Signal to noise ratios

[Mark Bluemel]

Can I suggest that people remember an old Malagasy proverb (which I
learnt about elsewhere)?

"In a fight with a fool it's a wise man who quits."

usefully abbreviated to IAFWAFIAWMWQ...

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Mark Bluemel <ma**********@pobox.comwrote:

Can I suggest that people remember an old Malagasy proverb (which I
learnt about elsewhere)?

"In a fight with a fool it's a wise man who quits."

I suggest "Don't feed the trolls" as a modern alternative.

--
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.

[Mark Bluemel]

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:

Mark Bluemel <ma**********@pobox.comwrote:

>>Can I suggest that people remember an old Malagasy proverb (which I
learnt about elsewhere)?

>>"In a fight with a fool it's a wise man who quits."

I suggest "Don't feed the trolls" as a modern alternative.

Part of the the point about IAFWAFIAWMWQ is that it doesn't just apply
to trolls. It applies once you're into a "dialogue of the deaf", which
is currently (as I see it) what's happening between some contributors.

[santosh]

Mark Bluemel wrote:

Can I suggest that people remember an old Malagasy proverb (which I
learnt about elsewhere)?

"In a fight with a fool it's a wise man who quits."

usefully abbreviated to IAFWAFIAWMWQ...

This is one acronym that's not worth learning. The expansion is far easier
to remember.

[Default User]

Mark Bluemel wrote:

Can I suggest that people remember an old Malagasy proverb (which I
learnt about elsewhere)?

"In a fight with a fool it's a wise man who quits."

usefully abbreviated to IAFWAFIAWMWQ...

I basically agree with you. I wish people would stop engaging Jacob or
"plain Richard" (not to be confused with Mr. Heathfield, Mr. Bos, or
other fine Richards that have contributed here).

I can understand that it may be important to post corrections to
off-topic posts from this people, but the constant debate that rehashes
old arguments is pointless and destructive.

It would be far better in my opinion to ignore these people other than
stock responses output whenever an off-topic message appears.

Brian

[Doug]

On Jul 26, 6:44 pm, "Default User" <[e-mail]:

Mark Bluemel wrote:

Can I suggest that people remember an old Malagasy proverb (which I
learnt about elsewhere)?

"In a fight with a fool it's a wise man who quits."

usefully abbreviated to IAFWAFIAWMWQ...

I basically agree with you. I wish people would stop engaging Jacob or
"plain Richard" (not to be confused with Mr. Heathfield, Mr. Bos, or
other fine Richards that have contributed here).

<snip>

I'm afraid I'm on the other side. I've found Jacob to be polite and a
fairly nice guy (and I don't feel he pushes lcc-win32 here one little
bit, to be honest). Chris and "plain Richard", too, and plenty of
others. I generally enjoy reading their posts, until the custard
fights start. For example, I like Jacbo's thought-provoking 'what
would happen if I did this?' questions. Adds colour to the usual 'i =
i++' posts we see. However, I don't bother posting because I don't
feel like being drawn into personal battles over Usenet.

I think the fine contributors you are thinking of would be better
posting to a new group, comp.lang.c.rude, and leave the rest of us in
peace.

We all acknowledge they know their C. I'm sure they know it much
better than I, Jacob or "plain Richard". But there would still remain
a few regulars with excellent C knowledge *and* some basic manners.
And maybe we could have some interesting dicsussions, instead of the
constant nit-picking, snide and arrogance.

Just a thought.

Doug

[Default User]

Doug wrote:

I'm afraid I'm on the other side. I've found Jacob to be polite and a
fairly nice guy (and I don't feel he pushes lcc-win32 here one little
bit, to be honest). Chris and "plain Richard", too, and plenty of
others. I generally enjoy reading their posts, until the custard
fights start. For example, I like Jacbo's thought-provoking 'what
would happen if I did this?' questions. Adds colour to the usual 'i =
i++' posts we see. However, I don't bother posting because I don't
feel like being drawn into personal battles over Usenet.

All the people you mention wish to change the base topicality of this
newsgroup. From our related group, comp.lang.c++, we know that is a
recipe for disaster. It took that group a lot of effort to climb out of
their morass.


Brian

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <5g*************@mid.individual.net>,
Default Loser <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>Doug wrote:

>I'm afraid I'm on the other side. I've found Jacob to be polite and a
fairly nice guy (and I don't feel he pushes lcc-win32 here one little
bit, to be honest). Chris and "plain Richard", too, and plenty of
others. I generally enjoy reading their posts, until the custard
fights start. For example, I like Jacbo's thought-provoking 'what
would happen if I did this?' questions. Adds colour to the usual 'i =
i++' posts we see. However, I don't bother posting because I don't
feel like being drawn into personal battles over Usenet.

All the people you mention wish to change the base topicality of this
newsgroup. From our related group, comp.lang.c++, we know that is a
recipe for disaster. It took that group a lot of effort to climb out of
their morass.

That's what you (and the other hardcode regs) always say.

Doesn't make it true, though.

[Doug]

On Jul 26, 8:13 pm, "Default User" <[e-mail]:

Doug wrote:

On Jul 26, 7:19 pm, "Default User" <[e-mail]:

Doug wrote:
All the people you mention wish to change the base topicality of
this newsgroup.

<snip>

Ok, I can see that aspect of things (although I don't think they
really want to change it, just stretch its boundary every once in a
while).

No, that's NOT what they want.

I suspect they have been vilified, somewhat. In my time lurking here
they've at least seemed pleasant enough and on-topic enough to me.
One or two feet wrong here or there, but no worse and arguably much
better than the replies to spam some others post.

>
This is a bizzare perspective. I've never known clc++ to be
particularly helpful to off-topic request, nor clc to be anything but
extremely helpful for on-topic ones.

They're a heck more polite about it though!

>
Perhaps you could point out a few examples where questions here did not
get a good, full response?

Sorry, that's not what I intended to get across. We do get full
responses here - they're just laden with scorn. They are also usually
so obliquely stated that an inexperienced person would never be able
to figure them out anyway.

Doug

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

I basically agree with you. I wish people would stop engaging Jacob or
"plain Richard" (not to be confused with Mr. Heathfield, Mr. Bos, or
other fine Richards that have contributed here).

Well, one problem is that one of those Richards is a frequent engager
of "plain Richard" and other annoying posters. The Richard in
question also does more battle with Mr. Navia than is really necessary
IMHO...

I can understand that it may be important to post corrections to
off-topic posts from this people, but the constant debate that rehashes
old arguments is pointless and destructive.

....resulting in a significant amount of said constant pointless
debate. I find that the Richard in question is in general a fine
contributor to the group, for the record, which makes his digressions
forgivable but unfortunate nevertheless.

It would be far better in my opinion to ignore these people other than
stock responses output whenever an off-topic message appears.

Heartily agreed.

--
C. Benson Manica | I appreciate all corrections, polite or otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If it moves, it's design. If it blows up, it's hardware. If it doesn't
work, it's software." - Anonymous

[Default User]

Doug wrote:

On Jul 26, 8:13 pm, "Default User" <[e-mail]:

Perhaps you could point out a few examples where questions here did
not get a good, full response?

Sorry, that's not what I intended to get across. We do get full
responses here - they're just laden with scorn. They are also usually
so obliquely stated that an inexperienced person would never be able
to figure them out anyway.

I invite you to point out some examples.

Brian

[Default User]

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:

Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

I basically agree with you. I wish people would stop engaging Jacob
or "plain Richard" (not to be confused with Mr. Heathfield, Mr.
Bos, or other fine Richards that have contributed here).

Well, one problem is that one of those Richards is a frequent engager
of "plain Richard" and other annoying posters. The Richard in
question also does more battle with Mr. Navia than is really necessary
IMHO...

I would not disagree, and I've expressed that to him in the past.

I can understand that it may be important to post corrections to
off-topic posts from this people, but the constant debate that
rehashes old arguments is pointless and destructive.

...resulting in a significant amount of said constant pointless
debate. I find that the Richard in question is in general a fine
contributor to the group, for the record, which makes his digressions
forgivable but unfortunate nevertheless.

When people are in trolling mode, you can't beat them by arguing with
them. Their goal is exactly to get you to respond, to distract you from
other things, and in general to disrupt the newsgroup. The only way to
"win" against a troll is to ignore it within the bounds of correctness
(for a technical group).

It would be far better in my opinion to ignore these people other
than stock responses output whenever an off-topic message appears.

Heartily agreed.

In general this would make the newsgroup a "friendlier" place as Doug
seems to want. I believe that perceived problem isn't in the answers
given to newbies, but the general argumentation. Were I a new
participant, I'd find of lot of these threads off-putting.


Brian

[Doug]

On Jul 26, 9:18 pm, "Default User" <[e-mail]:

Doug wrote:

On Jul 26, 8:13 pm, "Default User" <[e-mail]:

Perhaps you could point out a few examples where questions here did
not get a good, full response?

Sorry, that's not what I intended to get across. We do get full
responses here - they're just laden with scorn. They are also usually
so obliquely stated that an inexperienced person would never be able
to figure them out anyway.

I invite you to point out some examples.

I'm sorry, I'll have to decline. I don't want to pick out any
posters. You are free to take that as an indication it's not true -
I'm not really up for arguing, I'm just waiting for code to compile.

The recent mugging of poor Jacob might be an example of what i'm on
about - made me feel rather sorry for the poor chap. I will be trying
out his compiler the next time I run any code on Windows. At least I
know that if there are any issues, then he's reachable and reasonable.

Looks like it's finished. More later, I'm sure.

Doug

[Keith Thompson]

Doug <Do*********@googlemail.comwrites:
[...]

The repeated questions about UB and platform-specific dependant stuff
might be tedious, yes. But are they really that troublesome? A
quick, polite pointer to the FAQ would do just fine. And if you can't
be bothered this time, just chill out and move on to the next post -
someone else will deal with it, I'm sure.

[...]

I do agree that we sometimes don't make good enough use of the FAQ.
If someone asks about 'i=i++;', the only response needed is a pointer
to the relevant question in the FAQ (and a reminder to check the FAQ
before posting).

--
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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <5g*************@mid.individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
....

>This is a bizzare perspective. I've never known clc++ to be
particularly helpful to off-topic request, nor clc to be anything but
extremely helpful for on-topic ones.

Yes, but you are an absolutely certifiably insane lunatic. This has
been shown over and over in your postings.

Therefore, your observations don't pull any weight.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <5g*************@mid.individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>Doug wrote:

>On Jul 26, 8:13 pm, "Default User" <[e-mail]:

Perhaps you could point out a few examples where questions here did
not get a good, full response?

Sorry, that's not what I intended to get across. We do get full
responses here - they're just laden with scorn. They are also usually
so obliquely stated that an inexperienced person would never be able
to figure them out anyway.

I invite you to point out some examples.

Anything by Dicky Heathfield.

(At your service!)

[Mark McIntyre]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:15:04 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Doug
<Do*********@googlemail.comwrote:

(of various semi-trolls)

>I generally enjoy reading their posts, until the custard
fights start.

Trouble is, quite often the posts contain fairly complex errors which,
if people didn't challenge them, newbies would not realise /were/
errors. And when challenged, these people tend to start ranting about
how they're always being picked on.

>For example, I like Jacbo's thought-provoking 'what
would happen if I did this?' questions.

It might have been interesting, but it wasn't topical in CLC. It might
have been topical in comp.std.c, where the standard itself is
discussed.

>We all acknowledge they know their C. I'm sure they know it much
better than I, Jacob or "plain Richard". But there would still remain
a few regulars with excellent C knowledge

A very very few. And a lot of trolls and people with limited knowledge
but no humility.

*and* some basic manners.

You try maintaining basic manners after having to say the same thing
week in week out to rude people who refuse to listen and do the usenet
equivalent of "nyah nyah I'm not listening, I'm humming..."
..
--
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

[Mark McIntyre]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:52:47 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Doug
<Do*********@googlemail.comwrote:

>The repeated questions about UB and platform-specific dependant stuff
might be tedious, yes. But are they really that troublesome? A
quick, polite pointer to the FAQ would do just fine.

Imagine you've been posting here for 10+ years (as a fair few of the
regulars have, myself not quite included), and /then/ see if you feel
so calm about answering the same flippin' homework question.

>And if you can't
be bothered this time, just chill out and move on to the next post -
someone else will deal with it, I'm sure.

The difficulty with this is - imagine we /all/ left it to someone
else... the only answers would be from the clueless and trolls who
would surely NOT help the OP...

>I don't see how this would lead to melt-down. OT posts are still
being directed to the right groups - no-one's seeing red mist over it,
that's all.

And when the OT posters realise they can post OT questions here over
and over and over and over, and still get politely directed to the
right groups as if this were the Usenet Yellow Pages.....

--
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

[stdazi]

On Jul 26, 3:38 pm, Mark Bluemel <[e-mail]:

usefully abbreviated to IAFWAFIAWMWQ...

valuable to remember!