strange test question

[Heinrich Pumpernickel]

i got the following strange extra question in a written test
today . since the test was abt c/c++ i guess this is on topic here

--8<--

22) Consider the following quote:

"If Mickey's a mouse, Donald's a duck, Pluto's a dog... What's Goofy?"

a) Who said that?
b) What is the correct answer to that question?

--8<--

doz ne1 know?

thnk u

--
mfg, heinrich :)

[Mark P]

Heinrich Pumpernickel wrote:

i got the following strange extra question in a written test
today . since the test was abt c/c++ i guess this is on topic here

--8<--

22) Consider the following quote:

"If Mickey's a mouse, Donald's a duck, Pluto's a dog... What's Goofy?"

a) Who said that?
b) What is the correct answer to that question?

--8<--

doz ne1 know?

thnk u

--
mfg, heinrich :)

23) Multiple choice:
a. Haven't you heard of Google?
b. No, it's not on topic
c. We speak English here, not txt
d. All of the above

[Joel Haugen]

Heinrich Pumpernickel wrote:

i got the following strange extra question in a written test
today . since the test was abt c/c++ i guess this is on topic here

--8<--

22) Consider the following quote:

"If Mickey's a mouse, Donald's a duck, Pluto's a dog... What's Goofy?"

a) Who said that?
b) What is the correct answer to that question?

--8<--

doz ne1 know?

thnk u

--
mfg, heinrich :)

Too bad this is off-topic but it was from the movie Stand By Me (I
think) and I believe that the answer is a dog.

[Martin Ambuhl]

Heinrich Pumpernickel wrote:

i got the following strange extra question in a written test
today . since the test was abt c/c++ i guess this is on topic here

The mythical language "c/c++" is not topical in either comp.lang.c or
comp.lang.c++.

22) Consider the following quote:

"If Mickey's a mouse, Donald's a duck, Pluto's a dog... What's Goofy?"

a) Who said that?
b) What is the correct answer to that question?

<http://au.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/frontend.php/question?qid=20070812180505AAajO3n>
labels as the best answer: "An adjective".

see also
<http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070425182001AAN1dBe>
<http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_077.html>
<http://ask.metafilter.com/31890/What-is-the-deal-with-Goofy-and-Pluto>

What was your C question? What was your C++ question? Why can't you
post to the one concerned with the language you use? Why not post to
the Fortran, Lisp, and Cobol newsgroups as well?

[Chris Dollin]

Heinrich Pumpernickel wrote:

i got the following strange extra question in a written test
today . since the test was abt c/c++ i guess this is on topic here

*ping*

No.

22) Consider the following quote:

"If Mickey's a mouse, Donald's a duck, Pluto's a dog... What's Goofy?"

a) Who said that?

No-one. Standard C doesn't have any functions for saying anything. It's
just a string literal.

b) What is the correct answer to that question?

"Question 22".

doz ne1 know?

You don't have to use an acoustic coupler on an analog phone line any more.

--
Chris "mary hopkins" Dollin

Hewlett-Packard Limited Cain Road, Bracknell, registered no:
registered office: Berks RG12 1HN 690597 England

[CBFalconer]

Joel Haugen wrote:

Heinrich Pumpernickel wrote:

>i got the following strange extra question in a written test
today. since the test was abt c/c++ i guess this is on topic here

22) Consider the following quote:

"If Mickey's a mouse, Donald's a duck, Pluto's a dog...
What's Goofy?"

a) Who said that?
b) What is the correct answer to that question?

Too bad this is off-topic but it was from the movie Stand By Me
(I think) and I believe that the answer is a dog.

What's goofy is the foolish action of posting this on c.l.c.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Doug]

On Dec 5, 8:43 am, CBFalconer <[e-mail]:

<snip>

What's goofy is the foolish action of posting this on c.l.c.

What's goofy is that this is pretty obviously just a troll to get you
all stirred up. Probably some newbie you regulars were "charming" to,
but could also be just a simple troll.

A couple of non-regulars took it in the sprit in which it was intended
and played along. All the regs started jumping up and down shouting
OT in a highly predictable fashion. OP seems to have acheived his
goal.

Although the best course of action here would have been to ignore the
post, I don't mind people playing with the trolls now and then. But
feeding them (i.e. shouting OT) is like shouting at the wind. Better
to just save your breath.

Why is my compiler so slow today...

Doug

[Chris Dollin]

Doug wrote:

On Dec 5, 8:43 am, CBFalconer <[e-mail]:

<snip>

>What's goofy is the foolish action of posting this on c.l.c.

What's goofy is that this is pretty obviously just a troll to get you
all stirred up. Probably some newbie you regulars were "charming" to,
but could also be just a simple troll.

A couple of non-regulars took it in the sprit in which it was intended
and played along. All the regs

All? Not yet-here, all.

started jumping up and down shouting OT in a highly predictable fashion.

I should be less predictable, or less regular.

But it was indeed seriously off-topic.

--
Chris "noise" Dollin

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered no:
registered office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN 690597 England

[santosh]

Doug wrote:

On Dec 5, 8:43 am, CBFalconer <[e-mail]:

<snip>

>What's goofy is the foolish action of posting this on c.l.c.

What's goofy is that this is pretty obviously just a troll to get you
all stirred up. Probably some newbie you regulars were "charming" to,
but could also be just a simple troll.

No. Pumpernickel has trolled here on and off for quite some time. It's
disappointing how many posters chose to respond to him.

A couple of non-regulars took it in the sprit in which it was intended
and played along. All the regs started jumping up and down shouting
OT in a highly predictable fashion. OP seems to have acheived his
goal.

No. The post is a troll and a troll post is always OT. So the "regulars"
are correct.

But both the "regulars" and the others should not have responded at all
in the first place to this blatant troll.

Although the best course of action here would have been to ignore the
post,

Agreed.

I don't mind people playing with the trolls now and then.

Oh no. Trolls have destroyed some groups.

But feeding them (i.e. shouting OT) is like shouting at the wind.
Better to just save your breath.

Yes. Feeding them is unwise, but this applies to all respondents
concerned, not just those who said OT. Even you and me are responsible
for keeping this useless thread going.

This will be my last post to this thread.

<snip>

[digz]

On Dec 5, 2:03 pm, Martin Ambuhl <[e-mail]:

Heinrich Pumpernickel wrote:

i got the following strange extra question in a written test
today . since the test was abt c/c++ i guess this is on topic here

The mythical language "c/c++" is not topical in either comp.lang.c or
comp.lang.c++.

I do not understand why people on the C++ list get so put off by usage
of "c/c++" ,A lot of C++ is C syntax and rules or am i totally wrong
here ?
Does some FAQ answer this question:
why C/C++ is a mythical language ?

>

22) Consider the following quote:

"If Mickey's a mouse, Donald's a duck, Pluto's a dog... What's Goofy?"

a) Who said that?
b) What is the correct answer to that question?

<http://au.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/frontend.php/question?qid=200708...>
labels as the best answer: "An adjective".

see also
<http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070425182001AAN1dBe>
<http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_077.html>
<http://ask.metafilter.com/31890/What-is-the-deal-with-Goofy-and-Pluto>

What was your C question? What was your C++ question? Why can't you
post to the one concerned with the language you use? Why not post to
the Fortran, Lisp, and Cobol newsgroups as well?

[Ioannis Gyftos]

I do not understand why people on the C++ list get so put off by usage

of "c/c++" ,A lot of C++ is C syntax and rules or am i totally wrong
here ?
Does some FAQ answer this question:
why C/C++ is a mythical language ?

C/C++ equals 1 for nonzero ints.

(C++ has a very different logic than C, while sharing a lot of common
syntax and rules. C/C++ would imply using a C++ environment to develop
C-style programs, which is frowned upon. The step between C-thinking
and Cpp-thinking is a lot larger than what C/C++ suggests.)

++troll;

[Michael DOUBEZ]

digz a écrit :

On Dec 5, 2:03 pm, Martin Ambuhl <[e-mail]:

>Heinrich Pumpernickel wrote:

>>i got the following strange extra question in a written test
today . since the test was abt c/c++ i guess this is on topic here

The mythical language "c/c++" is not topical in either comp.lang.c or
comp.lang.c++.

I do not understand why people on the C++ list get so put off by usage
of "c/c++" ,A lot of C++ is C syntax and rules or am i totally wrong
here ?
Does some FAQ answer this question:
why C/C++ is a mythical language ?

From Bjarne Stroustrup's C++ Glossary
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/glossary.html

"C/C++ - (1) an abbreviation used when discussing similarities,
differences, and compatibility issues of C and C++. (2) a mythical
language referred to by people who cannot or do not want to recognize
the magnitude of differences between the facilities offered by C and C++
or the significant differences in the programming styles supported by
the two language. See also: multi-paradigm programming, object-oriented
programming, generic programming, exception, template, user-defined
type, C++ standard library."

Michael

[Default User]

Doug wrote:

A couple of non-regulars took it in the sprit in which it was intended
and played along. All the regs started jumping up and down shouting
OT in a highly predictable fashion. OP seems to have acheived his
goal.

Didn't I plonk you already? Maybe it was at home. Rectified.


Brian

[Doug]

On Dec 5, 7:23 pm, "Default User" <[e-mail]:

Doug wrote:

A couple of non-regulars took it in the sprit in which it was intended
and played along. All the regs started jumping up and down shouting
OT in a highly predictable fashion. OP seems to have acheived his
goal.

Didn't I plonk you already? Maybe it was at home. Rectified.

Brian

Phew, that was close!

[Richard Heathfield]

Doug said:

On Dec 5, 7:23 pm, "Default User" <[e-mail]:

>Doug wrote:

A couple of non-regulars took it in the sprit in which it was intended
and played along. All the regs started jumping up and down shouting
OT in a highly predictable fashion. OP seems to have acheived his
goal.

Didn't I plonk you already? Maybe it was at home. Rectified.

Phew, that was close!

But what do you *expect*, if you say dumb things? Any statement including
the words "all the regs" is very likely to be wrong, especially in a
cross-posted thread. In fact, on this occasion most of the "regs" in clc
didn't respond at all, and I would venture to suggest that most of those
in clc++ didn't, either.

If you want people to take you seriously, don't make silly claims. If you
make enough silly claims (and you've made a great many, if I recall
correctly), people will start killfiling you. If that is your objective,
then well, okay - but it seems strange that someone should post to a
newsgroup because they *don't* want people to read their articles.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Doug]

On Dec 6, 7:36 am, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

Doug said:

On Dec 5, 7:23 pm, "Default User" <[e-mail]:

Doug wrote:
A couple of non-regulars took it in the sprit in which it was intended
and played along. All the regs started jumping up and down shouting
OT in a highly predictable fashion. OP seems to have acheived his
goal.

Didn't I plonk you already? Maybe it was at home. Rectified.

Phew, that was close!

But what do you *expect*, if you say dumb things? Any statement including
the words "all the regs" is very likely to be wrong, especially in a
cross-posted thread. In fact, on this occasion most of the "regs" in clc
didn't respond at all, and I would venture to suggest that most of those
in clc++ didn't, either.

Yep, I forgot how bloody pedantic "all the regs" are here. I should
have said "many of the regs".
I didn't reply to clc++ because that group's in much better condition,
as far as I can see with my cursory daily glances. At least, it
doesn't make me grimace with the thought "what an asshole" every day.

>
If you want people to take you seriously, don't make silly claims. If you
make enough silly claims (and you've made a great many, if I recall
correctly)

Mmm. I'd be interested to know what these "great many" silly claims
are.

A few OT posts (wich you guys hate), one or two minor (imho, ymmv)
errors, quickly corrected by others. And I'll point out, accepted by
me.

It is certainly not my intent to make "silly claims", and I appreciate
corrections on techinical items. (And, as I've said before, I try not
to post on techincal items [boredom beats me some days] because you
guys cover it better.)

But I'm not a great fan of my behaviour being corrected by obnoxious
and arrogant social incompetents. (This is not primarily directed at
you.)

I'll try not to post further in this thread; it's a waste of time.
Which, as has been mentioned upthread, is what "many of the regs"
should have done in the first place.

[Richard Heathfield]

Doug said:

On Dec 6, 7:36 am, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

>Doug said:

On Dec 5, 7:23 pm, "Default User" <[e-mail]:
Doug wrote:
A couple of non-regulars took it in the sprit in which it was
intended
and played along. All the regs started jumping up and down
shouting

<snip>

>>
[...] Any statement
including the words "all the regs" is very likely to be wrong,
especially in a cross-posted thread. In fact, on this occasion most of
the "regs" in clc didn't respond at all, and I would venture to suggest
that most of those in clc++ didn't, either.

Yep, I forgot how bloody pedantic "all the regs" are here.

Not all of them. Some aren't interested in accuracy (or "pedantry", as you
call it).

I should
have said "many of the regs".

Two, in fact, at the time that your article appeared on my newsfeed: Chuck
Falconer and Martin Ambuhl. Hardly "many", let alone "all".

<snip>

I'll try not to post further in this thread; it's a waste of time.
Which, as has been mentioned upthread, is what "many of the regs"
should have done in the first place.

And that's exactly what "many of the regs" had done, at the time that you
made your claim.

If you want to be taken seriously, don't make silly claims.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999