Overload by return type

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

Why doesn't C++ allow a function overload by the return type?
Outwardly, it seems to be an arbitrary constraint.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Bart]

On 19/06/2019 14:18, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why doesn't C++ allow a function overload by the return type?
> Outwardly, it seems to be an arbitrary constraint.
>

Not familiar with function overloads in C++, but assuming you can have
one f(int,int) that returns type T, and another f(int,int) that returns
type U, which function is called here:

cout << f(10,20);

?

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

It wouldn't matter, because in that context any input value can
be used, which means any return type T or U can be used. Either
could be chosen and have it work. If you needed a specific one,
then:

cout << (U)f(10,20);

In other cases, it would be contextual based on its use in the
calling function. If it returned type T=int in one case, an
type U=float in another:

if (f(1, 2) == 3) // Assume int return type
if (f(1, 2) == 3.0f) // Assume float return type

In other cases it would be returning a class or struct. I can
see it working in all cases except where there's ambiguity.

struct SType1
{
int x;
int value;
};

struct SType2
{
int y;
int value;
};

// Return type overload
SType1* f(void);
SType2* f(void);

// Use in code
f()->x; // No ambiguity
f()->y; // No ambiguity
f()->value; // Ambiguity, generate a diagnostic
((SType1*)f())->value; // No ambiguity
((SType2*)f())->value; // No ambiguity

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Bart]

On 19/06/2019 14:46, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:27:35 AM UTC-4, Bart wrote:
>> On 19/06/2019 14:18, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Why doesn't C++ allow a function overload by the return type?
>>> Outwardly, it seems to be an arbitrary constraint.
>>>
>>
>> Not familiar with function overloads in C++, but assuming you can have
>> one f(int,int) that returns type T, and another f(int,int) that returns
>> type U, which function is called here:
>>
>> cout << f(10,20);
>>
>> ?
>
> It wouldn't matter, because in that context any input value can
> be used, which means any return type T or U can be used.

If could matter because the two functions could do different things and
you might specifically want one. (Or may not even be aware of the other.)

Either
> could be chosen and have it work. If you needed a specific one,
> then:
>
> cout << (U)f(10,20);

That doesn't really fix it. Which function is called which is then cast
to U? Use of a cast suggests the return type is something other than U,
so either function could plausibly be called.

> In other cases, it would be contextual based on its use in the
> calling function. If it returned type T=int in one case, an
> type U=float in another:
>
> if (f(1, 2) == 3) // Assume int return type
> if (f(1, 2) == 3.0f) // Assume float return type

This doesn't follow. And actually you've hit on other problems:

f(1,2) / f(3,4)

Which version of f is used for each operand? The possible combinations
are int/int, int/float, float/int, float/float, with different results.
Now it can depend on how "/" is used! And that only differentiates
between int/int (int result) and the rest (all float).

Suppose there are also 2 g functions; one is g(int,int)->int, and the
other is g(float,float)->float. Which g is called here:

g(f(1,2),f(3,4)) ?

> In other cases it would be returning a class or struct. I can
> see it working in all cases except where there's ambiguity.
>
> struct SType1
> {
> int x;
> int value;
> };
>
> struct SType2
> {
> int y;
> int value;
> };
>
> // Return type overload
> SType1* f(void);
> SType2* f(void);
>
> // Use in code
> f()->x; // No ambiguity
> f()->y; // No ambiguity
> f()->value; // Ambiguity, generate a diagnostic
> ((SType1*)f())->value; // No ambiguity
> ((SType2*)f())->value; // No ambiguity
>

Is this speculation for a feature in your new language?

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 10:05:41 AM UTC-4, Bart wrote:
> On 19/06/2019 14:46, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > ...If you needed a specific one, then:

> >
> > cout << (U)f(10,20);
>
> That doesn't really fix it. Which function is called which is then cast
> to U? Use of a cast suggests the return type is something other than U,
> so either function could plausibly be called.

In the case of an overloaded return type, the cast would be used
as a cue to determine which function to call. If there is one
which returns that type, then use that one. If not, then look
for suitable candidates and pick one generating a warning diag-
nostic. If none are suitable, generate an error diagnostic.

> > In other cases, it would be contextual based on its use in the
> > calling function. If it returned type T=int in one case, an
> > type U=float in another:
> >
> > if (f(1, 2) == 3) // Assume int return type
> > if (f(1, 2) == 3.0f) // Assume float return type
>
> This doesn't follow. And actually you've hit on other problems:
>
> f(1,2) / f(3,4)

It is ambiguous and would generate a warning diagnostic.

> Which version of f is used for each operand? The possible combinations
> are int/int, int/float, float/int, float/float, with different results.
> Now it can depend on how "/" is used! And that only differentiates
> between int/int (int result) and the rest (all float).
>
> Suppose there are also 2 g functions; one is g(int,int)->int, and the
> other is g(float,float)->float. Which g is called here:
>
> g(f(1,2),f(3,4)) ?

It is ambiguous and would generate a warning diagnostic.

> > In other cases it would be returning a class or struct. I can
> > see it working in all cases except where there's ambiguity.
> >
> > struct SType1
> > {
> > int x;
> > int value;
> > };
> >
> > struct SType2
> > {
> > int y;
> > int value;
> > };
> >
> > // Return type overload
> > SType1* f(void);
> > SType2* f(void);
> >
> > // Use in code
> > f()->x; // No ambiguity
> > f()->y; // No ambiguity
> > f()->value; // Ambiguity, generate a diagnostic
> > ((SType1*)f())->value; // No ambiguity
> > ((SType2*)f())->value; // No ambiguity
> >
>
> Is this speculation for a feature in your new language?

No. I had need of this today. I wound up writing a marshaling
function to handle the variable return types for me transparently
to my use in code.

This is how I come up with these ideas most of the time. I'm
coding something, and in the midst of me coding I see how it
could be done differently there in the moment. I consider it
for a time and if it seems plausible I add it to my language,
and if it's not so cut and dry I come here and ask questions.

I think an overloaded type could be of benefit. I may be of
greater use like this:

String f(int, int);
Integer f(int, int);

Where the return types are so solidly different that it is then
obvious which one to use in context. And where it is ambiguous,
use a cast to indicate which one you want. It might even be a
desirable thing to create a new auto-cast syntax for the over-
loaded return type to something like this:

String.f(1,2); // When you explicitly need the String f()
Integer.f(1,2); // When you explicitly need the Integer f()

I think I will add overloaded return types to CAlive, but it's
not a priority. I already support multiple return values using
a different function prototype syntax:

function name
| params int a, int b
| returns char* c, float d, double e
{
// Reference the return values by name, as they
// generally appear like local variables
c = null;
d = 0.0f;
e = 0.0;

// Or issue a hard return statement like this:
return { null, 0.0f, 0.0 };

// If you're only filling partial slots with new
// information, use the nocode keyword (used so
// you indicate there is no code there, and that
// it's on purpose, and not just something you
// forgot):
c = null;
e = 0.0;
return { nocode, 0.0f, nocode };
}

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[james...@alumni.caltech.edu]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:18:28 AM UTC-4, rick....@gmail.com wrote:
> Why doesn't C++ allow a function overload by the return type?
> Outwardly, it seems to be an arbitrary constraint.

Because the overload to be called is chosen based upon the types of the
arguments passed to the function. If those types aren't different
between two overloads, it can't determine which one to use.

This is intimately related to a key principle that guided the design of
C++, which was inherited from C: what an expression does when evaluated
is determined entirely by the expression itself, not by the context it
occurs in. How the result of that evaluation is handled does depend upon
the context, but the evaluation itself does not.

That statement does not quite say what I mean, and the simplest way I
can come up with to correct it is to explain how it's wrong. The set of
identifiers that are currently in scope is part of the context, and has
a great deal of effect on how an expression is evaluated. However, if
an expression is a sub-expression of another expression, the containing
expression has no effect on how the sub-expression is evaluated. If an
expression is a full-expression, it is necessarily part of some other
piece of syntax, such as an if() statement. The fact that an if()
statement's condition must be convertible to bool, for instance, does
not influence how the expression is evaluated - it only determines
whether or not the result of that evaluation is acceptable.

This principle makes it easier to think about the meaning of C++ code,
and I suspect it makes it easier to compile, too. I wouldn't hold up too
much hope of convincing the C++ committee to make a decision that would
violate this principle.

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

I do not expect I would ever get the C or C++ committee to change
anything about their methodologies, primarily because it's me. And
regardless, in this case I can see their design reasoning. It would
be a far simpler implementation to set it up as you've outlined, and
that's more or less what I expected it to be.

Thank you for the clear explanation.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Alf P. Steinbach]

On 19.06.2019 16:53, james...@alumni.caltech.edu wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:18:28 AM UTC-4, rick....@gmail.com wrote:
>> Why doesn't C++ allow a function overload by the return type?
>> Outwardly, it seems to be an arbitrary constraint.
>
> Because the overload to be called is chosen based upon the types of the
> arguments passed to the function. If those types aren't different
> between two overloads, it can't determine which one to use.
>
> This is intimately related to a key principle that guided the design of
> C++, which was inherited from C: what an expression does when evaluated
> is determined entirely by the expression itself, not by the context it
> occurs in. How the result of that evaluation is handled does depend upon
> the context, but the evaluation itself does not.
>
> That statement does not quite say what I mean, and the simplest way I
> can come up with to correct it is to explain how it's wrong. The set of
> identifiers that are currently in scope is part of the context, and has
> a great deal of effect on how an expression is evaluated. However, if
> an expression is a sub-expression of another expression, the containing
> expression has no effect on how the sub-expression is evaluated. If an
> expression is a full-expression, it is necessarily part of some other
> piece of syntax, such as an if() statement. The fact that an if()
> statement's condition must be convertible to bool, for instance, does
> not influence how the expression is evaluated - it only determines
> whether or not the result of that evaluation is acceptable.

Well.

OK, one example where the outer context determines the result of an
expression is when the name of an overloaded function is casted to a
specific function pointer type. This selects the corresponding overload.
On its own the name expression is ambiguous, but the context makes it
unambiguous, nice.

Another example is precisely the case you mention, an `if` condition.
Since it is a /condition/ it cancels the `explicit`-ness of a type's
`operator bool`. And so `cout`, say, can convert implicitly to `bool` in
that context, but not if you try to use it to just initialize a `bool`.

A third example is precisely when one overloads on return type. Oh,
that's what this thread is about! Well, C++ supports that for type
conversion operators, so, like


#include <cppx-core/all.hpp> // <url: oh, over there>

class Fun
{
double m_arg;
public:
operator int() const { return 100 + m_arg; }
operator double() const { return 200 + m_arg; }

Fun( const double arg ): m_arg( arg ) {}
};

using foo = Fun;

auto main() -> int
{
const int a = foo( 3.14 ); // a = 103
const double b = foo( 3.14 ); // b = 203.14

$use_std( cout, endl );
cout << a << ", " << b << "." << endl;

}


> This principle makes it easier to think about the meaning of C++ code,
> and I suspect it makes it easier to compile, too. I wouldn't hold up too
> much hope of convincing the C++ committee to make a decision that would
> violate this principle.

It's a nice principle, and I agree, it should hold in general.


Cheers!,

- Alf

[Mr Flibble]

And Satan invented fossils, yes?

I thought you were fucking off.

/Flibble

--
"Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into
snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin

“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais

“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” –
Ricky Gervais

"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

[Mr Flibble]

On 19/06/2019 18:06, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

> auto main() -> int

Fucking egregious m8.

>     $use_std( cout, endl );

Fucking uber-egregious m8.

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:54:21 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 19/06/2019 18:06, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>
> > auto main() -> int
>

> .. egregious m8.
>
> >     $use_std( cout, endl );
>
> .. uber-egregious m8.


You are the most hateful person I've ever met online, Leigh, even
worse than Peter Cheung. He was angry with me and targeted me,
but was civil to other people.

I am so sad for you.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Scott Lurndal]

rick.c...@gmail.com writes:
>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:54:21 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 19/06/2019 18:06, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

>

>You are the most hateful person I've ever met online.


Look in the damn mirror.....

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 4:12:52 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> rick.c...@gmail.com writes:
> >You are the most hateful person I've ever met online.
> Look in the damn mirror.....

Show me any place where I've been hateful and I'll apologize publicly.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

Stating facts *isn't* being hateful; spreading misogynist, homophobic
Christian propaganda *is* being hateful now kindly fuck off like you promised.

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 5:20:06 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:

> On 19/06/2019 21:08, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You are the most hateful person I've ever met online, Leigh, even
> > worse than Peter Cheung. He was angry with me and targeted me,
> > but was civil to other people.
> >
> > I am so sad for you.
>
> Stating facts *isn't* being hateful;

It's the way you state them, Leigh. You use hateful language,
hateful statements, hateful tones. You're not trying to help
people. You beat them down. You smack them hard. You hit
them over the head with hurting words. You're nothing other
than a total bully toward people.

I wonder sometimes if there is anyone in your life you do truly
care for, would truly seek to be nice to, would truly seek to
change your ways for? If there is, try to be like that to other
people.

> spreading misogynist, homophobic Christian propaganda *is* being

> hateful...

The Christian teaching is not any of those things you state. The
message itself is God-given to man for a purpose. The fact that
people choose to ignore it completely does not change the fact that
everyone will be judged by it on Judgment Day, those who did not
seek the truth and accept the judgment BY GOD that He has warned us
all about before leaving this world.

People who do not repent of their sin and ask forgiveness from Jesus
Christ will literally burn in eternal fire in Hell forever.

To NOT warn people of that, Leigh, would be Christian hate. I warn
you, even in your maximum hate toward me, because I do not hate you.
I care about you. I do not want that end for you. I do not want
that end for anybody. It is most undesirable. It's worse than
death. It goes on and on and on and on and on and it's worse than
death!

I warn YOU to wake YOU up, to bring to YOUR attention the very
eternal death sentence that is ALREADY hanging around everyone's
neck (John 3:18). I warn YOU to wake YOU up that YOU have ONE way
out, and that is through the One I teach YOU about, through the
God-man Jesus Christ.

YOU reject everything of righteousness, holiness, purity, goodness,
truth, and embrace everything of hate, malice, sin, and falseness.
It is evident in the way you interact with people here on this clc++
channel, presumably a channel you actually care about because you do
spend much time here, and you are a very skilled C++ developer, and
you would most likely regard the people here as peers or fellows in
your programming craft. You may regard your skills as above those,
but still you come here for some purpose, and not rec.fly.fishing.

And when you do come here you're mean, hateful, hurtful. You don't
care about people's feelings. Your swing at them with your words
and bruise their mind and leave scars on people and you don't care
about any of it. You don't even think twice about how truly hate-
ful you are.

All people will reap what they sow, Leigh. That's a promise from
God.

-----
There are no exceptions to judgment for mankind.

Death hangs over the head of all people who have not repented of
their sin and asked forgiveness from Jesus Christ. This is the age
we live in today. This is where we are at this point in history.
We are post-Pentecost, and pre-Tribulation. This is the AGE OF THE
GENTILES, and it is not infinite. It has a closing day that is fast
approaching.

If a person's heart gives out and they die in the next moment, that
will be it for the unsaved. The last contribution they'll make in
this entire universe will be the agony of their dying. The rest of
their ETERNAL EXISTENCE will be in sheer agony in Hell tormented
beyond their ability to endure it ... forever. They will writhe in
pain that so consumes their existence they can do nothing else.

It won't be a party in Hell. It will be HELL. It will be total and
complete isolation in the consumption of an overwhelming pain and
torture that was never designed for man, but for the angels who re-
belled against God, but because of man's pomp and arrogance, Hell
has enlarged herself to open her mouth without measure and swallow
up all their pride and even the mighty men will go down.

I DO NOT WANT THAT END FOR ANYONE!!! NOT EVEN FOR YOU, MR. HATEFUL!!!

All of these warnings are me pleading FOR YOUR SOUL! I am trying
to shake you into awareness of what's coming. It's not a trifle joke.
It's not a bigoted religion. It is the JUDGMENT OF GOD AGAINST ALL
SIN!

Someday you will understand.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 5:20:06 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> now kindly [go away] like you promised.

I never promised to go away. I said I wouldn't be here monitoring
this channel and clc as I had been. I happen to have been email-
notified of several threads I've participated in recently, and today
I had the question about function overloading based on the return
type.

I do not intend to be here daily, but I will be here periodically.

I still intend to pray for everyone in the groups I post to for an
hour this Friday. I have love in my heart for all people. I will
be praying that God pours out His Holy Spirit, and shines the light
of understanding upon all the people here, that they too may be saved
as I was saved back in 2004. I want everyone thriving in eternity,
experiencing all this universe has to offer. I do not want people
confined to an existence of unending torment and agony. I am pre-
pared to put portions of my life on hold to try and reach out and
snatch some away from the flames.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[James Kuyper]

On 6/19/19 1:06 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> On 19.06.2019 16:53, james...@alumni.caltech.edu wrote:

...

>> This is intimately related to a key principle that guided the design of
>> C++, which was inherited from C: what an expression does when evaluated
>> is determined entirely by the expression itself, not by the context it
>> occurs in. How the result of that evaluation is handled does depend upon
>> the context, but the evaluation itself does not.
>>
>> That statement does not quite say what I mean, and the simplest way I
>> can come up with to correct it is to explain how it's wrong. The set of
>> identifiers that are currently in scope is part of the context, and has
>> a great deal of effect on how an expression is evaluated. However, if
>> an expression is a sub-expression of another expression, the containing
>> expression has no effect on how the sub-expression is evaluated. If an
>> expression is a full-expression, it is necessarily part of some other
>> piece of syntax, such as an if() statement. The fact that an if()
>> statement's condition must be convertible to bool, for instance, does
>> not influence how the expression is evaluated - it only determines
>> whether or not the result of that evaluation is acceptable.
>
> Well.
>
> OK, one example where the outer context determines the result of an
> expression is when the name of an overloaded function is casted to a
> specific function pointer type. This selects the corresponding overload.
> On its own the name expression is ambiguous, but the context makes it
> unambiguous, nice.

I will concede that this seems to be a counter-example, though I would
prefer to examine the precise wording that the standard uses to specify
this behavior. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble locating that wording.
I'm not suggesting it doesn't exist, only that I'm not sure where to
look - the places I expected to find it didn't pan out.

> Another example is precisely the case you mention, an `if` condition.
> Since it is a /condition/ it cancels the `explicit`-ness of a type's
> `operator bool`. And so `cout`, say, can convert implicitly to `bool` in
> that context, but not if you try to use it to just initialize a `bool`.

"cout" is a primary-expression. What it means to evaluate a primary
expression can be a bit tricky to discuss. My point will be a little
clearer if I replace cout with a more complicated expression, such as:
debug ? std::cerr : std::cout.

In the if-statement

if(debug ? std::cerr : std::cout)

the outermost expression is a conditional expression. The fact that if()
requires a type convertible to bool does not in any way affect the
evaluation of the conditional expression, nor of any of it's
sub-expressions. It's not until after the conditional expression has
been evaluated that the context in which it has been evaluated comes in
to play. That expression's result has a type of std::ostream. Only after
that expression has been evaluated does it then get converted to bool.

> A third example is precisely when one overloads on return type. Oh,
> that's what this thread is about! Well, C++ supports that for type
> conversion operators, so, like
>
>
> #include <cppx-core/all.hpp> // <url: oh, over there>
>
> class Fun
> {
> double m_arg;
> public:
> operator int() const { return 100 + m_arg; }
> operator double() const { return 200 + m_arg; }
>
> Fun( const double arg ): m_arg( arg ) {}
> };
>
> using foo = Fun;
>
> auto main() -> int
> {
> const int a = foo( 3.14 ); // a = 103
> const double b = foo( 3.14 ); // b = 203.14

The evaluation of the expression foo(3.14) is completely unaffected by
whether it appears as the initializer for a or the initializer for b. In
either case, it constructs an object of type foo. It is only after that
expression has been evaluated that the context in which it has been
evaluated comes into play, determining which conversion operator is
called. But that's after the evaluation of foo(3.14), and has no
influence on how foo(3.14) itself is evaluated.

...

[Ian Collins]

On 20/06/2019 11:17, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 5:20:06 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
>> spreading misogynist, homophobic Christian propaganda *is* being
>> hateful...
>
> The Christian teaching is not any of those things you state.

Neither is it the homophobic nonsense you and your ilk peddle. Telling
people that the way they were born makes then a sinner can cause immense
psychological harm.

Stay on topic or bugger off.

--
Ian.

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

The Biblical teaching is different. It's not one of condemnation,
but of teaching, enlightenment, of truth.

The Christian teaching is this: It's a total and complete lie of
the enemy that people are born gay. It is literal demonic influence
and seduction that makes people desire hurtful, sinful things of
all kinds -- including homosexuality. Remove the demonic influence
and the feelings toward the sinful thing literally go away. It's
like losing that hurtful "friend" who's always getting you into more
and more trouble. Jettison them from your life and things start
turning around. That's what Jesus does at the cross. He sets you
free from those demonic influences, and begins teaching you the
truth about all aspects of your life.

Jesus CURES people of homosexuality every day. He cures them of
every spiritual corruption. He teaches them the trurh which MAKES
them free.

The enemy keeps people bound up by lying to them about everything.
Jesus teaches only the truth about everything. That same lying
enemy will tell you that Jesus is the lie. He'll exert effort to
keep you believing Jesus is a joke, or a bigot, or anything else
you'll believe so he can keep you away from Him, away from salvation,
away from eternal life, away from Heaven.

Do you like to be deceived?
Do you want destroyers guiding your life?
Do you want to stay on a false path leading to your soul's destruction?
Or do you want to know the truth?

All Jesus does is everything right. Teaching us all the while.

> Stay on topic or bugger off.

--

Rick C. Hodgin

[Ian Collins]

On 20/06/2019 14:53, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Jesus CURES people of homosexuality every day. He cures them of
> every spiritual corruption. He teaches them the trurh which MAKES
> them free.

That is a straight up lie. Your view of the world comes from a time
when the science of the mind (and pretty much anything for that matter)
was non-existent. Saying someone suffers from spiritual corruption for
being what they are is an evil nasty thing to do.

--
Ian.

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

There are real feelings involved. People really do believe many
things that, from their point of view is perfectly real, legitimate,
irrefutable.

What God teaches us is the true nature of our existence, what we
lost when sin entered in, how we're now spiritually dead and blind,
and how a spiritual enemy uses that blindness and death to actively
deceive us.

There is total and complete victory over everything in Jesus Christ,
Ian. I would never lie to you.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Bo Persson]

On 2019-06-19 at 15:18, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why doesn't C++ allow a function overload by the return type?
> Outwardly, it seems to be an arbitrary constraint.
>

It is kind of arbitrary and other languages, like Ada, allow it.

However, considering that the Overloading clause in the C++ standard

http://eel.is/c++draft/over

is already 30 pages long, perhaps that is complicated enough?


Bo Persson

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:08:12 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
> Saying someone suffers from spiritual corruption for
> being what they are is an evil nasty thing to do.

I feel this statement you've made needs addressing.

People suffer from spiritual corruption because of sin. Even Adam's
original sin caused us to suffer spiritually because we are actually
three-fold beings just as God is:

1) God the Father ---------> soul
2) God the Son -------------> body
3) God the Holy Spirit -----> spirit

When sin entered in, our soul was condemned, and our spirit (our
eternal nature) died. All we have now is our body, and the life
spirit that is here until we die in this world.

However, our body is still capable of receiving spiritual input.
God draws us to His Son by His only Holy Spirit, which moves us
to come to Jesus and ask forgiveness. He does this for all people
who will be saved.

But there are evil spirits in this world, condemned angels who re-
belled against God, who are out like street thugs and gang members
trying to destroy everything they come across. Instead of breaking
windows, smashing up cars, painting graffiti and terrorizing people
in the neighborhood, they have a different goal.

Because of what Jesus did at the cross, their goal is to keep people
away from Jesus at all costs, because they know that everyone who
comes to Him is SET FREE from that condemnation, and their spirit
is born again, alive, made new.

They use every false means possible to deceive each person.

For some that means gambling. For others it means an obsession on
their car, that they have to restore it to perfect condition. For
some it means adultery. For some it means lying, cheating, stealing,
or whatever, to "get ahead" in life. For others, it means a life
intrusion, like an addiction, or homosexuality, something that takes
over the normal operation of one's life and supplants it with some-
thing that is away from God, and harmful to people and to the relation-
ship with God.

The spiritual corruption comes from our flesh being able to be moved
by spiritual input. Evil spirits exert force upon our flesh to make
us feel things, have emotions, have thoughts. They use their spirit
abilities to make our flesh feel certain ways. They poke and they
prod and they test and the examine our responses to each to see what
exactly it is we will believe in.

The strongest evil spirits result in addictions for people, or for
homosexuality. These are the most infiltrating and damaging evil
spirits, but all of them can be broken by turning to Christ, by re-
penting of your sin, by asking Him to forgive you.

This takes away your soul's condemnation.
It means you are in a right legal standing with God (no sin).
It means your spirit (your eternal nature) is able to come alive
again, which changes you here in this world because now your flesh
is receiving input from your own spirit!

And God also comes to you and guides you by His own Holy Spirit,
teaching you how to separate the truth from falseness.

-----
This is not a joke, Ian. I'm not trying to deceive you so I can
get you to join a cult or send me money. My goals are God's goals
for your existence: to save your soul from judgment, and to see
you redeemed in eternity.

I ask you to consider this, to realize that we are in a pickle be-
cause of sin, and that predicament had no way out (considering the
nature of our eternal death by sin). God had to step in personally
and make a way to take our sin away. He did this by His Son at the
cross in due time, and in so doing saved all people past, present,
and future, who will be saved. He takes their sin off/away from
them, and transfers it onto Himself at the cross, so that when He
died in this world, all our sin died with Him. And when He rose
again from death on the third day, all who believed in Him rise with
Him and are alive with Him forever.

Consider these things, Ian. I am not lying to you. I am teaching
you the truth, so that you too can be set free from sin, and so
you too can gain eternal life.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Ian Collins]

On 21/06/2019 00:20, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:08:12 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
>> Saying someone suffers from spiritual corruption for
>> being what they are is an evil nasty thing to do.
>
> I feel this statement you've made needs addressing.

It does, by you and your kind accepting that your beliefs are just that,
beliefs, not fact.

> Consider these things, Ian. I am not lying to you. I am teaching

> you the truth..

You aren't teaching anything. You are spreading hate wrapped up in a
thin veneer of religion. You have no clue about the harm your kind's
baseless drivel can have on young people trying to come to terms with
who they are. I do.

Please stop spreading harm.

--
Ian

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

This statement you make here will turn into this one on Judgment
Day:

"Rick, why didn't you try harder? If you would've pushed
more! If you would've explained it a different way. If
you would've used more Bible verses, or less Bible verses,
then would the knowledge been received.

"WHY DIDN'T YOU TRY HARDER?!?!! HELL LASTS FOREVER!!! WHY
DIDN'T YOU TRY HARDER?!?!??!!"

Don't believe me, Ian. Muster up the will to say this honest
prayer and come to God Himself:

God, //IF// you are real, I want to know the truth. Show
me the truth //IF// you are real, so that I can know that
truth without question. I truly want to know the truth,
and do not want to be deceived.

If you can get to that point, God will do the rest.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Keith Thompson]

Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 20/06/2019 14:53, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Jesus [SNIP]
>
> That is a straight up lie. [SNIP]

Ian, you know as well as anyone that Rick will not respond to
criticism. Replying just encourages him to continue posting.
Please don't add to the noise level by arguing with him in the
newsgroup. (You can email him if you want to communicate with him
without involving the rest of us.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[Ian Collins]

On 21/06/2019 09:55, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> On 20/06/2019 14:53, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Jesus [SNIP]
>>
>> That is a straight up lie. [SNIP]
>
> Ian, you know as well as anyone that Rick will not respond to
> criticism. Replying just encourages him to continue posting.
> Please don't add to the noise level by arguing with him in the
> newsgroup.

Hate speech need to be confronted no matter where it appears.

I think the 20+ years I've been posting here should give me some
immunity from condescension.

--
Ian.

[Keith Thompson]

Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 21/06/2019 09:55, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> On 20/06/2019 14:53, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Jesus [SNIP]
>>>
>>> That is a straight up lie. [SNIP]
>>
>> Ian, you know as well as anyone that Rick will not respond to
>> criticism. Replying just encourages him to continue posting.
>> Please don't add to the noise level by arguing with him in the
>> newsgroup.
>
> Hate speech need to be confronted no matter where it appears.

Then anyone can effectively destroy a newsgroup by flooding it with hate
speech and getting the regulars to argue about it. I can killfile Rick
(and I have). I can't killfile every thread he posts in.

> I think the 20+ years I've been posting here should give me some
> immunity from condescension.

No condescension intended.

[Mr Flibble]

You are a fake Christian Rick. True Christians have "faith" that what they
believe is true; they don't claim, like you, based on nothing but
ill-conceived conjecture wrapped up in pseudo-scientific nonsense, to know
for a fact that what they believe is actually true. You are destroying
people's faith, fake Christian. You are a traitor to your kind.

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 6:39:14 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 20/06/2019 22:19, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > This statement you make here will turn into this one on Judgment
> > Day:
> >
> > "Rick, why didn't you try harder? If you would've pushed
> > more! If you would've explained it a different way. If
> > you would've used more Bible verses, or less Bible verses,
> > then would the knowledge been received.
> >
> > "WHY DIDN'T YOU TRY HARDER?!?!! HELL LASTS FOREVER!!! WHY
> > DIDN'T YOU TRY HARDER?!?!??!!"
> >
> > Don't believe me, Ian. Muster up the will to say this honest
> > prayer and come to God Himself:
> >
> > God, //IF// you are real, I want to know the truth. Show
> > me the truth //IF// you are real, so that I can know that
> > truth without question. I truly want to know the truth,
> > and do not want to be deceived.
> >
> > If you can get to that point, God will do the rest.
>
> You are a fake Christian Rick. True Christians have "faith" that what they
> believe is true; they don't claim, like you, based on nothing but
> ill-conceived conjecture wrapped up in pseudo-scientific nonsense, to know
> for a fact that what they believe is actually true. You are destroying
> people's faith, fake Christian. You are a traitor to your kind.

Many people in these groups I post in will say the same thing as
I indicated above to Ian, Leigh. I've posted the way to salvation
through Christ. Believe, repent, ask forgiveness. I've provided
evidence showing where the narrative given us by leading education
providers is wrong. I've shown you how complex DNA is and that it
completely removes any possibility of evolution being a thing.

I've told you all everything you need to know to be saved.

Today God gives us the opportunity to be saved easily. That offer
will continue until the rapture. After that it will be much harder
to be saved. You'll have to go through the tribulation, and likely
give your life for your faith (being killed for it).

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

Preaching your so called "evidence" is an attempt to destroy faith; why
can't you understand this simple fact? Do you even accept that there is no
need for faith if there is evidence? You really are a demented fucktard.

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 7:39:30 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 21/06/2019 00:26, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Many people in these groups I post in will say the same thing as
> > I indicated above to Ian, Leigh. I've posted the way to salvation
> > through Christ. Believe, repent, ask forgiveness. I've provided
> > evidence showing where the narrative given us by leading education
> > providers is wrong. I've shown you how complex DNA is and that it
> > completely removes any possibility of evolution being a thing.
> >
> > I've told you all everything you need to know to be saved.
> >
> > Today God gives us the opportunity to be saved easily. That offer
> > will continue until the rapture. After that it will be much harder
> > to be saved. You'll have to go through the tribulation, and likely
> > give your life for your faith (being killed for it).
>
> Preaching your so called "evidence" is an attempt to destroy faith; why
> can't you understand this simple fact? Do you even accept that there is no
> need for faith if there is evidence?

The evidence is for you, Leigh, to demonstrate that what you're
holding on today is not based on truth, but is part of the lie
designed to deceive you.

The evidence removes your ability to believe in what you are today
believing in. It forces you to look elsewhere, to seek out the
truth. It forces you to ask the big questions you are suppressing
today behind your "And Satan invented fossils" shield.

Now that you know dinosaurs walked with man, that argument falls
apart. If that thing you believed in so precisely falls apart,
what other beliefs you've held on to are also false, even though
they seemed so true and solid previously?

You'll find that nearly everything you've believed in here in this
world has been a deception in one way or another. The new spirit
nature reveals to you those things your flesh alone could not know.

I hope you come to recognize this, Leigh, because you are a beautiful
creation of God that He desires with fullest desire to see redeemed.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Daniel]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 10:53:39 PM UTC-4, rick....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Jesus CURES people of homosexuality every day.

You mean like President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines? But he said he
cured himself :-)

Actually, "do onto others ..." implies acceptance of homosexuality, I don't
think it's a coincidence that acceptance of homosexuality today is most
prevalent in countries that have Christian traditions + enlightenment. One
way of viewing Christianity is as a departure from the ancient legal codes,
and a basis for morality less dependent on the law.

Best regards,
Daniel

[Mr Flibble]

There is no evidence that dinosaurs walked with man but there is plenty of
evidence to the contrary you crazy fuck. The only evidence you have shown
is the evidence that you are a deluded idiot.

And Satan invented fossils, yes?

[David Brown]

On 21/06/2019 00:11, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 21/06/2019 09:55, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> On 20/06/2019 14:53, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Jesus [SNIP]
>>>
>>> That is a straight up lie. [SNIP]
>>
>> Ian, you know as well as anyone that Rick will not respond to
>> criticism.  Replying just encourages him to continue posting.
>> Please don't add to the noise level by arguing with him in the
>> newsgroup.
>
> Hate speech need to be confronted no matter where it appears.
>

I agree, and have posted against it for the same reason. It does not
matter whether we are directly affected by the hate speech or not - we
should not stand by and let people see that c.l.c++ is a community where
hate speech or prejudice is acceptable.

Having said that, there is little point in posting further in
"discussions" with Rick. Every humane or rational post elicits at least
one new crackpot one. You can't argue logically with someone whose
axioms are so out of kilter with reality, and which are self
contradictory. (I have made that futile mistake often enough - too
often - myself.)

It is a sad but true fact that no one has figured out a cure for people
like Rick in newsgroups. It is the cost of any free and open society -
there are always people who want to abuse that freedom and openness to
restrict and control people, or merely to annoy them. Keith's
preference of ignoring such off-topic posts is ineffectual - but so are
all alternatives.

[Ben Bacarisse]

David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 21/06/2019 00:11, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 21/06/2019 09:55, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 20/06/2019 14:53, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Jesus [SNIP]
>>>>
>>>> That is a straight up lie. [SNIP]
>>>
>>> Ian, you know as well as anyone that Rick will not respond to
>>> criticism.  Replying just encourages him to continue posting.
>>> Please don't add to the noise level by arguing with him in the
>>> newsgroup.
>>
>> Hate speech need to be confronted no matter where it appears.
>
> I agree, and have posted against it for the same reason.

So do I. But...

> Having said that, there is little point in posting further in
> "discussions" with Rick.

This is key, I think. Whilst one may need more than a single post to
register an effective objection ("Stop being a prat.", "How am I being a
prat?", "Because you said this, this and this."), one should then stop.

In addition, I don't always feel the need to object if someone else has
already done so. This is not ideal, since communities are based on
shared values, but sometimes I feel that agreement can be widely assumed
to exist.

And finally, if I remember, I'd mark any such reply with "[OT]" in the
subject. That enables anyone who prefers the filter option to do so
effectively.

This strategy (consider if you need to add your voice, make your point
but don't discuss it, mark the posts as off-topic), should I think,
prevent the RCH's of the world from killing what's left of Usenet.

--
Ben.

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 2:59:42 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> There is no evidence that dinosaurs walked with man but there is plenty of
> evidence to the contrary you crazy fuck. The only evidence you have shown
> is the evidence that you are a deluded idiot.

There are hundreds of examples in this video, including carvings
etched into buildings 2500 years ago, Emperors who had positions
on their staff related to dinosaurs, the symbols in multiple cultures
of the dinosaur (called "dragon" in the past, as the term dinosaur
wasn't invented until the 1800s), pieces of pottery with dinosaurs
on them, hieroglyphic symbols which are dinosaurs, stones with diff-
erent kinds of dinosaurs on them, including some that had been do-
mesticated, and some that were killing people, burial cloths found
with colorful patterns on them which show what dinosaur skin looked
like, ancient recipes which call for various ingredients from dino-
saurs, stories of how they were defeated by great warriors, stories
of how they were defeated in unexpected ways (pulling the arms off
a T. Rex, for example, and they bleed to death), and much more.

It's all in the video.

Dinosaurs in the Bible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrkYDzILgtA

The only question is whether or not YOU want to know the truth, or
if you are content to believe the lie. It is that which separates
the saved from the damned, Leigh. All people who seek the truth
with an active passion and deliberate focus will be saved, because
God Himself will see them seeking the truth, and He Himself will
draw that person to the truth, to His Son, from within.

You have been given so much evidence that what you believe in is
false. Why won't you consider it? It doesn't come solely from
Biblical sources. There are countless secular sources as well,
from newspaper articles, to local legends, to hand renderings of
things people saw, from groups of people recounting what they saw,
and more.

It is truly a fool who will not examine the evidence, and consider
the possibility that what they think they know today is wrong.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 9:55:28 PM UTC-4, Daniel wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 10:53:39 PM UTC-4, rick....@gmail.com wrote:
> > Jesus CURES people of homosexuality every day.
>

> Actually, "do onto others ..." implies acceptance of homosexuality,
> I don't think it's a coincidence that acceptance of homosexuality
> today is most prevalent in countries that have Christian traditions
> + enlightenment. One way of viewing Christianity is as a departure
> from the ancient legal codes, and a basis for morality less dependent
> on the law.

What does the Bible say about homosexuality in the New Testament (the
age we're under presently)?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-10%2C+1+Timothy+1%3A8-10%2C+Jude+1%3A7%2C+Romans+1%3A26-28%2C+Colossians+3%3A5-11&version=NIV;KJV

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually
immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers

nor men who have sex with men[a]

10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers
nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Footnotes:
[a] 1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men
translate two Greek words that refer to the passive
and active participants in homosexual acts.

And there are other verses going back to Sodom and Gomorrah's de-
struction, and how those places were destroyed as a warning to all
future generations, destroyed BEFORE the day of judgment to drive
home the point of just how serious God is about this.

-----
Non homosexual who is not in repentance of their homosexuality in
subjection to Jesus, will enter into Heaven. Homosexuality is an
ongoing sin listed among other such sins as adultery, thieves,
swindlers, etc., that separates a person from God.

There is no acceptance of homosexuality in Christianity.

That does not mean we don't love the homosexual and reach out to
them and help them and teach them and guide them and provide for
their personal needs, but it also doesn't mean we tacitly accept
their homosexuality as being okay. We are required, mandated, by
God, to teach them the truth, THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN GOD WILL
JUDGE ON JUDGMENT DAY, AND IT IS A SIN THAT WILL SEE A SOUL CAST
INTO ETERNAL HELLFIRE ... LITERALLY FOREVER BURNING ALIVE.

Christians warn people of these things, teaching them why God has
set aside a day for judging all flesh. It is not us hating people.
IT IS US LOVING PEOPLE that we are willing to teach them the truth!

It would truly be hate if we did not warn people of God's judgment,
as even this famous atheist realizes:

Penn Jillette on Evangelism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPe3NGgzYQ0

"I've always said that I don't respect people who don't
proselytize. I don't respect that at all. If you believe
that there's a Heaven and a Hell, and people could be go-
ing to Hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that
it's not really worth telling them this because it would
make it socially awkward -- and atheists will think people
shouldn't proselytize and say just leave me along and keep
your religion to yourself -- how much do you have to hate
somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate
somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not
tell them that?

"I mean, if I believed beyond the shadow of a doubt that a
truck was coming at you, and you didn't believe that truck
was bearing down on you there is a certain point where I
tackle you. And this is more important than that."

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 5:47:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> [snip]


God will save you too, Ben. Do you have sin? Do you need to be
forgiven? Jesus wants to forgive each of us for our sin. He calls
out to us asking us to ask Him to save us.

There is a path to salvation in understanding who we are, and who
God is, and why He did what He did for us at the cross. It is
called "The Romans Road To Salvation" and is so-named because there
are verses of scripture in the book of Romans which lay out the full
path of our guilt, to our salvation through Jesus Christ:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3%3A10-12%2C+23%2C+6%3A23%2C+5%3A8%2C+10%3A9-10%2C+13%2C+5%3A1%2C+8%3A1%2C+8%3A38-39&version=NIV;KJV

Romans 3:10-12 King James Version (KJV)
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that
seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become
unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Romans 3:23 King James Version (KJV)
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 6:23 King James Version (KJV)
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 5:8 King James Version (KJV)
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we
were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 10:9-10 King James Version (KJV)
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and
with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Romans 10:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall
be saved.

Romans 5:1 King James Version (KJV)
5 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Romans 8:1 King James Version (KJV)
8 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are
in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after
the Spirit.

Romans 8:38-39 King James Version (KJV)
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor
angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present,
nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able
to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus
our Lord.

If you read through those verses, it takes you through the knowledge
each of us need to understand why we need Jesus. Only Jesus is able
to take away our sin from us, to cleanse us of all unrighteousness,
and it's exactly because of what He did at the cross, dying in our
place, a substitutional sacrifice. He pays the price of our sin,
setting us free. And it was His good pleasure and loving gift to
do this for us considering what was at stake (eternity in Hell, and
a human soul being lost forever).

-----
You think these posts are off-topic, destroying Usenet, or in some
way hurtful, harmful, even hate speech.

On the day of judgment, all who did not accept Jesus Christ, all
who are facing THE TOTAL AND COMPLETE END OF THEM will then view
these posts differently. They will long with greatest longing to
be able to go back to the Earth for one moment to see these posts
again and repent and ask forgiveness ... but it will be too late.

God's judgment is final, and He's already told us in advance what
He will judge:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206%3A9-10%2C%201%20Timothy%201%3A8-10%2C%20Jude%201%3A7%2C%20Romans%201%3A26-28%2C%20Colossians%203%3A5-11&version=NIV%3BKJV

And there is more than that He judges. We learn what it is by our
studying the Bible. God has given us a written word, having given
us the knowledge we need to overcome all things.

Put your trust in Jesus, Ben, and live.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Öö Tiib]

On Friday, 21 June 2019 09:59:42 UTC+3, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> There is no evidence that dinosaurs walked with man but there is plenty of
> evidence to the contrary you crazy fuck. The only evidence you have shown
> is the evidence that you are a deluded idiot.
>
> And Satan invented fossils, yes?

Exactly!

You forget that a book or a picture is evidence but fossils, lack
of those and/or radiometric dating of those is not. Radiometric
dating has to be wrong since world is 6000 years old anyway.

All these creatures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legendary_creatures_by_type
have therefore "plenty of evidence" and since some are reptiles
it must be dinosaurs.

You are not clear-headed but just blinded and full of hatred and
so you can not see how the truth forms.

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 9:40:08 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
> [snip]

God gives us His written word so we can have something to refer
back to, because the enemy is always trying to come up with new
ideas, new ways of thinking, new understandings, but what God
has revealed from ancient days stands, because He does not change.
We do. The enemy regroups his tactics. The enemy was there on
the Earth ~5000+ years ago when Adam was alive, and after the
flood when the dinosaurs were still here. The enemy cannot ex-
plain them away because there's proof of their existence, but
he can try to introduce falseness into our thinking. He devotes
feature-length movies to the idea of "millions of years ago" and
"they had their time" and so on.

The enemy is seeking to see each of your soul's destroyed in Hell
by giving you false ideas to grab hold of. But if you press in
and investigate what he claims, you'll discover his lies for your-
self.

That video I linked above shows cave paintings around the world
of dinosaurs, by Native American Indians, reports of a possible
pterodactyl seen as recently as the wild wild west frontier days.

There is so much evidence for the existence of dinosaurs along-
side man, but of course they weren't called dinosaurs back then
but rather dragons (because the word dinosaur didn't come into
existence until the 1800s).

People make fun of unicorns existing because we don't see them
today, but we do see narwhals, rinos, we find fossil evidence
of one-horned dinosaurs, and three-horned dinosaurs (an odd
number, so it's not directly symmetric).

The Bible teaches us the truth. It's up to us to look to what
God has written and say, "Okay God, your written word makes
this claim. Do we find any evidence of what you say here in
our world?"

Do you know there are over 300 flood legends from around the
world. One from isolated Hawaii talks bout Nu-u and his family
who built a great canoe and filled it with animals and there
was a great flood and only Nu-u and his family survived.

One from China reads similarly. In fact, many fundamental
Chinese words derive the story of 8 people coming through the
flood by the symbols used for the words they relate to.

IF YOU INVESTIGATE THE CLAIMS OF THE BIBLE you'l find they do
bear out under scrutiny. And what you'll also find is that
there is a great movement against God, against the Bible,
against Jesus Christ, against knowledge of sin, against God's
call for holiness, because the enemy knows if he can deceive
us away from Christ our eternal soul will be lost, and that's
exactly what that ENEMY wants for us, to destroy us, and to
harm God.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

Thanks for finally admitting that Satan invented fossils. Presumably he
also invented the weathering that would otherwise be the result of
constant erosion by the Colorado River over millions of years that created
the Grand Canyon, yes?

You are quite mad Rick.

[Mr Flibble]

And Satan invented fossils, yes?

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

What God wants from us (His creation) is a relationship. He wants
us to remember Him as we go through our day, to note two squirrels
running through a wooded area and to think to ourselves, "God, you
made that," and to remember that we are all His creation, and there
are some of us who need help, and we should help them, and there
are some of us who have skills and are leaders and we should lead.

God gifts us our abilities. He reaches His hand into our lives
and nudges us this way, or that way, or gives us an opportunity to
achieve something and do and shine our temporary Earthly glory in
this world. But He wants us to always remember that it is Him who
made us, Him who gifted us with abilities and opportunities. He
wants us to acknowledge the truth.

God is looking for people who seek the truth, realize who He is,
who we are, why we need Him, and then to serve Him by going out
and teaching others the same.

He's looking for things to be done properly and in order unto Him,
and not improperly and out of order unto the enemy as they are
today in this world.

He's making everything new. A new Heaven and a new Earth are
coming. He will dwell with us and be our God face-to-face, as
we are His people face-to-face.

He's creating a Kingdom of glory, and He's inviting us to partake
of it. The enemy of God tries to make it seem like it's something
else, but if you press in and seek the truth you will discover God
and His true plans for each of us.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+29.11&version=NIV;KJV

11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith
the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give
you an expected end.

He's calling us up into greatness. He's calling us to be His eternal
children. He's calling us to be gods (literally).

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 11:08:59 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Presumably [Satan] also invented the weathering that would

> otherwise be the result of constant erosion by the Colorado
> River over millions of years that created the Grand Canyon,
> yes?

If you study the elevations of the rocks around the Grand Canyon
you'll discover they are higher than the river. It would have
been impossible for it to carve the rocks away.

And if you look at what happened at Mt. St. Helens in the 1980s
and 90s after its eruption, you'll see how the various crooked
rock formations were made. They were not made by millions of
years, but were made quite rapidly and folded while they were
still wet and pliable.

You've been listening to fables, Leigh. Invented lies designed
to keep your mind away from Christ, to keep you on the path to
your soul's destruction in Hell.

> You are quite mad Rick.

No. Investigate these thins, Leigh, and YOU will see for YOURSELF
the truth of it all. The things you believe are lies.

The truth does exist and is available to you personally, for you
to know personally as by your own research.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

And Satan invented fossils, yes?

[Mr Flibble]

Nonsense.
A) Your bible is false.
B) Your god the existence of which is predicated on your bible being true
is, given (A), also false.

[Keith Thompson]

David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]

> It is a sad but true fact that no one has figured out a cure for people
> like Rick in newsgroups. It is the cost of any free and open society -
> there are always people who want to abuse that freedom and openness to
> restrict and control people, or merely to annoy them. Keith's
> preference of ignoring such off-topic posts is ineffectual - but so are
> all alternatives.

How is it ineffectual? I don't see Rick's posts, which makes
comp.lang.c a much more pleasant place for me.

[Keith Thompson]

Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> writes:
> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
> [...]
>> It is a sad but true fact that no one has figured out a cure for people
>> like Rick in newsgroups. It is the cost of any free and open society -
>> there are always people who want to abuse that freedom and openness to
>> restrict and control people, or merely to annoy them. Keith's
>> preference of ignoring such off-topic posts is ineffectual - but so are
>> all alternatives.
>
> How is it ineffectual? I don't see Rick's posts, which makes
> comp.lang.c a much more pleasant place for me.

Of course I should have written comp.lang.c++ -- but it makes
comp.lang.c more pleasant too.

[Rosario19]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 09:09:37 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:

>On 21/06/2019 00:20, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:08:12 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> Saying someone suffers from spiritual corruption for
>>> being what they are is an evil nasty thing to do.
>>
>> I feel this statement you've made needs addressing.
>
>It does, by you and your kind accepting that your beliefs are just that,
>beliefs, not fact.

for the one has Faith, are facts as are facts what says the Bible...

if one goes agains commandaments of Bibble, or prescritions (even in
homosexuality subjects, so one has not to be homosexual) goes to hell

we not know enought the creation for object something, or wrost change
comandaments or laws

if someone not believe i can not impose anything but there is the
chances that Bible has right

>> Consider these things, Ian. I am not lying to you. I am teaching
>> you the truth..
>
>You aren't teaching anything. You are spreading hate wrapped up in a
>thin veneer of religion. You have no clue about the harm your kind's
>baseless drivel can have on young people trying to come to terms with
>who they are. I do.

this is not hate, this is one alarm bell for show the errors
one has to say only thank you for that

>Please stop spreading harm.

[David Brown]

On 21/06/2019 22:31, Keith Thompson wrote:
> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
> [...]
>> It is a sad but true fact that no one has figured out a cure for people
>> like Rick in newsgroups. It is the cost of any free and open society -
>> there are always people who want to abuse that freedom and openness to
>> restrict and control people, or merely to annoy them. Keith's
>> preference of ignoring such off-topic posts is ineffectual - but so are
>> all alternatives.
>
> How is it ineffectual? I don't see Rick's posts, which makes
> comp.lang.c a much more pleasant place for me.
>

I meant ineffectual for the group. Yes, killfiles work for the the
individual using them (they work far better when combined with "kill
thread" or "kill sub-thread" features). But they are totally
ineffective at keeping bad posts, or bad posters, out of the group.

First off, you need an overwhelming majority of other posters to ignore
the unwanted poster or posts. As long as there is /one/ muppet in the
group who says "I am looking forward to CAlive", the CAlive posts will
continue. Even when all replies to the bizarre pseudo-science posts are
all against the poster, it does not stop him.

And even if /everybody/ ignored such posters entirely, they would still
keep posting. Pretty much everyone has always ignored "Amine"
(currently posting as "Horizon68", yet he has single-handedly destroyed
several Usenet groups.

Ignoring bad posters or posts simply does not work. It is often the
least bad option, but it does not work. Nothing short of a
straightjacket will stop certain people - and fortunately that is not
within our power.

Of course, that does not mean there is anything wrong with using
killfiles to make c.l.c. and c.l.c++ more pleasant for yourself. Just
remember to add "kill sub-thread" options to it, to avoid seeing replies
to posts you want to skip.

[Tim Rentsch]

David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 21/06/2019 00:11, Ian Collins wrote:
>
>> On 21/06/2019 09:55, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 20/06/2019 14:53, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jesus [SNIP]
>>>>
>>>> That is a straight up lie. [SNIP]
>>>
>>> Ian, you know as well as anyone that Rick will not respond to
>>> criticism. Replying just encourages him to continue posting.
>>> Please don't add to the noise level by arguing with him in the
>>> newsgroup.
>>
>> Hate speech need to be confronted no matter where it appears.
>

> [..continuing the meta-discussion..]

Note to the group -

Until further notice please assume that I will not be reading
any more articles posted by David Brown, either in this or
any other newsgroup.

[Mr Flibble]

Please explain why any of us should care about that?

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 5:39:07 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 23/06/2019 21:08, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> > Note to the group -
> >
> > Until further notice please assume that I will not be reading
> > any more articles posted by David Brown, either in this or
> > any other newsgroup.
>
> Please explain why any of us should care about that?

So when people see a post ending with a response from David Brown,
regular readers will know that the person David responded to didn't
even read the post, and that David's replies may be wrong, yet not
corrected, due to the outright shunning.

It also lets David know the influence he's having on people in case
he cared about how negatively he affects other people, and wants to
seek to change.

I also stopped reading David's replies some time ago.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[David Brown]

On 24/06/2019 10:11, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 5:39:07 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 23/06/2019 21:08, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>> Note to the group -
>>>
>>> Until further notice please assume that I will not be reading
>>> any more articles posted by David Brown, either in this or
>>> any other newsgroup.
>>
>> Please explain why any of us should care about that?

I'll leave that one for Tim, if he wants to answer it.

>
> So when people see a post ending with a response from David Brown,
> regular readers will know that the person David responded to didn't
> even read the post, and that David's replies may be wrong, yet not
> corrected, due to the outright shunning.
>

More than enough people read my posts - when I get something
significantly wrong, there is usually someone to correct it. I am glad
Usenet works that way.

> It also lets David know the influence he's having on people in case
> he cared about how negatively he affects other people, and wants to
> seek to change.
>

I do care what people think and how my posts affect them. This makes
Tim's post here particularly useless - he hasn't given any indication
/why/ he has decided to killfile me. Thus his comment says far more
about him than me.

Posts like Tim's are a strange thing - I don't really understand them.
I could understand Tim telling /me/ he won't read my posts, with a
justification of the decision. That would cause me to stop and think,
and question whether there was something I wanted to change in what I
write or how I write it. But he addressed the post to everyone else,
not me - and why should others care? It makes him sound like a
schoolyard social bully, trying to make others in his class ostracise me.

> I also stopped reading David's replies some time ago.
>

Yes, we all know that.

[James Kuyper]

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 6:56:25 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> On 21/06/2019 22:31, Keith Thompson wrote:
> > David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
> > [...]
> >> It is a sad but true fact that no one has figured out a cure for people
> >> like Rick in newsgroups. It is the cost of any free and open society -
> >> there are always people who want to abuse that freedom and openness to
> >> restrict and control people, or merely to annoy them. Keith's
> >> preference of ignoring such off-topic posts is ineffectual - but so are
> >> all alternatives.
> >
> > How is it ineffectual? I don't see Rick's posts, which makes
> > comp.lang.c a much more pleasant place for me.
> >
>
> I meant ineffectual for the group. Yes, killfiles work for the the
> individual using them (they work far better when combined with "kill
> thread" or "kill sub-thread" features). But they are totally
> ineffective at keeping bad posts, or bad posters, out of the group.

You shouldn't criticize something as ineffectual without taking into
consideration what effect it was intended to achieve. Not seeing Rick's
posts is an achievable goal. As you yourself admit above, keeping bad
posts out of the group is not. Keith set his goal accordingly, and his
killfile is fairly effective at achieving that goal.

[Keith Thompson]

Exactly. But its effectiveness is limited by people who insist on
replying to, and quoting, Rick's spam.

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 8:38:56 PM UTC-4, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Exactly. But its effectiveness is limited by people who insist on
> replying to, and quoting, Rick's spam.

It wouldn't be hard to add a filter based on content. Anywhere
you see "Rick C. Hodgin" or "Hodgin" even, delete the entire post.
It doesn't have to come from me. It could just mention me any-
where and be deleted.

Thunderbird's email/news client has this ability.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[David Brown]

Yes, I agree - which was the point of my post. I had said Keith's
methods were ineffectual, but I had been thinking about different goals
- my post explained that. Keith's method is reasonable effective for
his goals, though not quite as good as he would like. They would work
better when combined with "kill sub-thread" features, but I assume he
has good reason for not using such tools. His methods would work
reasonably if everyone followed them, but I don't think that is a
realistic prospect.

This is an open group. Posters and posts that people don't like is the
cost of that. If we are able to minimise that cost, either for the
group as a whole or for individuals, great.