implicit int. And removing implicit int has not, as far as I can
tell, completely solved the typedef problem. For example,
"sizeof(foo)" goes through a different grammatical production
depending on whether "foo" is currently a typedef name or not. (I'm
too lazy to come up with a better example right not.)

--
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.
Oct 16 '06 #32

P: n/a
In article <eg**********@chessie.cirr.com>,
Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@ukato.freeshell.orgwrote:
>Displacer <as****@the.switchwrote:
>Yes I found what I needed there. Seems I opened a can of worms here,
but being pointed to a site on mental illness for asking a off topic
question was uncalled for. Of course my rude reply to that was rather
childish, and I apologize for that.

As I noted in my reply, and as Mr. Heathfield also implied, Mr.
McCormack is a troll, the post you are referring to being but one of
many damning pieces of evidence against Mr. McCormack. Please do not
interpret Mr. McCormack's behavior as typical of comp.lang.c posters.
Grrrr. Somebody get up on the wrong side of the broom this morning?

Oct 24 '06 #33

P: n/a
2006-10-15 <l0********************************@4ax.com>,
Displacer wrote:
Yes I found what I needed there. Seems I opened a can of worms here,
but being pointed to a site on mental illness for asking a off topic
question was uncalled for.
Yes, well... in his (rather dubious) defense, he wasn't saying _you_
were in any way mentally ill, he was saying that the rest of us were for
caring about on-topic-ness, and "trying" to be "helpful" by "explaining"
our reaction.
Of course my rude reply to that was rather
childish, and I apologize for that.
Yeah, well he is a bit of a...

nevermind.
Oct 24 '06 #34

P: n/a
In article <sl******************@rlaptop.random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.comwrote:
>2006-10-15 <l0********************************@4ax.com>,
Displacer wrote:
>Yes I found what I needed there. Seems I opened a can of worms here,
but being pointed to a site on mental illness for asking a off topic
question was uncalled for.

Yes, well... in his (rather dubious) defense, he wasn't saying _you_
were in any way mentally ill, he was saying that the rest of us were for
caring about on-topic-ness, and "trying" to be "helpful" by "explaining"
our reaction.
>Of course my rude reply to that was rather
childish, and I apologize for that.

Yeah, well he is a bit of a...

nevermind.
Plus the fact, and I've been meaning to point this out for a while now,
I don't think most people think of wikipedia as a "site on mental
illness". I know people around here (clc) don't much care for
wikipedia, but I doubt many would go far as to say it is a site for
crazy people.

Oct 24 '06 #35

P: n/a
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:45:50 +0000 (UTC),
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>In article <sl******************@rlaptop.random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.comwrote:
>>2006-10-15 <l0********************************@4ax.com>,
Displacer wrote:
>>Yes I found what I needed there. Seems I opened a can of worms here,
but being pointed to a site on mental illness for asking a off topic
question was uncalled for.

Yes, well... in his (rather dubious) defense, he wasn't saying _you_
were in any way mentally ill, he was saying that the rest of us were for
caring about on-topic-ness, and "trying" to be "helpful" by "explaining"
our reaction.
>>Of course my rude reply to that was rather
childish, and I apologize for that.

Yeah, well he is a bit of a...

nevermind.

Plus the fact, and I've been meaning to point this out for a while now,
I don't think most people think of wikipedia as a "site on mental
illness". I know people around here (clc) don't much care for
wikipedia, but I doubt many would go far as to say it is a site for
crazy people.
I was refering to the link to aspergers
Oct 25 '06 #36

P: n/a
Displacer <as****@the.switchwrites:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:45:50 +0000 (UTC),
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
[the usual]
I was refering to the link to aspergers
I'm sure he knows perfectly well what you were referring to.

Kenny McCormack is a self-proclaimed troll. *Please* ignore him.

--
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.
Oct 25 '06 #37

P: n/a
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>Displacer <as****@the.switchwrites:
>On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:45:50 +0000 (UTC),
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
[the usual]
>I was refering to the link to aspergers

I'm sure he knows perfectly well what you were referring to.

Kenny McCormack is a self-proclaimed troll. *Please* ignore him.
Keith Thompson is a self-proclaimed netcop. *Please* ignore him.

Oct 25 '06 #38

P: n/a
"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@xmission.xmission.comwrote in message
news:eh**********@news.xmission.com...
Keith Thompson is a self-proclaimed netcop. *Please* ignore him.
I'd rather read anything Keith Thompson writes than anything Kenney McComack
writes - rationality takes precedence over the Celtic soul botherhood.
Oct 27 '06 #39

P: n/a
In article <5x********************@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk> ,
Paul Connolly <pg********@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
>"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@xmission.xmission.comwrote in message
news:eh**********@news.xmission.com...
>Keith Thompson is a self-proclaimed netcop. *Please* ignore him.
I'd rather read anything Keith Thompson writes than anything Kenney McComack
writes - rationality takes precedence over the Celtic soul botherhood.
As you wish. But I haven't seen KT post anything other than "Off topic,
can't discuss it here, blah, blah, blah" (of course not in those
specific words) in, literally, years.

Oct 27 '06 #40

P: n/a
"Paul Connolly" <pg********@blueyonder.co.ukwrites:
"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@xmission.xmission.comwrote in message
news:eh**********@news.xmission.com...
[snip]
I'd rather read anything Keith Thompson writes than anything Kenney McComack
writes - rationality takes precedence over the Celtic soul botherhood.
I appreciate the sentiment, but as you can see, replying to Kenny
McCormack (even to criticize him or correct his errors) merely feeds
the troll. Please ignore him. (A killfile is a good way to do this;
you won't miss anything.)

--
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.
Oct 27 '06 #41

P: n/a

"Paul Connolly" <pg********@blueyonder.co.ukwrote in message
news:5x********************@fe3.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@xmission.xmission.comwrote in message
news:eh**********@news.xmission.com...
Keith Thompson is a self-proclaimed netcop. *Please* ignore him.
I'd rather read anything Keith Thompson writes than anything Kenney
McComack
writes - rationality takes precedence over the Celtic soul botherhood.
I disagree.

Here's my quick summary of the two:

Kenny McCormack
- 0% C related
- 97% humorous posts

Keith Thompson
- 50% C related
- 50% standard complaint posts

It's Keith's incessant standard complaint posts which irritate us.
Rod Pemberton
Oct 27 '06 #42

P: n/a
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>"Paul Connolly" <pg********@blueyonder.co.ukwrites:
>"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@xmission.xmission.comwrote in message
news:eh**********@news.xmission.com...
[snip]
>I'd rather read anything Keith Thompson writes than anything Kenney McComack
writes - rationality takes precedence over the Celtic soul botherhood.

I appreciate the sentiment, but as you can see, replying to Kenny
McCormack (even to criticize him or correct his errors) merely feeds
the troll. Please ignore him. (A killfile is a good way to do this;
you won't miss anything.)
You are so scared, aren't you?

Oct 28 '06 #43

P: n/a
In article <eh**********@ltw.loris.tv>,
Rod Pemberton <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote:
>
"Paul Connolly" <pg********@blueyonder.co.ukwrote in message
news:5x********************@fe3.news.blueyonder.c o.uk...
>"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@xmission.xmission.comwrote in message
news:eh**********@news.xmission.com...
Keith Thompson is a self-proclaimed netcop. *Please* ignore him.
I'd rather read anything Keith Thompson writes than anything Kenney
McComack
>writes - rationality takes precedence over the Celtic soul botherhood.

I disagree.

Here's my quick summary of the two:

Kenny McCormack
- 0% C related
- 97% humorous posts
Thanks!
Keith Thompson
- 50% C related
- 50% standard complaint posts

It's Keith's incessant standard complaint posts which irritate us.
Well said, sir.

Basically, everywhere else on the (Use)net, it is plainly understood
that "if you don't like it, ignore it, move on". That sort of sentiment
(basically, Libertarian) is a basic part of the hacker/geek mental make-up.
What continually amazes me about clc is how a bunch of religious zealots
managed to take over what should be a newsgroup dominated by and run by
hacker/geeks.

Oct 28 '06 #44

P: n/a
Rod Pemberton wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
Here's my quick summary of the two:

Kenny McCormack
- 0% C related
- 97% humorous posts

Keith Thompson
- 50% C related
- 50% standard complaint posts

It's Keith's incessant standard complaint posts which irritate us.
No, it's your off-topic meanderings that irritate.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Oct 28 '06 #45

P: n/a

"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:45***************@yahoo.com...
Rod Pemberton wrote:
... snip ...

Here's my quick summary of the two:

Kenny McCormack
- 0% C related
- 97% humorous posts

Keith Thompson
- 50% C related
- 50% standard complaint posts

It's Keith's incessant standard complaint posts which irritate us.

No, it's your off-topic meanderings that irritate.
As does your incessant links to your poorly written code that no one uses.
Rod Pemberton
Oct 29 '06 #46

P: n/a
In article <45***************@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <cb********@maineline.netwrote:
>Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>
... snip ...
>>
Here's my quick summary of the two:

Kenny McCormack
- 0% C related
- 97% humorous posts

Keith Thompson
- 50% C related
- 50% standard complaint posts

It's Keith's incessant standard complaint posts which irritate us.

No, it's your off-topic meanderings that irritate.
I don't think you can make that work. It has to be couched in terms of
"protecting the innocents". I.e., the standard position of the regs of
this ng (as it is of religious zealots everywhere) has to be: We
are immune from the trolls (we can just ignore them), but we have to
post our incessant "Do not feed the troll" messages in order to
alert/inform/protect the newbies who might not know better.

You cannot show your weakness as you have done.

P.S. Rod, what about the other 3% of my posts? What are they?

Oct 29 '06 #47

P: n/a
Rod Pemberton wrote:
You'd have to take that up with McCormack. FYI, you shouln't take it
personally. This is a _recurring_ argument between McCormack and Heathfield
Actually, most people seem to agree that McCormack is
a knob, and ignore him rather than filling the NG with bumf.

Heathfield only replied to McCormack on this occasion
because a poster apparently took McCormack seriously,
so Heathfield assured the poster that McCormack was not
a typical representative of this NG.

IMHO, McCormack is sour because he perceives a clique
and considers that he has not been accepted by it, so he
is throwing his toys out of the cot. How's that for pop
psychology?

In fact, McCormack accusation of "Aspergers" appears to
revolve around the fact that he considers it rude to redirect
people to a more appropriate NG. One symptom of Aspergers
is failure to realize that a particular action is considered rude
by most people. Since the regulars do not consider the
redirect to be rude, they "obviously" are suffering from this
mental disorder. I think McCormack missed the bus to Logic 101.
As I stated to Healthfield, I think it's important that people
learn about Aspergers. And, there are some people here
who need to read it.
You don't seem to realise how insulting this is. It's about
on the same level as asking a black man if he needs help
with his congenital laziness.

Oct 30 '06 #48

P: n/a
In article <11*********************@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.c om>,
Old Wolf <ol*****@inspire.net.nzwrote:
>Rod Pemberton wrote:
>You'd have to take that up with McCormack. FYI, you shouln't take it
personally. This is a _recurring_ argument between McCormack and Heathfield

Actually, most people seem to agree that McCormack is
a knob, and ignore him rather than filling the NG with bumf.
Oh, the irony...
>Heathfield only replied to McCormack on this occasion
because a poster apparently took McCormack seriously,
so Heathfield assured the poster that McCormack was not
a typical representative of this NG.
There it is again - as I explained to falconer, you do always have to
couch it in terms of "protecting the innocents".
>IMHO, McCormack is sour because he perceives a clique
and considers that he has not been accepted by it, so he
is throwing his toys out of the cot. How's that for pop
psychology?
Worth every penny we paid for it.
>One symptom of Aspergers is failure to realize that a particular action
is considered rude by most people. Since the regulars do not consider
the redirect to be rude, ...
I believe all I need add is: QED
>As I stated to Healthfield, I think it's important that people
learn about Aspergers. And, there are some people here
who need to read it.

You don't seem to realise how insulting this is.
The notion that it is an insult exists only in heathfield's demented
mind.
>It's about on the same level as asking a black man if he needs help
with his congenital laziness.
I'm sure you speak from experience.

Oct 30 '06 #49

P: n/a
"Rod Pemberton" <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote:
"Paul Connolly" <pg********@blueyonder.co.ukwrote in message
I'd rather read anything Keith Thompson writes than anything Kenney McComack
writes - rationality takes precedence over the Celtic soul botherhood.

I disagree.
Surprise.
Here's my quick summary of the two:

Kenny McCormack
- 0% C related
- 97% humorous posts
If you think that's humourous, perhaps it's time for you to advance to a
more grown-up kind of humour. I suggest Borat as the obvious next step
to adulthood.
Keith Thompson
- 50% C related
- 50% standard complaint posts

It's Keith's incessant standard complaint posts which irritate us.
And yet they serve a purpose.

Richard
Oct 30 '06 #50

74 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.