why cant functions return arrays

[santosh]

Re: meds

rio wrote:

2) Psychiatry and psychology are not science

Not rigorous science, but their methods are scientific, even if the
hypothesis can never be mathematically proved. They are certainly
vastly superior to something like exorcising.

3) medicines are all wrong (for me meds too)

Sometimes medicines are necessary unless you want to deteriorate or die.
Careful lifestyle can prevent many problems, but not all.

7) i think to drink beer or wine or whisky
one little (the equivalent of 1-bottle of 66cl beer for day)
(if it is ok in its component) is good too.

I don't think whisky is good at all.

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: meds

santosh said:

<snip>

I don't think whisky is good at all.

Then I can only suggest you try a different variety, perhaps a single malt.
Glenfiddich, for example, is nectar, pure and simple. Er, er, and it comes
from Scotland, which has a C in 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

[Nick Keighley]

Re: meds

rio wrote

i can speak only for me
in what i have seen in my little experience
but this is only for me and without responsibility
>
1) Religion and pray are good

I can't accept religion as a unalloyed good.
The sufferer may be adding another delusion
to his repetoire. The more predatory evangleists
seek out people with mental health problems.

<snip>

--
Nick Keighley

[pete]

[ot] s C otch

Richard Heathfield wrote:

santosh said:
>
<snip>
>

>I don't think whisky is good at all.

>
Then I can only suggest you try a different variety, perhaps a single malt.
Glenfiddich, for example, is nectar, pure and simple. Er, er, and it comes
from Scotland, which has a C in it.

Where's the Peat!!!?

http://www.epinions.com/reviews/pr-Lagavulin_16_Year_Old_Malt_Whisky

http://www.liquorsnob.com/archives/2005/11/lagavulin_single_malt_scotch_review.php

--
pete

[Eligiusz Narutowicz]

Re: meds

spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@ya hoo.comwrites:

On May 12, 9:00 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:
>
You are a boor, a cad, a bounder and a barbarian, and I wish you'd go
away. You've ruined every group you've been in.

These are interesting words I needed to refer to in the dictionary. They
seem to be very apt for his petty man.

[spinoza1111]

Re: Wit-to-whine ratios

On May 12, 10:21 am, Mike <m.fee@iirrll.. ccrrii..nnzzwro te:

In article <fb65b8c0-6927-48ca-b301-7cf72851b...@i3 6g2000prf.googl egroups.com>, spinoza1...@yah oo.com says...
>
>
>

On May 11, 6:06 pm, James Dow Allen <jdallen2...@ya hoo.comwrote:

On May 8, 2:39 pm,spinoza1111< spinoza1...@yah oo.comwrote:

>

On Apr 24, 5:15 pm, James Dow Allen <jdallen2...@ya hoo.comwrote:
[Nilges] may well be capable of
adequate work when he takes his meds.
Your reference to "meds" is rather offensive.

>

I apologize.  You should realize, however that many of
your posts are *quite* exasperating: long drifting monologues
with, eventually, accusations that posters in these comp groups
have made anti-Semitic remarks!  If there really have been such
anti-Semitic remarks, please cite them.

>

You're possibly thinking of something I do claim, which is that people
with unexamined racism and anti-Semitism, too polite to express their
real feelings, play computer "games" in which they permit themselves
to use grammar almost isomorphic to that of racism and anti-semitism.

>

For example, although the word "troll" means an anonymous poster
posting insincere opinions with intent to disrupt, it is regularly
used here to refer to sincere posters advocating minority or *sui
generis* positions, or claiming and displaying competence above the
low norm. Anti-troll flames, as I have shown, can be transformed by
simple steps to texts worthy of Mein Kampf.

>
I beg to differ, Edward. I believe the paragraphs you posted above providea case-perfect illustration of why some
posters claim that _you_ are a troll. Your arguments are so forthright, soblatant, so passionately reiterated, so
unequivocably wrong, so unbalanced and out-of-balance, that many believe they could not be the output of a being both
sentient and sensible. As a result they conclude, rightly or wrongly, thatthat these arguments are devised and posted
meerly to provoke. If they are right in their conclusions, then you are indeed a troll, if they are wrong, I believe it
more plausibly reflects on the style and content of your postings than it does on any racist or anti-Semitic tendancies
(examined or unexamined) of these posters.
>
Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
- Show quoted text -

Mike, I need also to reply to you, since yours was a thoughtful post,
if filled with the usual dull hatred we see in these groups. The only
register in which you are at all serious is when you are saying
something hateful such as the above, therefore this is gonna hurt.

I'm afraid, Mike, that you've based your entire argument on an
incorrect premise. Because work in the corporation, in any standing,
requires continual anger management because the fiduciary job of the
corporation is to expropriate its employees, you've been socialized to
scan documents without parsing them, like the first phase of a
compiler.

When you read my posts, I believe, you are alarmed, reasonably enough,
by a diversity of reference and vocabulary which is the first
statistical feature you notice in your "scan". You're also alarmed by
a quantitative and qualitative difference between my texts and most
posts. There are more verbs and subordinating words in sentences and
sentences are longer.

Since another corporate meme or mood is a constant artificial urgency
and time famine, it's at this point you realize that you'd better get
back to work, so you hit a button you've mislabeled "troll", using it
isomorphic to "jew" or "n*r".

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an
online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room,
with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional
response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."

I'd add to this wikipedia definition the fact of anonymity which was
an important feature of the earlier usage.

The key is insincerity: in the wikipedia definition, the troll trolls
TO get a response. But my goal is to get to agreement to certain
propositions, such as "C is an outdated language" and "programmin g is
political".

I'm not a troll. Instead, I've a wider view which unlike the
executive's big picture takes account of the details, and this
normalization of subjectivity versus objectivity, which reverses their
(incorrect) exchange such that today "objectivit y" means being
superficial and rule-driven so as to replicate the "subjectivi ty" of
power. As such, I've been called unique, sui generis, along with a lot
of other far worse names.

I really must sign off. You people aren't worth committments,
therefore my committments are not to you but just time management on
my part.

Edward G. Nilges

[pete]

Re: Wit-to-whine ratios

Mike wrote:

I beg to differ, Edward. I believe the paragraphs you posted above provide a case-perfect illustration of why some
posters claim that _you_ are a troll.

YHBT YHL HAND

--
pete

[santosh]

Re: meds

Eligiusz Narutowicz wrote:

spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@ya hoo.comwrites:
>

>On May 12, 9:00 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:
>>
>You are a boor, a cad, a bounder and a barbarian, and I wish you'd go
>away. You've ruined every group you've been in.

>
These are interesting words I needed to refer to in the dictionary.
They seem to be very apt for his petty man.

Please, let's try to keep this flamefest to just two posters. Not ideal,
but better than everyone joining in, as was the case in
<news:comp.prog ramming>.

[Eligiusz Narutowicz]

Re: meds

santosh <santosh.k83@gm ail.comwrites:

Eligiusz Narutowicz wrote:
>

>spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@ya hoo.comwrites:
>>

>>On May 12, 9:00 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:
>>>
>>You are a boor, a cad, a bounder and a barbarian, and I wish you'd go
>>away. You've ruined every group you've been in.

>>
>These are interesting words I needed to refer to in the dictionary.
>They seem to be very apt for his petty man.

>
Please, let's try to keep this flamefest to just two posters. Not ideal,
but better than everyone joining in, as was the case in
<news:comp.prog ramming>.

Are you the moderator of this newsgroup? Sorry if so.

[santosh]

Re: Wit-to-whine ratios

pete wrote:

Mike wrote:
>

>I beg to differ, Edward. I believe the paragraphs you posted above
>provide a case-perfect illustration of why some posters claim that
>_you_ are a troll.

>
YHBT YHL HAND

Do acronyms excuse the omission of punctuations?

[santosh]

Re: meds

Eligiusz Narutowicz wrote:

santosh <santosh.k83@gm ail.comwrites:
>

>Eligiusz Narutowicz wrote:
>>

>>spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@ya hoo.comwrites:
>>>
>>>On May 12, 9:00 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>You are a boor, a cad, a bounder and a barbarian, and I wish you'd
>>>go away. You've ruined every group you've been in.
>>>
>>These are interesting words I needed to refer to in the dictionary.
>>They seem to be very apt for his petty man.

>>
>Please, let's try to keep this flamefest to just two posters. Not
>ideal, but better than everyone joining in, as was the case in
><news:comp.pro gramming>.

>
Are you the moderator of this newsgroup?

No. This (comp.lang.c) is an unmoderated group, were participants are,
perhaps unfortunately, required to rely on common sense.

[Eligiusz Narutowicz]

Re: meds

santosh <santosh.k83@gm ail.comwrites:

Eligiusz Narutowicz wrote:
>

>santosh <santosh.k83@gm ail.comwrites:
>>

>>Eligiusz Narutowicz wrote:
>>>
>>>spinoza111 1 <spinoza1111@ya hoo.comwrites:
>>>>
>>>>On May 12, 9:00 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalid>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>You are a boor, a cad, a bounder and a barbarian, and I wish you'd
>>>>go away. You've ruined every group you've been in.
>>>>
>>>These are interesting words I needed to refer to in the dictionary.
>>>They seem to be very apt for his petty man.
>>>
>>Please, let's try to keep this flamefest to just two posters. Not
>>ideal, but better than everyone joining in, as was the case in
>><news:comp.pr ogramming>.

>>
>Are you the moderator of this newsgroup?

>
No. This (comp.lang.c) is an unmoderated group, were participants are,
perhaps unfortunately, required to rely on common sense.

I just wonder a little as you are posting telling off posts more than
helping ones.

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: meds

santosh said:

Eligiusz Narutowicz wrote:
>

<snip>

>>
>Are you the moderator of this newsgroup?

>
No.

Right, but "yes" is also a perfectly defensible answer. In an unmoderated
group, it is up to *everybody* to observe and reinforce the conventions of
the group.

This (comp.lang.c) is an unmoderated group, were participants are,
perhaps unfortunately, required to rely on common sense.

You're on a hiding to nothing. Mr Narutowicz has chosen to be a whinging
twit instead of a helpful soul, and you are very unlikely to persuade him
to change his mind.

Still, if you want to keep trying, that's obviously up to you. :-)

(In your defence, there /have/ been examples of whinging twits swapping
hats and becoming useful contributors to the group. Not many, but some.)

--
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

[rio]

Re: meds


"santosh" <santosh.k83@gm ail.comha scritto nel messaggio
news:g098pd$iq9 $1@registered.m otzarella.org.. .

rio wrote:
>

>2) Psychiatry and psychology are not science

>
Not rigorous science, but their methods are scientific, even if the
hypothesis can never be mathematically proved. They are certainly
vastly superior to something like exorcising.

they are not a science and their metods are not scientific

>3) medicines are all wrong (for me meds too)

>
Sometimes medicines are necessary unless you want to deteriorate or die.
Careful lifestyle can prevent many problems, but not all.

yes, sometimes, rarely

>7) i think to drink beer or wine or whisky
> one little (the equivalent of 1-bottle of 66cl beer for day)
> (if it is ok in its component) is good too.

>
I don't think whisky is good at all.

why?

[santosh]

Re: meds

rio wrote:

>
"santosh" <santosh.k83@gm ail.comha scritto nel messaggio
news:g098pd$iq9 $1@registered.m otzarella.org.. .

>rio wrote:
>>

>>2) Psychiatry and psychology are not science

>>
>Not rigorous science, but their methods are scientific, even if the
>hypothesis can never be mathematically proved. They are certainly
>vastly superior to something like exorcising.

>
they are not a science and their metods are not scientific

Most of their methods are scientific, but most of their hypothesis are
not amenable to a rigorous mathematical proof, because of the
complexities of the systems involved.

It is still better than some misguided attempt to heal. I have heard
enough of shocking attempts to "heal" psychologically disturbed people
that have ended up is total disaster.

>>3) medicines are all wrong (for me meds too)

>>
>Sometimes medicines are necessary unless you want to deteriorate or
>die. Careful lifestyle can prevent many problems, but not all.

>
yes, sometimes, rarely

That "rarely" is rapidly becoming "commonplac e", because of emergence of
resistant microorganism, and complex metabolic and genetic defects,
which a few generations back, good old natural selection took care of.

Just like software. More complex software tends to develop more complex
problems with more difficult solutions.