Question about CLC

[Masood]

Hi all,

I've been reading this group new for a few weeks and it's quite
intriguing the way it's so dysfunctional as a "society". Actually I was
telling my brother about it - he's a sociology major and is now
interested in looking at this group for his project.

I've read several Usenet groups and lots of forums over the years, and
while of course some of them have trolls, feuds, etc., none seem to have
this endemic anger and hate that CLC does. Can anyone suggest other
newsgroups with similar characteristics for comparison purposes?

It's quite interesting, because standard theory suggests you need about
100 to 150 people in a group before it needs rules, hierarchy, authority
etc. to function effectively, whereas in CLC there only seem to be 20-30
regulars and yet it's suffering badly under the strain of people
virtually living together.

I don't dare ask people why they think this group is so acrimonious, for
fear of starting yet another bitter flame war!

Best.

[Richard Heathfield]

Masood said:

Hi all,

I've been reading this group new for a few weeks and it's quite
intriguing the way it's so dysfunctional as a "society".

You're begging the question. In fact, it works pretty well. Yes, it has its
kooks, but so does any society.

<snip>

I've read several Usenet groups and lots of forums over the years, and
while of course some of them have trolls, feuds, etc., none seem to have
this endemic anger and hate that CLC does.

Neither does CLC. Most of the people who post here are either people
seeking help, who - on the whole - behave pretty reasonably, or people
giving help, who - again, on the whole - behave well. If you discount
those who fall into neither category (neither helpers nor seekers after
help) as being irrelevant, this is actually quite a good-natured group.
That's because the noisy, spitting-mad, acrimonious posters are those who
are looking for trouble rather than discussion or assistance.

It's quite interesting, because standard theory suggests you need about
100 to 150 people in a group before it needs rules, hierarchy, authority
etc. to function effectively, whereas in CLC there only seem to be 20-30
regulars and yet it's suffering badly under the strain of people
virtually living together.

You over-estimate the impact of a small handful of noisy kooks. The group
fulfils its function admirably.

--
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

[jacob navia]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>
You over-estimate the impact of a small handful of noisy kooks. The group
fulfils its function admirably.

At last a good answer. I hope you will stop making so much noise then,
and amend your ways. Every kook can (and should) be able to act normally
again.

P.S. This applies of course to the other kooks here.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Martin Ambuhl]

Masood wrote:

Hi all,

I've been reading this group new for a few weeks and it's quite
intriguing the way it's so dysfunctional as a "society".

This newsgroup is one of the oldest and most successful. While other
newsgroups have come and been thrown abandonned into the usenet
cesspool, this one has continued. It is the vigilance of its regular
posters, the insistence on topicality, the shunning of those who would
use it for their commercial ends that have preserved it. No doubt it is
saved by just those things that you mistakenly interpret as its being
dysfunctional.

Actually I was
telling my brother about it - he's a sociology major and is now
interested in looking at this group for his project.

I hope his analytical abilities exceed yours. Otherwise he will need an
audience that is both gullible and that lacks all real knowledge of the
subject.

I've read several Usenet groups and lots of forums over the years, and
while of course some of them have trolls, feuds, etc., none seem to have
this endemic anger and hate that CLC does. Can anyone suggest other
newsgroups with similar characteristics for comparison purposes?

If you see anger and hate, then you are probably using a mirror for a
computer screen. Protectiveness of a precious resource is not anger or
hate.

[Julienne Walker]

On Dec 27, 5:52 am, Masood <[e-mail]:

I've read several Usenet groups and lots of forums over the years, and
while of course some of them have trolls, feuds, etc., none seem to have
this endemic anger and hate that CLC does. Can anyone suggest other
newsgroups with similar characteristics for comparison purposes?

alt.lang.asm

[jameskuyper]

Masood wrote:
....

It's quite interesting, because standard theory suggests you need about
100 to 150 people in a group before it needs rules, hierarchy, authority
etc. to function effectively, whereas in CLC there only seem to be 20-30
regulars and yet it's suffering badly under the strain of people
virtually living together.

Small groups show much more variation in their behavior than large
groups. The most acrimonious groups in any large set of groups are
likely to be small ones; the same is true of the least acrimonious
groups. There was an article in a recent issue of "Scientific
American" or "American Scientist" (I subscribe to both, and I can't
remember which one the article was in) that describes how this effect
can lead to misleading statistics. For instance, this effect can make
it easy for a poorly-designed study to produce statistics which appear
to prove that small schools do a much better job of teaching than
large ones. By a slight rearrange in the data handling procedures, the
same effect can cause the production of statistics which appear to
"prove" that small schools do a much worse job of teaching than large
ones. A study organized with this effect properly handled shows only a
small correlation between school size and the effectiveness of
teaching.

[Richard]

Martin Ambuhl <ma*****@earthlink.netwrites:

Masood wrote:

>Hi all,

I've been reading this group new for a few weeks and it's quite
intriguing the way it's so dysfunctional as a "society".

This newsgroup is one of the oldest and most successful. While other
newsgroups have come and been thrown abandonned into the usenet
cesspool, this one has continued. It is the vigilance of its regular
posters, the insistence on topicality, the shunning of those who would
use it for their commercial ends that have preserved it. No doubt it

What a load of rubbish. What has preserved it is the usage of C
throughout the world.

is saved by just those things that you mistakenly interpret as its
being dysfunctional.

>Actually I was telling my brother about it - he's a sociology major
and is now interested in looking at this group for his project.

I hope his analytical abilities exceed yours. Otherwise he will need
an audience that is both gullible and that lacks all real knowledge of
the subject.

LOL. The sentence above almost sums up the big headed, arrogant approach
of the core clique. Just who do you think you are? You appear to be
almost as in love with yourself as RH.

>I've read several Usenet groups and lots of forums over the years,
and while of course some of them have trolls, feuds, etc., none seem
to have this endemic anger and hate that CLC does. Can anyone
suggest other newsgroups with similar characteristics for comparison
purposes?

If you see anger and hate, then you are probably using a mirror for a
computer screen. Protectiveness of a precious resource is not anger
or hate.

I see lots of anger and hate too. And so do many, many people. It's why
this group gets so few new posters and "regulars" - they move off to
less anal pastures where people are there to help and not to prance.

[Richard Heathfield]

Martin Ambuhl said:

Masood wrote:

>Hi all,

I've been reading this group new for a few weeks and it's quite
intriguing the way it's so dysfunctional as a "society".

[...] No doubt [comp.lang.c] is
saved by just those things that you mistakenly interpret as its being
dysfunctional.

Well, to be fair, we don't know which aspects of comp.lang.c "Masood"
thinks are dysfunctional. If he is perceptive, he will recognise that
there is a small group of people who post regularly, and yet contribute
nothing positive to the group: "Richard" (i.e. Richard Riley), "Kenny
McCormack" (probably but not necessarily a pseudonym), "Doug", Bill Reid,
"Antoninus Twink", and possibly one or two others. These people do nothing
except attempt to detract from those who contribute their expertise for
free. Once one has killfiled them, one's view of the group will improve
markedly.

<snip>

If you see anger and hate, then you are probably using a mirror for a
computer screen.

Either that, or he's reading the trolls - which is never a good idea.

--
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

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith]

Masood wrote:

Hi all,

I've been reading this group new for a few weeks and it's quite
intriguing the way it's so dysfunctional as a "society". Actually I was
telling my brother about it - he's a sociology major and is now
interested in looking at this group for his project.

I've read several Usenet groups and lots of forums over the years, and
while of course some of them have trolls, feuds, etc., none seem to have
this endemic anger and hate that CLC does. Can anyone suggest other
newsgroups with similar characteristics for comparison purposes?

talk.origins

[Antoninus Twink]

On 27 Dec 2007 at 10:52, Masood wrote:

It's quite interesting, because standard theory suggests you need about
100 to 150 people in a group before it needs rules, hierarchy, authority
etc. to function effectively, whereas in CLC there only seem to be 20-30
regulars and yet it's suffering badly under the strain of people
virtually living together.

I don't dare ask people why they think this group is so acrimonious, for
fear of starting yet another bitter flame war!

The answer to this question is very simple. All of the problems in this
group stem from one very forceful personality who imposes his will on
the group - Richard HeathField.

[Ben Pfaff]

Masood <ma**********@nospam.comwrites:

I've read several Usenet groups and lots of forums over the years, and
while of course some of them have trolls, feuds, etc., none seem to
have this endemic anger and hate that CLC does.

Though there is certainly some endemic discord in CLC, I do not
think that it rises to the level of hate, except possibly in one
or two cases. Most of the long-term denizens of Usenet have
thick skins.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org

[jacob navia]

Ben Pfaff wrote:

Masood <ma**********@nospam.comwrites:

>I've read several Usenet groups and lots of forums over the years, and
while of course some of them have trolls, feuds, etc., none seem to
have this endemic anger and hate that CLC does.

Though there is certainly some endemic discord in CLC, I do not
think that it rises to the level of hate

Yes. To really hate somebody I would need more than
discussions about standard C

:-)
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Ben Pfaff]

Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:

All of the problems in this group stem from one very forceful
personality who imposes his will on the group - Richard
HeathField.

Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Jacob Navia a star?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

Who robs cavefish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
Heathfield! Heathfield!
-
char a[]="\n .CJacehknorstu";int putchar(int);int main(void){unsigned long b[]
={0x67dffdff,0x9aa9aa6a,0xa77ffda9,0x7da6aa6a,0xa6 7f6aaa,0xaa9aa9f6,0x11f6},*p
=b,i=24;for(;p+=!*p;*p/=4)switch(0[p]&3)case 0:{return 0;for(p--;i--;i--)case+
2:{i++;if(i)break;else default:continue;if(0)case 1:putchar(a[i&15]);break;}}}

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <de************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:

>Martin Ambuhl <ma*****@earthlink.netwrites:

>Masood wrote:

>>Hi all,

I've been reading this group new for a few weeks and it's quite
intriguing the way it's so dysfunctional as a "society".

This newsgroup is one of the oldest and most successful. While other
newsgroups have come and been thrown abandonned into the usenet
cesspool, this one has continued. It is the vigilance of its regular
posters, the insistence on topicality, the shunning of those who would
use it for their commercial ends that have preserved it. No doubt it

What a load of rubbish. What has preserved it is the usage of C
throughout the world.

That's probably true in the global sense - in that there is always an
endless supply of newbies who come here for help (which they never get).

But I think the main reason the newsgroup continues is because of the
core of regulars and contrarians (*), who never seem to tire of sniping at
each other. Face it, it *is* fun.

(*) The group formerly known as "trolls". We now prefer the term
"contrarians".

>is saved by just those things that you mistakenly interpret as its
being dysfunctional.

>>Actually I was telling my brother about it - he's a sociology major
and is now interested in looking at this group for his project.

I hope his analytical abilities exceed yours. Otherwise he will need
an audience that is both gullible and that lacks all real knowledge of
the subject.

LOL. The sentence above almost sums up the big headed, arrogant approach
of the core clique. Just who do you think you are? You appear to be
almost as in love with yourself as RH.

Marty is, indeed, a real head case. He posts the same way in other
groups, too.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <fl**********@aioe.org>, Masood <ma**********@nospam.comwrote:

>Hi all,

I've been reading this group new for a few weeks and it's quite
intriguing the way it's so dysfunctional as a "society". Actually I was
telling my brother about it - he's a sociology major and is now
interested in looking at this group for his project.

I've read several Usenet groups and lots of forums over the years, and
while of course some of them have trolls, feuds, etc., none seem to have
this endemic anger and hate that CLC does. Can anyone suggest other
newsgroups with similar characteristics for comparison purposes?

It's quite interesting, because standard theory suggests you need about
100 to 150 people in a group before it needs rules, hierarchy, authority
etc. to function effectively, whereas in CLC there only seem to be 20-30
regulars and yet it's suffering badly under the strain of people
virtually living together.

I don't dare ask people why they think this group is so acrimonious, for
fear of starting yet another bitter flame war!

Best.

Excellent post. Of course, all the regs are going to spend all their
time (as I see they've already done) trying to assure you that you are
wrong and that 2+2 does not, in fact, equal 4. I believe the following
quote is appropriate here:

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
- John Kenneth Galbraith -

You might want to read my recent post on True Democracy vs.
Representational Democracy - I make a point similar to yours, that it is
strange that such a small group would need and have implemented the
trappings of RD. This generally happens when authoritarians get into
power. (For further reading on the subject of authoritarians, see John
Dean's excellent book "Conservatives Without Conscience")

As far as the actual question raised in your post (And I noted and
applaud your statement that you are not asking them to explain why it is
so - though of course, everyone interpreted the post that way. Asking
them why would be like asking the Bush Admin why they screwed up in
Iraq...), I think that CLC *is* unique (at least in the "real Usenet" -
even moreso in specifically the comp.* hierarchy), but you won't have to
look far in, e.g. (and as has been mentioned by some of the other
posters who did respond to your actual query - instead of "getting busy
on the proof") the talk.* or alt.* hierarchies, to find people as nutty
or moreso than here.

But, I should point out, nutty yes, but downright hateful and smug, no.
I have not seen anything approaching the level of hateful and smug in
any other group, anywhere. They truly have it honed to a fine art here.

[Serve La]

"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@xmission.xmission.comschreef in bericht
news:fl**********@news.xmission.com...

But I think the main reason the newsgroup continues is because of the
core of regulars and contrarians (*), who never seem to tire of sniping at
each other. Face it, it *is* fun.

I admit, if this group was purely trying to be academic about C all the time
I would have stopped lurking here a long time ago. The combination of very
good information about C and the occasional flame make it worth reading here
:)

[CBFalconer]

Ben Pfaff wrote:

Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:

>All of the problems in this group stem from one very forceful
personality who imposes his will on the group - Richard
HeathField.

Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Jacob Navia a star?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

Who robs cavefish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

For Masoods benefit, the above illustrates why Twink is considered
a troll, but not why the Pfaffian humour is perfectly acceptable.
It has to do with the other posts by both individuals.

--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee, Frohe Weihnachten
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Philip Potter]

Ben Pfaff wrote:

Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:

>All of the problems in this group stem from one very forceful
personality who imposes his will on the group - Richard
HeathField.

Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Jacob Navia a star?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

Who robs cavefish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

Hahaha! Brilliant!

And don't you mean "HeathField"? :-)

[Kaz Kylheku]

On Dec 27, 2:52*am, Masood <[e-mail]:

Hi all,

I've been reading this group new for a few weeks and it's quite
intriguing the way it's so dysfunctional as a "society".

Ah, you're that lame asshole who started that ``making C better by
borrowing from C++'' thread.

Now you're sulking for being flamed.

Waaah!

[Mark McIntyre]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:52:52 +0000, Masood wrote:

I've been reading this group new for a few weeks and it's quite
intriguing the way it's so dysfunctional as a "society".

Either you're talking about some other CLC, or you have a strange
definition of dysfunctional.

this endemic anger and hate that CLC does.

CLC doesn't have any endemic anger or hate.

What we do have is a few trolls who are a bit like the annoying kid on
the block who is always tipping over your trash, throwing stones at your
dog etc. Some of us ignore these dorks, others get upset, some get
sarcastic.

This is just like real life.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:33:55 +0100, jacob navia wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>
You over-estimate the impact of a small handful of noisy kooks. The
group fulfils its function admirably.

At last a good answer. I hope you will stop making so much noise then,
and amend your ways.

And what purpose did this sarcastic and rude remark serve, beyond
stirring up the kind of noise you claim to be objecting to?

Every kook can (and should) be able to act normally
again.

P.S. This applies of course to the other kooks here.

Physician, heal thyself.

[Andy]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:38:33 -0800, Ben Pfaff <bl*@cs.stanford.edu>
wrote:

>Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:

>All of the problems in this group stem from one very forceful
personality who imposes his will on the group - Richard
HeathField.

Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Jacob Navia a star?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

Who robs cavefish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
Heathfield! Heathfield!
-
char a[]="\n .CJacehknorstu";int putchar(int);int main(void){unsigned long b[]
={0x67dffdff,0x9aa9aa6a,0xa77ffda9,0x7da6aa6a,0xa 67f6aaa,0xaa9aa9f6,0x11f6},*p
=b,i=24;for(;p+=!*p;*p/=4)switch(0[p]&3)case 0:{return 0;for(p--;i--;i--)case+
2:{i++;if(i)break;else default:continue;if(0)case 1:putchar(a[i&15]);break;}}}

I don't know whether it's coincidence, but as I'm reading this
message, I'm watching the Simpsons repeat (Homer the Great) that
produced this song (The Stonecutter's Song)..

[Golden California Girls]

Masood wrote:

Hi all,

I've been reading this group new for a few weeks and it's quite
intriguing the way it's so dysfunctional as a "society". Actually I was
telling my brother about it - he's a sociology major and is now
interested in looking at this group for his project.

I've read several Usenet groups and lots of forums over the years, and
while of course some of them have trolls, feuds, etc., none seem to have
this endemic anger and hate that CLC does. Can anyone suggest other
newsgroups with similar characteristics for comparison purposes?

It's quite interesting, because standard theory suggests you need about
100 to 150 people in a group before it needs rules, hierarchy, authority
etc. to function effectively, whereas in CLC there only seem to be 20-30
regulars and yet it's suffering badly under the strain of people
virtually living together.

I don't dare ask people why they think this group is so acrimonious, for
fear of starting yet another bitter flame war!

Best.

If your brother really wants to investigate this I suggest:
http://golden-quotes.narod.ru/
Following what happens when this person enters a group is well legendary.

As to the question you don't dare ask, the actual answer is assumption.

[Default User]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Masood said:

Hi all,

I've been reading this group new for a few weeks and it's quite
intriguing the way it's so dysfunctional as a "society".

You're begging the question. In fact, it works pretty well. Yes, it
has its kooks, but so does any society.

It's apparent to me that my first instinct to plonk Masgood after the
"taleban" comment was the correct one.


Brian

[Default User]

Ben Pfaff wrote:

Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:

All of the problems in this group stem from one very forceful
personality who imposes his will on the group - Richard
HeathField.

Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

You're angling for the Stone of Shame.


Brian

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:52:52 +0000, Masood wrote:

<snip>

>this endemic anger and hate that CLC does.

CLC doesn't have any endemic anger or hate.

What we do have is a few trolls who are a bit like the annoying kid on
the block who is always tipping over your trash, throwing stones at your
dog etc. Some of us ignore these dorks, others get upset, some get
sarcastic.

This is just like real life.

No, Mark, Usenet *is* (a small part of) real life. It doesn't take part in
some alternate universe. It consists of real people's real communications
with each other. As such, we should not be surprised that some people
attempt to vandalise it.

--
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

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:33:55 +0100, jacob navia wrote:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>>
You over-estimate the impact of a small handful of noisy kooks. The
group fulfils its function admirably.

At last a good answer. I hope you will stop making so much noise then,
and amend your ways.

And what purpose did this sarcastic and rude remark serve, beyond
stirring up the kind of noise you claim to be objecting to?

It demonstrated the truth of my reply (in a way its author did not intend).

--
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

[jaysome]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:54:44 +0000 (UTC),
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

>In article <fl**********@aioe.org>, Masood <ma**********@nospam.comwrote:

>>Hi all,

I've been reading this group new for a few weeks and it's quite
intriguing the way it's so dysfunctional as a "society". Actually I was
telling my brother about it - he's a sociology major and is now
interested in looking at this group for his project.

I've read several Usenet groups and lots of forums over the years, and
while of course some of them have trolls, feuds, etc., none seem to have
this endemic anger and hate that CLC does. Can anyone suggest other
newsgroups with similar characteristics for comparison purposes?

It's quite interesting, because standard theory suggests you need about
100 to 150 people in a group before it needs rules, hierarchy, authority
etc. to function effectively, whereas in CLC there only seem to be 20-30
regulars and yet it's suffering badly under the strain of people
virtually living together.

I don't dare ask people why they think this group is so acrimonious, for
fear of starting yet another bitter flame war!

Best.

Excellent post. Of course, all the regs are going to spend all their
time (as I see they've already done) trying to assure you that you are
wrong and that 2+2 does not, in fact, equal 4. I believe the following
quote is appropriate here:

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
- John Kenneth Galbraith -

You might want to read my recent post on True Democracy vs.
Representational Democracy - I make a point similar to yours, that it is
strange that such a small group would need and have implemented the
trappings of RD. This generally happens when authoritarians get into
power. (For further reading on the subject of authoritarians, see John
Dean's excellent book "Conservatives Without Conscience")

As far as the actual question raised in your post (And I noted and
applaud your statement that you are not asking them to explain why it is
so - though of course, everyone interpreted the post that way. Asking
them why would be like asking the Bush Admin why they screwed up in
Iraq...), I think that CLC *is* unique (at least in the "real Usenet" -
even moreso in specifically the comp.* hierarchy), but you won't have to
look far in, e.g. (and as has been mentioned by some of the other
posters who did respond to your actual query - instead of "getting busy
on the proof") the talk.* or alt.* hierarchies, to find people as nutty
or moreso than here.

But, I should point out, nutty yes, but downright hateful and smug, no.
I have not seen anything approaching the level of hateful and smug in
any other group, anywhere. They truly have it honed to a fine art here.

Kenny may have a point.

Please don't kill him.

If for nothing else, he's ripe fodder for Psych 101 students.

I like Kenny, however "nutty" he may seem.
--
jay

[Chris Hills]

In article <de************@news.individual.net>, Richard
<rg****@gmail.comwrites

>
I see lots of anger and hate too. And so do many, many people. It's why
this group gets so few new posters and "regulars" - they move off to
less anal pastures where people are there to help and not to prance.

This is why any vote on where we go next is doomed to failure.... so
many have come and gone. Most of the new blood goes to other more
friendly groups.

C.l.c was the place for authoritative answers and discussions on C now
it is one of many. Eventually it will die out.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Serve La]

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidschreef in bericht
news:BP******************************@bt.com...

>This is just like real life.

No, Mark, Usenet *is* (a small part of) real life. It doesn't take part in
some alternate universe. It consists of real people's real communications
with each other. As such, we should not be surprised that some people
attempt to vandalise it.

it is not real life in the sense that when people talk to somebody in person
they tend to act a lot nicer
People dare say more behind a screen

[James Kuyper]

Serve La wrote:

>
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidschreef in bericht
news:BP******************************@bt.com...

>>This is just like real life.

No, Mark, Usenet *is* (a small part of) real life. It doesn't take
part in
some alternate universe. It consists of real people's real communications
with each other. As such, we should not be surprised that some people
attempt to vandalise it.

....

it is not real life in the sense that when people talk to somebody in
person they tend to act a lot nicer
People dare say more behind a screen

Talking to people by usenet is just as real as talking to them in
person. It's a very different experience, just like driving a car is
very different from walking, but both experiences are equally real.

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

<snip>

If the
neighborhood kids were limited to shouting at you, and you had a way to
turn down their volume so you couldn't hear, you probably would do so.

Yet people here seem extremely reluctant to do the equivalent. They
will engage the kooks and trolls in protracted debates, for no readily
discernable benefit. There's no way to convince the people like Jacob
of anything.

You make a persuasive case, Brian.

--
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

[user923005]

On Dec 28, 12:11*pm, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

Default User said:

<snip>

If the
neighborhood kids were limited to shouting at you, and you had a way to
turn down their volume so you couldn't hear, you probably would do so.

Yet people here seem extremely reluctant to do the equivalent. They
will engage the kooks and trolls in protracted debates, for no readily
discernable benefit. There's no way to convince the people like Jacob
of anything.

You make a persuasive case, Brian.

There are people who don't learn at all (e.g. Nudds) because they
literally have no interest in learning.
There are people who learn very slowly but they do learn (ACL).

I am not sure about Jacob yet. I think he is intelligent and I think
he sometimes has interesting ideas.
I *do* think he is definitely deliberately thick when debating. But I
am not ready to ash-can him yet.
Of course, I have a longer killfile fuse than I used to.

[jacob navia]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Default User said:

<snip>

>If the
neighborhood kids were limited to shouting at you, and you had a way to
turn down their volume so you couldn't hear, you probably would do so.

Yet people here seem extremely reluctant to do the equivalent. They
will engage the kooks and trolls in protracted debates, for no readily
discernable benefit. There's no way to convince the people like Jacob
of anything.

You make a persuasive case, Brian.

I just do not understand why I got out of your kill file. It was such
a good time.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[CBFalconer]

jaysome wrote:

ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

.... snip ...

>

>But, I should point out, nutty yes, but downright hateful and
smug, no. I have not seen anything approaching the level of
hateful and smug in any other group, anywhere. They truly have
it honed to a fine art here.

Kenny may have a point. Please don't kill him.

If for nothing else, he's ripe fodder for Psych 101 students.

I like Kenny, however "nutty" he may seem.

However, he remains off-topic. Maybe on rec.humor, say?

--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee, Frohe Weihnachten
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

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

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Default User said:

<snip>

>>If the
neighborhood kids were limited to shouting at you, and you had a way to
turn down their volume so you couldn't hear, you probably would do so.

Yet people here seem extremely reluctant to do the equivalent. They
will engage the kooks and trolls in protracted debates, for no readily
discernable benefit. There's no way to convince the people like Jacob
of anything.

You make a persuasive case, Brian.

I just do not understand why I got out of your kill file. It was such
a good time.

No, it was a bad time for you, whether you realise it or not, because it
meant that fewer of your mistakes were corrected, so you had fewer
opportunities to learn.

--
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

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <uf******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
....

>No, it was a bad time for you, whether you realise it or not, because it
meant that fewer of your mistakes were corrected, so you had fewer
opportunities to learn.

Get, friggin', over yourself, already!

P.S. What I really find amusing is how these guys steadfastly refuse to
respond to any of my posts (it's part of their religion, doncha know?),
but can't resist the urge to respond to Jacob. I can't imagine it does
anyone any more good to launch this crap at Jacob, than it would to
launch it at me...

[ymuntyan]

On Dec 28, 5:09 pm, [e-mail] (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:

In article <[e-mail]>,
Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:
...

No, it was a bad time for you, whether you realise it or not, because it
meant that fewer of your mistakes were corrected, so you had fewer
opportunities to learn.

Get, friggin', over yourself, already!

P.S. What I really find amusing is how these guys steadfastly refuse to
respond to any of my posts (it's part of their religion, doncha know?),
but can't resist the urge to respond to Jacob. I can't imagine it does
anyone any more good to launch this crap at Jacob, than it would to
launch it at me...

See, Jacob is just a notorious spammer (I forgot
other things, this one is the latest I saw), which,
despite his inability to learn, should be taught.
But nobody won't talk to a troll. You admitted you
are a troll, so now nobody (of self-respecting
people, that is) can talk to you, because OMGZ
you are a troll.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <ef**********************************@w56g2000hsf. googlegroups.com>,
<ym******@gmail.comwrote:
....

>See, Jacob is just a notorious spammer (I forgot
other things, this one is the latest I saw), which,
despite his inability to learn, should be taught.

6 of one, half dozen of another. Jacob is not going to "change his
ways" here as a result of crap spewed at him by the likes of heathfield,
et al - anymore than I am. Of this, I am absolutely sure.

>But nobody won't talk to a troll. You admitted you
are a troll, so now nobody (of self-respecting
people, that is) can talk to you, because OMGZ
you are a troll.

You're a contrarian, too - they don't like you anymore than they like
me, so I'm not sure whose ass you're trying to kiss.

P.S. OMGZ???

[jacob navia]

Kenny McCormack wrote:

In article <uf******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
...

>No, it was a bad time for you, whether you realise it or not, because it
meant that fewer of your mistakes were corrected, so you had fewer
opportunities to learn.

Get, friggin', over yourself, already!

P.S. What I really find amusing is how these guys steadfastly refuse to
respond to any of my posts (it's part of their religion, doncha know?),
but can't resist the urge to respond to Jacob. I can't imagine it does
anyone any more good to launch this crap at Jacob, than it would to
launch it at me...

:-)
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:53:30 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Mark McIntyre said:

>On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:52:52 +0000, Masood wrote:

>This is just like real life.

No, Mark, Usenet *is* (a small part of) real life.
It doesn't take part in some alternate universe.

I quite agree - that was essentially my point.

[CBFalconer]

ym******@gmail.com wrote:

[e-mail] (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

.... snip ...

>

>P.S. What I really find amusing is how these guys steadfastly
refuse to respond to any of my posts (it's part of their religion,
doncha know?), but can't resist the urge to respond to Jacob. I
can't imagine it does anyone any more good to launch this crap at
Jacob, than it would to launch it at me...

See, Jacob is just a notorious spammer (I forgot other things,
this one is the latest I saw), which, despite his inability to
learn, should be taught. But nobody won't talk to a troll. You
admitted you are a troll, so now nobody (of self-respecting
people, that is) can talk to you, because OMGZ you are a troll.

Reaching Kenny through the quote. He doesn't seem to realize that
he is almost universally plonked, so his junk doesn't annoy
anyone. No religion involved. However, we still see the glimmer
of hope in Jacob, so some of us try to improve him.

--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee, Frohe Weihnachten
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[ymuntyan]

On Dec 28, 5:49 pm, [e-mail] (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:

In article <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]:

...

See, Jacob is just a notorious spammer (I forgot
other things, this one is the latest I saw), which,
despite his inability to learn, should be taught.

6 of one, half dozen of another. Jacob is not going to "change his
ways" here as a result of crap spewed at him by the likes of heathfield,
et al - anymore than I am. Of this, I am absolutely sure.

I thought what I said was obvious crap, but
apparently I somehow caught the style of
Richard Heathfield, so it sounded well and
good or something. Amazing!

>

But nobody won't talk to a troll. You admitted you
are a troll, so now nobody (of self-respecting
people, that is) can talk to you, because OMGZ
you are a troll.

You're a contrarian, too - they don't like you anymore than they like
me, so I'm not sure whose ass you're trying to kiss.

Thank you very much, I'll do fine without
ass-kissing for now.

[Default User]

user923005 wrote:

On Dec 28, 12:11*pm, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

Default User said:

<snip>

If the
neighborhood kids were limited to shouting at you, and you had a
way to turn down their volume so you couldn't hear, you probably
would do so.

Yet people here seem extremely reluctant to do the equivalent.
They will engage the kooks and trolls in protracted debates, for
no readily discernable benefit. There's no way to convince the
people like Jacob of anything.

You make a persuasive case, Brian.

There are people who don't learn at all (e.g. Nudds) because they
literally have no interest in learning.
There are people who learn very slowly but they do learn (ACL).

I am not sure about Jacob yet. I think he is intelligent and I think
he sometimes has interesting ideas.

After this much time, and this many arguments, I've seen zero evidence
that he's willing to abide by the consensus regarding topicality.
Again, look at the recent threads, look at the number of posts from
Jacob. No sign of a clue from what I can tell. I do have him killfiled,
but it's almost like I don't.

I could (and I thought about) installing a filter to kill any post in
reply to him. However, that doesn't help the group at large.


Brian

[Keith Thompson]

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:
[...]

Reaching Kenny through the quote. He doesn't seem to realize that
he is almost universally plonked, so his junk doesn't annoy
anyone. No religion involved. However, we still see the glimmer
of hope in Jacob, so some of us try to improve him.

Also, Kenny usually doesn't make many technical errors that call for
correction. jacob does. (So do I, of course; nobody is perfect.)

Unfortunately, Kenny has recently started posting more technical
statements, many of them wrong.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
[...]
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[CBFalconer]

ym******@gmail.com wrote:

[e-mail] (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

.... snip ...

>>
You're a contrarian, too - they don't like you anymore than they
like me, so I'm not sure whose ass you're trying to kiss.

Thank you very much, I'll do fine without ass-kissing for now.

--
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT F :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
================================================== ============

fix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2.
to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences
that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME
fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". - Hutchinson

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

[James Kuyper]

ym******@gmail.com wrote:

On Dec 28, 5:09 pm, [e-mail] (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:

....

>P.S. What I really find amusing is how these guys steadfastly refuse to
respond to any of my posts (it's part of their religion, doncha know?),
but can't resist the urge to respond to Jacob. I can't imagine it does
anyone any more good to launch this crap at Jacob, than it would to
launch it at me...

See, Jacob is just a notorious spammer (I forgot
other things, this one is the latest I saw), which,
despite his inability to learn, should be taught.
But nobody won't talk to a troll. You admitted you
are a troll, so now nobody (of self-respecting
people, that is) can talk to you, because OMGZ
you are a troll.

And, reading between the lines, it appears that the fact that no one
wants to listen to a troll like him is actually bothering him. Amusing.

[Richard Harter]

On 29 Dec 2007 05:36:15 GMT, "Default User"
<de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>user923005 wrote:

>On Dec 28, 12:11*pm, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

Default User said:

<snip>

If the
neighborhood kids were limited to shouting at you, and you had a
way to turn down their volume so you couldn't hear, you probably
would do so.

Yet people here seem extremely reluctant to do the equivalent.
They will engage the kooks and trolls in protracted debates, for
no readily discernable benefit. There's no way to convince the
people like Jacob of anything.

You make a persuasive case, Brian.

There are people who don't learn at all (e.g. Nudds) because they
literally have no interest in learning.
There are people who learn very slowly but they do learn (ACL).

I am not sure about Jacob yet. I think he is intelligent and I think
he sometimes has interesting ideas.

After this much time, and this many arguments, I've seen zero evidence
that he's willing to abide by the consensus regarding topicality.
Again, look at the recent threads, look at the number of posts from
Jacob. No sign of a clue from what I can tell. I do have him killfiled,
but it's almost like I don't.

Just as a side note, the word, consensus, has two meanings. The
earlier (and more meaningful) is common agreement among all
parties; the later is majority opinion. Under the first meaning
there is no consensus as you have testified. The problem with
the second is "Who is the majority and what are they the majority
of?" There is a third usage that seems to be in play here -
general agreement among those who happen to agree.

>
I could (and I thought about) installing a filter to kill any post in
reply to him. However, that doesn't help the group at large.


Brian

[Army1987]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia said:

>I just do not understand why I got out of your kill file. It was such
a good time.

No, it was a bad time for you, whether you realise it or not, because it
meant that fewer of your mistakes were corrected, so you had fewer
opportunities to learn.

That would only apply if he *did* learn something when his mistakes are
corrected.
<g,d&r>
--
Army1987 (Replace "NOSPAM" with "email")

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <YAtdj.5358$4m5.4040@trnddc02>,
James Kuyper <ja*********@verizon.netwrote:

>ym******@gmail.com wrote:

>On Dec 28, 5:09 pm, [e-mail] (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:

...

>>P.S. What I really find amusing is how these guys steadfastly refuse to
respond to any of my posts (it's part of their religion, doncha know?),
but can't resist the urge to respond to Jacob. I can't imagine it does
anyone any more good to launch this crap at Jacob, than it would to
launch it at me...

See, Jacob is just a notorious spammer (I forgot
other things, this one is the latest I saw), which,
despite his inability to learn, should be taught.
But nobody won't talk to a troll. You admitted you
are a troll, so now nobody (of self-respecting
people, that is) can talk to you, because OMGZ
you are a troll.

And, reading between the lines, it appears that the fact that no one
wants to listen to a troll like him is actually bothering him. Amusing.

hah hah hah. You go, girl!