By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
454,605 Members | 1,491 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 454,605 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Note to fellow newsgroup posters

P: n/a

Hello everyone. I am sorry for my behaviour on this newsgroup.
Particularly, I want to apologise to the newsgroup regulars who have put up
with my childish behaviour.

The truth is, I'm a nineteen year old man who hasn't fully grown up into an
adult yet. It took recent events in my life to open my eyes to the way I am
living my life. I think I have turned a corner today, because I think I may
have finally accepted that I am an adult. (It brings tears to my eyes as I
write this). I don't know if it's simply a normal thing in life to have a
little trouble transitioning from being a child to an adult. In particular,
I think I myself have/had particular trouble accepting the end of my
childhood and the beginning of adulthood.

Looking back on my behaviour both in real life and on this newsgroup, I can
only describe it as childish. I am not ashamed of my past behaviour, but I
realise entirely that it is not the way an adult behaves (not the kind of
adult I aspire to in anyway).

I have had disagreements with regulars on this newsgroup, particularly
Keith Thompson and Richard Heathfield. Irrespective of the nature of the
arguments, or of who was in the wrong, I carried myself in a childish
manner. Keith, I am sorry. Richard, I am sorry. To everyone else here too,
I am sorry.

I realise that the demographic I'm speaking to right now is a little alien
to me. My guess would be that the mean age of the participants here is
about forty. A forty year old has more experience in life than me. Perhaps
some of you have at one stage went through what I am going through right
now. Maybe everyone goes through this child-to-adult predicament, I don't
know.

From this moment forward, I aim to be an adult. I aim to behave, think and
act like an adult, and to take responsibility for myself. I might have some
difficulty, I don't know, but I'll try.

My real name is not Frederick Gotham, and I am not brave enough to post
using my real name. The reason for this is that I am ashamed/embarassed of
my childish behaviour, a thing which I am trying to work on. One day, when
I am the adult I want to be, I will post under my real name.

In posting this, I wish to put my past behind me. I ask you, the regulars
on this newsgroup, to burn your old opinions of me and to give me a second
chance. If I fail, then I ask that you again burn your opinions of me and
give me a third chance. Give me a forth chance and a fifth chance. Please
extend to me an infinity of chances. We make mistakes in life, and I
believe that making mistakes is probably the best way of progressing.

Finally, I'm not quite sure why I wrote this. With the attitude I had
yesterday, the posting of this would seem cowardly and defeatist,
belittling and indignifying to myself. Today though, I don't quite care
about those things. In being an adult, I think at some stage you have to
accept who you are, and you can't spend your whole life afraid to express
yourself honestly -- well you can, but it's not exactly the path to
enlightenment.

I predict that I will receive varied responses to this. I hope that most
people will appreciate what I've done, and congratulate and encourage me. I
also realise that I'll probably receive posts mocking me. Thankfully
though, I would not place any worth on the opinion of someone who would
mock me for expressing myself like this.

--

Frederick Gotham
Nov 11 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
59 Replies


P: n/a
Frederick Gotham said:
>
Hello everyone. I am sorry for my behaviour on this newsgroup.
Well done! And welcome to comp.lang.c.
Keith, I am sorry. Richard, I am sorry. To everyone else here too,
I am sorry.
Thank you. It isn't easy to say sorry (and mean it) the first time, is it?
Trust me, it gets easier (sigh!).
I ask you, the regulars
on this newsgroup, to burn your old opinions of me and to give me a second
chance.
Sure, no problem.
If I fail, then I ask that you again burn your opinions of me and
give me a third chance. Give me a forth chance and a fifth chance. Please
extend to me an infinity of chances.
Cf Matthew 18:21-22
Finally, I'm not quite sure why I wrote this.
Because you finally wised up? :-)
I also realise that I'll probably receive posts mocking me.
Unfortunately that is probably true. Pay such articles no heed. None of the
grown-ups here will mock you.

And, again, welcome to comp.lang.c.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.
Nov 11 '06 #2

P: n/a
In article <YE*******************@news.indigo.ie>,
Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrote:
>
Hello everyone. I am sorry for my behaviour on this newsgroup.
Particularly, I want to apologise to the newsgroup regulars who have put up
with my childish behaviour.
I wonder which of the "regulars" forged this post.

To whomever it was, well done!

Nov 11 '06 #3

P: n/a
Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrites:
Hello everyone. I am sorry for my behaviour on this newsgroup.
Particularly, I want to apologise to the newsgroup regulars who have put up
with my childish behaviour.
[...]
I have had disagreements with regulars on this newsgroup, particularly
Keith Thompson and Richard Heathfield. Irrespective of the nature of the
arguments, or of who was in the wrong, I carried myself in a childish
manner. Keith, I am sorry. Richard, I am sorry. To everyone else here too,
I am sorry.
[...]

Frederick, thank you, and welcome back. Apology enthusiastically
acepted.

--
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.
Nov 11 '06 #4

P: n/a
Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <YE*******************@news.indigo.ie>,
Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrote:
>>Hello everyone. I am sorry for my behaviour on this newsgroup.
Particularly, I want to apologise to the newsgroup regulars who have put up
with my childish behaviour.


I wonder which of the "regulars" forged this post.

To whomever it was, well done!
Always the cynic, eh Kenny?
Nov 12 '06 #5

P: n/a
In article <PFu5h.292487$5R2.107618@pd7urf3no>,
John Smith <JS****@mail.netwrote:
>Kenny McCormack wrote:
>In article <YE*******************@news.indigo.ie>,
Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrote:
>>>Hello everyone. I am sorry for my behaviour on this newsgroup.
Particularly, I want to apologise to the newsgroup regulars who have put up
with my childish behaviour.


I wonder which of the "regulars" forged this post.

To whomever it was, well done!

Always the cynic, eh Kenny?
It's a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it.

Now, let's open a pool on how long (how many hours and minutes) it takes
for KT-the-netcop to demonstrate his insecurity by posting a response to
John telling him not to "feed the troll".

Nov 12 '06 #6

P: n/a
John Smith <JS****@mail.netwrites:
Kenny McCormack wrote:
>In article <YE*******************@news.indigo.ie>,
Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrote:
>>Hello everyone. I am sorry for my behaviour on this
newsgroup. Particularly, I want to apologise to the newsgroup
regulars who have put up with my childish behaviour.
I wonder which of the "regulars" forged this post.
To whomever it was, well done!

Always the cynic, eh Kenny?
John, Kenny McCormack is a troll. He seems to post here for the sole
purpose of deliberately disrupting this newsgroup (or perhaps he has
some other motivation, but it really doesn't matter). We've found
that the best way to deal with him is to ignore him *completely*. I
understand the temptation to snipe at an easy target, but that seems
to be exactly what he wants. Please don't feed the troll.

--
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.
Nov 12 '06 #7

P: n/a
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
....
>John, Kenny McCormack is a troll, blah, blah, blah...
Bingo!

What do I win???

Nov 12 '06 #8

P: n/a
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:43:57 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
>Frederick Gotham said:
>>
Hello everyone. I am sorry for my behaviour on this newsgroup.

Well done! And welcome to comp.lang.c.
It's always good to find a reason to eliminate a filter <g>. Welcome
back, Frederick.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
Nov 12 '06 #9

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:
John Smith <JS****@mail.netwrites:
>>Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>>In article <YE*******************@news.indigo.ie>,
Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrote:
Hello everyone. I am sorry for my behaviour on this
newsgroup. Particularly, I want to apologise to the newsgroup
regulars who have put up with my childish behaviour.

I wonder which of the "regulars" forged this post.
To whomever it was, well done!

Always the cynic, eh Kenny?


John, Kenny McCormack is a troll. He seems to post here for the sole
purpose of deliberately disrupting this newsgroup (or perhaps he has
some other motivation, but it really doesn't matter). We've found
that the best way to deal with him is to ignore him *completely*. I
understand the temptation to snipe at an easy target, but that seems
to be exactly what he wants. Please don't feed the troll.
With all due respect, Keith, I'll feed whomever I damn please.
The newsgroup is not your property, nor is it your prerogative to
set the rules. If the best way to deal with the likes of Kenny is
to ignore him, then take your own advice.

Nov 12 '06 #10

P: n/a
John Smith:
With all due respect, Keith, I'll feed whomever I damn please.
Yes you may, of course, we can't stop you.
The newsgroup is not your property, nor is it your prerogative to
set the rules. If the best way to deal with the likes of Kenny is
to ignore him, then take your own advice.
People who have experience with trolls know that any discussion with them is
fruitless.

Just as you have the freedom to feed whomever you please, newsgroup
participants have the freedom to lump you into the same category as Kenny if
they feel that your discussions, such as this one, are fruitless.

--

Frederick Gotham
Nov 12 '06 #11

P: n/a
In article <su*******************@news.indigo.ie>,
Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrote:
>John Smith:
>With all due respect, Keith, I'll feed whomever I damn please.

Yes you may, of course, we can't stop you.
>The newsgroup is not your property, nor is it your prerogative to
set the rules. If the best way to deal with the likes of Kenny is
to ignore him, then take your own advice.

People who have experience with trolls know that any discussion with them is
fruitless.

Just as you have the freedom to feed whomever you please, newsgroup
participants have the freedom to lump you into the same category as Kenny if
they feel that your discussions, such as this one, are fruitless.
What's really funny here is Mr. "Gotham" (self-admitted a pseudonym -
NTTAWWT) is clearly a troll (well done, sir), but is trying so hard to
ingratiate himself with the regs. Won't work. Don't bother.

Nov 12 '06 #12

P: n/a
John Smith wrote:
Keith Thompson wrote:
.... snip ...
>>
John, Kenny McCormack is a troll. He seems to post here for the sole
purpose of deliberately disrupting this newsgroup (or perhaps he has
some other motivation, but it really doesn't matter). We've found
that the best way to deal with him is to ignore him *completely*. I
understand the temptation to snipe at an easy target, but that seems
to be exactly what he wants. Please don't feed the troll.

With all due respect, Keith, I'll feed whomever I damn please.
The newsgroup is not your property, nor is it your prerogative to
set the rules. If the best way to deal with the likes of Kenny is
to ignore him, then take your own advice.
My, we do take kindly to constructive advice. PLONK.

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

Nov 12 '06 #13

P: n/a
CBFalconer said:
John Smith wrote:
<snip>
>With all due respect, Keith, I'll feed whomever I damn please.
The newsgroup is not your property, nor is it your prerogative to
set the rules. If the best way to deal with the likes of Kenny is
to ignore him, then take your own advice.

My, we do take kindly to constructive advice. PLONK.
It is a great shame that even a thread specifically begun in a praiseworthy
spirit of reconciliation has been turned to discord and division. Are we
really so bad at getting along with each other as the latter posts in this
thread seem to indicate?

Usenet works best when people try to see the best in each other. This is
rendered the more difficult by cynicism and, yes, deliberate trolling, but
it is still not impossible. We get the Usenet we deserve. If we'd like to
see more harmony, more co-operation, and more friendship in this group, it
has to start with each one of us determining to make that possible by being
more harmonious, co-operative, and friendly in our own articles.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.
Nov 12 '06 #14

P: n/a
John Smith <JS****@mail.netwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>John, Kenny McCormack is a troll. He seems to post here for the sole
purpose of deliberately disrupting this newsgroup (or perhaps he has
some other motivation, but it really doesn't matter). We've found
that the best way to deal with him is to ignore him *completely*. I
understand the temptation to snipe at an easy target, but that seems
to be exactly what he wants. Please don't feed the troll.

With all due respect, Keith, I'll feed whomever I damn please. The
newsgroup is not your property, nor is it your prerogative to set the
rules. If the best way to deal with the likes of Kenny is to ignore
him, then take your own advice.
I have never claimed that this newsgroup is my property. I do not set
the rules, or rather guidelines, I merely offer advice.

As for ignoring Kenny McCormack, that's exactly what I do. My
comments above were addressed to you, not to him, and they are the
result of a considerable amount of experience. I've dealt with trolls
in the past, and not always wisely. I've argued at length with trolls
before, and it's almost always a pure waste of time. Worse, it
encourages them to continue the argument, to the detriment of the
newsgroup. If you're so inclined, you might take a look at his
posting history and see how much good arguing with him has done.

Ignoring a troll means repeatedly letting him have the last word,
whatever the provocation, and counting on the other readers to
understand that silence implies boredom, not assent. Ideally, he'll
get bored and go away. At worst, if nobody replies, at least those
who use killfiles won't be bothered. This newsgroup would be a better
place of KM never posted here; we can achieve the same effect by
pretending that he doesn't.

I'm not trying to impose anything on you, I'm offering you advice.
You are of course under no obligation to accept it, but *in my
opinion* it would benefit you and the newsgroup if you did.

--
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.
Nov 12 '06 #15

P: n/a
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:39:30 GMT, in comp.lang.c , John Smith
<JS****@mail.netwrote:
>With all due respect, Keith, I'll feed whomever I damn please.
Thats fine, but you do realise that by replying to Kenny, you've
forced me, and anyone else who killfiled him, to see his post, and
that doesn't damn well please /me.
>The newsgroup is not your property, nor is it your prerogative to
set the rules. If the best way to deal with the likes of Kenny is
to ignore him, then take your own advice.
Bear in mind that responding rudely to polite requests from the
regulars and especially the gurus who post here is NOT a good way to
recieve help when you want it, and /is/ a good way to get killfiled
yourself.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Nov 12 '06 #16

P: n/a
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:39:30 GMT, John Smith <JS****@mail.netwrote:
>Keith Thompson wrote:
>John Smith <JS****@mail.netwrites:
>>>Kenny McCormack wrote:

In article <YE*******************@news.indigo.ie>,
Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrote:
>Hello everyone. I am sorry for my behaviour on this
>newsgroup. Particularly, I want to apologise to the newsgroup
>regulars who have put up with my childish behaviour.

I wonder which of the "regulars" forged this post.
To whomever it was, well done!

Always the cynic, eh Kenny?


John, Kenny McCormack is a troll. He seems to post here for the sole
purpose of deliberately disrupting this newsgroup (or perhaps he has
some other motivation, but it really doesn't matter). We've found
that the best way to deal with him is to ignore him *completely*. I
understand the temptation to snipe at an easy target, but that seems
to be exactly what he wants. Please don't feed the troll.

With all due respect, Keith, I'll feed whomever I damn please.
The newsgroup is not your property, nor is it your prerogative to
set the rules. If the best way to deal with the likes of Kenny is
to ignore him, then take your own advice.
He *is* ignoring McCormick. He's politely suggesting that you do the
same. It's a good suggestion.

(It's interesting that the phrase "With all due respect" is invariably
followed by something not at all respectful :-)

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
Nov 12 '06 #17

P: n/a

Keith Thompson wrote:
John Smith <JS****@mail.netwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
John, Kenny McCormack is a troll. <snip Please don't feed the troll.
With all due respect, Keith, I'll feed whomever I damn please. The
newsgroup is not your property, nor is it your prerogative to set the
rules. If the best way to deal with the likes of Kenny is to ignore
him, then take your own advice.
<snip>
>
I'm not trying to impose anything on you, I'm offering you advice.
You are of course under no obligation to accept it, but *in my
opinion* it would benefit you and the newsgroup if you did.
I don't normally like to chime in with "me, too", but for the sake
of showing a consensus...."me, too." My opinion matches
Keith's, and I would like to see an increase in the signal
to noise ratio in this group. I think your reaction to Keith's
advice was excessive and quite rude.

--
Bill Pursell

Nov 12 '06 #18

P: n/a
In article <m6********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
....
>Usenet works best when people try to see the best in each other. This
is rendered the more difficult by cynicism and, yes, deliberate
trolling, but it is still not impossible. We get the Usenet we deserve.
If we'd like to see more harmony, more co-operation, and more
friendship in this group, it has to start with each one of us
determining to make that possible by being more harmonious,
co-operative, and friendly in our own articles.
Well said, sir!

I think that is the first piece of actual humanity I've ever seen you
display in this newsgroup. Again, well done.

Nov 12 '06 #19

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:39:30 GMT, in comp.lang.c , John Smith
<JS****@mail.netwrote:

>>With all due respect, Keith, I'll feed whomever I damn please.


Thats fine, but you do realise that by replying to Kenny, you've
forced me, and anyone else who killfiled him, to see his post, and
that doesn't damn well please /me.
Do you think it is reasonable, in an open forum, to expect others
to avoid replying to anyone whom you have, for one reason or
another, chosen to killfile? The point that Kenny McCormack,
rather annoyingly, tries to make is sometimes valid: some of the
participants in this ng take themselves a little too seriously.
In any robust forum, a gadfly who occasionally punctures the
pompous (call him a troll if you will) can serve a purpose.
Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Nov 12 '06 #20

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre said:
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:39:30 GMT, in comp.lang.c , John Smith
<JS****@mail.netwrote:
>>With all due respect, Keith, I'll feed whomever I damn please.

Thats fine, but you do realise that by replying to Kenny, you've
forced me, and anyone else who killfiled him, to see his post, and
that doesn't damn well please /me.
>>The newsgroup is not your property, nor is it your prerogative to
set the rules. If the best way to deal with the likes of Kenny is
to ignore him, then take your own advice.

Bear in mind that responding rudely to polite requests from the
regulars and especially the gurus who post here is NOT a good way to
recieve help when you want it, and /is/ a good way to get killfiled
yourself.
John wasn't actually rude. He went to some trouble to say "with all due
respect", but he also made his position clear - i.e. it's for him, not you
or Keith or me, to decide whether he considers Kenny McCormack's articles
to be worth replying to.

Please bear in mind that inaccurate responses such as yours *will* draw
corrections, Mark. And you can't killfile me for saying so, because you
already killfiled me the /last/ time you didn't understand what I was
saying, so you aren't actually reading this, are you?

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.
Nov 13 '06 #21

P: n/a
John Smith said:
Mark McIntyre wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:39:30 GMT, in comp.lang.c , John Smith
<JS****@mail.netwrote:

>>>With all due respect, Keith, I'll feed whomever I damn please.


Thats fine, but you do realise that by replying to Kenny, you've
forced me, and anyone else who killfiled him, to see his post, and
that doesn't damn well please /me.

Do you think it is reasonable, in an open forum, to expect others
to avoid replying to anyone whom you have, for one reason or
another, chosen to killfile?
If that *is* reasonable, then it's reasonable to expect people to avoid
replying to me, since TTBOMKAB I have been killfiled by Mark McIntyre and
Richard Bos - both, in my obviously biased opinion, through a failure to
understand my intent (which, to be fair to them, presumably means I failed
to communicate my intent properly).

<snip>
Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."
Hear, hear.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.
Nov 13 '06 #22

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
John Smith said:
[...]
>Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.
And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?

--
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.
Nov 13 '06 #23

P: n/a
Keith Thompson said:
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
>John Smith said:
[...]
>>Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.

And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?
Apparently not. It is easy to misconstrue a request as an instruction,
especially in English, and your original request could easily be
misconstrued in that manner.

Personally, I think you're right - i.e. it's better not to feed the troll -
but I also get rather annoyed by articles whose authors tell me, or *seem*
to be telling me, to whom I may or may not reply. To each his own killfile.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.
Nov 13 '06 #24

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
CBFalconer said:
John Smith wrote:
With all due respect, Keith, I'll feed whomever I damn please.
The newsgroup is not your property, nor is it your prerogative to
set the rules. If the best way to deal with the likes of Kenny is
to ignore him, then take your own advice.
My, we do take kindly to constructive advice. PLONK.

It is a great shame that even a thread specifically begun in a praiseworthy
spirit of reconciliation has been turned to discord and division. Are we
really so bad at getting along with each other as the latter posts in this
thread seem to indicate?

Usenet works best when people try to see the best in each other. This is
rendered the more difficult by cynicism and, yes, deliberate trolling, but
it is still not impossible. We get the Usenet we deserve. If we'd like to
see more harmony, more co-operation, and more friendship in this group, it
has to start with each one of us determining to make that possible by being
more harmonious, co-operative, and friendly in our own articles.
so which regular forged *this* post?

:-)
--
Nick Keighley

Nov 13 '06 #25

P: n/a
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
>John Smith said:
[...]
>>Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.

And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?
1) I believe your phrasing was: Please do not ... (ending w/a period)
Since there is no question mark, this is not an "ask"; it is a "tell".
2) Statements that begin with "Please" are, particularly in this ng,
taken as instructions. In general, the "Please" is sugar coating for
something that the OP does not want to hear.
3) You have a well-established role as netcop in this ng, moreso than
any of the other regulars.

Nov 13 '06 #26

P: n/a
2006-11-13 <ej**********@news.xmission.com>,
Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>>Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
>>John Smith said:
[...]
>>>Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.

And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?

1) I believe your phrasing was: Please do not ... (ending w/a period)
Since there is no question mark, this is not an "ask"; it is a "tell".
2) Statements that begin with "Please" are, particularly in this ng,
taken as instructions. In general, the "Please" is sugar coating for
something that the OP does not want to hear.
3) You have a well-established role as netcop in this ng, moreso than
any of the other regulars.
For as much as he's normally a troll, Kenny is correct in this instance.

If you don't want to see replies to trolls, get a newsreader that can
filter these out. It is not anyone else's responsibility to not quote
someone whose text you do not wish to read.
Nov 13 '06 #27

P: n/a
Nick Keighley wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
>It is a great shame that even a thread specifically begun in a praiseworthy
<snip>
so which regular forged *this* post?

:-)
I reckon it was that chap Richard Heatheild. Mr Heathfeild, stop forging
posts by Richard Heathfield ;-)
--
Flash Gordon
Nov 13 '06 #28

P: n/a
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:28:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
>Keith Thompson said:
>Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
>>John Smith said:
[...]
>>>Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.

And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?

Apparently not. It is easy to misconstrue a request as an instruction,
especially in English, and your original request could easily be
misconstrued in that manner.
If "please don't ..." sounds like an instruction to you, American
English must be further from the mother tongue than I thought :-)
>
Personally, I think you're right - i.e. it's better not to feed the troll -
but I also get rather annoyed by articles whose authors tell me, or *seem*
to be telling me, to whom I may or may not reply. To each his own killfile.
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
Nov 13 '06 #29

P: n/a
[added alt.usage.english, followups not set]

2006-11-13 <st********************************@4ax.com>,
Al Balmer wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:28:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
>>Keith Thompson said:
>>Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
John Smith said:
[...]
Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.

And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?

Apparently not. It is easy to misconstrue a request as an instruction,
especially in English, and your original request could easily be
misconstrued in that manner.

If "please don't ..." sounds like an instruction to you, American
English must be further from the mother tongue than I thought :-)
"Please don't..." is an instruction; there's no two ways about it.
>>Personally, I think you're right - i.e. it's better not to feed the troll -
but I also get rather annoyed by articles whose authors tell me, or *seem*
to be telling me, to whom I may or may not reply. To each his own killfile.
Nov 13 '06 #30

P: n/a
Frederick Gotham wrote:

<snipped apology to regs>
arguments, or of who was in the wrong, I carried myself in a childish
manner.
Oh, I wouldn't worry about it too much; I've already
embarrassed myself countless times on usenet by being
in the wrong *and defending my position ferociously* :-)

It is very easy to get ones ego tied up in ones argument
so that one cannot accept a correction with losing face,
hence long flamewars with each side defending their position
as best they can.
My real name is not Frederick Gotham, and I am not brave enough to post
using my real name. The reason for this is that I am ashamed/embarassed of
my childish behaviour, a thing which I am trying to work on. One day, when
I am the adult I want to be, I will post under my real name.
I wouldn't worry about this one either; I don't post under my
real name either but I assume that, by reading past posts over various
newsgroups, anyone can easily figure out my name, age, profession,
contact details and innermost fantasies.

(Okay, maybe not that last one :-).

<snipped>
--

Frederick Gotham
Don't worry overall; the regs here are usually quite
nice okes. They probably respect you much more when
you are able to apologise.

In your dealings, whether on usenet or otherwise,
remember that there is no shame in humility.

goose,

Nov 13 '06 #31

P: n/a
Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <m6********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
...
Usenet works best when people try to see the best in each other. This
is rendered the more difficult by cynicism and, yes, deliberate
trolling, but it is still not impossible. We get the Usenet we deserve.
If we'd like to see more harmony, more co-operation, and more
friendship in this group, it has to start with each one of us
determining to make that possible by being more harmonious,
co-operative, and friendly in our own articles.

Well said, sir!

I think that is the first piece of actual humanity I've ever seen you
display in this newsgroup. Again, well done.
Yup; stay on for later when we all sit round a fire
and sing "kum-by-yah" :-)

goose,

Nov 13 '06 #32

P: n/a
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:51:13 GMT, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
>John Smith said:
[...]
>>Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.

And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?
Perhaps if you worded it, "In my opinion it would be better not to feed
the trolls." Or maybe, "Experience has taught me that one shouldn't
feed the trolls." No doubt you can think of a better phrasing. Or you
could quote a poem I once wrote:

When a poster won't behave
Put that poster in the grave.
Kill him quick for life is short.
Silence is the best retort.

Or even "It would be a courtesy to the rest of us if you would not feed
the trolls."
Nov 13 '06 #33

P: n/a
On Mon, 2006-13-11 at 14:56 +0000, Random832 wrote:
Kenny McCormack wrote:
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?
1) I believe your phrasing was: Please do not ... (ending w/a period)
Since there is no question mark, this is not an "ask"; it is a "tell".
2) Statements that begin with "Please" are, particularly in this ng,
taken as instructions. In general, the "Please" is sugar coating for
something that the OP does not want to hear.
3) You have a well-established role as netcop in this ng, moreso than
any of the other regulars.

For as much as he's normally a troll, Kenny is correct in this instance.

If you don't want to see replies to trolls, get a newsreader that can
filter these out. It is not anyone else's responsibility to not quote
someone whose text you do not wish to read.
You must realize, though, that had more people taken Keith's advice in
this thread, it wouldn't exist, and we could get back to discussing C.

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware.net>
For email, use [first_name].[last]@gmail.com
"You're only smart on the outside." -anon.

Nov 13 '06 #34

P: n/a
In article <st********************************@4ax.com>,
Al Balmer <al****************@att.netwrote:
....
>If "please don't ..." sounds like an instruction to you, American
English must be further from the mother tongue than I thought :-)
To be fair, it *is* an "instruction", but not a "command". (*)
And I think most of us understand that distinction, but less capable
people might not.

(*) In my terminology, an "instruction" is a statement that you should
do X (with an implicit assumption that obviously we all agree that X is
proper behavior - and that is that implicit assumption that Mr. Random
and others have rejected), but w/o a "stick" (in the traditional
"carrot-and-stick" metaphor).

A "command" is in instruction with a "stick". I.e., do this or dire
things will happen to you. KT often comes off as if he has a stick and
isn't afraid to use it (as noted above, obviously most of "us" know
better, but not everybody).

Nov 13 '06 #35

P: n/a
In article <1163440388.5592.9.camel@abacus>,
Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@false.sitewrote:
....
>You must realize, though, that had more people taken Keith's advice in
this thread, it wouldn't exist, and we could get back to discussing C.
(AFAIK) Nobody's holding a gun to your head making you post to this
thread.

Nov 13 '06 #36

P: n/a
2006-11-13 <ej**********@news.xmission.com>,
Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <st********************************@4ax.com>,
Al Balmer <al****************@att.netwrote:
...
>>If "please don't ..." sounds like an instruction to you, American
English must be further from the mother tongue than I thought :-)

To be fair, it *is* an "instruction", but not a "command". (*)
And I think most of us understand that distinction,
Well, except for the fact that you just made it up (I don't deny that
the distinction itself, which I snipped, exists, but you're haphazardly
assigning what words mean what distinctions when they're mostly
synonyms. if this is an instruction and that's a command, then what's an
order?)
but less capable people might not.
Regardless of what it is or is not, tacking on "please" doesn't change
anything about it. Can we all agree on that, at least? (that last
sentence, by the way, was a 'request'.)
Nov 13 '06 #37

P: n/a
On 13 Nov 2006 20:09:23 GMT, Random832 <ra****@random.yi.orgwrote:
>Regardless of what it is or is not, tacking on "please" doesn't change
anything about it. Can we all agree on that, at least?
Nope. The word means something to me.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
Nov 13 '06 #38

P: n/a
cr*@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:51:13 GMT, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>>Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
>>John Smith said:
[...]
>>>Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.

And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?

Perhaps if you worded it, "In my opinion it would be better not to feed
the trolls." Or maybe, "Experience has taught me that one shouldn't
feed the trolls." No doubt you can think of a better phrasing. Or you
could quote a poem I once wrote:

When a poster won't behave
Put that poster in the grave.
Kill him quick for life is short.
Silence is the best retort.

Or even "It would be a courtesy to the rest of us if you would not feed
the trolls."
Or how about "Please don't feed the trolls"?

I'm really having trouble figuring out why what I wrote was so
offensive. I do not have, and I have never claimed, any kind of
authority in this newsgroup. I offer my opinions -- and for the
record, everything I post here (other than quotations of what others
have written) is my opinion. If people really would prefer that I
phrase it differently, I'll consider it. But if "Please don't feed
the trolls" is seen as offensive, I don't see how sugar-coating it
would help; *somebody* is going to take offense no matter what I say.

I do believe that reminding people not to respond to trolls is a good
idea. Kenny McCormack, in my opinion, makes no positive contribution
to this newsgroup; rather, his goal seems to be to deliberately
disrupt it. I'm just trying not to let him do that. In effect, I'm
trying to organize a boycott (a voluntary one, of course).

If I'm missing something here, please help me understand it. I've
said myself that if somebody misunderstands what I've written, it's my
responsibility to write more clearly. But in this case, after reading
all the discussion, "Please don't feed the trolls" is exactly what I
wanted to say.

--
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.
Nov 13 '06 #39

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:
cr*@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>>When a poster won't behave
Put that poster in the grave.
Kill him quick for life is short.
Silence is the best retort.

Or even "It would be a courtesy to the rest of us if you would not feed
the trolls."


Or how about "Please don't feed the trolls"?

I'm really having trouble figuring out why what I wrote was so
offensive.
Keith, I'm sure you've been around here long enough to know this group
is populated with professional offence takers.

--
Ian Collins.
Nov 13 '06 #40

P: n/a
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:03:35 GMT, in comp.lang.c , John Smith
<JS****@mail.netwrote:
>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:39:30 GMT, in comp.lang.c , John Smith
<JS****@mail.netwrote:

>>>With all due respect, Keith, I'll feed whomever I damn please.


Thats fine, but you do realise that by replying to Kenny, you've
forced me, and anyone else who killfiled him, to see his post, and
that doesn't damn well please /me.

Do you think it is reasonable,
I think its reasonable, in an open forum, for people to *read* and
*understand* when someone is making a sensible suggestion. I think its
_unreasonable_ to start ranting about infringement of your rights,
and being bullied, when all anyone has done is recommend you avoid
talking to trolls so as to avoid wasting _everyone's_ bandwidth and
valuable time. You might want to consider which of us is being
selfish around here.

Two things to remember:
1) rights are earned, not innate, You arrive here with none, you earn
credit by being a useful poster.

2) you're pissing off the regulars, which is stupid.

As for you, into the bitbucket with you.
>Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."
Grow up, and learn to read.

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Nov 13 '06 #41

P: n/a
On 13 Nov 2006 15:19:50 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Random832
<ra****@random.yi.orgwrote:
>[added alt.usage.english, followups not set]
Removed again, don't be offensive.
>
"Please don't..." is an instruction; there's no two ways about it.
Only to an idiot.

*plonk*
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Nov 13 '06 #42

P: n/a
2006-11-13 <ju********************************@4ax.com>,
Al Balmer wrote:
On 13 Nov 2006 20:09:23 GMT, Random832 <ra****@random.yi.orgwrote:
>>Regardless of what it is or is not, tacking on "please" doesn't change
anything about it. Can we all agree on that, at least?

Nope. The word means something to me.
I didn't mean to say it doesn't add politeness, but I maintain it does
not change an instruction to a request. At best, it changes an
instruction to a polite instruction.
Nov 13 '06 #43

P: n/a
2006-11-13 <m1********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On 13 Nov 2006 15:19:50 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Random832
<ra****@random.yi.orgwrote:
>>[added alt.usage.english, followups not set]

Removed again, don't be offensive.
What's "again"? It's not like you'd removed it before, since that was
the first time I added it.

And what's so offensive? If you really think "followups not set" is
offensive; please keep in mind I only did not set it because I honestly
thought the discussion might be of interest to members of either group
who do not subscribe to the other.

I thought that "followups not set" conveyed all that, because someone
who failed to set up followups for any other reason would not note it.
Nov 13 '06 #44

P: n/a
2006-11-13 <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson wrote:
cr*@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:51:13 GMT, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>>>Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
John Smith said:
[...]
Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.

And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?

Perhaps if you worded it, "In my opinion it would be better not to feed
the trolls." Or maybe, "Experience has taught me that one shouldn't
feed the trolls." No doubt you can think of a better phrasing. Or you
could quote a poem I once wrote:

When a poster won't behave
Put that poster in the grave.
Kill him quick for life is short.
Silence is the best retort.

Or even "It would be a courtesy to the rest of us if you would not feed
the trolls."

Or how about "Please don't feed the trolls"?

I'm really having trouble figuring out why what I wrote was so
offensive. I do not have, and I have never claimed, any kind of
authority in this newsgroup. I offer my opinions -- and for the
record, everything I post here (other than quotations of what others
have written) is my opinion. If people really would prefer that I
phrase it differently, I'll consider it. But if "Please don't feed
the trolls" is seen as offensive, I don't see how sugar-coating it
would help; *somebody* is going to take offense no matter what I say.
Note that my only objection was to the claim that it is not an
instruction. It is one. I did not say it was not a _good_ instruction,
or that you should not have said it.
I do believe that reminding people not to respond to trolls is a good
idea. Kenny McCormack, in my opinion, makes no positive contribution
to this newsgroup; rather, his goal seems to be to deliberately
disrupt it. I'm just trying not to let him do that. In effect, I'm
trying to organize a boycott (a voluntary one, of course).
I still maintain that a killfile would be more effective in saving you
from having to read it, since invariably there will be people who ignore
your "requests".
Nov 13 '06 #45

P: n/a
2006-11-13 <op********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre wrote:
Two things to remember:
1) rights are earned, not innate, You arrive here with none, you earn
credit by being a useful poster.
You don't think I've earned a bit better than a summary *plonk* for
crossposting to alt.usage.english on a word usage issue?
Nov 13 '06 #46

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield:

To each his own killfile.

While we're being liberal:

To each his or her own killfile.

:P

--

Frederick Gotham
Nov 13 '06 #47

P: n/a
Keith Thompson:
If I'm missing something here, please help me understand it. I've
said myself that if somebody misunderstands what I've written, it's my
responsibility to write more clearly. But in this case, after reading
all the discussion, "Please don't feed the trolls" is exactly what I
wanted to say.

First thing I'll say is that most of the participants here seem to be
native speakers of English, or perhaps very fluent.

Keith, people interpreted your statement differently. This could be put
down to their own individual thoughts, or perhaps dialect, or perhaps the
way you worded the statement.

With regard to dialect, one example I can think of is rural Ireland; in
rural Ireland, they use the word "may" when administering an instruction,
most notably in a forceful manner. For instance, consider a situation where
Person A has borrowed Person B's car. Person B brings the car back filthy.
Person A might say "You _may_ clean that car". In rural Ireland, this is a
forceful instruction.

In different places however, "may" has much more passive connotations. (In
fact, I can't remember the last time I heard someone say "may" in Dublin.)

My opinion on the topic is as follows:

Keith is a fluent speaker of English, and there was nothing inherently
wrong with the wording of his request. If it was interpreted as an
instruction rather than a request, then neither party is to blame. Upon
hearing that his statement was misinterpreted, Keith clarified his intent,
indicating that his statement was a request rather than an instruction. So
there we have it, we know what Keith was trying to say, case closed.

To those of you whose interpretation of the statement was different to the
meaning which was intended to be conveyed, you can take note that Keith
Thompson may again in future make use of "Please don't" without inferring
anything other than a request -- it would be logical to assume this. If you
don't like his usage of English, then fair enough, but it doesn't give you
the right to deliberately misconstrue, and to propogate the misconstruance
of, what he said.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some domestic problems to attend to. ; )

[When I say "Now if you'll X...", it should not be interpreted as an order]

--

Frederick Gotham
Nov 13 '06 #48

P: n/a
Random832:
You don't think I've earned a bit better than a summary *plonk* for
crossposting to alt.usage.english on a word usage issue?
If it's any consolation, Random832, I've never found Mark McIntyre to be
anything other than unreasonable and unpleasant on this newsgroup. This is my
own opinion.

Please don't be discouraged to post here. I actually thought your
alt.usage.english was quite inovative.

--

Frederick Gotham
Nov 13 '06 #49

P: n/a
goose:
In your dealings, whether on usenet or otherwise,
remember that there is no shame in humility.

Nor in humanity.

--

Frederick Gotham
Nov 13 '06 #50

59 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.