By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
432,508 Members | 1,856 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 432,508 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Why is it dangerous?

P: n/a
'evening.

I'm not new to C and have been programming in it since I was 8 but
here's a strange problem I've never seen before.

When I compile a program from our C course with a windows compiler
there is no problem but when I try to compile it with a linux compiler
it complains that

a_03.c:(.text+0x4d): warning: the `gets' function is dangerous
and should not be used.

Is linux more dangerous than windows? Where can I download a
non dangerous gets function? I have never used gets before is
there undefined behavior somewhere?
Here is a trimmed down example program from my assignment that
demonstrates the problem

#include <stdio.h>
#include <malloc.h>

void main()
{
char *string;
printf("enter string (max 2000 chars): ");
fflush(stdin);
fflush(stdout);
string = (char *)malloc(2001);
if(!string) exit(1);
gets(string);
printf("you entered: %s\n", string);
free(string);
exit(0);
}

On windows with TurboC and Lcc no error is printed. On linux with
gcc it says gets is dangerous.

Please advise my instructor says gcc is overly pedantic.
Aug 10 '08
Share this Question
Share on Google+
233 Replies


P: n/a
James Dow Allen wrote, On 14/08/08 08:22:

<snip>
I've time to read very few Usenet groups these days.
Are many as totally devoid of humor as c.l.c?
You say that but you are failing to spot some of the humour.
Did anyone seriously think I was worried about the warning
message? (I *do* use a simple 'grep -v' to remove
one irrelevant gcc warning, but haven't bothered for
the friendly "dangerous" message.)
Some people are concerned about completely clean builds (no warnings at
all) and it was not obvious to me (at least) whether you were or not.

<snip>
Another poster implied that a reason gets() is "dangerous"
is that it will disappear when the pedants take over
libc!
That would be me (unless someone else posted a similar comment) and I
even put a smiley on it just in case you did not realise it was intended
as a humorous comment.
Does anyone think any of us would have trouble
writing our own gets() when it goes missing from libc?
No.
(This would also be a trivial way to get rid of the
"dangerous" message.) In fact, at the risk of encouraging
the mob to Repeat_The_Obvious One_More_Time I'll put a
gets implementation in the public domain right now:

/* Not tested :-) */
char *gets(char *s)
{
s = fgets(s, 1000000, stdin);
The behaviour is not the same as gets if the buffer is larger than
1000000 bytes :-)

<snip>
Hmmm. Surprised that the pedants don't add a string length
count to index() to deal with unterminated strings.
:-) :-) :-) :-)
Must resist bait... must resist bait...

<snip>
--
Flash Gordon
The British one not the American Footballer :-)
Aug 14 '08 #101

P: n/a
Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Alas, many Usanians tend not to notice it.

Please try not to use odd abbreviations that are not standard English.
Such as?

--
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
Aug 14 '08 #102

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Alas, many Usanians tend not to notice it.
Please try not to use odd abbreviations that are not standard
English.

Such as?
Well, Usanians. Do you think that is a standard abreviation? If we're
going to harass people about "u" and "ur", then other such crap should
be frowned upon as well. If you absolutely can't bring yourself to use
the standard term "American", then write it out, as in, "many people
from the USA . . . ."


Brian

Aug 14 '08 #103

P: n/a
Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites:
<snip>
>... In fact, at the risk of encouraging
the mob to Repeat_The_Obvious One_More_Time I'll put a
gets implementation in the public domain right now:

/* Not tested :-) */
char *gets(char *s)
{
s = fgets(s, 1000000, stdin);

The behaviour is not the same as gets if the buffer is larger than
1000000 bytes :-)
or if INT_MAX < 1000000. fgets(s, INT_MAX, stdin) is probably the
best bet.

--
Ben.
Aug 14 '08 #104

P: n/a
Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:

Alas, many Usanians tend not to notice it.

Please try not to use odd abbreviations that are not standard
English.

Such as?

Well, Usanians. Do you think that is a standard abreviation?
It's not an abbreviation. It's a neologism (but it's a strange breed of
neologism, since it's now quite well-established).

Since you're being so picky about language usage, please learn to type
"abbreviation" consistently. Your current success rate seems to be 50%,
which is a touch low, wouldn't you say?
If we're going to harass people about "u" and "ur",
You can harass them if you like, but I'd rather not, thanks.
then other such crap should
be frowned upon as well. If you absolutely can't bring yourself to use
the standard term "American",
To what standard does the term "American" conform?

then write it out, as in, "many people
from the USA . . . ."
I find "Usanian" more convenient, thanks.

What was your C question?

--
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
Aug 14 '08 #105

P: n/a
On 14 Aug 2008 at 20:06, Default User wrote:
If we're going to harass people about "u" and "ur", then other such
crap should be frowned upon as well.
Say, here's a radical suggestion: why not just not harass people at all?

Aug 14 '08 #106

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Alas, many Usanians tend not to notice it.

Please try not to use odd abbreviations that are not standard
English.

Such as?
Well, Usanians. Do you think that is a standard abreviation?

It's not an abbreviation. It's a neologism (but it's a strange breed
of neologism, since it's now quite well-established).
I don't believe to be well-established at all. It's also insulting to
many Americans. But you knew that already.
Since you're being so picky about language usage, please learn to
type "abbreviation" consistently. Your current success rate seems to
be 50%, which is a touch low, wouldn't you say?
Are you seriously going to nitpick about a typo? That's pretty weak.
then other such crap should
be frowned upon as well. If you absolutely can't bring yourself to
use the standard term "American",

To what standard does the term "American" conform?
A tradition of at least a few hundred years. In both the USA and the
UK. That includes every dictionary of the English language. But you
knew that.
then write it out, as in, "many people
from the USA . . . ."

I find "Usanian" more convenient, thanks.
People who write "u" and "ur" find it to be more convenient as well.

You know that at least one person your choice to be offensive. You are
of course free to post as you wish. As am I. We'll have this discussion
(at least my first part) each time. It's up to you how you want to
approach things.

Brian
Aug 14 '08 #107

P: n/a
Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:

Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Alas, many Usanians tend not to notice it.

Please try not to use odd abbreviations that are not standard
English.

Such as?

Well, Usanians. Do you think that is a standard abreviation?

It's not an abbreviation. It's a neologism (but it's a strange breed
of neologism, since it's now quite well-established).

I don't believe to be well-established at all.
Since you're being so picky about language, perhaps you should examine the
grammar of that sentence more closely.
It's also insulting to many Americans. But you knew that already.
No, it isn't, and therefore no, I didn't. It is merely descriptive, and in
any case it only applies to around 30% of Americans. (It can hardly be
considered insulting to the 700,000,000 or so Americans to whom it doesn't
apply.)
>Since you're being so picky about language usage, please learn to
type "abbreviation" consistently. Your current success rate seems to
be 50%, which is a touch low, wouldn't you say?

Are you seriously going to nitpick about a typo? That's pretty weak.
Are you seriously going to nitpick about an accurate descriptive term?
That's even weaker.
then other such crap should
be frowned upon as well. If you absolutely can't bring yourself to
use the standard term "American",

To what standard does the term "American" conform?

A tradition of at least a few hundred years.
Traditions are not standards. K&R C is traditional, but ISO C is standard.
In both the USA and the
UK. That includes every dictionary of the English language. But you
knew that.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and in any case lag behind
neologisms by a number of years.
> then write it out, as in, "many people
from the USA . . . ."

I find "Usanian" more convenient, thanks.

People who write "u" and "ur" find it to be more convenient as well.
Yes. If that's the way they want to write, let them write that way. And
remember, I am under no obligation to read their articles, nor am I
obliged to provide them with help. If you don't like my use of language,
well, neither are you under any obligation to read my articles or provide
me with help.
You know that at least one person your choice to be offensive.
That sentence no verb. If you're going to pick on other people's language
usage, let your own usage be absolutely perfect. Otherwise, live and let
live. The word "Usanian" was coined (not by me) with the intent, not of
offending, but of describing more precisely the citizens of the United
States. If you are so easily offended, what are you doing on Usenet?
You are of course free to post as you wish. As am I.
*Applause* - I see you understand at last.
We'll have this discussion
(at least my first part) each time. It's up to you how you want to
approach things.
With precision.

--
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
Aug 14 '08 #108

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Default User said:
I don't believe to be well-established at all.

Since you're being so picky about language, perhaps you should
examine the grammar of that sentence more closely.
Are you claiming that Usanians was a typo? If not, then it is
irrelevant. I will freely admit that I don't proofread as well as I
should. I won't respond to any others you may find.

Are you seriously going to nitpick about a typo? That's pretty weak.

Are you seriously going to nitpick about an accurate descriptive
term? That's even weaker.
It's not accurate, it's not even sensible. USA is a recognized
abbreviation. "Usa" is not a word. To further hang a suffix off it is
ridiculous. It looks silly, and you offend Americans. Whether you want
to admit it or not, the typical term for people from the only nation
with American in its name is "American".
In both the USA and the
UK. That includes every dictionary of the English language. But you
knew that.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and in any case lag
behind neologisms by a number of years.
That's true, but they're the best we have. It also doesn't make all
neologisms sensible. Further it doesn't address the offensive nature of
some.
If you don't like my use of
language, well, neither are you under any obligation to read my
articles or provide me with help.
I'm also free to complain about your offensive usage.

Brian
Aug 14 '08 #109

P: n/a
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Alas, many Usanians tend not to notice it.

Please try not to use odd abbreviations that are not standard
English.

Such as?

Well, Usanians. Do you think that is a standard abreviation?

It's not an abbreviation. It's a neologism (but it's a strange breed
of neologism, since it's now quite well-established).

I don't believe to be well-established at all. It's also insulting to
many Americans. But you knew that already.
[...]

Personally, I know of a grand total of one American who's offended by
it.

Speaking as an American myself, I find the term "Usanian" slightly
odd, mildly amusing, easily understandable, quite unambiguous, and
utterly inoffensive.

I can also understand why residents of North and/or South America
outside the USA might be annoyed by the assumption that the term
"American" applies only to residents of the USA. I'm not interested
in debating whether they *should* find it annoying, but I can
certainly see a rationale for it.

I can see no such rationale for being offended by "Usanians".

The problem, I think, is that the USA is one of the very few countries
whose name doesn't refer specifically to its location, but that does
refer to a larger region within which it's located, but without
acknowleding the subset relationship. "Mexico", for example, is
unambiguous. "South Korea" isn't all of Korea, but the name
acknowledges that.

It's not an easy problem to solve. Perhaps you might consider giving
Richard a break for trying to use what I consider to be quite an
elegant solution.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Aug 14 '08 #110

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:

It's not an easy problem to solve. Perhaps you might consider giving
Richard a break for trying to use what I consider to be quite an
elegant solution.
Hmmmm, no.

Brian
Aug 14 '08 #111

P: n/a
Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Default User said:
I don't believe to be well-established at all.

Since you're being so picky about language, perhaps you should
examine the grammar of that sentence more closely.

Are you claiming that Usanians was a typo?
No, I'm pointing out that your complaining about it constitutes a complaint
about language usage. Those who complain about others' language usage are
in a weak position if their own language usage is not perfect.
Are you seriously going to nitpick about a typo? That's pretty weak.

Are you seriously going to nitpick about an accurate descriptive
term? That's even weaker.

It's not accurate, it's not even sensible. USA is a recognized
abbreviation.
Yes.
"Usa" is not a word.
Right. But "Usanian" /is/ a word.
To further hang a suffix off it is
ridiculous.
Nobody is forcing you to use it.
It looks silly, and you offend Americans.
Only the vanishingly small percentage of Americans who are both (a)
citizens of the USA and (b) ludicrously thin-skinned.
Whether you want
to admit it or not, the typical term for people from the only nation
with American in its name is "American".
Oh, I admit freely that the word "American" is misused by the vast majority
of people. So what? Most people void main too. That doesn't make it right.
In both the USA and the
UK. That includes every dictionary of the English language. But you
knew that.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and in any case lag
behind neologisms by a number of years.

That's true, but they're the best we have.
No, clarity of thought is the best we have.
It also doesn't make all neologisms sensible.
It is true that not all neologisms are sensible.
Further it doesn't address the offensive nature of some.
Now this, I just don't get. How on *earth* is the word "Usanian" offensive?
>If you don't like my use of
language, well, neither are you under any obligation to read my
articles or provide me with help.

I'm also free to complain about your offensive usage.
What offensive usage? What's offensive about the word? I don't understand
that at all.

--
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
Aug 14 '08 #112

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
[OT]
Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Default User said:
....
Well, Usanians. Do you think that is a standard abreviation?

It's not an abbreviation. It's a neologism (but it's a strange breed
of neologism, since it's now quite well-established).
....
It's also insulting to many Americans. But you knew that already.

No, it isn't,
Yes, it is. I understand and sympathize with the reasons why you don't
want to use the term American to describe my fellow citizens. However,
I can assure you that the overwhelming majoring of them are not even
aware of the issue, and most of them would not sympathize even if they
were aware. They would consider it insulting that you called us by any
name other than the "correct" one. They would be just as insulted as a
British citizen might be at being called an Englishman, if he wasn't
actually English (most Americans don't even know that such a thing is
even possible, much less understand why it might be considered
insulting). Also, for that particular alternative, many of us, myself
included, would wonder whether a pun somehow connected with the word
"insane" was intended.
[/OT]
Aug 14 '08 #113

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:

What offensive usage? What's offensive about the word? I don't
understand that at all.
Well Ricky, if you don't understand after what I've told you, I suppose
I won't able to explain it. I guess you could take it on faith.

Brian
Aug 14 '08 #114

P: n/a
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>It's not an easy problem to solve. Perhaps you might consider giving
Richard a break for trying to use what I consider to be quite an
elegant solution.

Hmmmm, no.
You say you're offended by the term "Usanian". That is of course your
right. But I am now offended by your repeated whining about it,
especially since you appear to be claiming the right to be offended on
my behalf.

At the very least, please consider the possibility that people who use
the term are not being *deliberately* offensive.

Better yet, consider that you appear to be the *only* person who holds
this particular opinion, that you have not changed anyone's mind, that
you are not likely to do so in the future, and that *this has nothing
to do with C*. I request that you find another forum for your
complaints on this matter, perhaps private e-mail.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Aug 14 '08 #115

P: n/a
ja*********@verizon.net said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
[OT]
>Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:

Default User said:
...
Well, Usanians. Do you think that is a standard abreviation?

It's not an abbreviation. It's a neologism (but it's a strange breed
of neologism, since it's now quite well-established).
...
It's also insulting to many Americans. But you knew that already.

No, it isn't,

Yes, it is.
Okay, I'll concede that some United States citizens may be dense enough to
be offended by the term.
I understand and sympathize with the reasons why you don't
want to use the term American to describe my fellow citizens.
Thank you.
However,
I can assure you that the overwhelming majoring of them are not even
aware of the issue,
I can believe it. (Sturgeon's Law applies, even to people - and not just
your fellow citizens, I hasten to add.)
and most of them would not sympathize even if they
were aware. They would consider it insulting that you called us by any
name other than the "correct" one.
I accept that "American" is a correct description of citizens of the USA -
just as it is a correct description of Canadians, Colombians, Cubans, and
Chileans. Nevertheless, a more localised adjective is useful (just as it
is for Canadians, Colombians, Cubans, and Chileans). If "Usanian" is
offensive for some bizarre reason, fine, someone coin another word. (I did
so, many years ago - "Usanese" - but someone pointed out the prior
existence of "Usanian", and I was quite content to drop my term in favour
of one already extant.)
They would be just as insulted as a
British citizen might be at being called an Englishman,
I can't see how that would be an insult.
if he wasn't actually English
Ah, that would do it. :-) But I don't see the parallel. I use the term
"Usanian" only to apply to those who are citizens of the USA. Those who
are not citizens of the USA have no grounds for being offended by the
term, since I'm not applying it to them. (And those who are, have no
grounds either, since there's nothing remotely offensive about it.)
(most Americans don't even know that such a thing is
even possible, much less understand why it might be considered
insulting).
Sturgeon's Law again, you see.
Also, for that particular alternative, many of us, myself
included, would wonder whether a pun somehow connected with the word
"insane" was intended.
Not when I use it, it isn't. Purely descriptive - no side, no spin, no pun.

--
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
Aug 14 '08 #116

P: n/a
Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:

>What offensive usage? What's offensive about the word? I don't
understand that at all.

Well Ricky,
Yes, Mr User? That's a silly game to play with a name like yours, but okay,
whatever.
if you don't understand after what I've told you, I suppose
I won't able to explain it. I guess you could take it on faith.
Well, no. You see, I know that lots of people think "faith" means
"believing in stuff even though you know it's not true", but I actually
think it means the opposite - believing in stuff because you know it *is*
true, even when it might seem not to be. When I'm in the dentist's chair,
it is faith in the dentist that keeps me from bolting for the door - I
have faith that she's doing me good, even though she's causing me a
certain amount of pain and a great deal of discomfort. When I'm looking at
a diagnostic message, it is faith in the compiler that leads me to suspect
my own code to be faulty even though I can see absolutely nothing wrong
with it.

Whilst my experience of your contributions to this newsgroup lead me to
respect your knowledge of C, I have no particular reason to have faith in
your ability to be objective about language usage. So the most likely
explanation I have for your apparent lack of objectivity now is that it is
an actual lack of objectivity. No need to take anything on faith.

--
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
Aug 14 '08 #117

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
It's not an easy problem to solve. Perhaps you might consider
giving >Richard a break for trying to use what I consider to be
quite an >elegant solution.

Hmmmm, no.

You say you're offended by the term "Usanian". That is of course your
right. But I am now offended by your repeated whining about it,
Ok. And I'm offended by you being offended by my being offended. And so
on.
At the very least, please consider the possibility that people who use
the term are not being deliberately offensive.
I don't actually believe that. I believe it to be dig (minor and more
with sniggering humor than real malice) at Americans to use that term.
I don't for a minute believe that users of the term are bleeding their
hearts for the Costa Ricans and such shut out by the use of the term to
mean only those from the USA.
Certainly Mr. Heathfield is aware of my feelings on the matter.
Better yet, consider that you appear to be the only person who holds
this particular opinion
One of two, it would now seem, on this newsgroup.
that you have not changed anyone's mind, that
you are not likely to do so in the future, and that *this has nothing
to do with C*. I request that you find another forum for your
complaints on this matter, perhaps private e-mail.
Hmmmm, no. I'm done with it for this time, I think. Next time will be a
new time.


Brian

Aug 14 '08 #118

P: n/a
Default User said:
Keith Thompson wrote:
<snip>
>At the very least, please consider the possibility that people who use
the term are not being deliberately offensive.

I don't actually believe that.
So why should I believe *that*? If you aren't prepared to trust reasonable
people to tell the truth, you should not be surprised if they withdraw
their trust from you. I have stated publicly that I do not use the term to
offend, merely to describe. If you don't believe me, well, that's up to
you, but if you think the term "Usanian" is offensive, how do you feel
about the term "liar"?

<snip>
>Better yet, consider that you appear to be the only person who holds
this particular opinion

One of two, it would now seem, on this newsgroup.
Who is the other one? If you mean James Kuyper, it seems to me that his
position on the term is considerably more moderate than yours, and that
therefore he does not share your opinion.

--
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
Aug 14 '08 #119

P: n/a
On 14 Aug 2008 at 22:30, Default User wrote:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>You say you're offended by the term "Usanian".
[snip]
>*this has nothing to do with C*.

Hmmmm, no.
Hmmmm, yes.

I don't mind people discussing HeathField's eccentricities in this group
if they like - it's just the sheer damned hypocrisy that I can't stand.
The Loser and Kuyper and Heathfield are the first to scream "off topic"
at others, but somehow it's a different rule for them when they want to
go on for post after post about some petty idiosyncrasy of RJH.

At least Thomson is consistent in his narrow-minded approach to
"topicality".

Aug 14 '08 #120

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
ja*********@verizon.net said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
[OT]
....
I accept that "American" is a correct description of citizens of the USA -
just as it is a correct description of Canadians, Colombians, Cubans, and
Chileans. Nevertheless, a more localised adjective is useful (just as it
is for Canadians, Colombians, Cubans, and Chileans). If "Usanian" is
offensive for some bizarre reason, fine, someone coin another word. (I did
Most of them see no reason to coin another word, because they see no
fault with the one they are currently using. The fact that you
disagree wouldn't matter to them.

....
They would be just as insulted as a
British citizen might be at being called an Englishman,

I can't see how that would be an insult.
if he wasn't actually English

Ah, that would do it. :-) But I don't see the parallel. I use the term
"Usanian" only to apply to those who are citizens of the USA. Those who
are not citizens of the USA have no grounds for being offended by the
term, since I'm not applying it to them. (And those who are, have no
grounds either, since there's nothing remotely offensive about it.)
There is an exact parallel: in both cases they would be objecting to
being called by a name that they considered to be incorrect. Whether
or not you agree that the name is incorrect, its perceived
incorrectness is precisely the reason they would consider it
offensive.
There is a difference, of course - many British citizens would object
to being call English for reasons in addition to it being an incorrect
term, based upon their own personal feelings about the English.
Obviously, that wouldn't be an issue with Usanian, because the average
US citizen has never even heard the term, and therefore has no
negative associations to connect with it.

I'm going to try to describe the views of a large diverse group of
people that I don't agree with. I'm going to simplify the description
by pretending that they can be characterized by a single point of
view. With that in mind, I think that point of view would be that
"America" and "American" are a noun and an adjective that each
uniquely refer to the United States of America, except when they occur
in combination with either "North" or "South", in which case the
combined phrase refers to a continent. "The Americas" is a noun phrase
refers to both continents; there is no adjective that refers to both
continents, and little need for one.

If I expected English to be a logical language, I might find that
confusing. Since it obviously isn't, I don't. While your point of view
might be more logical, in US dialects of English those terms are in
use with essentially the meanings listed above, far more often than
the word "Usanian", and that's likely to remain true indefinitely. All
I can say about the difference between those meanings and yours are
that you're speaking a different but closely related language from the
one that they are speaking, and that I'm fluent in both languages.
Aug 14 '08 #121

P: n/a
Default User wrote:
Keith Thompson wrote:
....
Better yet, consider that you appear to be the only person who holds
this particular opinion

One of two, it would now seem, on this newsgroup.
If you're referring to me, keep in mind that I don't share your point
of view, I merely expressed an understanding of it. In particular, I
do not believe that objections to the use of "America" as a synonym
for "USA" stem solely from malicious intent (though I am sure that
many people who do have malicious intent do in fact object to that
usage).
Aug 14 '08 #122

P: n/a
ja*********@verizon.net said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>ja*********@verizon.net said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
[OT]
...
>I accept that "American" is a correct description of citizens of the USA
- just as it is a correct description of Canadians, Colombians, Cubans,
and Chileans. Nevertheless, a more localised adjective is useful (just
as it is for Canadians, Colombians, Cubans, and Chileans). If "Usanian"
is offensive for some bizarre reason, fine, someone coin another word.
(I did

Most of them see no reason to coin another word, because they see no
fault with the one they are currently using. The fact that you
disagree wouldn't matter to them.
Understood. Nevertheless, to co-opt a term that describes the population of
a whole continent - nay, *two* whole continents - and apply it only to an
admittedly large minority of that population is self-aggrandising, and it
should not surprise us to learn that those who seek self-aggrandisement
are not going to be best pleased by the introduction of a term which
neutralises it.
They would be just as insulted as a
British citizen might be at being called an Englishman,

I can't see how that would be an insult.
if he wasn't actually English

Ah, that would do it. :-) But I don't see the parallel. I use the term
"Usanian" only to apply to those who are citizens of the USA. Those who
are not citizens of the USA have no grounds for being offended by the
term, since I'm not applying it to them. (And those who are, have no
grounds either, since there's nothing remotely offensive about it.)

There is an exact parallel: in both cases they would be objecting to
being called by a name that they considered to be incorrect.
That's quite a weak parallel. A stronger parallel would be that of the
English (or, if you prefer, the British) deciding that the term "European"
should apply uniquely to them, and considering as incorrect the idea that
"European" might apply to others. (My own view is rather different, in
that I don't consider the UK to be part of Europe - but that's merely a
symptom of a self-consciously parochial affectation, adopted for its
amusement value, and in any case it's by the by.)

If the British were to co-opt the term "European", accepting it only as a
self-description, the French, German, Italian, Spanish and other European
populations would be (rightly) scathing.
Whether
or not you agree that the name is incorrect, its perceived
incorrectness is precisely the reason they would consider it
offensive.
It has long been my experience that people are rarely offended by
incorrectness. Otherwise, they would speak more carefully, write more
carefully, drive more carefully, think more carefully, and possibly even
vote more carefully.
There is a difference, of course - many British citizens would object
to being call English for reasons in addition to it being an incorrect
term, based upon their own personal feelings about the English.
Obviously, that wouldn't be an issue with Usanian, because the average
US citizen has never even heard the term, and therefore has no
negative associations to connect with it.
Right. Let's take a parallel term that I've seen noised around the place -
"Ukian" - I've never seen a formal definition, but it seems reasonable to
assume that it is intended to describe the people of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I consider "Ukian" to be an ugly word, and I don't use it myself. But I'm
not *offended* by it. That would be ludicrous.

<snip>
All
I can say about the difference between those meanings and yours are
that you're speaking a different but closely related language from the
one that they are speaking, and that I'm fluent in both languages.
Ah, I'm afraid my multilingual skills pale in comparison to yours. :-)

--
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
Aug 14 '08 #123

P: n/a
ja*********@verizon.net wrote:
Default User wrote:
Keith Thompson wrote:
...
Better yet, consider that you appear to be the only person who
holds this particular opinion
One of two, it would now seem, on this newsgroup.

If you're referring to me, keep in mind that I don't share your point
of view, I merely expressed an understanding of it.
Fair enough. I'll stand alone then.

Brian
Aug 14 '08 #124

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
ja*********@verizon.net said:
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>ja*********@verizon.net said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
[OT]
...
>>I accept that "American" is a correct description of citizens of the USA
- just as it is a correct description of Canadians, Colombians, Cubans,
and Chileans. Nevertheless, a more localised adjective is useful (just
as it is for Canadians, Colombians, Cubans, and Chileans). If "Usanian"
is offensive for some bizarre reason, fine, someone coin another word.
(I did
Most of them see no reason to coin another word, because they see no
fault with the one they are currently using. The fact that you
disagree wouldn't matter to them.

Understood. Nevertheless, to co-opt a term that describes the population of
a whole continent - nay, *two* whole continents - and apply it only to an
admittedly large minority of that population is self-aggrandising, and it
should not surprise us to learn that those who seek self-aggrandisement
are not going to be best pleased by the introduction of a term which
neutralises it.
>>>They would be just as insulted as a
British citizen might be at being called an Englishman,
I can't see how that would be an insult.

if he wasn't actually English
Ah, that would do it. :-) But I don't see the parallel. I use the term
"Usanian" only to apply to those who are citizens of the USA. Those who
are not citizens of the USA have no grounds for being offended by the
term, since I'm not applying it to them. (And those who are, have no
grounds either, since there's nothing remotely offensive about it.)
There is an exact parallel: in both cases they would be objecting to
being called by a name that they considered to be incorrect.

That's quite a weak parallel. A stronger parallel would be that of the
English (or, if you prefer, the British) deciding that the term "European"
should apply uniquely to them, and considering as incorrect the idea that
"European" might apply to others. (My own view is rather different, in
that I don't consider the UK to be part of Europe - but that's merely a
symptom of a self-consciously parochial affectation, adopted for its
amusement value, and in any case it's by the by.)

If the British were to co-opt the term "European", accepting it only as a
self-description, the French, German, Italian, Spanish and other European
populations would be (rightly) scathing.
>Whether
or not you agree that the name is incorrect, its perceived
incorrectness is precisely the reason they would consider it
offensive.

It has long been my experience that people are rarely offended by
incorrectness. Otherwise, they would speak more carefully, write more
carefully, drive more carefully, think more carefully, and possibly even
vote more carefully.
>There is a difference, of course - many British citizens would object
to being call English for reasons in addition to it being an incorrect
term, based upon their own personal feelings about the English.
Obviously, that wouldn't be an issue with Usanian, because the average
US citizen has never even heard the term, and therefore has no
negative associations to connect with it.

Right. Let's take a parallel term that I've seen noised around the place -
"Ukian" - I've never seen a formal definition, but it seems reasonable to
assume that it is intended to describe the people of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I consider "Ukian" to be an ugly word, and I don't use it myself. But I'm
not *offended* by it. That would be ludicrous.

<snip>
>All
I can say about the difference between those meanings and yours are
that you're speaking a different but closely related language from the
one that they are speaking, and that I'm fluent in both languages.

Ah, I'm afraid my multilingual skills pale in comparison to yours. :-)
I think you have it completely wrong friend Richard. Over here in the
New World we identify with our nationality, not geography. No one over
here thinks of themselves in continental terms, North or South American,
rather in terms of our nationality. Canadian, Mexican, Brazilian,
Argentinian. And American because our nation is United States of America.

'American' is not a correct description of Canadians or Chileans.

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---
Aug 15 '08 #125

P: n/a
Joe Wright said:

<snip>
I think you have it completely wrong friend Richard.
Well, that's certainly a point of view. :-)
Over here in the
New World we identify with our nationality, not geography.
Sure. "America" is a geographical term. Your nation is named not "America"
but "United States of America", right?
No one over
here thinks of themselves in continental terms, North or South American,
rather in terms of our nationality.
Then may I suggest that you start describing yourselves with a national
term, rather than a continental one? Just an idea. :-)
Canadian, Mexican, Brazilian,
Argentinian. And American because our nation is United States of America.
Canada -Canadian
Mexico -Mexican
Brazil -Brazilian
Argentina -Argentinian
United States of America -United States of American (for which "Usanian"
is a convenient contraction).

The pattern seems clear to me.
'American' is not a correct description of Canadians or Chileans.
If not, then neither is it a correct description of citizens of the USA.

Just remind me how many angels it was? :-)

--
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
Aug 15 '08 #126

P: n/a
In article <5O*********************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid wrote:
>
What offensive usage? What's offensive about the word? I don't understand
that at all.
Fine - given that you live in the U.K., we'll refer to you henceforth as a Ukian.

Aug 15 '08 #127

P: n/a
In article <AI******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid wrote:
>Understood. Nevertheless, to co-opt a term that describes the population of
a whole continent - nay, *two* whole continents - and apply it only to an
admittedly large minority of that population is self-aggrandising, and it
should not surprise us to learn that those who seek self-aggrandisement
are not going to be best pleased by the introduction of a term which
neutralises it.
You don't honestly believe that citizens of Canada, Mexico, or Brazil think of
themselves as "Americans", do you?
Aug 15 '08 #128

P: n/a
In article <6g************@mid.individual.net>, "Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
>Keith Thompson wrote:
>At the very least, please consider the possibility that people who use
the term are not being deliberately offensive.

I don't actually believe that. I believe it to be dig (minor and more
with sniggering humor than real malice) at Americans to use that term.
I don't for a minute believe that users of the term are bleeding their
hearts for the Costa Ricans and such shut out by the use of the term to
mean only those from the USA.
Moreover, once one has been informed that the use of a particular word,
phrase, etc. causes offense, to continue to use that word, phrase, etc. *is*
being deliberately offensive.
Aug 15 '08 #129

P: n/a
Doug Miller said:
In article <5O*********************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid wrote:
>>
What offensive usage? What's offensive about the word? I don't understand
that at all.

Fine - given that you live in the U.K., we'll refer to you henceforth as
a Ukian.
Yes, I'm aware of the term. I don't particularly like it (any more than I
like, say, runner beans or pilchards), but neither am I offended by 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
Aug 15 '08 #130

P: n/a
Doug Miller said:
In article <AI******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid
wrote:
>>Understood. Nevertheless, to co-opt a term that describes the population
of a whole continent - nay, *two* whole continents - and apply it only to
an admittedly large minority of that population is self-aggrandising, and
it should not surprise us to learn that those who seek
self-aggrandisement are not going to be best pleased by the introduction
of a term which neutralises it.

You don't honestly believe that citizens of Canada, Mexico, or Brazil
think of themselves as "Americans", do you?
I don't honestly believe that calling a trunk an elephant makes it an
elephant.

--
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
Aug 15 '08 #131

P: n/a
Doug Miller said:
In article <6g************@mid.individual.net>, "Default User"
<de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
>>Keith Thompson wrote:
>>At the very least, please consider the possibility that people who use
the term are not being deliberately offensive.

I don't actually believe that. I believe it to be dig (minor and more
with sniggering humor than real malice) at Americans to use that term.
I don't for a minute believe that users of the term are bleeding their
hearts for the Costa Ricans and such shut out by the use of the term to
mean only those from the USA.

Moreover, once one has been informed that the use of a particular word,
phrase, etc. causes offense, to continue to use that word, phrase, etc.
*is* being deliberately offensive.
Fine. For future reference, I find these following terms deeply upsetting,
and would appreciate your refraining from their usage:

"a", "been", "being", "causes", "continue", "deliberately", "etc", "has",
"informed", "is", "moreover", "of", "offense", "offensive", "once", "one",
"particular", "phrase", "that", "the", "to", "use", "word".

and I found your paragraph very disturbing.

You now have some choices:

(a) refuse to believe that I find those words offensive (as I refuse to
believe that anyone can seriously find the word "Usanian" offensive);
(b) consider that I'm being ridiculous (as I consider that anyone finding
the word "Usanian" offensive is being ridiculous);
(c) refrain from using any of the words I mentioned above in all
comp.lang.c articles, from now on.

Choice (c), the only choice in keeping with your position, is untenable.
The other two choices reflect my position nicely.

--
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
Aug 15 '08 #132

P: n/a
Joe Wright <jo********@comcast.netwrites:
[...]
I think you have it completely wrong friend Richard. Over here in the
New World we identify with our nationality, not geography. No one over
here thinks of themselves in continental terms, North or South
American, rather in terms of our nationality. Canadian, Mexican,
Brazilian, Argentinian. And American because our nation is United
States of America.

'American' is not a correct description of Canadians or Chileans.
Do you speak for Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, and Argentinians?

You certainly don't speak for all citizens of the US.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Aug 15 '08 #133

P: n/a
Doug Miller wrote:
rj*@see.sig.invalid wrote:
>Understood. Nevertheless, to co-opt a term that describes the
population of a whole continent - nay, *two* whole continents -
and apply it only to an admittedly large minority of that
population is self-aggrandising, and it should not surprise us
to learn that those who seek self-aggrandisement are not going
to be best pleased by the introduction of a term which
neutralises it.

You don't honestly believe that citizens of Canada, Mexico, or
Brazil think of themselves as "Americans", do you?
Certainly do. They may even add a North, South, Central to it. Or
nothing.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
Aug 15 '08 #134

P: n/a
Doug Miller wrote:
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
>Keith Thompson wrote:
>>At the very least, please consider the possibility that people
who use the term are not being deliberately offensive.

I don't actually believe that. I believe it to be dig (minor
and more with sniggering humor than real malice) at Americans
to use that term. I don't for a minute believe that users of
the term are bleeding their hearts for the Costa Ricans and
such shut out by the use of the term to mean only those from
the USA.

Moreover, once one has been informed that the use of a
particular word, phrase, etc. causes offense, to continue to use
that word, phrase, etc. *is* being deliberately offensive.
No, you miss the point. It is much better to doggedly defend your
attitude, and to cause the injection of roughly 100 OT messages
into the newsgroup, than to ever concede a point. This works
especially well when two opposing attitudes are present. We can be
thankful that the protagonists are fairly well trained in snipping
and bottom-posting.

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

Aug 15 '08 #135

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:
Joe Wright <jo********@comcast.netwrites:
[...]
>I think you have it completely wrong friend Richard. Over here in the
New World we identify with our nationality, not geography. No one over
here thinks of themselves in continental terms, North or South
American, rather in terms of our nationality. Canadian, Mexican,
Brazilian, Argentinian. And American because our nation is United
States of America.

'American' is not a correct description of Canadians or Chileans.

Do you speak for Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, and Argentinians?

You certainly don't speak for all citizens of the US.
What? I speak for myself of course. But if you ask a Canadian if he's an
American he'll say "No, I'm Canadian". Every time.

Do you know Nova Scotians or Brazilians who think of themselves as
American? I suppose not.

All citizens of the USA are American by definition. The adjective
'American' applies to the USA only.

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---
Aug 15 '08 #136

P: n/a
Doug Miller wrote:
In article <AI******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid wrote:
>Understood. Nevertheless, to co-opt a term that describes the population of
a whole continent - nay, *two* whole continents - and apply it only to an
admittedly large minority of that population is self-aggrandising, and it
should not surprise us to learn that those who seek self-aggrandisement
are not going to be best pleased by the introduction of a term which
neutralises it.

You don't honestly believe that citizens of Canada, Mexico, or Brazil think of
themselves as "Americans", do you?
Actually, in Latin America that is in fact the case:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(word)#Political_and_cultural_views>
Aug 15 '08 #137

P: n/a
On Aug 14, 8:41 pm, Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
Doug Miller said:
In article <6g************@mid.individual.net>, "Default User"
<de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
>Keith Thompson wrote:
>At the very least, please consider the possibility that people who use
the term are not being deliberately offensive.
>I don't actually believe that. I believe it to be dig (minor and more
with sniggering humor than real malice) at Americans to use that term.
I don't for a minute believe that users of the term are bleeding their
hearts for the Costa Ricans and such shut out by the use of the term to
mean only those from the USA.
Moreover, once one has been informed that the use of a particular word,
phrase, etc. causes offense, to continue to use that word, phrase, etc.
*is* being deliberately offensive.

Fine. For future reference, I find these following terms deeply upsetting,
and would appreciate your refraining from their usage:

"a", "been", "being", "causes", "continue", "deliberately", "etc", "has",
"informed", "is", "moreover", "of", "offense", "offensive", "once", "one",
"particular", "phrase", "that", "the", "to", "use", "word".

and I found your paragraph very disturbing.

You now have some choices:

(a) refuse to believe that I find those words offensive (as I refuse to
believe that anyone can seriously find the word "Usanian" offensive);
(b) consider that I'm being ridiculous (as I consider that anyone finding
the word "Usanian" offensive is being ridiculous);
(c) refrain from using any of the words I mentioned above in all
comp.lang.c articles, from now on.

Choice (c), the only choice in keeping with your position, is untenable.
The other two choices reflect my position nicely.
So let me see if I got this right...

Off-topic:

- Networking in C
- Threading in C
- Creating directories in C
- Future C standards
- Programs written in C

On-topic:

- Prototyping main()
- (Not) casting malloc() calls
- Proper use of English words
- Nationalities abbreviations

:-)

Sebastian

Aug 15 '08 #138

P: n/a
s0****@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>
So let me see if I got this right...

Off-topic:
[ ... ]
- Future C standards
There is <news:comp.std.cfor this.
- Programs written in C
I would say that this is topical. If the problem involves an extension
then we can always redirect the OP.

<snip>

Aug 15 '08 #139

P: n/a
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Alas, many Usanians tend not to notice it.

Please try not to use odd abbreviations that are not standard English.
Why? Do you USAliens not have the graps of the English language to
understand them?

Richard
Aug 15 '08 #140

P: n/a
s0****@gmail.com wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
So let me see if I got this right...

Off-topic:

- Networking in C
- Threading in C
- Creating directories in C
- Future C standards
- Programs written in C

On-topic:

- Prototyping main()
- (Not) casting malloc() calls
- Proper use of English words
- Nationalities abbreviations
Nicely done. Now we can have a lengthy argument about your
selections. Maybe we should apply sub-categories.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
Aug 15 '08 #141

P: n/a
Richard Bos wrote:
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>Alas, many Usanians tend not to notice it.
Please try not to use odd abbreviations that are not standard English.

Why? Do you USAliens not have the graps of the English language to
understand them?

Richard
It never ceases to amaze me at how large one's testicles grow when that
person
is not actually standing in front of the one they are communicating with.

Russell

Aug 15 '08 #142

P: n/a
On 14 Aug, 23:34, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
Well, no. You see, I know that lots of people think "faith" means
"believing in stuff even though you know it's not true",
Mark Twain for one

but I actually
think it means the opposite - believing in stuff because you know it *is*
true, even when it might seem not to be.
<snip>

When I'm looking at
a diagnostic message, it is faith in the compiler that leads me to suspect
my own code to be faulty even though I can see absolutely nothing wrong
with it.
for me that's hard won (and painful) experience. No faith involved.
<snip>

--
Nick Keighley
Aug 15 '08 #143

P: n/a
On 15 Aug, 02:00, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article <5Oqdna5VNanPNznVRVny...@bt.com>, r...@see.sig.invalid wrote:
What offensive usage? What's offensive about [usanian]? I don't understand
that at all.

Fine - given that you live in the U.K., we'll refer to you henceforth as a Ukian.
I am one and I don't find the term offensive. I *use* the word.
Tho' I don't use "usanian"- American seems fine to me.
--
Nick Keighley

Aug 15 '08 #144

P: n/a
s0****@gmail.com said:

<snip>
So let me see if I got this right...

Off-topic:

- Networking in C
- Threading in C
- Creating directories in C
- Future C standards
- Programs written in C
Unfortunately, that would indeed seem to be a reasonable summary of this
group's position, yes.
On-topic:

- Prototyping main()
Yes (sigh).
- (Not) casting malloc() calls
Yes (bigger sigh).
- Proper use of English words
No, not really.
- Nationalities abbreviations
Nor that. Go tell Default User, why don't you? All I did was say "Usanian",
but he's acting like I said "Jehovah" or something. Sheesh.

--
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
Aug 15 '08 #145

P: n/a
Nick Keighley said:
On 14 Aug, 23:34, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>
>Well, no. You see, I know that lots of people think "faith" means
"believing in stuff even though you know it's not true",

Mark Twain for one
Ah, I was vaguely aware of that, I think. I doubt very much whether I was
quoting him correctly, though.

<rummage>
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true." -- Mark Twain
</rummage>

(I think he's wrong - but it's a cool quote nonetheless.)
>but I actually
think it means the opposite - believing in stuff because you know it
*is* true, even when it might seem not to be.

<snip>

>When I'm looking at
a diagnostic message, it is faith in the compiler that leads me to
suspect my own code to be faulty even though I can see absolutely
nothing wrong with it.

for me that's hard won (and painful) experience. No faith involved.
Faith is a consequence of experience. I have faith in Chris Torek's C
knowledge, because I know from experience that he is knowledgeable in C.
So when he tells me something about C that seems unlikely, it is my faith
in Chris that leads me to trust what he says. In a way, faith /is/
experience.

--
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
Aug 15 '08 #146

P: n/a
Richard Bos wrote:
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>Alas, many Usanians tend not to notice it.

Please try not to use odd abbreviations that are not standard
English.

Why? Do you USAliens not have the graps of the English language
to understand them?
USAnians and USAliens rarely graps English. Boston has by-laws
against it. It is subject to the death penalty in Texas.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
Aug 15 '08 #147

P: n/a
In article <Ab******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid wrote:
>Doug Miller said:
>In article <AI******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid
wrote:
>>>Understood. Nevertheless, to co-opt a term that describes the population
of a whole continent - nay, *two* whole continents - and apply it only to
an admittedly large minority of that population is self-aggrandising, and
it should not surprise us to learn that those who seek
self-aggrandisement are not going to be best pleased by the introduction
of a term which neutralises it.

You don't honestly believe that citizens of Canada, Mexico, or Brazil
think of themselves as "Americans", do you?

I don't honestly believe that calling a trunk an elephant makes it an
elephant.
Complete non sequitur.
Aug 15 '08 #148

P: n/a
Doug Miller said:
In article <Ab******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid
wrote:
>>Doug Miller said:
>>In article <AI******************************@bt.com>,
rj*@see.sig.invalid wrote:

Understood. Nevertheless, to co-opt a term that describes the
population of a whole continent - nay, *two* whole continents - and
apply it only to an admittedly large minority of that population is
self-aggrandising, and it should not surprise us to learn that those
who seek self-aggrandisement are not going to be best pleased by the
introduction of a term which neutralises it.

You don't honestly believe that citizens of Canada, Mexico, or Brazil
think of themselves as "Americans", do you?

I don't honestly believe that calling a trunk an elephant makes it an
elephant.
Complete non sequitur.
No, not really. But okay, it's obvious you didn't get that, so I'll give
you a more direct answer: yes, I do believe that there are plenty of
people in the countries you mentioned who understand the concept of
"continent", and who realise that they are Americans (as well as being
Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians or whatever), just as there are French
people who know they are French, Germans or whatever but also understand
that they are Europeans.

--
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
Aug 15 '08 #149

P: n/a
In article <JL******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid wrote:
>No, not really. But okay, it's obvious you didn't get that, so I'll give
you a more direct answer: yes, I do believe that there are plenty of
people in the countries you mentioned who understand the concept of
"continent", and who realise that they are Americans (as well as being
Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians or whatever), just as there are French
people who know they are French, Germans or whatever but also understand
that they are Europeans.
Realizing that they are *North* (or South) Americans is a long way from
thinking of themselves as "Americans". I'm guessing you don't know many (if
any) Canadians ... or you wouldn't imagine that they would think of themselves
as "Americans".

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Join the UseNet Improvement Project: killfile Google Groups.
http://www.improve-usenet.org

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Download Nfilter at http://www.milmac.com/np-120.exe

Aug 15 '08 #150

233 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.