A new contract for comp.lang.c
spinoza1111
AND NOTING that it is constantly subject to the scourge of bullying,
WE PROPOSE THAT all posters follow these rules
1. Don't call other people names. Saying that they are wrong is one
thing. But calling people names and making a joke out of their
patronyms is WRONG. As Sarah Palin has said, it's wrong to call people
names. Even she is right sometimes.
2. Restrict your posts to C and related topics. Note that everything
is related to everything in some way, so if you can make a connection
between C and global warming, or C and oral pleasure, please do so.
Some of the most stunning intellectual advances in science have
occured when people wandered off topic.
3. Don't enable. This is refraining from deviant behavior whilst
encouraging other people to do your dirty work for you.
4. If you killfile a person, don't mention their name.
5. This newsgroup is interested in all flavors of C including Deviant
C, Devo C, Bogus C, and Herb Schildt's Tiny C.
Tim Rentsch
> [...edited for brevity...]
>
> WE PROPOSE THAT all posters follow these rules
>
> 1. Don't call other people names.
I second this suggestion.
> 2. Restrict your posts to C and related topics.
I second this suggestion, with the usual addition that
putting "OT" in the subject line may be used to
wander briefly into a non-C topic.
> 3. Don't enable. This is refraining from deviant behavior whilst
> encouraging other people to do your dirty work for you.
I second this suggestion.
> 4. If you killfile a person, don't mention their name.
I second this suggestion, perhaps with an exception for
citing text in a 2+ level followup (eg, "Fred says X,
but Barney says Y").
> 5. This newsgroup is interested in all flavors of C including Deviant
> C, Devo C, Bogus C, and Herb Schildt's Tiny C.
I second this suggestion as long as there is some amount
of cross-platform content/interest, eg, "does anyone
know what other C compilers support the _Weird feature
that XYZ C has?" and that doesn't have a more suitable
other newsgroup (eg, Posix, Windows, etc).
Kenny McCormack
Tim Rentsch <t...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>spinoza1111 <spino...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> [...edited for brevity...]
>>
>> WE PROPOSE THAT all posters follow these rules
>>
>> 1. Don't call other people names.
>
>I second this suggestion.
You do realize that all of these "proposals" are traps.
Nobody disagrees that they aren't all good ideas. The problem is that
the various camps have very different definitions about what the words
mean.
The most obvious is, of course, what is C? The "what's in the standard
and only what's in the standard" (leaving aside the question of "which
standard?") crowd will, of course, go on assuming that their
assumption/definition is the only possible one. And then we're right
back where we started.
helmuterik
> WHEREAS this newsgroup is almost useless for its intended purpose,
>
> AND NOTING that it is constantly subject to the scourge of bullying,
>
> WE PROPOSE THAT all posters follow these rules
Who are we? Just curious, bearing in mind that:
"Wir sagen und Ich meinen ist eine von den ausgesuchtesten
Kränkungen." (Adorno)
Tim Rentsch
> In article <kfnock2...@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu>,
> Tim Rentsch <t...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>spinoza1111 <spino...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> [...edited for brevity...]
>>>
>>> WE PROPOSE THAT all posters follow these rules
>>>
>>> 1. Don't call other people names.
>>
>>I second this suggestion.
>
> You do realize that all of these "proposals" are traps.
> [snip elaboration]
Perhaps so. Usually I try to respond to whatever text
has been written rather than trying to respond to what
I imagine might be the motivation behind it. If that
was a poor decision in this case, well, that will come
out in the wash, as my old physics teacher used to say.
> The most obvious is, of course, what is C? The "what's in the standard
> and only what's in the standard" (leaving aside the question of "which
> standard?") crowd will, of course, go on assuming that their
> assumption/definition is the only possible one. And then we're right
> back where we started.
I accept that people will disagree, and I accept that even if
they nominally agree they might not really be in agreement.
Despite that I think it is better to try to build a consensus
than to try to impose one. If other people agree with that
and join in, great! If not, I don't think things will be
any worse off than when we started.
Flash Gordon
> On Feb 6, 5:02 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> WHEREAS this newsgroup is almost useless for its intended purpose,
>>
>> AND NOTING that it is constantly subject to the scourge of bullying,
>>
>> WE PROPOSE THAT all posters follow these rules
>
> Who are we? Just curious, bearing in mind that:
<snip>
The "we" in question is one person possibly trying to sound as if he is
heading up a group of people.
It's also one person working from a set of false premises.
--
Flash Gordon
Eric Sosman
It's also one person who has declared -- not implied,
but declared openly -- that he intends to do as much damage
as he can to comp.lang.c. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.
--
Eric Sosman
eso...@ieee-dot-org.invalid
Richard Heathfield
> Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.
Beware of geeks bearing GIFs?
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
Eric Sosman
> Eric Sosman wrote:
>> Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.
>
> Beware of geeks bearing GIFs?
You'll find the bare GIF's on pr0n sites.
--
Eric Sosman
eso...@ieee-dot-org.invalid
spinoza1111
"To say “we” and to mean “I” is one of the choicest of all slights."
This is an absurd objection. Yeah, I want things to change. But you
collectively produce nothing while I'm away owing to your confusion
between a Rahm Emanuel style put down, and something that makes a case
fairly.
spinoza1111
> On 2/6/2010 1:18 PM, Flash Gordon wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > helmuterik wrote:
> >>> WHEREAS this newsgroup is almost useless for its intended purpose,
>
> >>> AND NOTING that it is constantly subject to the scourge of bullying,
>
> >>> WE PROPOSE THAT all posters follow these rules
>
> >> Who are we? Just curious, bearing in mind that:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > The "we" in question is one person possibly trying to sound as if he is
> > heading up a group of people.
>
> > It's also one person working from a set of false premises.
>
> It's also one person who has declared -- not implied,
> but declared openly -- that he intends to do as much damage
> as he can to comp.lang.c. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.
You're lying. The barbarians are within the gates. Richard
Heathfield's comments on the replace code elsethread show that Babylon
has fallen and has become the abode of unclean birds, mate. There's
nothing left to destroy except your filthy laager.
>
> --
> Eric Sosman
> esos...@ieee-dot-org.invalid
gwowen
> You're lying. The barbarians are within the gates. Richard
> Heathfield's comments on the replace code elsethread show that Babylon
> has fallen and has become the abode of unclean birds, mate. There's
> nothing left to destroy except your filthy laager.
Well, that outbreak of peace and decency was nice while it lasted.
17 hours to savour.
Tor Rustad
> WHEREAS this newsgroup is almost useless for its intended purpose,
Well, I still see many of the old regulars here, so if you have a C
question, there should be a good answer.
> AND NOTING that it is constantly subject to the scourge of bullying,
Nah.. this group really degenerated after Ben Pfaff went soft, and Dan
Pop and Kaz K. left.
Richard H. and Keith T. are way too polite.
> WE PROPOSE THAT all posters follow these rules
*PLONK*
:P
--
Tor <echo bwz...@wvtqvm.vw | tr i-za-h a-z>