By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
429,244 Members | 1,772 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 429,244 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Is Chris Hills a troll?

P: n/a
Or, just how low has this group sunk?

Twice in the past couple of days, Default Loser has accused Chris Hills,
member of the ISO C committee, of being a troll (though given that the
former's only "contributions" to this group are "don't top post" and
"plonk" posts, perhaps his opinions shouldn't be given *too* much
weight...)

But Jack Klein, too, has said the same thing in ever-so-slightly more
guarded language. And Heathfield has been hinting at it too in recent
weeks.

So has it really come to this? Is this really the growing consensus of
the regulars?

If so, perhaps they should do a little soul-searching and ask who the
real trolls are. And what the hell their little game is really all
about.

Jan 17 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
198 Replies


P: n/a
On Jan 16, 4:09*pm, Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalidwrote:
Or, just how low has this group sunk?

Twice in the past couple of days, Default Loser has accused Chris Hills,
member of the ISO C committee, of being a troll (though given that the
former's only "contributions" to this group are "don't top post" and
"plonk" posts, perhaps his opinions shouldn't be given *too* much
weight...)

But Jack Klein, too, has said the same thing in ever-so-slightly more
guarded language. And Heathfield has been hinting at it too in recent
weeks.

So has it really come to this? Is this really the growing consensus of
the regulars?
I don't think Chris Hill is a troll. He's intelligent, and
interesting. He is "contrary" a lot, but I don't mind that a bit. I
read almost everything he posts.
If so, perhaps they should do a little soul-searching and ask who the
real trolls are. And what the hell their little game is really all
about.
You're a troll.
IMO-YMMV.
Jan 17 '08 #2

P: n/a
>>>>"AT" == Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:

ATOr, just how low has this group sunk? Twice in the past
ATcouple of days, Default Loser has accused Chris Hills, member
ATof the ISO C committee, of being a troll (though given that
ATthe former's only "contributions" to this group are "don't top
ATpost" and "plonk" posts, perhaps his opinions shouldn't be
ATgiven *too* much weight...)

ATBut Jack Klein, too, has said the same thing in
ATever-so-slightly more guarded language. And Heathfield has
ATbeen hinting at it too in recent weeks.

ATSo has it really come to this? Is this really the growing
ATconsensus of the regulars?

Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
comments.

Chris Hills also frequently argues contrary points, most of the time
for the sake of being contrary, and says things he knows are
provocative and will elicit a certain response.

In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that he
does the latter, he's a troll.

Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cw*****@chromatico.net
Jan 17 '08 #3

P: n/a
Charlton Wilbur <cw*****@chromatico.netwrites:
>>>>>"AT" == Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:

ATOr, just how low has this group sunk? Twice in the past
[snip]
>
Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
comments.
[snip]

Antoninus Twink certainly is a troll. I suggest not feeding him.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Jan 17 '08 #4

P: n/a
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>
>>>"AT" == Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:
[...]
ATSo has it really come to this? Is this really the growing
ATconsensus of the regulars?

Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
comments.

Chris Hills also frequently argues contrary points, most of the time
for the sake of being contrary, and says things he knows are
provocative and will elicit a certain response.

In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that he
does the latter, he's a troll.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "provocative" and "a certain
response".

For example, in a recent thread about "x = x++;" (again) it was
pointed out (again) that this is UB. Chris Hill's response was the
single word "Why?"

Now, you could look at this two ways (assuming that this is, in fact,
the "real" Chris Hill [please, let's not get into _that_ thread {the
one about what makes on the "real" Chris Hill <so, how many nested
levels of subtopics can I go (I think I've reached it, as I've run
out of possible characters [I see now why LISP just uses parens for
everything]) before overflowing?>} again]):

1 - He's trolling "for real".

2 - His response was really a "provocative" way of saying "but
you haven't told the OP 'why' it's UB".

I would like to think that a member of the ISO C committee would fall
into the latter. Perhaps it's his way of teaching you how to teach
others how to fish?

Of course, I may be completely wrong.

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h|
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:Th*************@gmail.com>
Jan 17 '08 #5

P: n/a
In article <87************@mithril.chromatico.net>,
Charlton Wilbur <cw*****@chromatico.netwrote:
>In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that he
does the latter, he's a troll.
Alternatively: We all sometimes do stupid things; that doesn't mean we
*are* stupid. Similarly just because someone sometimes trolls does't
mean he *is* a troll. A troll who is someone who habitually trolls.

-- Richard
--
:wq
Jan 17 '08 #6

P: n/a
On Jan 17, 7:15*am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.netwrote:
Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
comments.
Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which someone
claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is undefined.

If Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, that would have to have
come from an impersonator.
Jan 17 '08 #7

P: n/a
>>>>"RT" == Richard Tobin <ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.ukwrites:

RTIn article <87************@mithril.chromatico.net>,
RTCharlton Wilbur <cw*****@chromatico.netwrote:
>In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that
he does the latter, he's a troll.
RTAlternatively: We all sometimes do stupid things; that doesn't
RTmean we *are* stupid. Similarly just because someone
RTsometimes trolls does't mean he *is* a troll. A troll who is
RTsomeone who habitually trolls.

Oh, I think Mr Hills habitually trolls; the word you may be looking
for is "exclusively," if you intend to argue that his positive
contributions outweigh his negative ones.

Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cw*****@chromatico.net
Jan 17 '08 #8

P: n/a
Kaz Kylheku <kk******@gmail.comwrites:
On Jan 17, 7:15*am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.netwrote:
>Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
comments.

Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which someone
claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is undefined.
Sometimes I ask questions to which I know the answers. It is a
teaching tool.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
Jan 17 '08 #9

P: n/a
>>>>"KK" == Kaz Kylheku <kk******@gmail.comwrites:

KKOn Jan 17, 7:15*am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.net>
KKwrote:
>Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
comments.
KKReally? In another thread, I just read a posting in which
KKsomeone claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is
KKundefined.

KKIf Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, that would have to
KKhave come from an impersonator.

Or he was in troll mode and asking intentionally stupid questions to
provoke people, or he was asking for clarification so that the querent
who originally asked about x = x++ would understand the principle that
determines that it's undefined (and thus, with luck, not posting a
followup question about x++ * x++).

It's insufficient to conclude from a question that the querent does
not know the answer.

Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cw*****@chromatico.net
Jan 17 '08 #10

P: n/a
Kaz Kylheku said:
On Jan 17, 7:15 am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.netwrote:
>Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
comments.

Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which someone
claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is undefined.

If Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, that would have to have
come from an impersonator.
I rarely have occasion to disagree with you, but I think that on this
occasion the most likely explanation is that Chris was pointing up the
fact that Jack had merely said that the behaviour was undefined without
explaining why. Chris could have been clearer about this. Nevertheless,
I've done the same myself on occasion, and for the same reason.

--
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
Jan 17 '08 #11

P: n/a
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:28:46 -0600, Richard Heathfield wrote
(in article <Cq******************************@bt.com>):
Kaz Kylheku said:
>On Jan 17, 7:15 am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.netwrote:
>>Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
comments.

Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which someone
claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is undefined.

If Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, that would have to have
come from an impersonator.

I rarely have occasion to disagree with you, but I think that on this
occasion the most likely explanation is that Chris was pointing up the
fact that Jack had merely said that the behaviour was undefined without
explaining why. Chris could have been clearer about this. Nevertheless,
I've done the same myself on occasion, and for the same reason.
Now that perhaps half a dozen people have attempted to /guess/ what he
meant, perhaps we can just allow Chris to respond himself instead of
everyone trying to read his mind.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Jan 17 '08 #12

P: n/a
user923005 wrote:

I don't think Chris Hill is a troll. He's intelligent, and
interesting. He is "contrary" a lot, but I don't mind that a bit. I
read almost everything he posts.

It's my belief that Mr. Hills is unhappy with the topicality "rules" of
the majority here, and undertakes periodic attempts to harrass and
annoy the regulars. Others disagree.

That being said, I certainly don't want to provide fuel for no-doubt
trolls like Twink. I don't believe for a minute he's unhappy, in fact
is delighted to have more trolling material. So, while I won't retract
anything about Mr. Hills, I'll refrain from mentioning it in the
future, nor will I discuss it further in the abstract. I think that's
about as fair as I can be.


Brian
Jan 17 '08 #13

P: n/a
In article <47***************@spamcop.net>, Kenneth Brody
<ke******@spamcop.netwrites
>Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>
>>>>"AT" == Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:
[...]
> ATSo has it really come to this? Is this really the growing
ATconsensus of the regulars?

Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
comments.

Chris Hills also frequently argues contrary points, most of the time
for the sake of being contrary, and says things he knows are
provocative and will elicit a certain response.

In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that he
does the latter, he's a troll.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "provocative" and "a certain
response".

For example, in a recent thread about "x = x++;" (again) it was
pointed out (again) that this is UB. Chris Hill's response was the
single word "Why?"

Now, you could look at this two ways (assuming that this is, in fact,
the "real" Chris Hill [please, let's not get into _that_ thread {the
one about what makes on the "real" Chris Hill <so, how many nested
levels of subtopics can I go (I think I've reached it, as I've run
out of possible characters [I see now why LISP just uses parens for
everything]) before overflowing?>} again]):

1 - He's trolling "for real".

2 - His response was really a "provocative" way of saying "but
you haven't told the OP 'why' it's UB".
Precisely.

Simply stating UB or "not proper C" with no explanation is the sort
arrogance you only come across in people who delight in proving
themselves superior to the poor person asking such a stupid question
without actually helping anyone.

I get pissed off with some here who will like take a program apart line
by line saying "not proper C" to UB without being in the slighted help
to anyone other than their own ego and belief that they are the only one
who is technically right .

More to the point anyone with any intelligence can see what the program
is trying to do but they *choose* not to.

In the last example because it was void main() several said the whole
program is UB (and because there were no explicit header files).

You could point out that whilst many compilers will take void main the
correct prototype is probably: int main (void)

Because if you want to be as pedantic as some people do it could have
been a perfectly legal free-standing program.

You could mention that for a conforming program you should have the
following header files and then look at the actual problem the OP had.
>I would like to think that a member of the ISO C committee would fall
into the latter.
You would like to thinks so but anyone can join the C panels. There
are the odd (?) one or two who just like to pick up details to prove how
clever they are without actuarially doing anything constructive.

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

Jan 17 '08 #14

P: n/a
In article <fm***********@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin
<ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.ukwrites
>In article <87************@mithril.chromatico.net>,
Charlton Wilbur <cw*****@chromatico.netwrote:
>>In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that he
does the latter, he's a troll.

Alternatively: We all sometimes do stupid things; that doesn't mean we
*are* stupid. Similarly just because someone sometimes trolls does't
mean he *is* a troll. A troll who is someone who habitually trolls.

-- Richard
I just respond in kind to some of the obtuse posts that we see that may
be technically correct but actually of little help to anyone apart from
the ego of the poster.

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

Jan 17 '08 #15

P: n/a
In article
<6b**********************************@j78g2000hsd. googlegroups.com>, Kaz
Kylheku <kk******@gmail.comwrites
>On Jan 17, 7:15*am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.netwrote:
>Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
comments.

Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which someone
claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is undefined.

If Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, that would have to have
come from an impersonator.
Not at all. The post was x=x++ is undefined without explaining why to
someone who was clearly a novice.

If people want to post that sort of "undefined" remark they will get the
reply "why"
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jan 17 '08 #16

P: n/a
In article <5v*************@mid.individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
>user923005 wrote:

>I don't think Chris Hill is a troll. He's intelligent, and
interesting. He is "contrary" a lot, but I don't mind that a bit. I
read almost everything he posts.


It's my belief that Mr. Hills is unhappy with the topicality "rules" of
the majority here, and undertakes periodic attempts to harrass and
annoy the regulars. Others disagree.

That being said, I certainly don't want to provide fuel for no-doubt
trolls like Twink. I don't believe for a minute he's unhappy, in fact
is delighted to have more trolling material. So, while I won't retract
anything about Mr. Hills, I'll refrain from mentioning it in the
future, nor will I discuss it further in the abstract. I think that's
about as fair as I can be.
We should be so lucky.

Now, remind me, just which year was it in which Default Loser last
posted something technical/non-political in CLC? 2004, maybe?

Jan 17 '08 #17

P: n/a
In article <87************@mithril.chromatico.net>,
Charlton Wilbur <cw*****@chromatico.netwrote:
>>>>>"RT" == Richard Tobin <ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.ukwrites:

RTIn article <87************@mithril.chromatico.net>,
RTCharlton Wilbur <cw*****@chromatico.netwrote:
>In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that
>he does the latter, he's a troll.

RTAlternatively: We all sometimes do stupid things; that doesn't
RTmean we *are* stupid. Similarly just because someone
RTsometimes trolls does't mean he *is* a troll. A troll who is
RTsomeone who habitually trolls.

Oh, I think Mr Hills habitually trolls; the word you may be looking
for is "exclusively," if you intend to argue that his positive
contributions outweigh his negative ones.
You are so screwy in the head, it isn't even funny.

Jan 17 '08 #18

P: n/a
In article <XK**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.demon.co.ukwrote:
>In article <fm***********@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin
<ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.ukwrites
>>In article <87************@mithril.chromatico.net>,
Charlton Wilbur <cw*****@chromatico.netwrote:
>>>In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that he
does the latter, he's a troll.

Alternatively: We all sometimes do stupid things; that doesn't mean we
*are* stupid. Similarly just because someone sometimes trolls does't
mean he *is* a troll. A troll who is someone who habitually trolls.

-- Richard

I just respond in kind to some of the obtuse posts that we see that may
be technically correct but actually of little help to anyone apart from
the ego of the poster.
And that's your problem. That's what puts you out of step with The Clique.

Jan 17 '08 #19

P: n/a
In article <6b**********************************@j78g2000hsd. googlegroups.com>,
Kaz Kylheku <kk******@gmail.comwrote:
>On Jan 17, 7:15*am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.netwrote:
>Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
comments.

Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which someone
claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is undefined.

If Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, that would have to have
come from an impersonator.
Whoosh!!!!

Jan 17 '08 #20

P: n/a
In article <87************@blp.benpfaff.org>,
Ben Pfaff <bl*@cs.stanford.eduwrote:
>Kaz Kylheku <kk******@gmail.comwrites:
>On Jan 17, 7:15*am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.netwrote:
>>Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
comments.

Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which someone
claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is undefined.

Sometimes I ask questions to which I know the answers. It is a
teaching tool.
Yes. Someone who gets it.

Every dog has its day.

Jan 17 '08 #21

P: n/a
In article <87************@mithril.chromatico.net>, Charlton Wilbur
<cw*****@chromatico.netwrites
>>>>>"KK" == Kaz Kylheku <kk******@gmail.comwrites:

KKOn Jan 17, 7:15*am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.net>
KKwrote:
>Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
>comments.

KKReally? In another thread, I just read a posting in which
KKsomeone claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is
KKundefined.

KKIf Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, that would have to
KKhave come from an impersonator.

Or he was in troll mode and asking intentionally stupid questions to
provoke people,
Partly I get pissed off with unhelpful people who give technically
correct answers that help no one other than feed their ego at being so
clever.
or he was asking for clarification so that the querent
who originally asked about x = x++ would understand the principle that
determines that it's undefined (and thus, with luck, not posting a
followup question about x++ * x++).
Yes. Exactly. Also those who were o so clever in spotting all the
"undefined behaviour" did not actually provide much help to the OP

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

Jan 17 '08 #22

P: n/a
In article <87************@blp.benpfaff.org>, Ben Pfaff
<bl*@cs.stanford.eduwrites
>Kaz Kylheku <kk******@gmail.comwrites:
>On Jan 17, 7:15*am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.netwrote:
>>Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
comments.

Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which someone
claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is undefined.

Sometimes I ask questions to which I know the answers. It is a
teaching tool.
Exactly. In this case simply stating "undefined" to a novice who
probably does not have the standard or , by the sound of it, a decent
text book is not going to be any use.

It does not make the person who says "undefined" but fails to be helpful
look anything other than an egotistical prat. Being right is not a
virtue of itself most of the time,.

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

Jan 17 '08 #23

P: n/a
In article <Cq******************************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites
>Kaz Kylheku said:
>On Jan 17, 7:15 am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.netwrote:
>>Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
comments.

Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which someone
claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is undefined.

If Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, that would have to have
come from an impersonator.

I rarely have occasion to disagree with you, but I think that on this
occasion the most likely explanation is that Chris was pointing up the
fact that Jack had merely said that the behaviour was undefined without
explaining why
Yes, exactly
>. Chris could have been clearer about this.
Why? Jacks tone and manner were appalling for an adult.
Nevertheless,
I've done the same myself on occasion, and for the same reason.
Are we agreeing again? This has to stop :-)

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

Jan 17 '08 #24

P: n/a
In article <00*****************************@news.verizon.net> , Randy
Howard <ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.netwrites
>On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:28:46 -0600, Richard Heathfield wrote
(in article <Cq******************************@bt.com>):
>Kaz Kylheku said:
>>On Jan 17, 7:15 am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.netwrote:
Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
comments.

Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which someone
claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is undefined.

If Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, that would have to have
come from an impersonator.

I rarely have occasion to disagree with you, but I think that on this
occasion the most likely explanation is that Chris was pointing up the
fact that Jack had merely said that the behaviour was undefined without
explaining why. Chris could have been clearer about this. Nevertheless,
I've done the same myself on occasion, and for the same reason.

Now that perhaps half a dozen people have attempted to /guess/ what he
meant, perhaps we can just allow Chris to respond himself instead of
everyone trying to read his mind.
Sorry I wasn't using my mind today :-)

BTW I have email problems on the mail machines so I owe James an email
for his explanation of the US voting system... (now that is bizarre!

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

Jan 17 '08 #25

P: n/a
In article <e6**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.demon.co.ukwrote:
>I get pissed off with some here who will like take a program apart line
by line saying "not proper C" to UB without being in the slighted help
to anyone other than their own ego and belief that they are the only one
who is technically right .
>More to the point anyone with any intelligence can see what the program
is trying to do but they *choose* not to.
>In the last example because it was void main() several said the whole
program is UB (and because there were no explicit header files).
>You could point out that whilst many compilers will take void main the
correct prototype is probably: int main (void)
The thread in question did not ask about how to write a correct
program to do some particular task: the thread in question asked
what the output was of a very specific program. Pointing out how
the program *could* have been written to avoid problems was not
particularily relevant to answering the poster's assignment for them.

>Because if you want to be as pedantic as some people do it could have
been a perfectly legal free-standing program.
If it had been a free-standing program, then because free-standing
programs are not required to support stdio, the printf() could have
been a call to some function with unknown behaviour: free-standing
programs are not required to have their I/O routines conform to
what the C standard says those routines are supposed to do for
hosted environments. Therefor my answer at the time, that the
program could output just about anything, was correct for free-standing
programs as well.
--
"All is vanity." -- Ecclesiastes
Jan 17 '08 #26

P: n/a
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
In article <5v*************@mid.individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
>>user923005 wrote:

>>I don't think Chris Hill is a troll. He's intelligent, and
interesting. He is "contrary" a lot, but I don't mind that a bit. I
read almost everything he posts.


It's my belief that Mr. Hills is unhappy with the topicality "rules" of
the majority here, and undertakes periodic attempts to harrass and
annoy the regulars. Others disagree.

That being said, I certainly don't want to provide fuel for no-doubt
trolls like Twink. I don't believe for a minute he's unhappy, in fact
is delighted to have more trolling material. So, while I won't retract
anything about Mr. Hills, I'll refrain from mentioning it in the
future, nor will I discuss it further in the abstract. I think that's
about as fair as I can be.

We should be so lucky.

Now, remind me, just which year was it in which Default Loser last
posted something technical/non-political in CLC? 2004, maybe?
Good. It's not just me then. I thought he was joking when I read his
self serving nonsense. Just who does he think he is? Chris Hills posts a
lot of help and useful information. This Brian joker is just a lower
brow Heathfield wannabe.
Jan 17 '08 #27

P: n/a
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
In article <87************@mithril.chromatico.net>,
Charlton Wilbur <cw*****@chromatico.netwrote:
>>>>>>"RT" == Richard Tobin <ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.ukwrites:

RTIn article <87************@mithril.chromatico.net>,
RTCharlton Wilbur <cw*****@chromatico.netwrote:
> >In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that
>he does the latter, he's a troll.

RTAlternatively: We all sometimes do stupid things; that doesn't
RTmean we *are* stupid. Similarly just because someone
RTsometimes trolls does't mean he *is* a troll. A troll who is
RTsomeone who habitually trolls.

Oh, I think Mr Hills habitually trolls; the word you may be looking
for is "exclusively," if you intend to argue that his positive
contributions outweigh his negative ones.

You are so screwy in the head, it isn't even funny.
Is Charlton a nym for Heathfield? It sounds like it.
Jan 17 '08 #28

P: n/a
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
user923005 wrote:

>I don't think Chris Hill is a troll. He's intelligent, and
interesting. He is "contrary" a lot, but I don't mind that a bit. I
read almost everything he posts.


It's my belief that Mr. Hills is unhappy with the topicality "rules" of
the majority here, and undertakes periodic attempts to harrass and
annoy the regulars. Others disagree.
No one cares about your views. Your contribution to this group is
nothing but "me toos" and "off topic" rejoinders.
>
That being said, I certainly don't want to provide fuel for no-doubt
trolls like Twink. I don't believe for a minute he's unhappy, in fact
is delighted to have more trolling material. So, while I won't retract
anything about Mr. Hills, I'll refrain from mentioning it in the
future, nor will I discuss it further in the abstract. I think that's
about as fair as I can be.
Nobody cares. Really.
Jan 17 '08 #29

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
....
BTW I have email problems on the mail machines so I owe James an email
for his explanation of the US voting system... (now that is bizarre!
Agreed! I'll look forward to your message when you get your e-mail
working again.
Jan 17 '08 #30

P: n/a
In article <9s************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
>"Default Loser" <de************@yahoo.comwrites:
....
>It's my belief that Mr. Hills is unhappy with the topicality "rules" of
the majority here, and undertakes periodic attempts to harrass and
annoy the regulars. Others disagree.

No one cares about your views. Your contribution to this group is
nothing but "me toos" and "off topic" rejoinders.
Surely you mis-underestimate [sic] him. He also does top posting alerts.

Jan 17 '08 #31

P: n/a
In article <22************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
>ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>In article <87************@mithril.chromatico.net>,
Charlton Wilbur <cw*****@chromatico.netwrote:
>>>>>>>"RT" == Richard Tobin <ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.ukwrites:

RTIn article <87************@mithril.chromatico.net>,
RTCharlton Wilbur <cw*****@chromatico.netwrote:

>In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that
>he does the latter, he's a troll.

RTAlternatively: We all sometimes do stupid things; that doesn't
RTmean we *are* stupid. Similarly just because someone
RTsometimes trolls does't mean he *is* a troll. A troll who is
RTsomeone who habitually trolls.

Oh, I think Mr Hills habitually trolls; the word you may be looking
for is "exclusively," if you intend to argue that his positive
contributions outweigh his negative ones.

You are so screwy in the head, it isn't even funny.

Is Charlton a nym for Heathfield? It sounds like it.
Could be. Could easily be.

Jan 17 '08 #32

P: n/a
In article
<5e**********************************@y5g2000hsf.g ooglegroups.com>,
ja*********@verizon.net writes
>Chris Hills wrote:
...
>BTW I have email problems on the mail machines so I owe James an email
for his explanation of the US voting system... (now that is bizarre!

Agreed! I'll look forward to your message when you get your e-mail
working again.
I can receive email and send/ receive news but not send email
Fortunately it is on the personal/spam-trap PC not the main business
email
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jan 17 '08 #33

P: n/a
On 17 Jan 2008 at 18:48, Default User wrote:
So, while I won't retract anything about Mr. Hills, I'll refrain from
mentioning it in the future, nor will I discuss it further in the
abstract. I think that's about as fair as I can be.
How gracious of you!

Above all, don't bring forward any, you know, actual evidence to support
your deranged theories.

Jan 17 '08 #34

P: n/a
On 17 Jan 2008 at 20:41, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <9s************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
>>"Default Loser" <de************@yahoo.comwrites:
...
>>It's my belief that Mr. Hills is unhappy with the topicality "rules" of
the majority here, and undertakes periodic attempts to harrass and
annoy the regulars. Others disagree.

No one cares about your views. Your contribution to this group is
nothing but "me toos" and "off topic" rejoinders.

Surely you mis-underestimate [sic] him. He also does top posting alerts.
And from time to time he makes bitter complaints that some people he
hasn't "plonked" actually dare to discuss C with Jacob, thereby forcing
him to see Jacob's words that offend his hypersensitive nature so
terribly, poor soul.

Jan 17 '08 #35

P: n/a
On 17 Jan 2008 at 16:16, Kenneth Brody wrote:
For example, in a recent thread about "x = x++;" (again) it was
pointed out (again) that this is UB. Chris Hill's response was the
single word "Why?"

Now, you could look at this two ways (assuming that this is, in fact,
the "real" Chris Hill [please, let's not get into _that_ thread {the
one about what makes on the "real" Chris Hill <so, how many nested
levels of subtopics can I go (I think I've reached it, as I've run
out of possible characters [I see now why LISP just uses parens for
everything]) before overflowing?>} again]):

1 - He's trolling "for real".

2 - His response was really a "provocative" way of saying "but
you haven't told the OP 'why' it's UB".

I would like to think that a member of the ISO C committee would fall
into the latter. Perhaps it's his way of teaching you how to teach
others how to fish?
Like, gee, I mean, do you reckon??

The people here seem to have lost their humanity and turned into
compilers themselves - they find a syntax error on line 10 of a post and
can't interpret it as any well-adjusted person would, but stop
processing and spew out a diagnostic message, usually an abrasive and
unhelpful one at that.

Jan 17 '08 #36

P: n/a
Antoninus Twink wrote:
On 17 Jan 2008 at 20:41, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>In article <9s************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
>>"Default Loser" <de************@yahoo.comwrites:
...
>>>It's my belief that Mr. Hills is unhappy with the topicality "rules" of
the majority here, and undertakes periodic attempts to harrass and
annoy the regulars. Others disagree.
No one cares about your views. Your contribution to this group is
nothing but "me toos" and "off topic" rejoinders.
Surely you mis-underestimate [sic] him. He also does top posting alerts.

And from time to time he makes bitter complaints that some people he
hasn't "plonked" actually dare to discuss C with Jacob, thereby forcing
him to see Jacob's words that offend his hypersensitive nature so
terribly, poor soul.
Yes. I apologize...
:-)

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jan 17 '08 #37

P: n/a
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:
On 17 Jan 2008 at 22:49, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>In article <sl*******************@nospam.invalid>,
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrote:
>>>I'm afraid we must face the truth that the world contains more people
like Heathfield than we'd like to hope.

Now, that's a scary thought!

As Heathfield might say, "indeed!"
Veritably so. Indeed.
Jan 18 '08 #38

P: n/a
On 17 Jan 2008 at 22:49, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <sl*******************@nospam.invalid>,
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrote:
>>I'm afraid we must face the truth that the world contains more people
like Heathfield than we'd like to hope.

Now, that's a scary thought!
As Heathfield might say, "indeed!"

Jan 18 '08 #39

P: n/a
This "Antoninus Twink" character, who to the best of my knowledge has
never made a positive contribution to this newsgroup, has managed to
start a thread that is, at last count, 42 articles long (including
this one).

We really need to do a better job of ignoring the trolls. Just
imagine how much more pleasant this newsgroup would be if, every time
one of the trolls posted something, there were no response at all.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Jan 18 '08 #40

P: n/a
Keith Thompson said:
This "Antoninus Twink" character, who to the best of my knowledge has
never made a positive contribution to this newsgroup, has managed to
start a thread that is, at last count, 42 articles long (including
this one).

We really need to do a better job of ignoring the trolls.
If the volume of positive contributions to the group is the criterion, I
can think of a few others you could ignore too, since they don't make any
positive contributions at all. Specifically, "Kenny McCormack" and
"Richard Riley" (who, it appears, can't even remember his own surname long
enough to put it in his From field, let alone make a positive contribution
to this group).
Just
imagine how much more pleasant this newsgroup would be if, every time
one of the trolls posted something, there were no response at all.
I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

--
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
Jan 18 '08 #41

P: n/a
On 18 Jan 2008 at 1:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
This "Antoninus Twink" character, who to the best of my knowledge has
never made a positive contribution to this newsgroup,
Wrong. I started out in this group by pointing out a poor choice of
algorithm, implemented in poor C style, in some code by Heathfield, and
suggested an improvement in idiomatic C.

Of course, criticizing one of The Clique immediately made me a troll...
even more so when it became clear to me that you're never allowed to
make positive contributions to this group if you're interested in
real-world C, so that a necessary first step before making positive
contributions is to point out the stupidity and hypocrisy of the
regulars and try to change the climate here. Of course, this is again
trolling by the standard definition (i.e. a troll is someone who
disagrees with one's own views).
has managed to
start a thread that is, at last count, 42 articles long (including
this one).
Sometimes trolls can say the things that other people are thinking. Or
should be thinking, if they weren't complete inured to common sense by
years spent posting here. The insightfulness of a particular post does
not depend on the posting history of the poster.

The shocking thing about this thread is how few messages of 100%-support
for Chris Hills there have been. This group really does seem to be
heading off into outer space, and it's so far out already that earth's
gravitational pull is now very weak indeed.
We really need to do a better job of ignoring the trolls. Just
imagine how much more pleasant this newsgroup would be if, every time
one of the trolls posted something, there were no response at all.
Imagine how much more pleasant this newsgroup would be if people didn't
post so many snarling messages saying "that's not C!", "not portable!",
"take it to another newsgroup!", "can't discuss that here!", "don't top
post!", "snip sigs!", "ding ding - post by Jacob, which bit of it can we
attack?", yada yada yada, on and on for ever.

Every time you check this group you have to wade through this thick
sludge of useless "go away" messages. As my old grandmother used to say,
if you can't say something useful, don't say anything at all.

Jan 18 '08 #42

P: n/a
Antoninus Twink wrote:
On 18 Jan 2008 at 1:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
>This "Antoninus Twink" character, who to the best of my knowledge has
never made a positive contribution to this newsgroup,

Wrong. I started out in this group by pointing out a poor choice of
algorithm, implemented in poor C style, in some code by Heathfield, and
suggested an improvement in idiomatic C.
That's not how I remember that thread. You replaced an O(n) algorithm
with an O(n) algorithm, and claimed you were fixing a "Bug/Gross
InEfficiency" (sic). Neither claim was true.

*plonk*

(and while I'm at it, I might unplonk Kenny McCormack, because unlike
Antonius and Richard, I find him somewhat entertaining sometimes...)
Jan 18 '08 #43

P: n/a
On 18 Jan, 08:30, Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalidwrote:
On 18 Jan 2008 at *1:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
This "Antoninus Twink" character, who to the best of my knowledge has
never made a positive contribution to this newsgroup,
do you believe you've made any recent positive contributions?

Wrong. I started out in this group by pointing out a poor choice of
algorithm, implemented in poor C style, in some code by Heathfield, and
suggested an improvement in idiomatic C.

Of course, criticizing one of The Clique immediately made me a troll...
even more so when it became clear to me that you're never allowed to
make positive contributions to this group if you're interested in
real-world C, so that a necessary first step before making positive
contributions is to point out the stupidity and hypocrisy of the
regulars and try to change the climate here. Of course, this is again
trolling by the standard definition (i.e. a troll is someone who
disagrees with one's own views).
I think you're going to have an uphill struggle to change the climate.
Yep, the manners could be better sometimes.
But historically this ng has been used to discuss standard C.
Discussing extensions (so called "real-world C") is off topic.

Now are you posting to change the climate? Good luck.
Or just to amuse yourself and those (few) who think you're funny?
Because *that* makes you a troll.

<snip>
Every time you check this group you have to wade through this thick
sludge of useless "go away" messages. As my old grandmother used to say,
if you can't say something useful, don't say anything at all.
have you considered taking you grandmother's advice?
--
Nick Keighley (Richard Heathfield build 3142)
Jan 18 '08 #44

P: n/a
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:
On 18 Jan 2008 at 1:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
>We really need to do a better job of ignoring the trolls. Just
imagine how much more pleasant this newsgroup would be if, every time
one of the trolls posted something, there were no response at all.

Every time you check this group you have to wade through this thick
sludge of useless "go away" messages. As my old grandmother used to say,
if you can't say something useful, don't say anything at all.
That would be my main objection to this group. You couldn't make up
people like Keighley and Falconer. It's almost like they take delight in
being objectionable and basically unpleasant and "elite". I am a member
of various programming groups and forums and this is BY FAR the rudest
group I have ever come across. Unfortunately a few posters have decided
to model themselves on Heathfield's obfuscating manner - even adopting
his flowery, pseudo intellectual prose style.

Only on this group would recommending a good debugger be met with
pompous ridicule. I suspect that most of the more irritating poseurs
here have never written a line of code in a large team on legacy systems
in their lives.

Jan 18 '08 #45

P: n/a
Philip Potter <pg*@doc.ic.ac.ukwrites:
Antoninus Twink wrote:
>On 18 Jan 2008 at 1:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>This "Antoninus Twink" character, who to the best of my knowledge has
never made a positive contribution to this newsgroup,

Wrong. I started out in this group by pointing out a poor choice of
algorithm, implemented in poor C style, in some code by Heathfield, and
suggested an improvement in idiomatic C.

That's not how I remember that thread. You replaced an O(n) algorithm
with an O(n) algorithm, and claimed you were fixing a "Bug/Gross
InEfficiency" (sic). Neither claim was true.

*plonk*

(and while I'm at it, I might unplonk Kenny McCormack, because unlike
Antonius and Richard, I find him somewhat entertaining sometimes...)
Nobody cares who is in your kill file. You are a prime example of the
kind of poster to whom AT is referring. Grow up, take it on the chin and
move on.

Jan 18 '08 #46

P: n/a
In article <fm**********@aioe.org>, Philip Potter <pg*@doc.ic.ac.ukwrote:
>Antoninus Twink wrote:
>On 18 Jan 2008 at 1:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>This "Antoninus Twink" character, who to the best of my knowledge has
never made a positive contribution to this newsgroup,

Wrong. I started out in this group by pointing out a poor choice of
algorithm, implemented in poor C style, in some code by Heathfield, and
suggested an improvement in idiomatic C.

That's not how I remember that thread. You replaced an O(n) algorithm
with an O(n) algorithm, and claimed you were fixing a "Bug/Gross
InEfficiency" (sic). Neither claim was true.
I assume you're lying. Because that's what all Clique members and
wannabee members do, all the time.

Q: How do you know when a Clique member is lying?
A: You see their name in the "From" line.
>(and while I'm at it, I might unplonk Kenny McCormack, because unlike
Antonius and Richard, I find him somewhat entertaining sometimes...)
Well, thank you[*]. I do seem to hit the right notes, most of the time,
don't I? I do think that my esteemed colleague (Mr. Twink) is (almost)
as gifted, though.
[*] Coming from a Clique wannabee, I do realize that this is as far as
you can go in public, w/o risking the wrath of the Clique. But I know
what you really would say, if you could.

Jan 18 '08 #47

P: n/a
In article <1q************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
....
>Only on this group would recommending a good debugger be met with
pompous ridicule. I suspect that most of the more irritating poseurs
here have never written a line of code in a large team on legacy systems
in their lives.
So true. So true.

Though, actually, my sense of a lot of them is that they may have,
decades ago, been real world programmers. Now, all they do in their
sad, pathetic lives is hang out here, in a sad pathetic corner of
Usenet, and try to convince us all how smart they used to be.

Jan 18 '08 #48

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Kaz Kylheku said:
>Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.netwrote:
>>Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
comments.

Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which someone
claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is undefined.

If Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, that would have to
have come from an impersonator.

I rarely have occasion to disagree with you, but I think that on
this occasion the most likely explanation is that Chris was
pointing up the fact that Jack had merely said that the behaviour
was undefined without explaining why. Chris could have been
clearer about this. Nevertheless, I've done the same myself on
occasion, and for the same reason.
As have I. The usual result is a smelly wet rag thrown over the
whole discussion.

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

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

Jan 18 '08 #49

P: n/a
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
Richard Tobin <ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.ukwrites:
>Charlton Wilbur <cw*****@chromatico.netwrote:
>>In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that
he does the latter, he's a troll.
>Alternatively: We all sometimes do stupid things; that doesn't
mean we *are* stupid. Similarly just because someone
sometimes trolls does't mean he *is* a troll. A troll who is
someone who habitually trolls.

Oh, I think Mr Hills habitually trolls; the word you may be
looking for is "exclusively," if you intend to argue that his
positive contributions outweigh his negative ones.
Interestingly, in the roughly 7 hours since you posted the above,
the only responses have been 7 messages from the known trollers
McCormack, Richard, and Twink.

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

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

Jan 18 '08 #50

198 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.