Question about CLC

[CBFalconer]

Re: Question about CLC

ymuntyan@gmail. com wrote:

gaze...@xmissio n.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>

.... snip ...

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

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

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

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



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

[James Kuyper]

Re: Question about CLC

ymuntyan@gmail. com wrote:

On Dec 28, 5:09 pm, gaze...@xmissio n.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:

....

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

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

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

[Richard Harter]

Re: Question about CLC

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

>user923005 wrote:
>

>On Dec 28, 12:11 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:

Default User said:
>
<snip>
>
If the
neighborhood kids were limited to shouting at you, and you had a
way to turn down their volume so you couldn't hear, you probably
would do so.
>
Yet people here seem extremely reluctant to do the equivalent.
They will engage the kooks and trolls in protracted debates, for
no readily discernable benefit. There's no way to convince the
people like Jacob of anything.
>
You make a persuasive case, Brian.

>>
>There are people who don't learn at all (e.g. Nudds) because they
>literally have no interest in learning.
>There are people who learn very slowly but they do learn (ACL).
>>
>I am not sure about Jacob yet. I think he is intelligent and I think
>he sometimes has interesting ideas.

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

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

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

[Army1987]

Re: Question about CLC

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia said:

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

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

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

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: Question about CLC

In article <YAtdj.5358$4m5 .4040@trnddc02> ,
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@ve rizon.netwrote:

>ymuntyan@gmail .com wrote:

>On Dec 28, 5:09 pm, gaze...@xmissio n.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
>wrote:

>...

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

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

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

hah hah hah. You go, girl!

[Army1987]

Re: Question about CLC

ymuntyan wrote:

On Dec 28, 5:09 pm, gaze...@xmissio n.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:

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

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

And, what's more, Kenny isn't maintaining a C compiler AFAIK, so his
ignorance won't cause people to be left puzzling on why their correct
program doesn't behave as it should or triggers strange compiler warnings.

--
Army1987 (Replace "NOSPAM" with "email")

[Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood]

Re: Question about CLC

Groovy hepcat jacob navia was jivin' in comp.lang.c on Sat, 29 Dec 2007
11:02 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it.

Kenny McCormack wrote:

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

>
:-)

The troll known as Kenny McCormack is wallowing at the bottom of every
clueful clc participant's kill file. That's why "these guys steadfastly
refuse to respond" to his garbage. Or, to put it another way for the
South Park fans...

Oh my god! They kill filed Kenny! You bastards!

--
Dig the sig!

----------- Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood ------------
Ain't I'm a dawg!!

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: Question about CLC

In article <undn45-ebi.ln1@dead.fo o>,
Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alpha link.com.au.NO. SPAMwrote:

>Groovy hepcat jacob navia was jivin' in comp.lang.c on Sat, 29 Dec 2007
>11:02 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it.
>

>Kenny McCormack wrote:

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

>>
>:-)

>
The troll known as Kenny McCormack is wallowing at the bottom of every
>clueful clc participant's kill file. That's why "these guys steadfastly
>refuse to respond" to his garbage.

This is (surprise! surprise!) a(nother) lie.

First, I know for a fact that at least one "regular" does not use a
killfile (this person states this directly every so often) and that this
person does specifically read (but never respond to) my posts.

Second, I assume most of the rest of you are just lying. We've come to
expect that by now.

Third, again, as I say, I don't understand why you bother lobbing your
sh*t at Jacob. It doesn't stick to him anymore than it would to me.

[pete]

Re: Question about CLC

Masood wrote:

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

It's probably for the same reason
that it's so dysfunctional as a "shoe lace".

I'm not here to socialize.

I post here to discuss C,
for the purpose of deepening my own understanding of the language.

Other people also post here to discuss C,
often enough to make it worth my while to read this newsgroup.

When they post here to discuss C seriously,
then they are valuable to me.

When they don't, then they aren't.

--
pete

[Ico]

Re: Question about CLC

Kenny McCormack <gazelle@xmissi on.xmission.com wrote:

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

I second that: it is not only fun for the participators but also for the
more passive audience. I came here once to discuss topics involving the
C language, but these days I mostly read this newsgroup for its excellent
flames.

--
:wq
^X^Cy^K^X^C^C^C ^C

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

Re: Question about CLC

Richard Heathfield writes:

Well, to be fair, we don't know which aspects of comp.lang.c "Masood"
thinks are dysfunctional. If he is perceptive, he will recognise that
there is a small group of people who post regularly, and yet contribute
nothing positive to the group: (...)

And by attacking a bunch of named individuals, several of whom may not
even be reading this thread, you've just given a fine demonstration of
dysfunctional behaviour of this group. And one reason why your name
belongs near or at the top of such a list of this group's problems. You
were not the first here with an unprovoked personal attack (jacob/
"Richard", are you listening?), but you are the group's bloody top
poster, with more articles than all of your chosen "problem individuals"
together.

--
Hallvard

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

Re: Question about CLC

CBFalconer writes:

>jaysome wrote:

>gazelle@xmissio n.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

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

Try "news.group s" (group about newsgroup creation/policy etc). You need
to know the meaning of various insults there just to see who/what many
of the threads are talking about.

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

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

Unlike your posting, or the rest of this thread?

--
Hallvard

[user923005]

Re: Question about CLC

On Jan 3, 11:08 am, Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furus...@u sit.uio.no>
wrote:

Richard Heathfield writes:

Well, to be fair, we don't know which aspects of comp.lang.c "Masood"
thinks are dysfunctional. If he is perceptive, he will recognise that
there is a small group of people who post regularly, and yet contribute
nothing positive to the group: (...)

>
And by attacking a bunch of named individuals, several of whom may not
even be reading this thread, you've just given a fine demonstration of
dysfunctional behaviour of this group.  And one reason why your name
belongs near or at the top of such a list of this group's problems.  You
were not the first here with an unprovoked personal attack (jacob/
"Richard", are you listening?), but you are the group's bloody top
poster, with more articles than all of your chosen "problem individuals"
together.

I guess that it is a good idea to lurk for a while and read the forum
before you start venturing opinions.

IMO-YMMV.

[jameskuyper@verizon.net]

Re: Question about CLC

user923005 wrote:

On Jan 3, 11:08�am, Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furus...@u sit.uio.no>
wrote:

...

And by attacking a bunch of named individuals, several of whom may not
even be reading this thread, you've just given a fine demonstration of
dysfunctional behaviour of this group. �And one reason why your name
belongs near or at the top of such a list of this group's problems. �You
were not the first here with an unprovoked personal attack (jacob/
"Richard", are you listening?), but you are the group's bloody top
poster, with more articles than all of your chosen "problem individuals"
together.

>
I guess that it is a good idea to lurk for a while and read the forum
before you start venturing opinions.

Are you talking about Hallvard? According to Google, he's posted 763
messages to this group since 1993-08-20. He's well past the lurker
phase.

[Al Balmer]

Re: Question about CLC

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:08:22 +0100, Hallvard B Furuseth
<h.b.furuseth@u sit.uio.nowrote :

>Richard Heathfield writes:

>Well, to be fair, we don't know which aspects of comp.lang.c "Masood"
>thinks are dysfunctional. If he is perceptive, he will recognise that
>there is a small group of people who post regularly, and yet contribute
>nothing positive to the group: (...)

>
>And by attacking a bunch of named individuals, several of whom may not
>even be reading this thread, you've just given a fine demonstration of
>dysfunctiona l behaviour of this group. And one reason why your name
>belongs near or at the top of such a list of this group's problems. You
>were not the first here with an unprovoked personal attack (jacob/
>"Richard", are you listening?), but you are the group's bloody top
>poster, with more articles than all of your chosen "problem individuals"
>together.

<GAnd just about any one of them is worth more than all the articles
written by those listed.

If Richard Heathfield is the top poster, that's a good thing. If one
of the "problem individuals" were, the NG wouldn't be worth reading.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ