468,491 Members | 1,961 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,491 developers. It's quick & easy.

How printf() works???????


Hello,

I would appreciate some comments about the piece of code given below
and explanation about the result of this specified code.

int x = 20;

printf("%d %d %d",x < 30, x = 40; x 10);
The output of these code will be :: 0 40 1

Thanks and Regards,
Tarun
Mar 7 '08 #1
29 4046
sa********@gmail.com wrote:
I would appreciate some comments about the piece of code given below
and explanation about the result of this specified code.

int x = 20;

printf("%d %d %d",x < 30, x = 40; x 10);
It doesn't compile.
The output of these code will be :: 0 40 1
No, see above.

Uli

Mar 7 '08 #2
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:59:49 -0800 (PST), sa********@gmail.com wrote:
>
Hello,

I would appreciate some comments about the piece of code given below
and explanation about the result of this specified code.

int x = 20;

printf("%d %d %d",x < 30, x = 40; x 10);
The output of these code will be :: 0 40 1
The code invokes undefined behavior. It modifies x and it evaluates x
more than once and also for a purpose other than determining the new
value. Either condition causes undefined behavior. Therefore,
depending on your frame of mind, any output you receive is correct or
there is no correct output from the program.
Remove del for email
Mar 7 '08 #3
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
sa********@gmail.com said:
>>
Hello,

I would appreciate some comments about the piece of code given below
and explanation about the result of this specified code.

int x = 20;

printf("%d %d %d",x < 30, x = 40; x 10);
The output of these code will be :: 0 40 1

Well, it might be, once you wrap a program around it and fix the syntax
error (a semicolon instead of a comma). First, I'll explain why you might
get that output, and then I'll explain why you might not.

x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have values.
Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're false, and 1 if they're
true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if x is less than 30, and 1
otherwise.
It won't actually.
Mar 7 '08 #4

"Richard" <de***@gmail.comwrote:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
sa********@gmail.com said:
>
Hello,

I would appreciate some comments about the piece of code given below
and explanation about the result of this specified code.

int x = 20;

printf("%d %d %d",x < 30, x = 40; x 10);
The output of these code will be :: 0 40 1
Well, it might be, once you wrap a program around it and fix the syntax
error (a semicolon instead of a comma). First, I'll explain why you might
get that output, and then I'll explain why you might not.

x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have values.
Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're false, and 1 if they're
true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if x is less than 30, and 1
otherwise.

It won't actually.
How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't for you,
then your compiler is broken and you should get a better one.

--
Cheers,
Robbie Hatley
lonewolf aatt well dott com
www dott well dott com slant user slant lonewolf slant
Mar 7 '08 #5
Robbie Hatley wrote:
>
"Richard" <de***@gmail.comwrote:
>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
sa********@gmail.com said:
Hello,

I would appreciate some comments about the piece of code given
below and explanation about the result of this specified code.

int x = 20;

printf("%d %d %d",x < 30, x = 40; x 10);
The output of these code will be :: 0 40 1

Well, it might be, once you wrap a program around it and fix the
syntax error (a semicolon instead of a comma). First, I'll explain
why you might get that output, and then I'll explain why you might
not.

x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have values.
Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're false, and 1 if
they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if x is less than 30,
and 1 otherwise.

It won't actually.

How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't for you,
then your compiler is broken and you should get a better one.
The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and zero
otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.

Mar 7 '08 #6

"santosh" <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:
The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30
and zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.
OOOPS!!! So *THAT'S* what you meant! I didn't even notice.
I looked right at what Richard Heathfield wrote several times,
and I didn't see the error. I guess my mind saw what it wanted
to see.

--
Cheers,
Robbie Hatley
lonewolf aatt well dott com
www dott well dott com slant user slant lonewolf slant
Mar 7 '08 #7
On 7 Mar, 09:10, "Robbie Hatley" <lonew...@well.comwrote:
"Richard" <de...@gmail.comwrote:
Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrites:
sant.ta...@gmail.com said:
>Hello,
>I would appreciate some comments about the piece of code given below
>and explanation about the result of this specified code.
>int x = 20;
>printf("%d %d %d",x < 30, x = 40; x 10);
>The output of these code will be :: 0 40 1
Well, it might be, once you wrap a program around it and fix the syntax
error (a semicolon instead of a comma). First, I'll explain why you might
get that output, and then I'll explain why you might not.
x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have values.
Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're false, and 1 if they're
true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if x is less than 30, and 1
otherwise.
It won't actually.

How do you figure? *It does in standard C. *If it doesn't for you,
then your compiler is broken and you should get a better one.

Richard Heathfield made a typo. He meant "So x < 30 will evaluate to
*1* if x
is less than 30, and *0* otherwise."

--
Nick Keighley

Mar 7 '08 #8
In article <fq**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:
....
>How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't for you,
then your compiler is broken and you should get a better one.

The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and zero
otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.
Yes, it was a mistake.

Mar 7 '08 #9
Robbie Hatley wrote:
>
"santosh" <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:
>The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30
and zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.

OOOPS!!! So *THAT'S* what you meant!
That's what Richard Riley meant when he said "It won't actually."
up-thread.

<snip>

Mar 7 '08 #10
Robbie Hatley said:
>
"Richard" <de***@gmail.comwrote:
>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
<snip>
>
x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have values.
Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're false, and 1 if
they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if x is less than 30, and 1
otherwise.

It won't actually.

How do you figure?
No, he's absolutely right, and it was a good spot. I meant to write: "So x
< 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30, and 0 otherwise", but
obviously I failed to achieve that objective. If I'd seen his original
correction, I'd have acknowledged it. Since he's in the ol' bozo bin,
however, it escaped my notice until I saw your reply.

And with that one useful article, his signal/noise ratio has just jumped
about a thousand percent. Unfortunately, that isn't particularly difficult
to achieve. But if he spent half, or even quarter, of his articles helping
people instead of carping and sniping, it might even become worth reading
them.

--
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
Mar 7 '08 #11
In article <hL******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
....
>And with that one useful article, his signal/noise ratio has just jumped
about a thousand percent. Unfortunately, that isn't particularly difficult
to achieve. But if he spent half, or even quarter, of his articles helping
people instead of carping and sniping, it might even become worth reading
them.
Oh. The. Irony...

Mar 7 '08 #12
On 7 Mar 2008 at 9:21, santosh wrote:
The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and zero
otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.
No, I don't think so. Richard HeathField never makes mistakes, as he
often tells us.

Mar 7 '08 #13
On 7 Mar 2008 at 10:05, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Robbie Hatley said:
>>
"Richard" <de***@gmail.comwrote:
>>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
<snip>
>>
x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have values.
Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're false, and 1 if
they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if x is less than 30, and 1
otherwise.

It won't actually.

How do you figure?

No, he's absolutely right, and it was a good spot. I meant to write: "So x
< 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30, and 0 otherwise", but
obviously I failed to achieve that objective. If I'd seen his original
correction, I'd have acknowledged it. Since he's in the ol' bozo bin,
however, it escaped my notice until I saw your reply.
Amazing - you can't bring yourself to admit that you screwed up, but
dress it up in this absurd pomposity we've come to expect: "I failed to
achieve the objective of saying something true". FFS.
And with that one useful article, his signal/noise ratio has just
jumped about a thousand percent. Unfortunately, that isn't
particularly difficult to achieve. But if he spent half, or even
quarter, of his articles helping people instead of carping and
sniping, it might even become worth reading them.
Richard Riley has a long history of useful contributions to this group.
Your posting history, on the other hand, reveals a long history of nasty
snipes against Jacob, and complaints about topicality and netiquette. Go
figure.

Mar 7 '08 #14
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
Robbie Hatley said:
>>
"Richard" <de***@gmail.comwrote:
>>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
<snip>
>>
x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have values.
Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're false, and 1 if
they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if x is less than 30, and 1
otherwise.

It won't actually.

How do you figure?

No, he's absolutely right, and it was a good spot. I meant to write: "So x
< 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30, and 0 otherwise", but
obviously I failed to achieve that objective. If I'd seen his original
correction, I'd have acknowledged it. Since he's in the ol' bozo bin,
however, it escaped my notice until I saw your reply.

And with that one useful article, his signal/noise ratio has just jumped
about a thousand percent. Unfortunately, that isn't particularly difficult
to achieve. But if he spent half, or even quarter, of his articles helping
people instead of carping and sniping, it might even become worth reading
them.
This why you see my posts as "carping and sniping". I think you and the
some of the regs make FAR more noise than I. I feel bringing attention
to some of the more outrageous posts here is a little light relief from
the pain of having to read some of the posing that goes on in here.

Robbie's reply is a great example.

Fly into "C God mode" and insult someone.

And yes "your compiler is broken and you should get another one" is
indeed playing the smart alek.

Where are all these "broken C compiler" that regs keep referring to in
here?

How does the world spin without the clc regs keeping it in check?

Mar 7 '08 #15
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
Robbie Hatley wrote:
>>
"santosh" <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:
>>The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30
and zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.

OOOPS!!! So *THAT'S* what you meant!

That's what Richard Riley meant when he said "It won't actually."
up-thread.
Do you think? :-;
Mar 7 '08 #16
In article <fq**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
Richard <de***@gmail.comwrote:
>santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
>Robbie Hatley wrote:
>>>
"santosh" <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:

The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30
and zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.

OOOPS!!! So *THAT'S* what you meant!

That's what Richard Riley meant when he said "It won't actually."
up-thread.

Do you think? :-;
Some folks are a little slow on the uptake.

But they do (sometimes) get it eventually.

Mar 7 '08 #17
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
Richard wrote:
>santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
>>Robbie Hatley wrote:
"Richard" <de***@gmail.comwrote:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

<snip>
>>>x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have
values. Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're false,
and 1 if they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if x is less
than 30, and 1 otherwise.
>
It won't actually.

How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't for you,
then your compiler is broken and you should get a better one.

The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and
zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.

Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. There is
no evil intent in my correction. Why you feel the need to confirm his
"mistake" is very strange.

Because he did not spot RJH's error and therefore, could not understand
your correction.
So therefore, maybe he should post nothing? Did that cross your mind? he
waffled on about my broken compiler and its as clear as day he never
tried the code with his wonderful,all singing, all dancing compiler.
>
>Possibly you should inform Robbie to be
less quick to tell people their compilers are broken and that they
should get a new one?

He misread RJH's erroneous sentence. Why blame him for it?
You've gone to the dark side Santosh. I "blame" him for nothing. I am
merely pointing out that one should know what one is talking about before
slamming other posters and insulting their compiler ..... In this case
he didn't bother to, or was unable to, verify my statement. Regardless
of that he started on about standard C and my compiler being broken. I
didn't even need to compile anything to see the obvious mistake that
Heathfield made. See other post for reasons not to harp on about what
that mistake was - it was abundantly clear to any C programmer. Yes it
was a "mistake" but one worth pointing out as RH had gone to great
lengths to explain the boolean nature of the expression only to get it
180% wrong : a slip of course. I don't honestly believe that RH thinks
that 1<30 returns 0 for example. hence there was no malevolence, no
crowing in my reply. Merely "incorrect" or there abouts. Your need to
jump to RHs defence surprises me. There is no need.

Mar 7 '08 #18
Richard wrote:
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
>Richard wrote:
>>santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
Robbie Hatley wrote:
"Richard" <de***@gmail.comwrote:
>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

<snip>
>>>>x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have
values. Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're
false, and 1 if they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if x
is less than 30, and 1 otherwise.
>>
>It won't actually.
>
How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't for you,
then your compiler is broken and you should get a better one.

The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and
zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.

Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. There
is no evil intent in my correction. Why you feel the need to confirm
his "mistake" is very strange.

Because he did not spot RJH's error and therefore, could not
understand your correction.

So therefore, maybe he should post nothing? Did that cross your mind?
He misread RJH's statement and that is what I brought to his notice.
What he said to you about your compiler is beside the point and did not
strike me as being important enough to comment on.
he waffled on about my broken compiler and its as clear as day he
never tried the code with his wonderful,all singing, all dancing
compiler.
OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's mistake. Compiling OP's
code (which would require some completion to make it compilable) would
do nothing towards spotting (or not spotting) RJH's typo.

So in this case debating about his compiler and your compiler are
irrelevant.

It's really simple:

1. RJH made a *genuine* mistake.
2. You made a *genuine* correction to his mistake.
3. Robbie Hatley misread RJH's statement so that he read what RJH had
meant to say, not what he wrote.
4. Therefore Robbie Hatley took your statement as correcting a (to him)
correct statement.
5. I pointed out to Robbie Hatley that he misunderstood your correction
because he had misread RJH's erroneous statement.
6. Robbie Hatley acknowledged his misreading and we thought everything
was done and dusted, but...
7. You have taken exception with my *well* *intentioned* correction of
Robbie Hatley's misunderstanding, saying that I should have instead
flamed him for a comment that was essentially irrelevant and beside the
point, and one that was moreover, aimed at you.
8. You have also responded (at least) twice to RJH about this whole mess
including also a tedious recap of your well known opinions about this
group.
9. Surprisingly, you have not yet responded to Robbie Hatley, the poster
who has apparently offended you with his remarks about your compiler,
instead choosing to snipe at posters whose only intention was to clear
up the misunderstanding that started this subthread and thus to get it
closed.
>>Possibly you should inform Robbie to be
less quick to tell people their compilers are broken and that they
should get a new one?

He misread RJH's erroneous sentence. Why blame him for it?

You've gone to the dark side Santosh.
Mind explaining what you mean by this?
I "blame" him for nothing. I am
merely pointing out that one should know what one is talking about
before slamming other posters and insulting their compiler ..... In
this case he didn't bother to, or was unable to, verify my statement.
He (Robbie Hatley) did not bother to verify your statement for the
simple fact that he thought you were obviously wrong, since you were
apparently refuting a 100% correct statement by RJH. He missed the fact
that he had misread RJH mistake.

This sometimes happens. It's unfortunate and the whole subthread could
have closed down with my reply to Robbie Hatley and his response to me,
but now we are having a vigorous mud-slinging contest going on.
Regardless of that he started on about standard C and my compiler
being broken. I didn't even need to compile anything to see the
obvious mistake that Heathfield made. See other post for reasons not
to harp on about what that mistake was - it was abundantly clear to
any C programmer.
Yes, but Robbie Hatley misread it. Which is what I pointed out to him,
carefully ignoring his other statement about your compiler since that
was not relevant, either to me or to this subthread.
Yes it was a "mistake" but one worth pointing out as
RH had gone to great lengths to explain the boolean nature of the
expression only to get it 180% wrong : a slip of course. I don't
honestly believe that RH thinks that 1<30 returns 0 for example. hence
there was no malevolence, no crowing in my reply. Merely "incorrect"
or there abouts.
Where did I imply that there was malevolence or crowing in your reply?
Your need to jump to RHs defence surprises me. There is no need.
*sigh* Once more:

I did _not_ jump to RJH's defence. I jumped in to correct Robbie
Hatley's mistake. Can you make out the difference, or are you far too
biased against RJH that you see a correction to a post aimed at a post
that was a correction to a post by RJH, as a defence of RJH?

Mar 7 '08 #19
On 7 Mar 2008 at 14:25, Richard wrote:
Your need to jump to RHs defence surprises me. There is no need.
It doesn't surprise me. Santosh's only function in this group is to
groom the fleas of Heathfield the alpha male.

Mar 7 '08 #20
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:
On 7 Mar 2008 at 14:25, Richard wrote:
>Your need to jump to RHs defence surprises me. There is no need.

It doesn't surprise me. Santosh's only function in this group is to
groom the fleas of Heathfield the alpha male.
That's as may be, but he seems to have got a bit wrapped in this one for
some reason. And the bottom line of this thread is abundantly clear to
anyone who read as far as RHs polite reply where he pretty much agreed
with each and every point I had made.
Mar 7 '08 #21
On 7 Mar 2008 at 13:44, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Richard said:
>But of course, giving credence and credit to other posters is
becoming a rarer and rarer thing these days with posters like CBF
riding in on their chargers at a moments notice.

Again, I am struggling to disagree with you here, and failing.
Wow, CBF has really been cut loose. Clique status lost and no mistake.

<typical Heathfield cant and hypocrisy snipped>

Mar 7 '08 #22
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:
On 7 Mar 2008 at 13:44, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Richard said:
>>But of course, giving credence and credit to other posters is
becoming a rarer and rarer thing these days with posters like CBF
riding in on their chargers at a moments notice.

Again, I am struggling to disagree with you here, and failing.

Wow, CBF has really been cut loose. Clique status lost and no mistake.

<typical Heathfield cant and hypocrisy snipped>
I always felt he was treated more like the grumpy old
farm dog. Ultimately useless, but nice to pet occasionally.
Mar 7 '08 #23
la************@siemens.com writes:
Richard <de***@gmail.comwrote:
>santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
>>Richard wrote:
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
Robbie Hatley wrote:
>"Richard" <de***@gmail.comwrote:
>>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

<snip>

>x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have
>values. Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're false,
>and 1 if they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if x is less
>than 30, and 1 otherwise.
>>>
>>It won't actually.
>>
>How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't for you,
>then your compiler is broken and you should get a better one.
>
The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and
zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.

Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. There is
no evil intent in my correction. Why you feel the need to confirm his
"mistake" is very strange.

Because he did not spot RJH's error and therefore, could not understand
your correction.

So therefore, maybe he should post nothing? Did that cross your mind? he
waffled on about my broken compiler and its as clear as day he never
tried the code with his wonderful,all singing, all dancing compiler.

That's the risk you take when you post such a terse answer -- people
don't know whether you're confused or just being coy. Expanding your
answer just a tad, say to something like:

It won't actually, it's the other way around.

would have saved a whole flurry of messages and some hard feelings.
Not really. Santosh and the others got it. I explained in another post
why I didn't do that. But point taken, even though I don't necessarily agree.
Mar 7 '08 #24
On 7 Mar 2008 at 17:15, Richard wrote:
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:
>On 7 Mar 2008 at 13:44, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>Richard said:
But of course, giving credence and credit to other posters is
becoming a rarer and rarer thing these days with posters like CBF
riding in on their chargers at a moments notice.

Again, I am struggling to disagree with you here, and failing.

Wow, CBF has really been cut loose. Clique status lost and no mistake.

<typical Heathfield cant and hypocrisy snipped>

I always felt he was treated more like the grumpy old
farm dog. Ultimately useless, but nice to pet occasionally.
Either way, he's definitely off to the glue factory now.

Mar 7 '08 #25
Richard wrote:

<snip>
Santosh, you're rapidly becoming a bore in your attempts to make your
bones. Heathfield is big enough and ugly enough to take care of
himself. As, I am sure, is Robbie.

I'm not reading any more of your word games. Enough.
Thanks for sending a SIGSTOP to yourself. For a moment there I feared
that I would be stuck spinning in an endless loop, explaining the same
things to you over and over.

Mar 7 '08 #26
In article <fq**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
Richard <de***@gmail.comwrote:
....
>CBF, however, is just a waste of disk space IMO. He is wrong more often
than he is right. And he is downright rude and objectionable at his
best.
Not only a waste of disk space, but a waste of space, period.
And of air.

Mar 7 '08 #27
In article <fq**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
Richard <de***@gmail.comwrote:
....
>What is it with you and apologising for other peoples mistakes?
Good point. I refer you to:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war.../sycophant.htm

Mar 7 '08 #28
santosh wrote:
Richard wrote:
.... snip ...
>
>Your need to jump to RHs defence surprises me. There is no need.

*sigh* Once more:

I did _not_ jump to RJH's defence. I jumped in to correct Robbie
Hatley's mistake. Can you make out the difference, or are you far
too biased against RJH that you see a correction to a post aimed
at a post that was a correction to a post by RJH, as a defence of
RJH?
You do realize that that Richard is a known troll? Why feed it?

--
[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

Mar 8 '08 #29
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:
santosh wrote:
>Richard wrote:
... snip ...
>>
>>Your need to jump to RHs defence surprises me. There is no need.

*sigh* Once more:

I did _not_ jump to RJH's defence. I jumped in to correct Robbie
Hatley's mistake. Can you make out the difference, or are you far
too biased against RJH that you see a correction to a post aimed
at a post that was a correction to a post by RJH, as a defence of
RJH?

You do realize that that Richard is a known troll? Why feed it?

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
It is amusing how foolish you are. I would put my credentials against
yours any day. But that would be "real world". In clc, you are king pin
Chuck. Enjoy!

Mar 8 '08 #30

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

11 posts views Thread by Grumble | last post: by
7 posts views Thread by Adi | last post: by
8 posts views Thread by aditya | last post: by
9 posts views Thread by Arthur J. O'Dwyer | last post: by
25 posts views Thread by Joakim Hove | last post: by
15 posts views Thread by Michael B Allen | last post: by
34 posts views Thread by Old Wolf | last post: by
6 posts views Thread by ericunfuk | last post: by
11 posts views Thread by Googy | last post: by
reply views Thread by NPC403 | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by gieforce | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.