Letter sent to Apress with concerns about Peter Seebach's online behavior
spinoza1111
forum and in comp.lang.c.moderated has been sent to Apress management.
jamm
> A letter complaining about Peter Seebach's online behavior in this
> forum and in comp.lang.c.moderated has been sent to Apress management.
In other news, I just ate a bowl of cereal.
Bruce C. Baker
"spinoza1111" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e977d7ae-c458-4a77...@w9g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>A letter complaining about Peter Seebach's online behavior in this
> forum and in comp.lang.c.moderated has been sent to Apress management.
>
Peter Seebach will now be either quaking with fear or shaking with laughter.
I suspect it'll be the latter.
Seebs
Got it in one.
I mean, really. All we need is a couple of typical sample quotes, like
the accusation that someone is a transvestite nazi, and we pretty much have
the question of "where is the kook in this picture" nailed down.
-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
Dann Corbit
nos...@seebs.net says...
>
> On 2010-03-10, Bruce C. Baker <b...@undisclosedlocation.net> wrote:
> > "spinoza1111" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:e977d7ae-c458-4a77...@w9g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> >>A letter complaining about Peter Seebach's online behavior in this
> >> forum and in comp.lang.c.moderated has been sent to Apress management.
>
> > Peter Seebach will now be either quaking with fear or shaking with laughter.
> > I suspect it'll be the latter.
>
> Got it in one.
>
> I mean, really. All we need is a couple of typical sample quotes, like
> the accusation that someone is a transvestite nazi, and we pretty much have
> the question of "where is the kook in this picture" nailed down.
Spinoza/Niggles/Whatever seems to be degrading rapidly into a truly
tragic figure. I sincerely hope that he gets the help he really needs.
Seebs
> Spinoza/Niggles/Whatever seems to be degrading rapidly into a truly
> tragic figure. I sincerely hope that he gets the help he really needs.
Yeah, pretty much. But there's not much we can do about it from here.
James Harris
This made me laugh out loud when I read it!
Spinoza's complaints about others are becoming like something that we
expect on a daily basis - like breakfast.
I had thought it would be fun to see what Spinoza was like in real
life (but not, ever, to work with him), i.e. how does he deal with
people whom he disagrees with. But having read Dann's comment there's
maybe a sadder way to see this.
James
John Bode
> A letter complaining about Peter Seebach's online behavior in this
> forum and in comp.lang.c.moderated has been sent to Apress management.
Serious question: what are you expecting to happen as a result of this
letter?
Mark Bluemel
A sound spanking to be administered? Seebs to be sent to the naughty
step? $diety only knows how Spinoza thinks the world works.
Eric Sosman
The chances that even $diety knows are slim.
--
Eric Sosman
eso...@ieee-dot-org.invalid
Phil Carmody
> On 2010-03-10, Dann Corbit <dco...@connx.com> wrote:
>> Spinoza/Niggles/Whatever seems to be degrading rapidly into a truly
>> tragic figure. I sincerely hope that he gets the help he really needs.
>
> Yeah, pretty much. But there's not much we can do about it from here.
Killfiling him, and recommending that those who inanely keep
responding to him also killfile him.
Phil
--
I find the easiest thing to do is to k/f myself and just troll away
-- David Melville on r.a.s.f1
Seebs
> Killfiling him, and recommending that those who inanely keep
> responding to him also killfile him.
I'm starting to suspect this is the only way. The string-replacement
thing actually generated some fun code, but mostly it was just swamped
by noise.
I think I'll post more "hey, how would you do THIS", though, they seem
to be fun.
Bill Reid
> In article <slrnhpg44q.rjr.usenet-nos...@guild.seebs.net>, usenet-> > > "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:e977d7ae-c458-4a77...@w9g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >>A letter complaining about Peter Seebach's online behavior in this
> > >> forum and in comp.lang.c.moderated has been sent to Apress management.
>
> > > Peter Seebach will now be either quaking with fear or shaking with laughter.
> > > I suspect it'll be the latter.
>
> > Got it in one.
>
> > I mean, really. All we need is a couple of typical sample quotes, like
> > the accusation that someone is a transvestite nazi, and we pretty much have
> > the question of "where is the kook in this picture" nailed down.
>
> Spinoza/Niggles/Whatever seems to be degrading rapidly into a truly
> tragic figure. I sincerely hope that he gets the help he really needs.
>
this is a pretty lame attempt.
I mean, I don't know what "Apress management" is, but if
he isn't calling random police departments/district
attorneys around the country AND the FBI whining that his
feelings were hurt online he's not even in the running.
Over in misc.invest.stocks we've got three whack jobs
who have called a police department as many as three
times in the middle of one night demanding that the cops
immediately arrest somebody who called them "an idiot
and a liar" in the group. One time one of them got so
crazy he phoned somebody in the group at home and claimed
he WAS a police officer and "officially" instructed the
poster to "cease and desist".
And this is just the tip of the iceberg of their
kookiness; they've used up to FOUR DOZEN sock puppet
aliases praising their own posts, including female
aliases claiming to be attracted to them, etc., etc.,
etc., you can maybe guess SOME of the whackiness but
never predict the quantity and depth of their insanely
idiotic lies and irrational behavior even if you
worked in a mental institution for years. For
example, one them claimed he was married to his
own daughter to avoid admitting he tried to draw
disability for an alleged back injury he sustained
working as a stock boy for Lowe's.
So this "Spinoza" fellow will REALLY have to
step up his kook game if he is going to be taken
hilariously in the "Kook of the Month" competition.
If he needs pointers maybe he should contact James
Matsko Sr., Jim Hill (the "Dumb Jimmies"), and Michael
Tenenbaum (one of the "Dumb Mikeys", or at
least those are the names they're using this week);
phone numbers and addresses gladly supplied on
request and since they're clearly starved for
attention any "human" contact will be appreciated.
---
William Ernest Reid
Seebs
> I mean, I don't know what "Apress management" is, but if
> he isn't calling random police departments/district
> attorneys around the country AND the FBI whining that his
> feelings were hurt online he's not even in the running.
Presumably management at the company "APress", who published
both my book ("Beginning Portable Shell Scripting") and his
book (... I forget the title, something about a .NET compiler).
> So this "Spinoza" fellow will REALLY have to
> step up his kook game if he is going to be taken
> hilariously in the "Kook of the Month" competition.
I actually at one point really wanted to see if I could win KotM,
but I have pretty much admitted that I'm totally outclassed. My only
other hope is to figure out a way to write something subtle enough
that it earns crank.net's coveted rating of "illucid" without being
recognized as a parody.
Bill Reid
> On 2010-03-12, Bill Reid <hormelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I mean, I don't know what "Apress management" is, but if
> > he isn't calling random police departments/district
> > attorneys around the country AND the FBI whining that his
> > feelings were hurt online he's not even in the running.
>
> Presumably management at the company "APress", who published
> both my book ("Beginning Portable Shell Scripting") and his
> book (... I forget the title, something about a .NET compiler).
>
> > So this "Spinoza" fellow will REALLY have to
> > step up his kook game if he is going to be taken
> > hilariously in the "Kook of the Month" competition.
>
> I actually at one point really wanted to see if I could win KotM,
> but I have pretty much admitted that I'm totally outclassed.
>
Month" by merely providing the name of a book you wrote.
In misc.invest.stocks, one of my favorite kooks ever
claimed a) to have a magical stock market system that
made like 3000% a year every year (that's just run of
the mill kookery in the group, nothing special), and
b) to have authored dozens of books. But when asked
the titles and ISBNs, he would go off on one of his
trademarked long rambling non-sequitur dissertations
where he would claim that the titles weren't
important, only the ideas in the books, therefore
he wouldn't reveal the titles.
What's great about misc.invest.stocks is that it is
almost 100% kooks, not a speck of sane filler. The
insane kooks there all back up the other insane
kooks; the consensus is that no magical system is too
good to be true, and all non-existent books authored
(and companies/watches/cars owned) are really real.
> My only
> other hope is to figure out a way to write something subtle enough
> that it earns crank.net's coveted rating of "illucid" without being
> recognized as a parody.
>
Hmmmm, I'd never suggest anything to destroy the
integrity of that competition, but it seems to me
you could just find a sufficiently incoherent post
(you know where to look) and change a few words
here and there, and then your life would be complete...
---
William Ernest Reid
spinoza1111
I've pointed out before that it's childish and illogical to start
telling some rambling war story about some crazy coworker or net
poster you knew...as if this has anything to do with the facts of this
case.
The fact is that Peter Seebach may have deceived Apress about his
qualifications, although even if he had, he still may have been able
to put a book together about a trivial subject such as shell
scripting. It might be a good book.
I hope he did tell them that he has (by his admission here) taken NO
computer science course work at university level, which is why he
attacked Schildt for speaking about the stack to explain the C runtime
("the" "stack" is often assumed when explaining runtime operations). I
know I took pains to explain my relationship to Princeton very
carefully, as one who worked there and was privileged to be permitted
to take classes nondegree but for credit (a rarely extended privilege)
and to assist John Nash.
But: to return to this business of my being a "kook". In a cultural
situation created by absent fathers, in which a pose of hipness hides
lack of manhood and pain even in people who had nonabsent fathers
because it's now a cultural gesture, anyone who sounds like the
father, even in the register of being able to write in a complex,
judging and minatory fashion, will indeed be compared to a crazy man.
This is because a critical mass of feminist Moms of the sort of people
here staged scenes which I'll call Napoleon in rags (after Bob Dylan)
You used to be so amused
At Napoleon in rags and the language that he used
Many of you punks witnessed the exclusion of the cursing father from
the family and decided that it would be uncool to end up like Him,
which is the reason you tear people apart here and are still playing
with video games at thirty.
However, I'm a lot older than most of you, but in better physical
shape than the usual geek. This is for me a serious matter. I have
sent the letter and I have received an acknowledgement to the effect
that it's being handled by Apress management at this time.
pete
> You used to be so amused
> At Napoleon in rags and the language that he used
In the newsgroups posts Ed Nilges, an asshole in tirade,
And he carries the reminders of every post that laid him down,
Or cut him 'til he cried out in his anger and his shame,
"I am leaving, I am leaving."
But the asshole still remains.
Lie-lie-lie ...
Lie-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie ...
--
pete
Colonel Harlan Sanders
<spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>But: to return to this business of my being a "kook". In a cultural
>situation created by absent fathers, in which a pose of hipness hides
>lack of manhood and pain even in people who had nonabsent fathers
>because it's now a cultural gesture, anyone who sounds like the
>father, even in the register of being able to write in a complex,
>judging and minatory fashion, will indeed be compared to a crazy man.
>
>This is because a critical mass of feminist Moms of the sort of people
>here staged scenes which I'll call Napoleon in rags (after Bob Dylan)
>
>You used to be so amused
>At Napoleon in rags and the language that he used
>
>Many of you punks witnessed the exclusion of the cursing father from
>the family and decided that it would be uncool to end up like Him,
>which is the reason you tear people apart here and are still playing
>with video games at thirty.
No, you wacko. People don't call you a "kook" because you remind them
of their fathers, they call you a kook because you act like a kook.
And while your father may have been a kook, and your children probably
think that you are, for you to claim that everyone must suffer from
the same trauma is -- kooky.
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111wrote:
Wow, what a misunderstanding of a great song, because the Boxer fought
in Paul Simon's song. He fought for money but he fought, whereas you
take all sorts of abuse in all probability silently on the job and in
relationships, always trying to stay out of the fight by sucking up to
the big kids.
Anyway, Champ, or should I call you Chump, this issue isn't going
away, and I define defeat.
>
> --
> pete
Bill Reid
> telling some rambling war story about some crazy coworker or net
> poster you knew...as if this has anything to do with the facts of this
> case.
>
that what makes it fun? Sometimes you just gotta uncork
the bottle...
>
> The fact is that Peter Seebach may have deceived Apress about his
> qualifications, although even if he had, he still may have been able
> to put a book together about a trivial subject such as shell
> scripting. It might be a good book.
>
page-turner. I'm takin' that one to the beach!
Of course, what makes you "kooky" is that you
don't KNOW or have a shred of information that
this "Peter Seebach" chappie deceived anybody
about anything, but took the time to waste
somebody else's time to alert them to...nothing.
>
> I hope he did tell them that he has (by his admission here) taken NO
> computer science course work at university level,
>
No, I think your "hope" is that somehow he
deceived them, and then they will have a hit
man "whack" him in retaliation or sumpin'...
If you were really sincere about insuring there
was no fraud in the world, I have a ton of information
on a kitchen-table job shop called "Strategic
Technologies Inc. (BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!)", such as
why a 33-year-old man is listed on the "corporate"
web-site as having "35 years of IT experience".
You probably can't afford all the stamps you'd
need to properly warn the world about THAT
situation...
But something tells me you're really NOT
sincere about your complaints, you're just
angry about sumpin'...and as a non-kook, I
won't waste the time, so that little piece
of penny-ante fakery will go un"punished"...
>
> which is why he
> attacked Schildt for speaking about the stack to explain the C runtime
> ("the" "stack" is often assumed when explaining runtime operations).
>
You guys and your "stack", the second most
popular topic here after the return value of
main()...
>
> I
> know I took pains to explain my relationship to Princeton very
> carefully,
>
I'm sure they were fascinated as am I...the
important question in misc.invest.stocks is how
many advanced degrees do you have from MIT, and
where's your Paul Samuelson autograph engraved
"To Lubow"...
>
> as one who worked there and was privileged to be permitted
> to take classes nondegree but for credit (a rarely extended privilege)
> and to assist John Nash.
>
I suppose you don't consider John Nash to be a
"kook" either, just an enthusiastic and imaginative
individual...
>
> But: to return to this business of my being a "kook". In a cultural
> situation created by absent fathers, in which a pose of hipness hides
> lack of manhood and pain even in people who had nonabsent fathers
> because it's now a cultural gesture, anyone who sounds like the
> father, even in the register of being able to write in a complex,
> judging and minatory fashion, will indeed be compared to a crazy man.
>
Jack Hershey, that was the name of the guy who
wouldn't reveal the titles of the dozens of books
he wrote...the above is lot like how Jack Hershey
would explain his 3000% a year stock trading system...
In any event, you may be right, sort of, a lot of
the world's problems may be due to defective father
figures...if I had a dad like "Dumb Jimmy" Matsko Sr.
or "Dumb Mikey" Tenenbaum I'd be traumatized for
life...and the "sins of the fathers" seem to be
passed on from generation to generation, as
"Dumb Mikey" Tenenbaum once tearfully shared with
the group, HIS father was an idiotic drawbridge
tender who abused his wife...
>
> This is because a critical mass of feminist Moms of the sort of people
> here staged scenes
>
Oh no, this ain't "kooky" at all, NOT AT ALL!!!
>
> which I'll call Napoleon in rags (after Bob Dylan)
>
> You used to be so amused
> At Napoleon in rags and the language that he used
>
> Many of you punks witnessed the exclusion of the cursing father from
> the family and decided that it would be uncool to end up like Him,
> which is the reason you tear people apart here and are still playing
> with video games at thirty.
>
COMPLETELY UN-KOOKY, I SEZ!!!
>
> However, I'm a lot older than most of you, but in better physical
> shape than the usual geek.
>
Now, we've established you are NOT a "kook", but
be aware that many net-kooks have the behavior pattern
of sharing their robust physical condition for no
apparent reason...also, did you know I can bench
press 450 pounds?
>
> This is for me a serious matter. I have
> sent the letter and I have received an acknowledgement to the effect
> that it's being handled by Apress management at this time.
>
Well, if it doesn't work out the way you want, there's
always the "Campbell CA police department", which has an
entire task force dedicated to solving hurt Internet
feelings...
---
William Ernest Reid
William Hughes
> The fact is that Peter Seebach may have deceived Apress about his
> qualifications,
This would probably be found to be defamatory. A judge
is unlikely to give much weight to the argument
"I never actually said he deceived APress about his
qualifiactions".
On the other hand no judge will ever rule on this.
Damages would be nominal and/or impossible to collect.
- William Hughes
spinoza1111
These people have nothing to do with me. Why are you telling these
stories? Nothing follows from them, and these easily recognized
scamster are NOT THE PROBLEM on the Internet. No, the problem people
are those who bully and harass others.
>
> > > So this "Spinoza" fellow will REALLY have to
> > > step up his kook game if he is going to be taken
> > > hilariously in the "Kook of the Month" competition.
> > > If he needs pointers maybe he should contact James
> > > Matsko Sr., Jim Hill (the "Dumb Jimmies"), and Michael
> > > Tenenbaum (one of the "Dumb Mikeys", or at
> > > least those are the names they're using this week);
> > > phone numbers and addresses gladly supplied on
> > > request and since they're clearly starved for
> > > attention any "human" contact will be appreciated.
>
> > I've pointed out before that it's childish and illogical to start
> > telling some rambling war story about some crazy coworker or net
> > poster you knew...as if this has anything to do with the facts of this
> > case.
>
> Yeah, it's childish and illogical, I admit...but isn't
> that what makes it fun? Sometimes you just gotta uncork
> the bottle...
Excuse me. This discussion group is about C, and it's no place for
childish bullying, especially the Fascism that bullying becomes when
adults engage in it.
>
> > The fact is that Peter Seebach may have deceived Apress about his
> > qualifications, although even if he had, he still may have been able
> > to put a book together about a trivial subject such as shell
> > scripting. It might be a good book.
>
> Well, with that subject matter I'm sure it's a real
> page-turner. I'm takin' that one to the beach!
>
> Of course, what makes you "kooky" is that you
> don't KNOW or have a shred of information that
> this "Peter Seebach" chappie deceived anybody
> about anything, but took the time to waste
> somebody else's time to alert them to...nothing.
>
No, we know, by his own admission, that he's never taken a class in
computer science and his job is to find bugs in a compiler and pass
them on. This doesn't appear to be a programming job.
> > I hope he did tell them that he has (by his admission here) taken NO
> > computer science course work at university level,
>
> No, I think your "hope" is that somehow he
> deceived them, and then they will have a hit
> man "whack" him in retaliation or sumpin'...
No, this is what happens when people don't apologize for harming the
good name of other people.
>
> If you were really sincere about insuring there
> was no fraud in the world, I have a ton of information
> on a kitchen-table job shop called "Strategic
> Technologies Inc. (BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!)", such as
> why a 33-year-old man is listed on the "corporate"
> web-site as having "35 years of IT experience".
> You probably can't afford all the stamps you'd
> need to properly warn the world about THAT
> situation...
The problem with your logic here is that Peter is attacking qualified
people including Schildt and myself, not exagerrating his own
reputation. In fact, he makes a point of telling us that he's not good
at programming (he said this after I found his one line strlen to have
a bug). But he cannot explain, if he sucks and has an attention
disorder, what right he has to criticise Schildt or me. He seems to
assume that if he just gets cute, everyone will applaud.
>
> But something tells me you're really NOT
> sincere about your complaints, you're just
Oh, but I am.
> angry about sumpin'...and as a non-kook, I
> won't waste the time, so that little piece
> of penny-ante fakery will go un"punished"...
>
> > which is why he
> > attacked Schildt for speaking about the stack to explain the C runtime
> > ("the" "stack" is often assumed when explaining runtime operations).
>
> You guys and your "stack", the second most
> popular topic here after the return value of
> main()...
>
> > I
> > know I took pains to explain my relationship to Princeton very
> > carefully,
>
> I'm sure they were fascinated as am I...the
> important question in misc.invest.stocks is how
> many advanced degrees do you have from MIT, and
> where's your Paul Samuelson autograph engraved
> "To Lubow"...
>
Again, what does it prove that you know wacks in misc.invest?
> > as one who worked there and was privileged to be permitted
> > to take classes nondegree but for credit (a rarely extended privilege)
> > and to assist John Nash.
>
> I suppose you don't consider John Nash to be a
> "kook" either, just an enthusiastic and imaginative
> individual...
Precisely. Who was bullied by John Horton "Game of Life" Conway at a
colloquium at the John von Neumann center at which I was present. But
why is it that people can say such uncharitable and uncalled for
things about fellow posters but never have anything bad to say about
celebrities?
>
> > But: to return to this business of my being a "kook". In a cultural
> > situation created by absent fathers, in which a pose of hipness hides
> > lack of manhood and pain even in people who had nonabsent fathers
> > because it's now a cultural gesture, anyone who sounds like the
> > father, even in the register of being able to write in a complex,
> > judging and minatory fashion, will indeed be compared to a crazy man.
>
> Jack Hershey, that was the name of the guy who
> wouldn't reveal the titles of the dozens of bookshe wrote...the above is lot like how Jack Hershey
>
> would explain his 3000% a year stock trading system...
>
> In any event, you may be right, sort of, a lot of
> the world's problems may be due to defective father
> figures...if I had a dad like "Dumb Jimmy" Matsko Sr.
> or "Dumb Mikey" Tenenbaum I'd be traumatized for
> life...and the "sins of the fathers" seem to be
> passed on from generation to generation, as
> "Dumb Mikey" Tenenbaum once tearfully shared with
> the group, HIS father was an idiotic drawbridge
> tender who abused his wife...
>
> > This is because a critical mass of feminist Moms of the sort of people
> > here staged scenes
>
> Oh no, this ain't "kooky" at all, NOT AT ALL!!!
No, it isn't. I know what real feminism is because I made a point of
researching it in order to be just to my ex-wife. I also know what
bimbo feminism is.
Try to remember that the stock wackos are trying to make money by
lying. But I have nothing to gain here for telling the truth, and
possibly something to lose.
>
> > which I'll call Napoleon in rags (after Bob Dylan)
>
> > You used to be so amused
> > At Napoleon in rags and the language that he used
>
> > Many of you punks witnessed the exclusion of the cursing father from
> > the family and decided that it would be uncool to end up like Him,
> > which is the reason you tear people apart here and are still playing
> > with video games at thirty.
>
> COMPLETELY UN-KOOKY, I SEZ!!!
Yes indeed. Thirty year olds, at least those who aren't in the
military where they have to pick up a little honor and decency, are to
this sexagenarian a pretty pathetic lot, and a lot of that lot had
what used to be called castrating Moms, a term that I'd like to
revive. The lot that actually witnessed family breakup in the 1970s
and 1980s did see the father shamed and humiliated by bimbo feminist
mothers and as a result the general male culture is collectively
afraid of being men, for what they saw 20 or 30 years ago was the
systematic destruction of men for trying to be men.
This emerges in their constant effort, not to analyze code here, but
to demonstrate something absurd.
This is that happen what may, they are not The Chosen One, The Worst
Person (Programmer) in the World by proving the existence of a < they.
In fact, if Peter Seebach was honest when he confessed that he sucks
at programming after failing to write a correct one line strlen, this
means that he's here to find people worse than he to get a temporary
boost in self-esteem.
"You can't code C, you have no friends, you're a net.kook, you will
die alone" is not even an insult. It's an internal monologue directed
at oneself which is temporarily redirected onto safe targets.
>
> > However, I'm a lot older than most of you, but in better physical
> > shape than the usual geek.
>
> Now, we've established you are NOT a "kook", but
> be aware that many net-kooks have the behavior pattern
> of sharing their robust physical condition for no
> apparent reason...also, did you know I can bench
> press 450 pounds?
I can't. I'm not playing a macho game. In fact, I use Jane Fonda
aerobics (with light weights) because I don't want to be a muscle
bound testesterone case prone to running injuries, where running is my
main event. Beyond that in the matter of self defense, well, I support
the Second Amendment.
>
> > This is for me a serious matter. I have
> > sent the letter and I have received an acknowledgement to the effect
> > that it's being handled by Apress management at this time.
>
> Well, if it doesn't work out the way you want, there's
> always the "Campbell CA police department", which has an
> entire task force dedicated to solving hurt Internet
> feelings...
If there is, good. Bullying is a serious and growing problem on the
Internet.
>
> ---
> William Ernest Reid
Seebs
> On Mar 13, 2:42 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The fact is that Peter Seebach may have deceived Apress about his
>> qualifications,
> This would probably be found to be defamatory. A judge
> is unlikely to give much weight to the argument
> "I never actually said he deceived APress about his
> qualifiactions".
Probably not, no.
> On the other hand no judge will ever rule on this.
> Damages would be nominal and/or impossible to collect.
It might be libel per se, since it's arguably accusing me of
"inability to perform [my] profession", but I think we'd still
run into the credibility problem.
Chad
<OT>
I had a similar thing happen to me. I had someone on another technical
forum actually write a letter to my current employer, who is Kodak,
saying how I was some kind of racist neo nazi white supremacist. The
first time he complained to the lawyers at my company. After he
realized that the Kodak lawyers weren't taking the letter seriously,
he then sent a letter to the management in my office. They also didn't
take the complaint seriously.
</OT>
Lubow
>
> The problem with your logic here is that Peter is attacking qualified
> people including Schildt and myself, not exagerrating his own
> reputation. In fact, he makes a point of telling us that he's not good
> at programming (he said this after I found his one line strlen to have
> a bug). But he cannot explain, if he sucks and has an attention
> disorder, what right he has to criticise Schildt or me. He seems to
> assume that if he just gets cute, everyone will applaud.
>
Sorry, but the problem is actually responding to our resident psycho,
Mr. Reid. You have to understand Mr. Reid lives in an inebriated
reality that is quite different from the realty most of us inhabit.
In Reid's reality, he is the possessor of $40,000 IN CASH that will be
utilized to purchase all kinds of useless trash. In the real reality,
Reid filed a financial statement under penalty of perjury (available
from the Santa Clara Superior Court for $35) stating that he is nearly
penniless and requires government financial assistance to pursue his
new vocation of suing people. I assume suing people with government
assistance money is what people who have not worked in a real job over
the last several years do.
In Reid's reality, he claimed to be Stanley Kubrick's technical
adviser in the making of "2001." In the real world, according www.imdb.com
Reid's name does not appear anywhere associated with that movie.
In the Reid reality, he is a "Ferrari Mechanic." If pumping gas for
his neighbor, Agostino Ferrari, qualifies as a "Ferrari Mechanic"
then, I suppose Reid is a "Ferrari mechanic."
In Reid's reality he claims to have "a good time in the [Superior]
Court" suing people. In the real reality, Reid's name does not appear
anywhere in the court records within his home state of California as a
plaintiff until I called his bluff. In fact, according to my
investigator, Reid has never sued anyone until he took a stab at suing
me.
In the Reid reality, he is the "Perry Mason" of the Internet. IN the
real reality, Reid never won a case or a judge's decision in court and
is currently riding a losing streak of five consecutive losing
decisions by the hometown judges HE elected. His crazy motions ans
half-witted writings to the court has made excellent comedy material
at one law firm that monitors his crazy court activities.
But wait! There's more!
Then comes the funniest part of the Reid story. When forced to
explain his "kookiness" Reid blames (in chronological order):
(1) His mother (she was served a court order to say she loved him ---
I can't make this up)
(2) Hitler (again, I can't make this up)
(3) his hometown judges (according to his ridiculous rant on Labor Day
of 2009 after a judge ruled against him)
(4) me! (thank you, Bill)
(5) the Jews (everyone else blames the Jews, so why not Bill?)
So, spinoza, if you want kookiest of the kooks, I think Reid is a good
candidate.
Bill Reid
> On Mar 14, 12:08 am, Bill Reid <hormelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 10:42 pm,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 12, 9:37 am, Bill Reid <hormelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > And this is just the tip of the iceberg of their
> > > > kookiness; they've used up to FOUR DOZEN sock puppet
> > > > aliases praising their own posts, including female
> > > > aliases claiming to be attracted to them, etc., etc.,
> > > > etc., you can maybe guess SOME of the whackiness but
> > > > never predict the quantity and depth of their insanely
> > > > idiotic lies and irrational behavior even if you
> > > > worked in a mental institution for years. For
> > > > example, one them claimed he was married to his
> > > > own daughter to avoid admitting he tried to draw
> > > > disability for an alleged back injury he sustained
> > > > working as a stock boy for Lowe's.
>
> These people have nothing to do with me. Why are you telling these
> stories? Nothing follows from them, and these easily recognized
> scamster are NOT THE PROBLEM on the Internet. No, the problem people
> are those who bully and harass others.
>
Internet, and I'm not sure where I would rank people
like you who bully and harass others by writing
crank letters to random recipients...
>
> > > I've pointed out before that it's childish and illogical to start
> > > telling some rambling war story about some crazy coworker
I liked the guy at work who claimed to be a famous
Hollywood screenwriter and Steven Spielberg wanted
to produce his script for an animated movie, and
he would tell us that he wrote an episode of some
TV show that would air on a certain date, then when
we'd watch the show it wouldn't have his name in
the credits and he'd say the re-scheduled it and
didn't know when it would be on...
> > > or net
> > > poster you knew...as if this has anything to do with the facts of this
> > > case.
>
Yeah, sure, you're SPECIAL, but really aside from
his crazy lies making me laugh he was a goddamn pain
in the ass to work with, because when he and I were
assigned to each work 1/2 of a project together, he
didn't do his half and I had to do it, plus he even
more irrationally (but predictably, since "kooks"
all have the same behavior patterns) went all over
the company slamming me for no reason at all
(including my favorite classic "they think they're
so smart" because of the mind-reading aspect of it)...
> > Yeah, it's childish and illogical, I admit...but isn't
> > that what makes it fun? Sometimes you just gotta uncork
> > the bottle...
>
> Excuse me. This discussion group is about C, and it's no place for
> childish bullying, especially the Fascism that bullying becomes when
> adults engage in it.
>
Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...
>
> > > The fact is that Peter Seebach may have deceived Apress about his
> > > qualifications, although even if he had, he still may have been able
> > > to put a book together about a trivial subject such as shell
> > > scripting.
>
> > Of course, what makes you "kooky" is that you
> > don't KNOW or have a shred of information that
> > this "Peter Seebach" chappie deceived anybody
> > about anything, but took the time to waste
> > somebody else's time to alert them to...nothing.
>
> No, we know, by his own admission, that he's never taken a class in
> computer science and his job is to find bugs in a compiler and pass
> them on. This doesn't appear to be a programming job.
>
So what? Since he freely admitted his qualifications
here, what makes you think he lied about them to somebody
else?
>
> > > I hope he did tell them that he has (by his admission here) taken NO
> > > computer science course work at university level,
>
> > No, I think your "hope" is that somehow he
> > deceived them, and then they will have a hit
> > man "whack" him in retaliation or sumpin'...
>
> No, this is what happens when people don't apologize for harming the
> good name of other people.
>
"Apologize...apologize...apologize..."
- "A Fish Called Wanda"
So you freely admit that the letter was part of
a vendetta against him for allegedly "harming" your
"good name"...
>
> > If you were really sincere about insuring there
> > was no fraud in the world, I have a ton of information
> > on a kitchen-table job shop called "Strategic
> > Technologies Inc. (BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!)", such as
> > why a 33-year-old man is listed on the "corporate"
> > web-site as having "35 years of IT experience".
> > You probably can't afford all the stamps you'd
> > need to properly warn the world about THAT
> > situation...
>
> The problem with your logic here is that Peter is attacking qualified
> people including Schildt and myself, not exagerrating his own
> reputation.
So you again admit the letter was a kooky illogical act
on your part?
> In fact, he makes a point of telling us that he's not good
> at programming (he said this after I found his one line strlen to have
> a bug). But he cannot explain, if he sucks and has an attention
> disorder, what right he has to criticise Schildt or me. He seems to
> assume that if he just gets cute, everyone will applaud.
>
Everybody has a right to criticize anybody...I absolutely
reject the idea that any level of academic or professional
attainment precludes any type of review of your work. The
important thing is the pertinence and insight contained
within the criticism itself.
I say this because some of the most idiotic people
I've ever met had advanced degrees from prestigious
universities, and they wound up wasting a lot of
time and money by esconcing themselves in their
ivory towers without responding to the real world
around them...
>
> > But something tells me you're really NOT
> > sincere about your complaints, you're just
>
> Oh, but I am.
>
No you're not, you just admitted that your
complaints were made because he offended you
by criticizing your "work" and didn't "apologize"...
>
> > > I
> > > know I took pains to explain my relationship to Princeton very
> > > carefully,
>
> > I'm sure they were fascinated as am I...the
> > important question in misc.invest.stocks is how
> > many advanced degrees do you have from MIT, and
> > where's your Paul Samuelson autograph engraved
> > "To Lubow"...
>
> Again, what does it prove that you know wacks in misc.invest?
>
I and others have noted the same behavior patterns
repeated over and over again among "head-cases", and
one of most pertinent behaviors is the exagerated
reaction to any form of criticism...
>
> > > as one who worked there and was privileged to be permitted
> > > to take classes nondegree but for credit (a rarely extended privilege)
> > > and to assist John Nash.
>
> > I suppose you don't consider John Nash to be a
> > "kook" either, just an enthusiastic and imaginative
> > individual...
>
> Precisely.
>
Wasn't he officially diagnosed as a paranoid
schizophrenic? I mean, criminy, if you can't
call a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic a "kook",
the word has basically lost all it's dignified
meaning...
> Who was bullied by John Horton "Game of Life" Conway at a
> colloquium at the John von Neumann center at which I was present.
What happened? Did he give Nash an atomic wedgie, a
purple nurple, or severe Indian burns?
> But
> why is it that people can say such uncharitable and uncalled for
> things about fellow posters but never have anything bad to say about
> celebrities?
>
Well, rest assured I say bad things about celebrities
all the time...I hate Renee Zellweger and Gwen Stefani
and Coldplay sucks but not as much as Dave Matthews and
Jessica Simpson IS fat and Tony Romo was smart to dump
her...so you can see I am fair and unbiased...
>
> > > But: to return to this business of my being a "kook". In a cultural
> > > situation created by absent fathers, in which a pose of hipness hides
> > > lack of manhood and pain even in people who had nonabsent fathers
> > > because it's now a cultural gesture, anyone who sounds like the
> > > father, even in the register of being able to write in a complex,
> > > judging and minatory fashion, will indeed be compared to a crazy man.
>
> > > This is because a critical mass of feminist Moms of the sort of people
> > > here staged scenes
>
> > Oh no, this ain't "kooky" at all, NOT AT ALL!!!
>
> No, it isn't. I know what real feminism is because I made a point of
> researching it in order to be just to my ex-wife. I also know what
> bimbo feminism is.
>
Careful with the word "bimbo"...one of the kooks
in misc.invest.stocks threatened to sue another poster
for calling his wife a "bimbo", even though he had
no evidence that word was ever written and he later
claimed his wife was actually his daughter (I just
keep seeing Jack Nicholson slapping Carmelia Matsko
to find out who "Dumb Jimmy" Matsko Jr. is: "he's
my son!" "he's my brother!" "he's my brother AND
my son!").
> Try to remember that the stock wackos are trying to make money by
> lying.
Well, so far they've only managed to lose $922.62 by
their own admission, so by that measure they're quite
incompetent...but I don't think it is about money,
it's just the childhood trauma thing, really...
> But I have nothing to gain here for telling the truth, and
> possibly something to lose.
>
Yeah, like $922.62...
>
> > > which I'll call Napoleon in rags (after Bob Dylan)
>
> > > You used to be so amused
> > > At Napoleon in rags and the language that he used
>
> > > Many of you punks witnessed the exclusion of the cursing father from
> > > the family and decided that it would be uncool to end up like Him,
> > > which is the reason you tear people apart here and are still playing
> > > with video games at thirty.
>
> > COMPLETELY UN-KOOKY, I SEZ!!!
>
> Yes indeed.
>
"I was born in a cross-fire hurricane
And I howled at my ma through the driving rain"
Just trying to keep up...
> The lot that actually witnessed family breakup in the 1970s
> and 1980s did see the father shamed and humiliated by bimbo feminist
> mothers and as a result the general male culture is collectively
> afraid of being men, for what they saw 20 or 30 years ago was the
> systematic destruction of men for trying to be men.
> This emerges in their constant effort, not to analyze code here, but
> to demonstrate something absurd.
> "You can't code C, you have no friends, you're a net.kook, you will
> die alone" is not even an insult. It's an internal monologue directed
> at oneself which is temporarily redirected onto safe targets.
Well, you've committed first-class sociology here,
and I commend you for that, since I do believe that
much of the behavior you see online is driven by
internal unspoken fears that emerge as lies and
attacks on others...
>
> > > However, I'm a lot older than most of you, but in better physical
> > > shape than the usual geek.
>
> > Now, we've established you are NOT a "kook", but
> > be aware that many net-kooks have the behavior pattern
> > of sharing their robust physical condition for no
> > apparent reason...also, did you know I can bench
> > press 450 pounds?
> I can't.
Punk.
> I'm not playing a macho game. In fact, I use Jane Fonda
> aerobics (with light weights) because I don't want to be a muscle
> bound testesterone case prone to running injuries, where running is my
> main event.
Sorry, I guess "punk" was an absurd understatement...what
color leotard do you wear?
> Beyond that in the matter of self defense, well, I support
> the Second Amendment.
>
The right to bear compensation for a small penis?
>
> > > This is for me a serious matter. I have
> > > sent the letter and I have received an acknowledgement to the effect
> > > that it's being handled by Apress management at this time.
>
> > Well, if it doesn't work out the way you want, there's
> > always the "Campbell CA police department", which has an
> > entire task force dedicated to solving hurt Internet
> > feelings...
> If there is, good. Bullying is a serious and growing problem on the
> Internet.
Yeah, they had to get the funds by shutting down
their pointless identity theft unit...finally got
their priorities straight...
---
William Ernest Reid
Blash
> I assume suing people with government
> assistance money is what people who have not worked in a real job over
> the last several years do.
BE CAREFUL!!!
You just described dumb mikey .....as you know, he has a stable of
lawyers AND the FBI(Donut Division) at his beck and call......
Seebs
To whoever started the crossposting to misc.invest.stocks:
Nicely played. You've helped us all realize how far from the deep end
our local color really is.
spinoza1111
> On Mar 13, 10:51 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 14, 12:08 am, Bill Reid <hormelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 12, 10:42 pm,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 12, 9:37 am, Bill Reid <hormelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > And this is just the tip of the iceberg of their
> > > > > kookiness; they've used up to FOUR DOZEN sock puppet
> > > > > aliases praising their own posts, including female
> > > > > aliases claiming to be attracted to them, etc., etc.,
> > > > > etc., you can maybe guess SOME of the whackiness but
> > > > > never predict the quantity and depth of their insanely
> > > > > idiotic lies and irrational behavior even if you
> > > > > worked in a mental institution for years. For
> > > > > example, one them claimed he was married to his
> > > > > own daughter to avoid admitting he tried to draw
> > > > > disability for an alleged back injury he sustained
> > > > > working as a stock boy for Lowe's.
>
> > These people have nothing to do with me. Why are you telling these
> > stories? Nothing follows from them, and these easily recognized
> > scamster are NOT THE PROBLEM on the Internet. No, the problem people
> > are those who bully and harass others.
>
> Well, I think there are a LOT of problems on the
> Internet, and I'm not sure where I would rank people
> like you who bully and harass others by writing
> crank letters to random recipients...
Do your homework. A letter to my publisher is not a crank letter. Nor
are cranks typically concerned with simple interpersonal decency as a
general rule.
>
>
>
> > > > I've pointed out before that it's childish and illogical to start
> > > > telling some rambling war story about some crazy coworker
>
> I liked the guy at work who claimed to be a famous
> Hollywood screenwriter and Steven Spielberg wanted
> to produce his script for an animated movie, and
> he would tell us that he wrote an episode of some
> TV show that would air on a certain date, then when
> we'd watch the show it wouldn't have his name in
> the credits and he'd say the re-scheduled it and
> didn't know when it would be on...
Again, you don't get it. If you want to be offtopic with respect to
this newsgroup, then at least you could make a valid case.
"I know a lot of fucking assholes at work, ergo you must be a fucking
asshole" is an invalid argument, because not even you know enough
fucking assholes to reason that most people with a complaint are
cranks and fucking assholes. The far more valid inference is that
you're too much of a loser to work with other than a bunch of fucking
assholes.
>
> > > > or net
> > > > poster you knew...as if this has anything to do with the facts of this
> > > > case.
>
> Yeah, sure, you're SPECIAL, but really aside from
> his crazy lies making me laugh he was a goddamn pain
> in the ass to work with, because when he and I were
> assigned to each work 1/2 of a project together, he
> didn't do his half and I had to do it, plus he even
> more irrationally (but predictably, since "kooks"
> all have the same behavior patterns) went all over
> the company slamming me for no reason at all
> (including my favorite classic "they think they're
> so smart" because of the mind-reading aspect of it)...
So this raises the question that arises whenever we find two losers
going at it: who's the jerk? One? The other? Both?
>
> > > Yeah, it's childish and illogical, I admit...but isn't
> > > that what makes it fun? Sometimes you just gotta uncork
> > > the bottle...
>
> > Excuse me. This discussion group is about C, and it's no place for
> > childish bullying, especially the Fascism that bullying becomes when
> > adults engage in it.
>
> Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
> about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
> off-topic Rorsharch revelations of the childhood
> traumas of the participants...
You got that right, and the typical way this happens is that some
bully comes in here and I kick his ass.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > The fact is that Peter Seebach may have deceived Apress about his
> > > > qualifications, although even if he had, he still may have been able
> > > > to put a book together about a trivial subject such as shell
> > > > scripting.
>
> > > Of course, what makes you "kooky" is that you
> > > don't KNOW or have a shred of information that
> > > this "Peter Seebach" chappie deceived anybody
> > > about anything, but took the time to waste
> > > somebody else's time to alert them to...nothing.
>
> > No, we know, by his own admission, that he's never taken a class in
> > computer science and his job is to find bugs in a compiler and pass
> > them on. This doesn't appear to be a programming job.
>
> So what? Since he freely admitted his qualifications
> here, what makes you think he lied about them to somebody
> else?
Good point. My own experience with Apress is that they focus on your
proposed content. He may have made it clear that instead of academic
qualifications he is a senior software developer by title.
However, I suspect that he obtained the title in some measure not by
becoming better at his job (a good programmer has bugs, but not in a
one line strlen replacement) but by means of office politics, and
paying money in order to put the fact that he was a member of the C99
standard on his resume.
>
> > > > I hope he did tell them that he has (by his admission here) taken NO
> > > > computer science course work at university level,
>
> > > No, I think your "hope" is that somehow he
> > > deceived them, and then they will have a hit
> > > man "whack" him in retaliation or sumpin'...
>
> > No, this is what happens when people don't apologize for harming the
> > good name of other people.
>
> "Apologize...apologize...apologize..."
> - "A Fish Called Wanda"
The problem with popular culture is that it overlays root meanings
with meaningless babble.
>
> So you freely admit that the letter was part of
> a vendetta against him for allegedly "harming" your
> "good name"...
No, it's not a vendetta. I have been talking about taking this step
for a long time, and I have repeatedly given Seebach a chance to
change.
>
>
>
> > > If you were really sincere about insuring there
> > > was no fraud in the world, I have a ton of information
> > > on a kitchen-table job shop called "Strategic
> > > Technologies Inc. (BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!)", such as
> > > why a 33-year-old man is listed on the "corporate"
> > > web-site as having "35 years of IT experience".
> > > You probably can't afford all the stamps you'd
> > > need to properly warn the world about THAT
> > > situation...
>
> > The problem with your logic here is that Peter is attacking qualified
> > people including Schildt and myself, not exagerrating his own
> > reputation.
>
> So you again admit the letter was a kooky illogical act
> on your part?
No. And it's not a question of logic. It's a question of decency.
>
> > In fact, he makes a point of telling us that he's not good
> > at programming (he said this after I found his one line strlen to have
> > a bug). But he cannot explain, if he sucks and has an attention
> > disorder, what right he has to criticise Schildt or me. He seems to
> > assume that if he just gets cute, everyone will applaud.
>
> Everybody has a right to criticize anybody...I absolutely
> reject the idea that any level of academic or professional
> attainment precludes any type of review of your work. The
> important thing is the pertinence and insight contained
> within the criticism itself.
Even if I fully agreed with this, and I do not, I based my charges
against Seebach NOT on his admitted lack of academic qualifications
but on the content of a single document which through citation
amplification is the sole source of all charges against Schildt. "C:
the Complete Nonsense" shows poor command of English when it shoots
itself in the foot by using "clear" incorrectly (you cannot be clear
and wrong at the same time) and then it lies when it says, at one and
the same time, that there are hundreds of bugs in Schildt's "C: the
Complete Reference" and then says "these" [20] "are the known" [bugs].
Look it up.
It then betrays no knowledge of how we prove things and learn things
in computer science outside of some stupid job, by constructing run
time models even as the high school teacher of geometry draws a
specific triangle to illustrate the Pythagorean theorem.
This is the crux of my case, and Seebach's lack of education is a
strong supporting detail.
>
> I say this because some of the most idiotic people
> I've ever met had advanced degrees from prestigious
> universities, and they wound up wasting a lot of
> time and money by esconcing themselves in their
> ivory towers without responding to the real world
> around them...
This is a common claim in little business offices where if anything,
the American (or whatever) class system is if anything, even more
brutal and unfair than academia. Academic losers on the way to
becoming business losers like to say this.
The smell of money, especially if it ain't yours and never will be,
isn't the real world. What's "real" about some crappy little business
office with a bunch of failed PhD candidates fucking up software and
congratulating each other on escaping academia in the sour grapes
register?
>
> > > But something tells me you're really NOT
> > > sincere about your complaints, you're just
>
> > Oh, but I am.
>
> No you're not, you just admitted that your
> complaints were made because he offended you
> by criticizing your "work" and didn't "apologize"...
No, he pissed me off by criticizing Schildt without standing and
didn't apologize.
>
> > > > I
> > > > know I took pains to explain my relationship to Princeton very
> > > > carefully,
>
> > > I'm sure they were fascinated as am I...the
> > > important question in misc.invest.stocks is how
> > > many advanced degrees do you have from MIT, and
> > > where's your Paul Samuelson autograph engraved
> > > "To Lubow"...
>
> > Again, what does it prove that you know wacks in misc.invest?
>
> I and others have noted the same behavior patterns
> repeated over and over again among "head-cases", and
> one of most pertinent behaviors is the exagerated
> reaction to any form of criticism...
Ah, but if you live in an environment of men who in the investment
game and in CS Lewis' words "maddened by false promises and soured by
true miseries", then chances are that you are one of the wacks, or
have some wack in you, dear boy. At least in software I got to do some
good for mankind occasionally as in the case where I designed a
hydrostatic stability program for ocean going research vessels. But in
investment *qua* investment you do NOTHING good, and in high tech
investment you created the Panic of 2008 by using financial tools you
did not understand.
>
> > > > as one who worked there and was privileged to be permitted
> > > > to take classes nondegree but for credit (a rarely extended privilege)
> > > > and to assist John Nash.
>
> > > I suppose you don't consider John Nash to be a
> > > "kook" either, just an enthusiastic and imaginative
> > > individual...
>
> > Precisely.
>
> Wasn't he officially diagnosed as a paranoid
> schizophrenic? I mean, criminy, if you can't
> call a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic a "kook",
> the word has basically lost all it's dignified
> meaning...
No, you can't, asshole. Sarah Palin was right about one thing. You
don't go around calling people morons and retards. And my experience
with Nash taught me this.
>
> > Who was bullied by John Horton "Game of Life" Conway at a
> > colloquium at the John von Neumann center at which I was present.
>
> What happened? Did he give Nash an atomic wedgie, a
> purple nurple, or severe Indian burns?
No, he didn't listen.
"Fascism is the nightmare of childhood returned to the adult world" -
Adorno
>
> > But
> > why is it that people can say such uncharitable and uncalled for
> > things about fellow posters but never have anything bad to say about
> > celebrities?
>
> Well, rest assured I say bad things about celebrities
> all the time...I hate Renee Zellweger and Gwen Stefani
> and Coldplay sucks but not as much as Dave Matthews and
> Jessica Simpson IS fat and Tony Romo was smart to dump
> her...so you can see I am fair and unbiased...
No, you're a Locust. You're a mob member who would very like to
participate in the collective and ritual murder of a celebrity.
> "I was born in a cross-fire hurricane...
>
> read more »
Tim Streater
> But: to return to this business of my being a "kook". In a cultural
> situation created by absent fathers,...
Zzzz zzzz.
Straight off into your bullshit drivel as usual I see.
--
Tim
"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament
ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament"
Bill of Rights 1689
Lubow
>. The far more valid inference is that
> you're too much of a loser to work with other than a bunch of fucking
> assholes.
Spinoza, it did not take you too long to recognize what Mr. Reid is
all about.
Congratulations. For most of us, it took about 48 hours to figure out
Reid. I think you broke the record.
Ian Collins
It takes one to know one :)
--
Ian Collins
Lubow
>
> It takes one to know one :)
>
> --
> Ian Collins
So how long have you known Reid?
Bill Reid
fraud against another writer as retaliation for some
real or imagined Internet insult.
>
> Nor
> are cranks typically concerned with simple interpersonal decency as a
> general rule.
>
supremely concerned with how THEY are treated by others,
but hypocritically (or really, PSYCHOPATHICALLY)
uncaring about the feelings of others.
Classic example: "Lubow", who whined like a schoolgirl
at the unfairness of being called an "idiot", after first
calling other posters "idiots" dozens of times.
There's another name for the clinical definition of
a psychopath: a punk bully, a person who can dish it
out but can't take it.
Now let's read on as you descend into PREDICTABLE
vulgarity and meritless personal attacks:
>
> > > > > I've pointed out before that it's childish and illogical to start
> > > > > telling some rambling war story about some crazy coworker
>
> > I liked the guy at work who claimed to be a famous
> > Hollywood screenwriter and Steven Spielberg wanted
> > to produce his script for an animated movie, and
> > he would tell us that he wrote an episode of some
> > TV show that would air on a certain date, then when
> > we'd watch the show it wouldn't have his name in
> > the credits and he'd say the re-scheduled it and
> > didn't know when it would be on...
>
> Again, you don't get it. If you want to be offtopic with respect to
> this newsgroup, then at least you could make a valid case.
>
> "I know a lot of fucking assholes at work, ergo you must be a fucking
> asshole" is an invalid argument, because not even you know enough
> fucking assholes to reason that most people with a complaint are
> cranks and fucking assholes. The far more valid inference is that
> you're too much of a loser to work with other than a bunch of fucking
> assholes.
>
I knew this vulgar meritless outburst was coming...I
can predict all of your future behavior with 100% accuracy,
because I've watched this play out dozens of times...
>
> > > > > or net
> > > > > poster you knew...as if this has anything to do with the facts of this
> > > > > case.
>
> > Yeah, sure, you're SPECIAL, but really aside from
> > his crazy lies making me laugh he was a goddamn pain
> > in the ass to work with, because when he and I were
> > assigned to each work 1/2 of a project together, he
> > didn't do his half and I had to do it, plus he even
> > more irrationally (but predictably, since "kooks"
> > all have the same behavior patterns) went all over
> > the company slamming me for no reason at all
> > (including my favorite classic "they think they're
> > so smart" because of the mind-reading aspect of it)...
>
> So this raises the question that arises whenever we find two losers
> going at it: who's the jerk? One? The other? Both?
>
There was only one "loser going at it", I frankly
didn't care one way or the other and rarely spoke
to him or about him...but to answer your question
here, this was a place of business, and actually
our boss there was pretty good, and if you
assign two people 1/2 of a project and only
one completes it, you've got your answer from
a management perspective.
But you don't have a "management perspective",
you have a "loser perspective". You see, there
are basically two types of people in an organization:
one type that is competent and hopefully internally
motivated (or externally, same result) and goes
about quietly performing their assigned job
duties.
The other type is somebody who gives up before
they even try to complete a task, because they
recognize they are either incompetent or they
just have NO motivation to perform the job.
These people develop a set of behaviors that
I have named, such as the "wall of repugnance",
"shadow-boxing", etc., but they are all intended
to obfuscate their failure to do their job and
thus be summarily dismissed. All of the behaviors
involve starting fights of some sort with co-workers
for no reason; they then use these manufactured
"conflicts" as an excuse as to why they failed
to complete their simple well-defined job duties.
And YOU, you just perfectly crystallized their
playbook: if you don't do your job, just run
around slamming anybody who IS doing their
job, and then amazingly tell management you
"can't work with that person".
Bad managers buy this crap, good ones I have
known have fired DOZENS of creeps who pull this
obvious ploy...
Anyway, running out of this stupid Google(TM)
Groups "reply" window, and I have something to
do, so I'll finish educating you on what you
already KNOW later in another post...
---
William Ernest Reid
Blash
> There's another name for the clinical definition of
> a psychopath: a punk bully, a person who can dish it
> out but can't take it.
Did you plagiarize this from Websters' Dictionary(the latest edition with
dumb mikeys' picture as Poster Boy)???
Seebs
> On 13/03/2010 06:42, spinoza1111 wrote:
>> But: to return to this business of my being a "kook". In a cultural
>> situation created by absent fathers,...
> Straight off into your bullshit drivel as usual I see.
It's sort of eerie how he seems to think this stuff is relevant to other
things. The sort of all-mashed-together worldview he has does explain
why he has so much trouble with programming, though -- programming relies
very heavily on being able to focus on the actual context of a program,
as opposed to unrelated social mores, a vague recollection of some kind
of imagined slight from years past, and other things that, while perhaps
fascinating to one's therapist, are completely ignored by the compiler.
Bill Reid
Well, the term "psychopath" is more formally
known as "narcisstic sociopathic personality
disorder" and has a well-defined and accepted
set of diagnosis criteria among psychologists
and other therapists. It just so happens that
the criteria perfectly correspond to what we
all knew as "punk bullies" in school: some
jerk who is constantly picking either on
other kids who are either smaller or not
willing to fight back, but when they do
get into an actual fight they burst into
tears like babies and beg for mercy.
I hadn't seen that kind of behavior to
that degree until our own behated "Lubow"
begged repeatedly to be sued, then came
crying for people to write crank letters
slamming the plaintiff the Chief Judge
of the Court and the County District Attorney
and asked the case be dismissed because he
was too ill and poverty-stricken to
defend herself...
Oh, by the way, one of the classic markers
for a diagnosis of psychopathology is chronic
childhood bed-wetting...I wonder if that is
so different than "Buffy"'s uncontrollable
diarrhea?
---
William Ernest Reid
Bill Reid
> On Mar 14, 4:09 am, Bill Reid <hormelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 10:51 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 14, 12:08 am, Bill Reid <hormelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 12, 10:42 pm,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 12, 9:37 am, Bill Reid <hormelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Excuse me. This discussion group is about C, and it's no place for
> > > childish bullying, especially the Fascism that bullying becomes when
> > > adults engage in it.
>
> > Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
> > about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
> > off-topic Rorsharch revelations of the childhood
> > traumas of the participants...
>
> You got that right, and the typical way this happens is that some
> bully comes in here and I kick his ass.
>
confusing kicking ass with being an ass, a common
mistake among "kooks"...
>
> > > > Of course, what makes you "kooky" is that you
> > > > don't KNOW or have a shred of information that
> > > > this "Peter Seebach" chappie deceived anybody
> > > > about anything, but took the time to waste
> > > > somebody else's time to alert them to...nothing.
>
> > > No, we know, by his own admission, that he's never taken a class in
> > > computer science and his job is to find bugs in a compiler and pass
> > > them on. This doesn't appear to be a programming job.
>
> > So what? Since he freely admitted his qualifications
> > here, what makes you think he lied about them to somebody
> > else?
>
> Good point. My own experience with Apress is that they focus on your
> proposed content. He may have made it clear that instead of academic
> qualifications he is a senior software developer by title.
>
generally those are just transitory side effects of a severely
disordered mind...
>
> However, I suspect that he obtained the title in some measure not by
> becoming better at his job (a good programmer has bugs, but not in a
> one line strlen replacement) but by means of office politics, and
> paying money in order to put the fact that he was a member of the C99
> standard on his resume.
>
overwhelmed by the usual crush of irrational rantings...
>
> > > > > I hope he did tell them that he has (by his admission here) taken NO
> > > > > computer science course work at university level,
>
> > > > No, I think your "hope" is that somehow he
> > > > deceived them, and then they will have a hit
> > > > man "whack" him in retaliation or sumpin'...
>
> > > No, this is what happens when people don't apologize for harming the
> > > good name of other people.
>
> > "Apologize...apologize...apologize..."
> > - "A Fish Called Wanda"
>
> The problem with popular culture is that it overlays root meanings
> with meaningless babble.
>
was friggin' hilarious...as well as a probing look at
the effect of adult mental retardation...
>
> > So you freely admit that the letter was part of
> > a vendetta against him for allegedly "harming" your
> > "good name"...
>
> No, it's not a vendetta. I have been talking about taking this step
> for a long time, and I have repeatedly given Seebach a chance to
> change.
>
you freely admit that the letter is not about any
rational concern about fraud, but rather is the direct
result of your hurt feelings. And yet you still
even more irrationally claim it's not a crank letter
from a kook, even though it makes no sense to anybody
but you...
>
> > > > If you were really sincere about insuring there
> > > > was no fraud in the world, I have a ton of information
> > > > on a kitchen-table job shop called "Strategic
> > > > Technologies Inc. (BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!)", such as
> > > > why a 33-year-old man is listed on the "corporate"
> > > > web-site as having "35 years of IT experience".
> > > > You probably can't afford all the stamps you'd
> > > > need to properly warn the world about THAT
> > > > situation...
>
> > > The problem with your logic here is that Peter is attacking qualified
> > > people including Schildt and myself, not exagerrating his own
> > > reputation.
>
trying to tie the laces of your loafers?
>
> > So you again admit the letter was a kooky illogical act
> > on your part?
>
> No. And it's not a question of logic. It's a question of decency.
>
group by claiming you're a "sexegenarian"...
>
> > Everybody has a right to criticize anybody...I absolutely
> > reject the idea that any level of academic or professional
> > attainment precludes any type of review of your work. The
> > important thing is the pertinence and insight contained
> > within the criticism itself.
>
> Even if I fully agreed with this, and I do not, I based my charges
> against Seebach NOT on his admitted lack of academic qualifications
>
OF ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS, YOU KOOK!??!??!!!!
>
> but on the content of a single document which through citation
> amplification is the sole source of all charges against Schildt. "C:
> the Complete Nonsense" shows poor command of English when it shoots
> itself in the foot by using "clear" incorrectly (you cannot be clear
> and wrong at the same time) and then it lies when it says, at one and
> the same time, that there are hundreds of bugs in Schildt's "C: the
> Complete Reference" and then says "these" [20] "are the known" [bugs].
> Look it up.
>
your right as far as I'm concerned, per above. So
why write a crank letter, you kook?
>
> It then betrays no knowledge of how we prove things and learn things
> in computer science outside of some stupid job, by constructing run
> time models even as the high school teacher of geometry draws a
> specific triangle to illustrate the Pythagorean theorem.
>
>
> This is the crux of my case, and Seebach's lack of education is a
> strong supporting detail.
>
crutches of a crank letter, so without further review
of the matter, I'm ruling agin' ya (I actually have read
a few of the THOUSANDS of goofy posts here on the topic
and frankly, your arguments seemed to me to largely
lack merit).
But you see, that's the problem, innit? You argued
your case, FEEL as if you lost, so now you want to
irrationally "escalate"...once again, I've seen this
dozens of times...why not just "agree to disagree"
since it hardly makes any difference one way or
the other? It's not like the super-critical issue
of the return value of main(), now is it?
>
> > I say this because some of the most idiotic people
> > I've ever met had advanced degrees from prestigious
> > universities, and they wound up wasting a lot of
> > time and money by esconcing themselves in their
> > ivory towers without responding to the real world
> > around them...
>
> This is a common claim in little business offices where if anything,
> the American (or whatever) class system is if anything, even more
> brutal and unfair than academia. Academic losers on the way to
> becoming business losers like to say this.
>
> The smell of money, especially if it ain't yours and never will be,
> isn't the real world. What's "real" about some crappy little business
> office with a bunch of failed PhD candidates fucking up software and
> congratulating each other on escaping academia in the sour grapes
> register?
>
You DO have a LOT of "issues", doncha?
>
> > > > But something tells me you're really NOT
> > > > sincere about your complaints, you're just
>
> > > Oh, but I am.
>
> > No you're not, you just admitted that your
> > complaints were made because he offended you
> > by criticizing your "work" and didn't "apologize"...
>
> No, he pissed me off by criticizing Schildt without standing and
> didn't apologize.
>
Once again, a glimmer of sane self-insight...you ADMIT
you're angry, but you can't ADMIT that it was your
anger ALONE that caused you to send a crank letter...
Stupid Google(TM) Groups...I'm going to send a letter
to Interpol to get Eric Schmidt arrested...
---
William Ernest Reid
spinoza1111
> On 2010-03-14, Tim Streater <timstrea...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
> > On 13/03/2010 06:42,spinoza1111wrote:
> >> But: to return to this business of my being a "kook". In a cultural
> >> situation created by absent fathers,...
> > Straight off into your bullshit drivel as usual I see.
>
> It's sort of eerie how he seems to think this stuff is relevant to other
> things. The sort of all-mashed-together worldview he has does explain
> why he has so much trouble with programming, though -- programming relies
Yes, programming (26000 line compilers) gives me trouble, just like
programming (1 line strlen) gives you the willies. Peter, you told us
after I found the off by one bug in your one line strlen that you're
no good at programming, so where the fuck do you get off criticizing
others' programming skill?
That is indeed the mystery here. You are constantly reminding us that
you're attention disordered, that you suck at programming, and in
general, that you're a twat...as if we needed to know. But you also
strike out against people that have, like Schildt, accomplished life
tasks you have not (a BS and MS in computer science from the
University of Illinois) as if Job One in the little break room is
excusing your failure by claiming that accomplishment, as opposed to
subservience to some goddamn employer and shitting on your coworkers
and colleagues, doesn't exist in your new world order.
It's sad.
> very heavily on being able to focus on the actual context of a program,
> as opposed to unrelated social mores, a vague recollection of some kind
> of imagined slight from years past, and other things that, while perhaps
> fascinating to one's therapist, are completely ignored by the compiler.
Actually (surprise!) you're completely wrong.
Dijkstra noted that programming is NOT about the autism of being able
to narrowly focus on an assigned problem, but about ten million
mosquitoes humming in harmony. He also noted that a programmer is able
to write clear and grammatical English above a certain level of
complexity. He also felt that a programmer would have an interest in
"elegance" more characteristic of the educated European bourgeois than
of the lower middle class in America.
But, of course, owing to staffing that ignores university
qualifications and advances people who stab their colleagues in the
back while ignoring their bugs or bragging about them as you often do,
most software systems in the large suck until release 3.0.
This is why Kernighan was wrong when he praised Pike for taking only
an hour to write something that did NOT parse regular expressions.
Pike created a "thing" which cannot be described except to say, in
sloppy English, that it sorta parses some regular expressions.
Nasty little clerks focus on assigned tasks. PROGRAMMERS don't.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
spinoza1111
>
> >> . The far more valid inference is that
> >> you're too much of a loser to work with other than a bunch of fucking
> >> assholes.
>
> > Spinoza, it did not take you too long to recognize what Mr. Reid is
> > all about.
>
> > Congratulations. For most of us, it took about 48 hours to figure out
> > Reid. I think you broke the record.
>
> It takes one to know one :)
Indeed it does, as Shakespeare knew: in Macbeth, Malcolm tells Macduff
that he has such lust and greed as to disqualify him for Scotland's
throne despite the fact that it's occupied by the regicide Macbeth.
Hamlet tells Ophelia:
I am my selfe indifferent honest, but yet I could accuse me of such
things, that it were bet-ter my Mother had not borne me. I am very
prowd, re-uengefull, ambitious, with more offences at my becke, then I
haue thoughts to put them in imagination, to giue them shape, or time
to acte them in. What should such Fellowes as I do, crawling betweene
Heauen and Earth. We are arrant Knaues all, beleeue none of vs. Goe
thy wayes to a Nunnery. Where's your Father?
Shakespeare as a Christian knew that in the fall of man we're all
assholes.
The problem being that posters here try to "prove" that they're not
the worst asshole in the world by constantly targeting people in a
vain attempt to show that they're not the biggest Asshole.
>
> --
> Ian Collins
Kenny McCormack
spinoza1111 <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>Yes, programming (26000 line compilers) gives me trouble, just like
>programming (1 line strlen) gives you the willies. Peter, you told us
>after I found the off by one bug in your one line strlen that you're
>no good at programming, so where the fuck do you get off criticizing
>others' programming skill?
Indeed. He who can, does. He who can't, teaches. He who can't teach,
teaches gym. He who can't teach gym, posts to CLC. It's all they have.
(And no, you can't turn this into a "rubber/glue"/"I know what I am, but
what are you" thing)
--
(This discussion group is about C, ...)
pete
> I define defeat.
Pretty much.
--
pete
Richard Bos
spinoza1111
wrote:
> In article <bc1fff33-a1e7-4780-89bd-c1666ca8b...@l24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >Yes, programming (26000 line compilers) gives me trouble, just like
> >programming (1 line strlen) gives you the willies. Peter, you told us
> >after I found the off by one bug in your one line strlen that you're
> >no good at programming, so where the fuck do you get off criticizing
> >others' programming skill?
>
> Indeed. He who can, does. He who can't, teaches. He who can't teach,
> teaches gym. He who can't teach gym, posts to CLC. It's all they have.
Yes, and it's called "the tragedy of the commons": the transformation
of a public good such as a university or park into a hell on earth by
losers. I saw it happen in 1969 with these louts' failure fathers.
spinoza1111
Gee, what rock did this guy crawl out from under? No, it's not
extortion, goombah. Clue one is I ain't asking for money.
That's me, a niggardly sexagenarian.
What an idiot.
"Sexagenarian" is someone between 60 and 70: look it up in the
dictionary.
>
> > > Everybody has a right to criticize anybody...I absolutely
> > > reject the idea that any level of academic or professional
> > > attainment precludes any type of review of your work. The
> > > important thing is the pertinence and insight contained
> > > within the criticism itself.
>
> > Even if I fully agreed with this, and I do not, I based my charges
> > against Seebach NOT on his admitted lack of academic qualifications
>
> SO WHY DID YOU WRITE A CRANK LETTER ABOUT HIS LACK
> OF ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS, YOU KOOK!??!??!!!!
It wasn't a crank letter. I am a published Apress author, and I chose
to complain about Peter Seebach's behavior since he's another Apress
author, and his behavior as well as his claims to competence he does
not have bring disrepute on Apress and its parent company Springer.
>
> > but on the content of a single document which through citation
> > amplification is the sole source of all charges against Schildt. "C:
> > the Complete Nonsense" shows poor command of English when it shoots
> > itself in the foot by using "clear" incorrectly (you cannot be clear
> > and wrong at the same time) and then it lies when it says, at one and
> > the same time, that there are hundreds of bugs in Schildt's "C: the
> > Complete Reference" and then says "these" [20] "are the known" [bugs].
> > Look it up.
>
> So you're criticizing the criticism? Fine, that's
> your right as far as I'm concerned, per above. So
> why write a crank letter, you kook?
See above, darling.
>
> > It then betrays no knowledge of how we prove things and learn things
> > in computer science outside of some stupid job, by constructing run
> > time models even as the high school teacher of geometry draws a
> > specific triangle to illustrate the Pythagorean theorem.
>
> Whaaa?
Wham...the champ goes down because he didn't take no high school
geometry.
>
> > This is the crux of my case, and Seebach's lack of education is a
> > strong supporting detail.
>
> Well, it seems as if the crux of your case needs the
> crutches of a crank letter, so without further review
> of the matter, I'm ruling agin' ya (I actually have read
> a few of the THOUSANDS of goofy posts here on the topic
> and frankly, your arguments seemed to me to largely
> lack merit).
>
"We gonna have a trial heah" - Idiocracy
> But you see, that's the problem, innit? You argued
> your case, FEEL as if you lost, so now you want to
> irrationally "escalate"...once again, I've seen this
> dozens of times...why not just "agree to disagree"
> since it hardly makes any difference one way or
> the other? It's not like the super-critical issue
> of the return value of main(), now is it?
"Ah gonna adJUDicate agin ya"
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I say this because some of the most idiotic people
> > > I've ever met had advanced degrees from prestigious
> > > universities, and they wound up wasting a lot of
> > > time and money by esconcing themselves in their
> > > ivory towers without responding to the real world
> > > around them...
>
> > This is a common claim in little business offices where if anything,
> > the American (or whatever) class system is if anything, even more
> > brutal and unfair than academia. Academic losers on the way to
> > becoming business losers like to say this.
>
> > The smell of money, especially if it ain't yours and never will be,
> > isn't the real world. What's "real" about some crappy little business
> > office with a bunch of failed PhD candidates fucking up software and
> > congratulating each other on escaping academia in the sour grapes
> > register?
>
> You DO have a LOT of "issues", doncha?
No.
>
> > > > > But something tells me you're really NOT
> > > > > sincere about your complaints, you're just
>
> > > > Oh, but I am.
>
> > > No you're not, you just admitted that your
> > > complaints were made because he offended you
> > > by criticizing your "work" and didn't "apologize"...
>
> > No, he pissed me off by criticizing Schildt without standing and
> > didn't apologize.
>
> Once again, a glimmer of sane self-insight...you ADMIT
> you're angry, but you can't ADMIT that it was your
> anger ALONE that caused you to send a crank letter...
>
> Stupid Google(TM) Groups...I'm going to send a letter
> to Interpol to get Eric Schmidt arrested...
>
> ---
> William Ernest Reid
William Ernest Reid
Clearly stands in need
Of common sense and decency
And quite possible a bed in a shelter
For here, he's helter skelter.
For there was a jet black Pot
Who said, kettle, white are you not
Said the Kettle,
In fine fettle,
Shove it up your ass, Pot.
There is a guy named William Reid
Who is a Fool in word and, I'd hasard, deed
It appears he works in a Boiler Room
Filled with losers from the late stock Boom
And hates his life, his fellow man, and is twisted by perverted greed.
He appears to be Billy Earnest
But earnest, he is not
He stumbles in a world of lies
And thinks he's got a shot.
And once again, here on comp lang c
Turd calls to turd, and is struck dumb
When non-turd replies. In the jungle,
The mighty jungle, where the lion sleeps
And worms of earth do turn,
The first man called and was answered by a minatory bird:
But here in this Hell
Made so by incompetent losers at life's great game,
The word in the desert is assailed by the turd without desert.
And so the wide world goes in these latter days:
For a man to post here strikes dogs with Amaze.
Richard Bos
> spinoza1111 wrote:
>
> > You used to be so amused
> > At Napoleon in rags and the language that he used
>
> In the newsgroups posts Ed Nilges, an asshole in tirade,
> And he carries the reminders of every post that laid him down,
> Or cut him 'til he cried out in his anger and his shame,
> "I am leaving, I am leaving."
> But the asshole still remains.
Oi! Don't insult my favourite singer-songwriter by associating him with
a piece of semi-human excrement like spinoza1111.
Richard
spinoza1111
> pete <pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >spinoza1111wrote:
>
> > > You used to be so amused
> > > At Napoleon in rags and the language that he used
>
> > In the newsgroups posts Ed Nilges, an asshole in tirade,
> > And he carries the reminders of every post that laid him down,
> > Or cut him 'til he cried out in his anger and his shame,
> > "I am leaving, I am leaving."
> > But the asshole still remains.
>
> Oi! Don't insult my favourite singer-songwriter by associating him with
> a piece of semi-human excrement likespinoza1111.
Incredible. You tear at real people but have all too much respect for
stars who don't know you and don't want to. The guy misread the Boxer
because unlike me he ain't no poet, and can't write an original verse
in response. So he creates a lameass pastiche.
spinoza1111
>
> ...
>
> >Yes, programming (26000 line compilers) gives me trouble, just like
> >programming (1 line strlen) gives you the willies. Peter, you told us
> >after I found the off by one bug in your one line strlen that you're
> >no good at programming, so where the fuck do you get off criticizing
> >others' programming skill?
>
> Indeed. He who can, does. He who can't, teaches. He who can't teach,
> teaches gym. He who can't teach gym, posts to CLC. It's all they have.
>
> (And no, you can't turn this into a "rubber/glue"/"I know what I am, but
> what are you" thing)
NOT ADDRESSED TO KENNY MCCORMACK, OF COURSE
I know what I am
What are you
I am rubber
You are glue
I am better
Than your best effort
You are to me
A failed wet fart
Hey watch Seebs write a string len
He thinks it works, and then
It gets the Good Housekeepin' Seal of Approval
From Kiki, who knows all:
But alas it has a bug
Oh ugh we're off by one
Oooooohhh this programming is not fun
I need my medicine and my Mommy
Spinoza is bein' mean to me and Tommy!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch,
Heathfield is a-scannin' Risks
And many a tisk he tisks
To find no Nilges in the header line
Oh tisks he this is not fine!
Dumbass don't know
Ass from elbow
Or what might be a digest
Get a clue oh stupidest
You have to find the author
In the text that's posted by the poster.
>
> --
> (This discussion group is about C, ...)
Oh say can you see
He knows dick about C
spinoza1111
> pete <pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >spinoza1111wrote:
>
> > > At Napoleon in rags and the language that he used
>
> > In the newsgroups posts Ed Nilges, an asshole in tirade,
> > And he carries the reminders of every post that laid him down,
> > Or cut him 'til he cried out in his anger and his shame,
> > "I am leaving, I am leaving."
> > But the asshole still remains.
>
> Oi! Don't insult my favourite singer-songwriter by associating him with
> a piece of semi-human excrement likespinoza1111.
Although through media Fascism IS the aestheticisation of politics,
actual Fascists can neither read nor write poetry, nor construe nor
properly even recall the lyrics of rock tunes, for their songs of the
doomed must be electronically amplified for them to be galvanized even
in part.
For this reason, instead of decent poetry or pastiche, they constantly
return to shit, their only simile, their only metaphor.
>
> Richard
spinoza1111
And I'm sure it will be said in defense that I have a foul mouth. But
someone who maliciously and deliberately, with neither humor, nor
creativity, nor hyperbole, who's too much of a pansy to use "shit"
instead of "excrement" is the one who's going to lose.
Lubow
> William Ernest Reid
> Clearly stands in need
> Of common sense and decency
> And quite possible a bed in a shelter
> For here, he's helter skelter.
>
> For there was a jet black Pot
> Who said, kettle, white are you not
> Said the Kettle,
> In fine fettle,
> Shove it up your ass, Pot.
>
> There is a guy named William Reid
> Who is a Fool in word and, I'd hasard, deed
> It appears he works in a Boiler Room
> Filled with losers from the late stock Boom
> And hates his life, his fellow man, and is twisted by perverted greed.
>
> He appears to be Billy Earnest
> But earnest, he is not
No need to X-post this stuff in misc.invest.stocks (MIS). We know
Reid is at best an unbalanced blowhard. We know Reid is full of
crap. We know Reid takes government assistance while living in a self
created reality of grandeur. No need to remind us in MIS of what Reid
is about.
John Bode
[snippage]
> No, he pissed me off by criticizing Schildt without standing and
> didn't apologize.
"Without standing"?
The errors that Seebach points out are real; some are nit-picky, some
are serious. Schildt's example code has real bugs. He offers
explanations that are, to put it kindly, at variance with the language
definition.
The first edition of C:TCR was *crap*. It contained an unacceptable
number of mistakes for a technical reference. I had a copy that I
eventually tossed in frustration after finding obvious bugs like
fclose(fp);
fwrite(fp, ...);
throughout the example code.
We're not attacking Schildt as a person; for all I know he's a decent
guy. But T:TCR 1st ed. was *deeply* flawed, and it's in the best
interest of everyone (Schildt included) to point out the mistakes so
that they can be corrected in future editions. My understanding is
that the current edition is halfway decent, although I'm not going to
spend the money to find out. No author, technical or otherwise,
should be immune from criticism, and the qualifications of the critic
*do not matter* if the criticism is valid.
Schildt's a big boy, he can take care of himself. Your claiming to
speak on his behalf is doing his reputation no favors; if I were him,
I'd make sure to point out that you don't speak for me in any way
whatsoever.
spinoza1111
> On Mar 13, 1:51 pm,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The problem with your logic here is that Peter is attacking qualified
> > people including Schildt and myself, not exagerrating his own
> > at programming (he said this after I found his one line strlen to have
> > a bug). But he cannot explain, if he sucks and has an attention
> > disorder, what right he has to criticise Schildt or me. He seems to
> > assume that if he just gets cute, everyone will applaud.
>
> Mr. Reid. You have to understand Mr. Reid lives in an inebriated
> reality that is quite different from the realty most of us inhabit.
>
> In Reid's reality, he is the possessor of $40,000 IN CASH that will be
> utilized to purchase all kinds of useless trash. In the real reality,
> Reid filed a financial statement under penalty of perjury (available
> from the Santa Clara Superior Court for $35) stating that he is nearly
> penniless and requires government financial assistance to pursue his
> new vocation of suing people. I assume suing people with government
> assistance money is what people who have not worked in a real job over
> the last several years do.
>
> adviser in the making of "2001." In the real world, accordingwww.imdb.com
> Reid's name does not appear anywhere associated with that movie.
>
> In the Reid reality, he is a "Ferrari Mechanic." If pumping gas for
> his neighbor, Agostino Ferrari, qualifies as a "Ferrari Mechanic"
> then, I suppose Reid is a "Ferrari mechanic."
>
> In Reid's reality he claims to have "a good time in the [Superior]
> Court" suing people. In the real reality, Reid's name does not appear
> anywhere in the court records within his home state of California as a
> plaintiff until I called his bluff. In fact, according to my
> investigator, Reid has never sued anyone until he took a stab at suing
> me.
>
> In the Reid reality, he is the "Perry Mason" of the Internet. IN the
> real reality, Reid never won a case or a judge's decision in court and
> is currently riding a losing streak of five consecutive losing
> decisions by the hometown judges HE elected. His crazy motions ans
> half-witted writings to the court has made excellent comedy material
> at one law firm that monitors his crazy court activities.
>
> But wait! There's more!
>
> Then comes the funniest part of the Reid story. When forced to
> explain his "kookiness" Reid blames (in chronological order):
>
> (1) His mother (she was served a court order to say she loved him ---
> I can't make this up)
>
> (2) Hitler (again, I can't make this up)
>
> (3) his hometown judges (according to his ridiculous rant on Labor Day
> of 2009 after a judge ruled against him)
>
> (4) me! (thank you, Bill)
>
> (5) the Jews (everyone else blames the Jews, so why not Bill?)
>
> So, spinoza, if you want kookiest of the kooks, I think Reid is a good
> candidate.
I guess the dumb bastard, being unable to see the difference between a
crank letter and a letter to my publisher, or some psychotic raving on
an investment forum and my issues with C, thinks I'm competition in
the dumb bastard event.
I have to be careful with my Princeton connection. That, and the fact
that I was honored to assist Nash with the C language (the topic of
this ng) could easily be exagerrated, and people would naturally want
to know why in so many other respects (such as financial) I'm an
ordinary slob.
This is because to FALSELY or unverifiably claim association with the
famous, or to have grandiose projects, is indeed a diagnostic signal
of mental disorder...but not a sufficient condition. If it were, then
nobody would ever either have a grandiose project that came to
fruition (something that happens all the time), and nobody would ever
be selected for a somewhat grandiose job, and then voluntarily leave
the limelight, as I left Princeton to return to a higher paid but
obscure corporate position owing to family responsibilities.
I do have a unique, in the sense perhaps of simply more intelligent,
"take" on the haverings of the dominant posters here. I think they are
micro- as in dickless Fascists of the sort that become the shock
troops of macro Fascism. If that's nucking futz, I'm not alone. Others
here feel somewhat the same way, although they may not link it with
such larger issues.
spinoza1111
> On Mar 16, 1:33 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > William Ernest Reid
> > Clearly stands in need
> > Of common sense and decency
> > And quite possible a bed in a shelter
> > For here, he's helter skelter.
>
> > For there was a jet black Pot
> > Who said, kettle, white are you not
> > Said the Kettle,
> > In fine fettle,
> > Shove it up your ass, Pot.
>
> > There is a guy named William Reid
> > Who is a Fool in word and, I'd hasard, deed
> > It appears he works in a Boiler Room
> > Filled with losers from the late stock Boom
> > And hates his life, his fellow man, and is twisted by perverted greed.
>
> > He appears to be Billy Earnest
> > But earnest, he is not
>
> No need to X-post this stuff in misc.invest.stocks (MIS). We know
> Reid is at best an unbalanced blowhard. We know Reid is full of
> crap. We know Reid takes government assistance while living in a self
> created reality of grandeur. No need to remind us in MIS of what Reid
> is about.
Sorry, I will be more careful in the future. I'm looking at Newsgroups
now. It just says comp.lang.c. Why is it crossposting?
spinoza1111
> On Mar 14, 12:38 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snippage]
>
> > No, he pissed me off by criticizing Schildt without standing and
> > didn't apologize.
>
> "Without standing"?
>
> The errors that Seebach points out are real; some are nit-picky, some
> are serious. Schildt's example code has real bugs. He offers
> explanations that are, to put it kindly, at variance with the language
> definition.
At the time the first edition was written, there were multiple
versions of C, because it was an adolescent prank and not a
programming language.
Seebach and Richard Heathfield have BOTH admitted that their own books
contain numerous errors. Therefore, where do they get the right to
target Schildt and his family (by making a foul word of his patronym)?
Seebach has no standing since he doesn't appear to be a real
programmer. His code examples here have mostly been buggy, and have
been of the script kiddie's "let's get this done and worry about bugs
later" variety. Whereas Schildt has genuine programming experience,
enough to know that if a specific C compiler permits a variant return
from main that it DOESN'T MATTER unless the code is ported, and enough
to have a grownup's perspective on what it takes to get a job done. He
also has considerable more academic qualifications than Seebach:
Schildt has a BS and MS in computer science: Seebach has taken no
courses at all in computer science.
>
> The first edition of C:TCR was *crap*. It contained an unacceptable
> number of mistakes for a technical reference. I had a copy that I
> eventually tossed in frustration after finding obvious bugs like
>
> fclose(fp);
> fwrite(fp, ...);
>
> throughout the example code.
Bugs in published code are endemic. I spoke to Brian Kernighan about
this matter in 1986 when I was working at Princeton. Unfortunately, in
my experience with Apress, computer books are assembled using
Microsoft Word and PDF, not Tex and literate programming, Donald
Knuth's solution, and this is NOT because of moral failings or
incompetence on the part of computer authors, but because of the
publisher's rush to market.
Indeed, some companies, like Sams, are out of control in this respect,
forcing authors to work 16 hours a day for free and suing them when
they complain.
Both Peter and Richard "C Unleashed" Heathfield have confessed to
having bugs in their publications. When I beat this admission out of
them, they turned around and charged Schildt with not publishing
errata, which I think was a lie. It is moot because as all parties to
this debate admit, Schildt's book (unlike Peter's or Richard's) was
successful and warranted new editions in which the important errors
have been fixed.
>
> We're not attacking Schildt as a person; for all I know he's a decent
> guy. But T:TCR 1st ed. was *deeply* flawed, and it's in the best
> interest of everyone (Schildt included) to point out the mistakes so
> that they can be corrected in future editions. My understanding is
> that the current edition is halfway decent, although I'm not going to
> spend the money to find out. No author, technical or otherwise,
> should be immune from criticism, and the qualifications of the critic
> *do not matter* if the criticism is valid.
A document issued in a temper tantrum (because McGraw Hill wouldn't
give Seebach tons of money) with the claim that there were "hundreds"
of bugs in Schildt and a contradictory list of twenty "known" bugs is
not "criticism". At best, it was childish. At worst, it was Seebach's
attempt to make a name for himself as a programmer without any
academic credentials.
Basic decency seems to be missing in Seebach and many other computer
authors. I would have accepted McGraw Hill's offer. Indeed, a
publisher other than Apress paid me an advance to write a separate
book in 2001. This book never saw the light of day. I contacted the
second publisher in 2005 to set up a repayment schedule for the
advance. They were surprised that I did so, and very graciously had me
work off the advance by doing some tech reviews. It did not occur to
me to welsh on the advance OR refuse the tech review "job". But
apparently Seebach, at the time he wrote "C: the Complete Nonsense",
felt that even though he had never taken a compsci class, he was worth
far more than the going rate.
I suppose that I should have learned that in the programming business
by the turn of this century, the early days of talking back to
management and working extra hours for free to do a quality job had
passed, and now the game is grab the money and smashmouth your fellow
man, unless he's a manager or somebody whose ass you want to suck.
>
> Schildt's a big boy, he can take care of himself. Your claiming to
> speak on his behalf is doing his reputation no favors; if I were him,
> I'd make sure to point out that you don't speak for me in any way
> whatsoever.
OK. Here's the deal. After getting wikipedia to change the article
(from a childish assault on Schildt's good name), I emailed Herb and
asked him whether I was doing the right thing. He confirmed that he
felt I was. He thanked me for getting the wikipedia article changed.
However, he did not encourage me, and I am in no way acting as his
agent. Instead, I was horrified at what happens to ordinary
programmers when they publish after the www.meankids.org assault on
Kathy Sierra (a Java author) who was threatened with rape and murder.
As a computer author, I'd been subject to organized Know Nothing style
assaults on Amazon which caused distress to my family.
But I also knew that on the Internet, fighting your own battles alone
is a losing cause, so I decided to show solidarity with Herb after a
refresher course on C, and after realizing that his "errors" were
nothing that merited an organized hatred campaign.
Computer authors should get enough time to do a quality job, or,
people should expect that release 1.0 of a computer book will be, like
software, useful even if buggy, and instead of these hostile, self-
serving attacks, people should work (as Peter Seebach was invited to
work) with and not against the author for an improved rel. 2.0.
io_x
"Richard Bos" <ral...@xs4all.nl> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:4b9ebd0b...@news.xs4all.nl...
i think all you
has the need of wash your respectable mouth first of speak
BruceS
> On Mar 16, 10:25 pm, Lubow <dynamitem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > No need to X-post this stuff in misc.invest.stocks (MIS). We know
> > Reid is at best an unbalanced blowhard. We know Reid is full of
> > crap. We know Reid takes government assistance while living in a self
> > created reality of grandeur. No need to remind us in MIS of what Reid
> > is about.
>
> Sorry, I will be more careful in the future. I'm looking at Newsgroups
> now. It just says comp.lang.c. Why is it crossposting?
FWIW, it appears that it was first crossposted to mis by Bill Reid in
his March 11 post responding to Dann Corbit. The reason you don't see
it in the post I'm replying to is that Lubow has trimmed it from his
post, so followups along this subthread won't include mis unless
someone adds it back in.
As for being more careful, your later post replying to John Bode again
crossposts to mis. I don't mean this as any kind of attack, as I've
inadvertently crossposted replies too many times to let me point
fingers.
John Bode
> On Mar 16, 10:28 pm, John Bode <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 14, 12:38 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [snippage]
>
> > > No, he pissed me off by criticizing Schildt without standing and
> > > didn't apologize.
>
> > "Without standing"?
>
> > The errors that Seebach points out are real; some are nit-picky, some
> > are serious. Schildt's example code has real bugs. He offers
> > explanations that are, to put it kindly, at variance with the language
> > definition.
>
> At the time the first edition was written, there were multiple
> versions of C, because it was an adolescent prank and not a
> programming language.
>
So, in order to defend Schildt, you're going to attack Ritchie's
abilities as a language designer? Is that your plan? Schildt didn't
describe the language incorrectly, it was Ritchie who designed the
language incorrectly?
I remember the bad old days before C89, but the kinds of errors
Schildt made weren't due to the fact that implementations varied.
Code like
Page 53:
/* Write 6 integers to a disk file. */
void put_rec(int rec[6], FILE *fp)
{
int len;
len = fwrite(rec, sizeof rec, 1, fp);
if (len != 1) printf("write error");
}
wasn't going to work correctly *anywhere*.
> Seebach and Richard Heathfield have BOTH admitted that their own books
> contain numerous errors. Therefore, where do they get the right to
> target Schildt and his family (by making a foul word of his patronym)?
>
An error is an error, regardless of who points it out. Everybody
makes mistakes. The problem with C:TCR is that it had *so many*
errors in one volume coupled with its wide popularity. It had a
negative affect on the educations of a *lot* of programmers. It's
taken the better part of 20 years and 3 more editions to get it to
where it's (apparently) passable. That's not a good record to stand
on.
And I don't think either Seebach or Heathfield coined the term
"Bullschildt" (earliest references I see in the archives are from
Chris Engebretson and Jens Schweikhardt); I wouldn't be surprised if
there were multiple independent sources for it. I'm not sure I didn't
hear the term from one of my professors in '88 or '89.
> Seebach has no standing since he doesn't appear to be a real
> programmer.
He can read the language standard. He can compare what the language
standard says with what Schildt says. He can point out where they
differ. He can look at the snippet posted above and based on the text
of the standard reason that it's not going to behave as described.
That's all the standing he (or anyone else) needs. And FWIW, I *am* a
"real programmer" (as in, I have a CS degree, I'm a professional
software developer, it's what I've been doing for 20 years now in a
variety of fields), and while I'll be the first to admit that I'm more
hack than hacker, I *am* qualified to judge Schildt's book on merit.
From the perspective of someone who *is* a professional programmer and
*does* know the C language pretty well, Seebach's criticisms of
Schildt's book are valid.
> His code examples here have mostly been buggy, and have
> been of the script kiddie's "let's get this done and worry about bugs
> later" variety.
God knows I don't put the same kind of effort into writing examples
here that I put into writing code at work; I don't expect that of
anyone else. There shouldn't be *obvious* bugs, but I'm not going to
spend hours and hours getting that snippet *just* right.
> Whereas Schildt has genuine programming experience,
> enough to know that if a specific C compiler permits a variant return
> from main that it DOESN'T MATTER unless the code is ported, and enough
> to have a grownup's perspective on what it takes to get a job done.
IIRC, he never mentioned portability wrt main's return type; not
surprising, since the book assumed that all the world was DOS. The
VMS C compiler didn't seem to care much either, but that doesn't make
the statement any less wrong. The C runtime owns the interface to
main, not the programmer. main should return whatever the runtime
environment expects it to return.
> He also has considerable more academic qualifications than Seebach:
> Schildt has a BS and MS in computer science: Seebach has taken no
> courses at all in computer science.
A degree in CS is not a degree in programming; one can be a skilled
programmer without having taken a single hour of CS classes. And, to
flog the equine carcass again, some more, most of us in this newsgroup
who share Seebach's criticisms of C:TCR *do* have CS degrees and *do*
write code professionally.
> > The first edition of C:TCR was *crap*. It contained an unacceptable
> > number of mistakes for a technical reference. I had a copy that I
> > eventually tossed in frustration after finding obvious bugs like
>
> > fclose(fp);
> > fwrite(fp, ...);
>
> > throughout the example code.
>
> Bugs in published code are endemic.
True; however, there were *so many* bugs in the C:TCR example code
that it was practically useless.
So now who's engaging in defamation?
[snipping the rest; the spirit is willing, but the flesh needs lunch]
Seebs
> So now who's engaging in defamation?
Ahh, yeah. That seems to be the thing everyone runs into.
Interestingly, I've pointed out a few times that I am, in fact,
a professional programmer, and that a big hunk of what I do is write
code (although not all of it is in C -- I do a lot of shell, and a fair
bit of Very Dark Magic in GNU make). So at this point, it's not just
that Nilges is continuing to make false and defamatory statements about
me, but that he's doing so despite correction.
But fundamentally, as long as he's a sufficiently blatant kook that no
one will ever take those criticisms seriously, I don't see any reason to
care. It's actually sort of funny. I am beginning to regret having
plonked him, if only because I could use his quotes in my next performance
review. :)
-s
p.s.: Although it's largely non-portable, and thus not very topical, I
hope to have an actual public project people can look at shortly. Woo!
--
Chad
The person that wrote the early *nix versions of Netscape, XEmacs,
XScreensavers, and Mozilla only had a high school diploma. His "email
algorithm" is used in alot of the modern email clients. In an old
interview, he told the person interviewing him that he almost
considered dropping out of high school in the 11th grade because
school just wasn't working out for him.
Seebs
> The person that wrote the early *nix versions of Netscape, XEmacs,
> XScreensavers, and Mozilla only had a high school diploma. His "email
> algorithm" is used in alot of the modern email clients. In an old
> interview, he told the person interviewing him that he almost
> considered dropping out of high school in the 11th grade because
> school just wasn't working out for him.
That's further than I ever made it in high school. I didn't even do 10th.
:)
-s
BruceS
> On 2010-03-16, Chad <cdal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The person that wrote the early *nix versions of Netscape, XEmacs,
> > XScreensavers, and Mozilla only had a high school diploma. His "email
> > algorithm" is used in alot of the modern email clients. In an old
> > interview, he told the person interviewing him that he almost
> > considered dropping out of high school in the 11th grade because
> > school just wasn't working out for him.
>
> That's further than I ever made it in high school. I didn't even do 10th.
> :)
My wife is a high-school dropout (OK, so she has a B.S., but no H.S.
diploma) and works as a cat-herder after having advanced a good ways
as a programmer. My sister never finished college but was a V.P. at a
large national bank. My own degree made little or no difference in my
professional programming. I'm glad I went to college, for a number of
reasons, but I don't like Kool-Aid. You're in good company, and I for
one look forward to you publishing your new project so we can all pick
it apart. I expect to learn something in the process, and will whine
piteously if you fail to meet my expectations.
Ben Pfaff
> The person that wrote the early *nix versions of Netscape, XEmacs,
> XScreensavers, and Mozilla only had a high school diploma. His "email
> algorithm" is used in alot of the modern email clients.
What's an "email algorithm"?
--
"...what folly I commit, I dedicate to you."
--William Shakespeare, _Troilus and Cressida_
Morris Keesan
> I remember the bad old days before C89, but the kinds of errors
> Schildt made weren't due to the fact that implementations varied.
> Code like
>
> Page 53:
> /* Write 6 integers to a disk file. */
> void put_rec(int rec[6], FILE *fp)
> {
> int len;
>
> len = fwrite(rec, sizeof rec, 1, fp);
> if (len != 1) printf("write error");
> }
>
> wasn't going to work correctly *anywhere*.
It works fine on my DeathStation 9000,
on days when sizeof(int *) == 6 * sizeof(int).
--
Morris Keesan -- mke...@post.harvard.edu
John Bode
> On 2010-03-16, John Bode <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So now who's engaging in defamation?
>
> Ahh, yeah. That seems to be the thing everyone runs into.
>
> Interestingly, I've pointed out a few times that I am, in fact,
> a professional programmer, and that a big hunk of what I do is write
> code (although not all of it is in C -- I do a lot of shell, and a fair
> bit of Very Dark Magic in GNU make).
You know, I knew that, but was tacitly awarding the point to Nilges in
my response. Bad me, no cookie. I should have known better, and
apologize for being a dipshit.
> So at this point, it's not just
> that Nilges is continuing to make false and defamatory statements about
> me, but that he's doing so despite correction.
>
But that's *different*, you see. Nilges isn't committing the
unpardonable sin of pointing out where you made mistakes in a
published work. He's just accusing you of launching a smear campaign
to make your bones with the developer community, which is nothing,
really.
It's like lying under oath about having an affair vs. lying under oath
about outing a covert intelligence agent. The former is a gross
affront to the rule of law and an impeachable offense, but the latter
isn't even worth a slap on the wrist, much less jail time.
What, me, bitter? Perish the thought.
> But fundamentally, as long as he's a sufficiently blatant kook that no
> one will ever take those criticisms seriously, I don't see any reason to
> care. It's actually sort of funny. I am beginning to regret having
> plonked him, if only because I could use his quotes in my next performance
> review. :)
>
Sort of a like a Bill "Wrong Way" Kristol for programmers, huh?
Chad
> Chad <cdal...@gmail.com> writes:
> > The person that wrote the early *nix versions of Netscape, XEmacs,
> > XScreensavers, and Mozilla only had a high school diploma. His "email
> > algorithm" is used in alot of the modern email clients.
>
> What's an "email algorithm"?
> --
Ugghh... I couldn't think of the right words at the time. Anyways,
this is what I'm talking about
Seebs
>> On 2010-03-16, John Bode <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > So now who's engaging in defamation?
>> Interestingly, I've pointed out a few times that I am, in fact,
>> a professional programmer, and that a big hunk of what I do is write
>> code (although not all of it is in C -- I do a lot of shell, and a fair
>> bit of Very Dark Magic in GNU make).
> You know, I knew that, but was tacitly awarding the point to Nilges in
> my response. Bad me, no cookie. I should have known better, and
> apologize for being a dipshit.
I don't think you were a dipshit. I think you made a valid point -- even
if he were right, it would probably be defamatory.
> But that's *different*, you see. Nilges isn't committing the
> unpardonable sin of pointing out where you made mistakes in a
> published work. He's just accusing you of launching a smear campaign
> to make your bones with the developer community, which is nothing,
> really.
Heh. It's also ridiculous. Does he actually imagine that people would
think better of me because I wrote some stupid page pointing out a few
of the most blatant errors in a book, something like fifteen years ago?
> What, me, bitter? Perish the thought.
Heh.
> Sort of a like a Bill "Wrong Way" Kristol for programmers, huh?
Heh. I dunno; it really is amazing. He's wrong way more often than chance,
and manages to be not just mildly wrong, but genuinely spectacularly wrong.
I've met a few people who could have generated names like "p0, p1, p2, p3".
I've met people who could have generated names like "ptrIndexHaystack,
ptrIndexNeedle". But "ptrIndex0, ptrIndex1"? That's *art*, that is. It's
perfectly wrong in every way -- and the debugging time it required goes to
support that evaluation.
It's got that train-wreck fascination, though. Never before have the
Dunning-Kruger effect, and pathological narcissism, found such a perfect
union.
-s
Bill Reid
still understating the case.
Anybody who would make THAT mistake really doesn't
know "C" at all...it's clearly not a typo or mistake
of a word processing program but one of about 10
common misconceptions about how the language actually
works.
Anybody that is trying to defend mistakes like
that by writing letters to the publisher of the
book slamming ANOTHER author IS a "kook" who
is completely unconcerned about any form of
technical accuracy...if he wanted to write a
letter to the publisher, he SHOULD have complained
about mistakes like the above, since they render
the book worthless and the selling of said book
to be tantamount to fraud.
CASE CLOSED!!!
>
> An error is an error, regardless of who points it out. Everybody
> makes mistakes. The problem with C:TCR is that it had *so many*
> errors in one volume coupled with its wide popularity. It had a
> negative affect on the educations of a *lot* of programmers. It's
> taken the better part of 20 years and 3 more editions to get it to
> where it's (apparently) passable.
>
> That's all the standing he (or anyone else) needs. And FWIW, I *am* a
> "real programmer" (as in, I have a CS degree, I'm a professional
> software developer, it's what I've been doing for 20 years now in a
> variety of fields), and while I'll be the first to admit that I'm more
> hack than hacker, I *am* qualified to judge Schildt's book on merit.
>
> From the perspective of someone who *is* a professional programmer and
> *does* know the C language pretty well, Seebach's criticisms of
> Schildt's book are valid.
>
> > I spoke to Brian Kernighan about
> > this matter in 1986 when I was working at Princeton.
Did you get an autograph inscribed "To Lubow"?
>
> > Unfortunately, in
> > my experience with Apress, computer books are assembled using
> > Microsoft Word and PDF, not Tex and literate programming, Donald
> > Knuth's solution, and this is NOT because of moral failings or
> > incompetence on the part of computer authors, but because of the
> > publisher's rush to market.
>
KOOKINESS!!! (think of the last line of "Bridge Over
the River Kwai")
> > Indeed, some companies, like Sams, are out of control in this respect,
> > forcing authors to work 16 hours a day for free and suing them when
> > they complain.
>
KOOKINESS!!!
>
> > A document issued in a temper tantrum (because McGraw Hill wouldn't
> > give Seebach tons of money) with the claim that there were "hundreds"
> > of bugs in Schildt and a contradictory list of twenty "known" bugs is
> > not "criticism". At best, it was childish. At worst, it was Seebach's
> > attempt to make a name for himself as a programmer without any
> > academic credentials.
>
> So now who's engaging in defamation?
>
Be careful...defamation is all the wrong-minded
kook has to "win", well, maybe a little identity
theft thrown in for good measure, after their
non-sequitur tirades to employers and law enforcement
agencies...take it from one who knows all
too well...
> [snipping the rest; the spirit is willing, but the flesh needs lunch]
>
Your mistake is trying to reason with someone who
has none...you'll never "win" and I've found that
the truly insane have this weird kind of looney
strength that allows them to peck out hundreds of
pages of crazed non-sequiturs at all hours of the
night and day...
---
William Ernest Reid
Bill Reid
>
> > >. The far more valid inference is that
> > > you're too much of a loser to work with other than a bunch of fucking
> > > assholes.
>
> > Spinoza, it did not take you too long to recognize what Mr. Reid is
> > all about.
>
> > Congratulations. For most of us, it took about 48 hours to figure out
> > Reid. I think you broke the record.
>
> You are, however, not doing as well on spinoza!!!!.
>
It's like the mating calls of two cuckoos between
those two...I saw that cuckoos were an endangered
species in the "C" group and wanted them to cross-breed
with our large population in misc.invest.stocks...
If they lay an egg that never leaves the nest
they'll call it "Seth"...
---
William Ernest Reid
Lubow
Seth's parents never required a court order to tell him they love
him.. On the other hand
On Apr 21 2007, 11:07 am, "Bill Reid" <hormelf...@happyhealthy.net>
wrote
> I think my mom said she loved me once but it was due to a court order...
> ---
> William Ernest ReidPost count: 564
spinoza1111
This focus on selection of names would be bizarre in itself, and in
itself a sign that you're incompetent at reading code, since reading
code (like reading any text) demands a willingness to connect with
something different, and understanding the author's textual choices,
even as I was willing to put up with Willem's use of a mathematical
style that was not my own.
It has nothing to do with the core tasks of programming nor even
"deep" clarity, which is semantic and not syntactical.
However, it's always been my impression that for incompetents it's a
delaying tactic so that they don't have to work.
And, you repeat the common fallacy of saying "I have had other wack
coworkers who generate meaningless names such as 'ptrIndexHaystack'"
as a way to "prove" that the style exemplified (which is the
combination of a "Hungarian" name with a literate name that can be
pronounced in a structured walkthrough, enabling review.
But all this type of argument proves, as it proves in the case of
Reid, is that you're only qualified to work with wacks, in your case
script kiddies and clerks who find (or fail to find) bugs, as the case
may be.
It's plain to us all that in fact, you cannot code: you boasted of
this fact in a bizarre fashion after you posted a one line strlen with
an off by one bug. Rather than collegially participating here, you
stand around and criticize others based on the most obvious features
of their code. Your strategy is one of self-promotion in which by
destroying others' credibility, you have built a programming "career",
without any academic preparation or compensating competence.
Your conduct, like that at www.meankids.org vis a vis Kathy Sierra,
brings hateful crazy men out from under rocks, like this Bill Reid
character and Herbert "Nazi Camp" Rosenau.
>
> It's got that train-wreck fascination, though. Never before have the
> Dunning-Kruger effect, and pathological narcissism, found such a perfect
> union.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
spinoza1111
(Sigh) But Peter Seebach hasn't contributed any such code to this
newsgroup or anywhere else, to my knowledge. Most recently:
* He contributed, out of the blue and quite proud of it, a poorly
formatted piece of script kiddiedom which was supposed to replace %s
by a value but in fact replaced % anything and probably would fail if
there was a percent at the end of the master string.
* He tried to show us how to write strlen in one line, having failed
to answer the challenge to write a replace() without using string.h.
His one line of code had an off by one bug.
It is true that:
* People who complete, as Schildt completed, the MS and BS in
computer science can be highly effective
* People who complete the course work but who don't take the degree
can be highly effective
* People who drop out of high school but who read a lot of computer
books can be highly effective
However, one characteristic of the third class is their love of books,
which usually manifests itself as enthusiasm for a good book, not
hatred for a bad book. Book lovers, of the sort that can actually
teach themselves a subject from a book (as Abraham Lincoln taught
himself law), are like dog lovers: they say, no bad books and are
uniquely charitable about errors in books, joyfully and collegially
corresponding with the author directly, not snidely posting web pages
like little weasels.
I was offered a job teaching at university without a graduate degree
because I knew Logic and could teach. Certification only helps us
presort. But in Peter Seebach's case, he's done nothing that I know of
to allow me to say that it doesn't matter that he hasn't studied CS.
In particular, he made an idiot out of himself in CTCN by claiming
that it's wrong to mention the stack in explaining the C runtime, and
that the "heap" is an MS-DOS term. He also thinks that properly
spelled identifiers are hard to understand.
He's not the autodidact Abraham Lincoln of this newsgroup: people who
self-study effectively are marked in special ways by humility and
charity.
Instead he's the Sarah Palin of this newsgroup, an uneducated person
who gets what he wants by stabbing people in the back while being
completely ignorant of the basics of his trade.
Keith Thompson
[...]
> It's like the mating calls of two cuckoos between
> those two...I saw that cuckoos were an endangered
> species in the "C" group and wanted them to cross-breed
> with our large population in misc.invest.stocks...
So you thought comp.lang.c didn't have enough trolls, and
deliberately brought us more?
*PLONK*
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
spinoza1111
> Bill Reid <hormelf...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > It's like the mating calls of two cuckoos between
> > those two...I saw that cuckoos were an endangered
> > species in the "C" group and wanted them to cross-breed
> > with our large population in misc.invest.stocks...
>
> So you thought comp.lang.c didn't have enough trolls, and
> deliberately brought us more?
Kiki, the case of the persecution of Java author Kathy Sierra by
www.meankids.org (look it up) shows that your mental model is
completely wrong.
In your mental model, good techs are sitting around in a newsgroup
discussing technology when in walk "trolls" who intend to disrupt, and
this attracts more trolls and soon enough, the newsgroup is filled
with burning tires and dancing trolls.
What appears to me to happen is that the "good" techs are corporate-
socialized to ignore their dark side, and they start over-reinforcing
a high opinion of their skills because of their success at dealing
with each other online. They unconsciously come to believe in a
seniority system as if in fact all sorts of people come here, with
wildly different educational attainments, natural ability, and time to
spend on questions and project. They come to expect subservience from
"newbies" as if this environment is like the company where they work
where often in fact new hires no less, about programming and/or the
company's way of doing business.
Not in touch with their darkness, and oversocialized to be, not polite
but repressed sexually and socially, they unconsciously put down
people who come in here more experienced in some or all areas than
they, or with programming styles, tics and shibboleths at variance
from their favorite. These people react, and in the resulting "flame
war" are blamed for exercising what would seem to be a human right of
verbal self-defense, the absence of which implies violence and chaos.
It's especially bad when people like you start running your foolish
mouths about these newbies being "trolls", because, as I shall not
cease from reminding you, that word is Nordic racism and was also used
as a slur in California against homeless people. If you call a person
a "n*r" he fights back. Likewise when you call a poster from mainland
China, asking good questions and taking a risk, a "troll".
Your lack of emotional control, which results directly from your
sexual and emotional repression, then attracts, as the www.meankids.org
attacks attracted, real loonies and thugs like Reid and Herbert
Rosenau here, because these people like blood and glass.
Kiki, last January, you reviewed and approved one line of C code
without finding an off by one bug. I suggest you start showing some
collegiality and humility, and stop using racist name-calling. It's
"reasonable, rational" people like you who are the problem, like the
so-called "good" Germans of the Holocaust who ignored the smoke from
Auschwitz.
Lubow
>
> Your lack of emotional control, which results directly from your
> sexual and emotional repression, then attracts, as thewww.meankids.org
> attacks attracted, real loonies and thugs like Reid and Herbert
> Rosenau here, because these people like blood and glass.
Please avoid X-posting to misc.invest.stocks (MIS).
March is adopt-a-psycho month. Do a good dead. Do a mitzvah. Adopt
Reid as your own. Keep him away from MIS.
Thanks.
spinoza1111
> On Mar 16, 1:32 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2010-03-16, John Bode <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So now who's engaging in defamation?
>
>
> > a professional programmer, and that a big hunk of what I do is write
> > code (although not all of it is in C -- I do a lot of shell, and a fair
> > bit of Very Dark Magic in GNU make).
>
> You know, I knew that, but was tacitly awarding the point to Nilges in
> my response. Bad me, no cookie. I should have known better, and
> apologize for being a dipshit.
It appears to me based on Seebs' performance in the %s replace and the
one line string length that most of his work is script kidding. He
believes that it's a good thing to do things fast, if incredibly
carelessly, and without writing documentation upfront and neatly as I
do in order to make sure you are clear on the requirements (writing
them down).
Responsible quality work can be done in certain languages designed
recently enough to incorporate good practice, where those languages
are interpreted script languages. Rexx and Visual Basic, for example.
But my experience with shells on unix and makefiles shows me that
EITHER Peter is misusing an inferior tool to do far too much, or is
restricted to trivial filter making.
>
> > So at this point, it's not just
> > that Nilges is continuing to make false and defamatory statements about
> > me, but that he's doing so despite correction.
>
> But that's *different*, you see. Nilges isn't committing the
> unpardonable sin of pointing out where you made mistakes in a
> published work. He's just accusing you of launching a smear campaign
> to make your bones with the developer community, which is nothing,
> really.
I have made very, very serious accusations against Seebach, this is
true. In fact, based on what I've learned, I believe that he got to
where he is by attacking good people and buying his way onto the C99
standard as resume enhancement.
However, I came to this conclusion based on facts he has affirmed in
this newsgroup and in CLCM, and his online performance in coding,
which has been very poor compared to others here. And, while I think
his code is poorly formatted according to my personal preference for a
literate style, I do not base my case against his performance
exclusively or largely on that, but on the bugs in his code, and his
attitude towards those bugs.
His response to the % bug? He told us about it, but gave no sign that
he was going to fix it until we persuaded him to. And, any fix was a
hack because the entire solution, in script kiddie fashion, started
off on the wrong foot: it did a character search and correcting it,
while leaving the initial approach alone, required a lookahead with
provision for looking one past the end of the string. A sensible
approach, of course, would have used strstr().
Peter has chosen to mock me and others based on taking "too much time"
to code, which is characteristic of the script kiddie mentality, in
which no time is taken, for better or worse, to plan the code...in my
case by predocumenting the code. This is because he's uneducated in
computer science, which stresses the programmer's responsibility to be
clear on what he's doing. Unfortunately, the script kiddie psychology
has spread to "real" programming because in a de-industrialized
America being raped by finance capital, any sort of unauthorised
planning in excess of a constantly declining minimum threatens the
dominance of the wealthy. For this reason, programmers have learned,
as Peter has learned, to brag about writing buggy code quickly...even
when, as in this case, they're comparing "apples and oranges": Peter
coding on his employers' time and my coding during my commute.
>
> It's like lying under oath about having an affair vs. lying under oath
> about outing a covert intelligence agent. The former is a gross
> affront to the rule of law and an impeachable offense, but the latter
> isn't even worth a slap on the wrist, much less jail time.
>
> What, me, bitter? Perish the thought.
>
> > But fundamentally, as long as he's a sufficiently blatant kook that no
> > one will ever take those criticisms seriously, I don't see any reason to
> > care. It's actually sort of funny. I am beginning to regret having
> > plonked him, if only because I could use his quotes in my next performance
> > review. :)
I will be delighted, Peter, to give your manager a written assessment
of your performance, and if you think, in some perverted way, that
this will help you because I'm crazy (which I am not), let me know by
email. I would dearly love to see you hoist by your own petard as soon
as one of the intelligent people in your office realize how you're
wasting time.
Lubow
> > Sort of a like a Bill "Wrong Way" Kristol for programmers, huh?
>
>
Please keep your posts in this n/g and avoid x-posting to
misc.invest.stocks.
Thank you.
spinoza1111
> On Mar 16, 11:59 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 10:28 pm, John Bode <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 14, 12:38 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > [snippage]
>
> > > > No, he pissed me off by criticizing Schildt without standing and
> > > > didn't apologize.
>
> > > "Without standing"?
>
> > > The errors that Seebach points out are real; some are nit-picky, some
> > > are serious. Schildt's example code has real bugs. He offers
> > > explanations that are, to put it kindly, at variance with the language
> > > definition.
>
> > At the time the first edition was written, there were multiple
> > versions of C, because it was an adolescent prank and not a
> > programming language.
>
> So, in order to defend Schildt, you're going to attack Ritchie's
> abilities as a language designer? Is that your plan? Schildt didn't
> describe the language incorrectly, it was Ritchie who designed the
> language incorrectly?
Yes. Since you probably weren't a programmer in 1970, you probably
don't realize how little was actually known about language design back
then. C is a mishmash of ideas from the American Fortran tradition and
the European Algol tradition.
For example, the for statement is poorly designed since its variables
are repeatedly evaluated, rather than other for statements in other
languages in which a limiting value is forced to be constant for the
duration of the for loop (by copying it into a register in early
Fortran). This means that the function of C's while statement is
duplicated in the for loop, "enabling" programmers to change the limit
value in the loop, which makes inspection of code for loop termination
more difficult, and not orthogonal.
Aliasing was unneeded since low level code can be written in a
suitable macro assembler. It was adolescent and foolish for Pike et
al. to think that the world needed to write bootstrap and kernel code
in a high level language, especially since conditional macro assembly
could and did make code highly portable for wide families of machines.
IBM did not need to write the VM operating system in C and it would
have been foolish to do so. Nonetheless, VM ran on a wide range of
360, 370 and subsequent mainframes because it was shipped using a
conditional macro assembler to handle machine differences and customer
needs (I was a systems programmer at Standard Oil until disgusted by
the good old boy culture).
>
> I remember the bad old days before C89, but the kinds of errors
> Schildt made weren't due to the fact that implementations varied.
> Code like
>
> Page 53:
> /* Write 6 integers to a disk file. */
> void put_rec(int rec[6], FILE *fp)
> {
> int len;
>
> len = fwrite(rec, sizeof rec, 1, fp);
> if (len != 1) printf("write error");
> }
>
> wasn't going to work correctly *anywhere*.
As is the case with many book examples, including, by their own
admission, code in Seebs' and Heathfield's books. When publishers
start forcing authors that integrate testable code with text, this
won't happen, but since computer book warranties are the same as
software warranties, indemnifying the publisher in both cases, there
is simply no economic motivation to do this.
In my experience, it is difficult to get nontechnical editors to
understand how to format code. Once the computer author pastes code
into his Word manuscript, errors can creep in and in a book project
there is only a finite amount of time to fix all errors.
Which perhaps is as it should be, since part of connecting with and
using a computer book is testing its code examples.
It is true that the IBM and Microsoft computing communities, in which
I spent most of my professional career, there was a larger problem
with bugs: OS/360, like each release of Windows, shipped with
thousands of bugs in each new release. I wasn't happy with this.
However, the unix community never solved the problem either, and had
fewer bugs only because it shipped far less software than IBM or
Microsoft. The problem was only partly solved by the curious invention
of virtual, sliced and diced slave labor, called open source, which is
based on the theft of intellectual production and its transformation
by greedheads into holy private property.
The result of this "digital Maoism"? The destruction of the middle
class that in 1990 could expect to get paid for programming.
>
> > Seebach and Richard Heathfield have BOTH admitted that their own books
> > contain numerous errors. Therefore, where do they get the right to
> > target Schildt and his family (by making a foul word of his patronym)?
>
> An error is an error, regardless of who points it out. Everybody
> makes mistakes. The problem with C:TCR is that it had *so many*
According to Seebach in CTCN, there were twenty errors. His claim
elsewhere in the document that there were hundreds more was logically
contradictory. Since the list contained twenty errors we can only
conclude that Seebs was lying about "hundreds" more even as Roy Cohn
and Senator Joseph McCarthy deliberately lied in the 1950s that there
were "thousands" of Communists in the US government.
Furthermore, it is not an error to use the "stack" in describing how C
runtime works. Many of the errors actually reported were based on
shibboleth (where a "shibboleth" was how a tribe of Israel pronounced
"ear of corn" and used to identify friend from foe).
> errors in one volume coupled with its wide popularity. It had a
> negative affect on the educations of a *lot* of programmers. It's
This claim is unsupported and false. The fact is that incompetent
programmers don't read books either good or bad, and the programmers
of Asia, who are in my direct experience more competent than American
programmers, passionately read books, "good" and "bad" and improve
thereby.
This is because it is a lower middle class myth (based on the wars of
religion in Europe between 1519 and 1648, and similar wars elsewhere)
that there exist "bad" books, such as the "wrong" translation of
Scripture, or a "bad" Qu'ran. Intelligent, well educated people never
think this way. They read Mein Kampf and the ravings of the Marquis de
Sade without damaging their psyches.
In fact, "no bad books" is essential to the theoretical foundations of
freedom of speech found, among other places, in JS Mills' Essay on
Liberty. Mill points out that we can never be certain that a book is
worthless, and if it is, like Mein Kampf or Atlas Shrugged, it still
needs to be preserved for the same reason there is no death penalty in
the European Union: we can learn about murder from a mass murderer in
order to prevent murder, and we can expose foolishness in Ayn Rand to
teach real philosophy.
Sure, there are bad books, like Atlas Shrugged. So don't buy them, and
recommend other books to your friends. Don't use the false authority
of the internet to destroy a man's reputation, and in such a way that
psychos and bullies follow your lead, and amplify your campaign into a
Lynch mob of would-be murderers such as hounded Java author Kathy
Sierra.
I'm not saying Schildt is as bad as Ayn Rand, of course. My considered
opinion is that he is a bit Microsoft centric in such a way that he
didn't consider the needs of embedded programmers for a higher level
of portability. However, in my own experience as a computer author,
the corporation publishing your book exercises a great deal of control
over what you write, and the marketers at McGraw Hill appear to have
decided that the mass market consisted primarily of Microsoft
programmers, who didn't have to worry about what main returns.
I was handed, in my first computer science class, Sherman's
"Programming and Coding for Digital Computers". It used the IBM 7094,
an old scientific mainframe, with a fixed word length and a one
address instruction architecture with general registers. However, the
only computer available to us was radically different: it was the IBM
1401, an old business mainframe, with a variable word length, a two
address instruction architecture, and three index registers as an
extra cost feature.
Nonetheless, I learned a lot by seeing that Sherman's core concepts,
most significantly the idea that "any computer can, given enough time
and memory, simulate any other computer". The differences revealed the
Turing egalitarianism of all computers.
> taken the better part of 20 years and 3 more editions to get it to
> where it's (apparently) passable. That's not a good record to stand
> on.
Sort of like Windows, right? You underestimate user (programmer)
intelligence, and, as we'll see, you apply different standards to
yourself in a way that proves the Schildt canard to be motivated by
envy and malice, in the same way some anti-Microsoft bullshit is
motivated.
>
> And I don't think either Seebach or Heathfield coined the term
> "Bullschildt" (earliest references I see in the archives are from
> Chris Engebretson and Jens Schweikhardt); I wouldn't be surprised if
> there were multiple independent sources for it. I'm not sure I didn't
> hear the term from one of my professors in '88 or '89.
The "independent" sources all cited CTCN which is, as far as I can
determine, the root of a tree or graph of citations which all trace
back to CTCN. Furthermore, "Bullschildt" has appeared in previous
copies of CTCN which is under Seebach's control. He seems to be
changing it. He needs to erase it.
>
> > Seebach has no standing since he doesn't appear to be a real
> > programmer.
>
> He can read the language standard. He can compare what the language
> standard says with what Schildt says. He can point out where they
> differ. He can look at the snippet posted above and based on the text
> of the standard reason that it's not going to behave as described.
At the time, not all, nor perhaps even a majority, of C compilers were
conformant. If your code doesn't work on the machine you've been
assigned, the standard is meaningless.
>
> That's all the standing he (or anyone else) needs. And FWIW, I *am* a
> "real programmer" (as in, I have a CS degree, I'm a professional
> software developer, it's what I've been doing for 20 years now in a
This doesn't mean that Seebach is anything of these things.
> variety of fields), and while I'll be the first to admit that I'm more
> hack than hacker, I *am* qualified to judge Schildt's book on merit.
Many programmers, in my experience, are in fact deficient in judgement
on real affairs.
>
> From the perspective of someone who *is* a professional programmer and
> *does* know the C language pretty well, Seebach's criticisms of
> Schildt's book are valid.
>
> > His code examples here have mostly been buggy, and have
> > been of the script kiddie's "let's get this done and worry about bugs
> > later" variety.
>
> God knows I don't put the same kind of effort into writing examples
> here that I put into writing code at work; I don't expect that of
> anyone else. There shouldn't be *obvious* bugs, but I'm not going to
> spend hours and hours getting that snippet *just* right.
Oh? But this undercuts your claims about Schildt, since internet
publication is publication, same as Schildt, and there are two reasons
for using the same amount of diligence in publishing code here:
* Newbies will trust your online snippets and if Schildt must not
mislead newbies, YOU must not mislead newbies
* Regulars will mock you if they find a bug, damaging your reputation
should your manager or a prospective employer examine your published
code
Furthermore, here, you aren't "under the gun" at a publisher, to meet
a deadline, when you post code here. You can take time to review your
code, or, alternatively, release early versions explicitly stating (as
I stated in rel 0 of my replace()) that you invite debugging feedback.
I conclude that like Seebach, who constantly seems to be apologizing
for his errors and expecting us to forgive him, you have too much
unexamined malice to show collegiality and charity.
>
> > Whereas Schildt has genuine programming experience,
> > enough to know that if a specific C compiler permits a variant return
> > from main that it DOESN'T MATTER unless the code is ported, and enough
> > to have a grownup's perspective on what it takes to get a job done.
>
> IIRC, he never mentioned portability wrt main's return type; not
> surprising, since the book assumed that all the world was DOS. The
> VMS C compiler didn't seem to care much either, but that doesn't make
> the statement any less wrong. The C runtime owns the interface to
> main, not the programmer. main should return whatever the runtime
> environment expects it to return.
Why? In a business where programmers constantly criticize their
colleagues for not meeting unreasonable and money-motivated management
targets set with no negotiation with programmers, and with no
consideration of the interests of consumers or labor, we don't need
silly rules.
Rules are not fungible. Just because your code is "standard" doesn't
mean it works, is efficient, or does what the user wants.
Rules for good style aren't silly in all cases, nor is the need for
some such rule. Unfortunately, most programmers have silly ideas about
"good style" because unlike real authorities on programming style,
like Kernighan and Dijkstra, most programmers have neither enough
education nor verbal skill to go around shooting their goddamn mouths
off about "good" style, much less backstab their coworkers and
colleagues. As it happens, the only good style is constituted by a
skill that, in developed countries like the USA and UK, is in rapid
decline. This is the ability to write a grammatical English sentence
above a low upper bound of complexity.
The only other "good style" is a tight, mathematical style which makes
the C code look like a mathematical proof, and for the same reasons
that most programmers have low skills in their natural language
(English, of course, in the US and UK), they have no mathematical
talent or education. In fact, I found Willem's style accessible, and
it is highly mathematical.
All else is folklore, shibboleth, and myth.
>
> > He also has considerable more academic qualifications than Seebach:
> > Schildt has a BS and MS in computer science: Seebach has taken no
> > courses at all in computer science.
>
> A degree in CS is not a degree in programming; one can be a skilled
> programmer without having taken a single hour of CS classes. And, to
Yes, but we have confirmed that Peter Seebach is not a skilled
programmer:
* A one line strlen with an off by one bug
* A program that was supposed to find and replace %s and which
replaced percent, anything
* The incorrect design of that program, which used strchr instead of
strstr to find %s, which is a string and not a character.
* Refusal to participate in reviewing my replace() solution which
along with Willems was the first, and perhaps the only, code to meet
my challenge of not using string.h, accompanied by libel
Furthermore, it appears that Seebach is completely unmotivated to take
CS classes despite the fact that his company probably has tuition
support. It's clear to me from his adolescent behavior that he'd go
into a CS class "loaded for bear", prepared to disrupt the class with
his "knowledge".
This incuriosity, combined with a bullying streak, was characteristic
of George Bush (whom Peter is on record as supporting) and it is a
growing problem in programming as well as UK and US politics, which
are taking on a Fascist streak.
In the UK, yobs recently kicked an old retarded man to death: this is
what is happening here.
In the USA, stylistic criticisms of Kathy Sierra's lighthearted and
beautiful books on Java were noted by misogynist, hate-filled,
unemployable former programmers and she was threatened with rape and
murder: this is what is happening here.
In China, a kid who was said to be "addicted" to the Internet was
kicked to death in an "Internet recovery camp" by thugs: this is what
is happening here.
There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down (Buffalo Springfield)
> flog the equine carcass again, some more, most of us in this newsgroup
> who share Seebach's criticisms of C:TCR *do* have CS degrees and *do*
> write code professionally.
You're not immune from shibboleth and fashion, and the reason you saw
these criticisms in the C FAQ was that they were sourced in a chain of
citation that leads back to CTCN. You've been misled, as are Tea
Baggers, by the mere appearance of a large volume of evidence that is
created merely by the ease of hyperlinking and copying on the Web.
The Schildt canard is like the Obama birth canard: reference by
aliterate MORONS to the Web, and citations which cite each other in a
closed loop.
>
> > > The first edition of C:TCR was *crap*. It contained an unacceptable
> > > number of mistakes for a technical reference. I had a copy that I
> > > eventually tossed in frustration after finding obvious bugs like
>
> > > fclose(fp);
> > > fwrite(fp, ...);
>
> > > throughout the example code.
>
> > Bugs in published code are endemic.
>
> True; however, there were *so many* bugs in the C:TCR example code
> that it was practically useless.
The free market seems to have decided otherwise, as it decided in the
case of Windows. And there are only twenty in CTCN. And, one of those
is based on Seebach's ignorance of heaps and stacks. He was ignorant
of heaps and stacks because he's never taken a computer science class.
Unfortunately, in verbal self defense, I have been forced to research
the origins of CTCN and I have discovered that its author was
unqualified then and now. To prove libel, you have to "defame" using
the truth.
Lubow
>
Kindly stop X-posting in misc.invest.stocks.
Thank you.
Lubow
>
> The person that wrote the early *nix versions of Netscape, XEmacs,
> XScreensavers, and Mozilla only had a high school diploma. His "email
> algorithm" is used in alot of the modern email clients. In an old
> interview, he told the person interviewing him that he almost
> considered dropping out of high school in the 11th grade because
> school just wasn't working out for him.
Did that guy also murder his wife?
Kenny McCormack
Lubow <dynami...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 16, 2:56 pm, Chad <cdal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The person that wrote the early *nix versions of Netscape, XEmacs,
>> XScreensavers, and Mozilla only had a high school diploma. His "email
>> algorithm" is used in alot of the modern email clients. In an old
>> interview, he told the person interviewing him that he almost
>> considered dropping out of high school in the 11th grade because
>> school just wasn't working out for him.
The point that we are trying to make here is that those days are gone.
Programming has become, as spinoza puts it, overly-socialized. The
maverick days are over.
The denizens of this NG want to go on pretending that this isn't so.
--
(This discussion group is about C, ...)
Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...
Seebs
Uh, no, that was (probably) Hans Reiser, not jwz.
-s
--
Chad
> On 2010-03-17, Lubow <dynamitem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 16, 2:56 pm, Chad <cdal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The person that wrote the early *nix versions of Netscape, XEmacs,
> >> XScreensavers, and Mozilla only had a high school diploma. His "email
> >> algorithm" is used in alot of the modern email clients. In an old
> >> interview, he told the person interviewing him that he almost
> >> considered dropping out of high school in the 11th grade because
> >> school just wasn't working out for him.
> > Did that guy also murder his wife?
>
> Uh, no, that was (probably) Hans Reiser, not jwz.
>
Yeah. There is a former FreeBSD Engineer, who is know a Senior
Executive at Apple, who never actually graduated High School.
Chad
er *who is now* (not *who is know*)
Seebs
> Yeah. There is a former FreeBSD Engineer, who is know a Senior
> Executive at Apple, who never actually graduated High School.
It's surprisingly common. I usually save the Big Reveal that I never
finished high school (or got a GED, or anything comparable) until I have
someone like Nilges to play with, but given how much mileage he got
out of merely knowing I hadn't taken CS courses, I was sorta worried that
it would cause him to explode in outrage.
jamm
> In article
> <17152fb7-aaf9-4da7...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Lubow <dynami...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mar 16, 2:56�pm, Chad <cdal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The person that wrote the early *nix versions of Netscape, XEmacs,
>>> XScreensavers, and Mozilla only had a high school diploma. His "email
>>> algorithm" is used in alot of the modern email clients. �In an old
>>> interview, he told the person interviewing him that he almost
>>> considered dropping out of high school in the 11th grade because
>>> school just wasn't working out for him.
>
> The point that we are trying to make here is that those days are gone.
> Programming has become, as spinoza puts it, overly-socialized. The
> maverick days are over.
>
> The denizens of this NG want to go on pretending that this isn't so.
>
Perhaps you meant to say, fully-institutionalized? I don't know.. it feels
that way in job interviews these days. Yet there is so much room for
innovation and innovaters even still. Look at Napster, Facebook, Twitter
etc.. pretty successful mavericks.
Thats why I find robotics to be very exciting at this point in time.. it is
so far NOT institutionalized despite efforts to make it so. Noone yet knows
how to really make a working speech recognition system, or usable real world
computer vision, or real AI. Its wide open!
spinoza1111
> On 2010-03-17, Chad <cdal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah. There is a former FreeBSD Engineer, who is know a Senior
> > Executive at Apple, who never actually graduated High School.
>
> It's surprisingly common. I usually save the Big Reveal that I never
> finished high school (or got a GED, or anything comparable) until I have
> someone like Nilges to play with, but given how much mileage he got
> out of merely knowing I hadn't taken CS courses, I was sorta worried that
> it would cause him to explode in outrage.
Actually, I was aware of that fact. I don't think it's cute that you
failed to graduate from high school.
You have a very troubling educational record. Had you accomplished
anything in programming, this would not be important. But you really,
really haven't. You are on record as giving up when things get
painful, sometimes with personal abuse directed at others. You don't
seem to have ever written anything useful: by your age, I'd developed
the first versions of an innovative hydrostatic stability program that
created a market for a company, and several other useful packages.
For example, it appears that you found DOS programming "too painful".
But this means you had no standing in criticising the work of someone
who, for market reasons, was required to write a DOS centric book.
But this bragging about educational FAILURE is the most troubling fact
about your background. I had excellent African American programming
students who had to graduate from high school or go to jail, because
unlike in your case, they didn't have an academic Mommy and Daddy to
coddle them.
But what's most troubling is your apparent record of educational
failure.
>
> -s
> --
spinoza1111
These stories are exagerrated. Many of these individuals taught
themselves coding in the 1980s and produced the inferior first
versions of packages good enough to create a market. They were then
kicked upstairs. Now, they exploit and abuse, in an anti-intellectual
fashion, the MSen and PHDen under them.
ImpalerCore
> On 2010-03-17, Chad <cdal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah. There is a former FreeBSD Engineer, who is know a Senior
> > Executive at Apple, who never actually graduated High School.
>
> It's surprisingly common. I usually save the Big Reveal that I never
> finished high school (or got a GED, or anything comparable) until I have
> someone like Nilges to play with, but given how much mileage he got
> out of merely knowing I hadn't taken CS courses, I was sorta worried that
> it would cause him to explode in outrage.
While you may not have finished high school or college, I'm sure you
put at least as much effort into learning programming as people who
did go to college, probably more. Some people work best when they are
self-directed because their interest drives a good work ethic. Then
there are those that won't do anything unless someone tells them they
need to do it. College is usually good for those kinds of people, but
it's certainly not a requirement to follow a career in programming.
Then there are those who won't do anything no matter who tells them to
do it.
Were you pretty much self-taught, or did you have a mentor of some
kind? As a college guy myself, I'm curious about people who found
their way as a programmer through paths less traveled.
> -s
> --
Walter Banks
spinoza1111 wrote:
> But what's most troubling is your apparent record of educational
> failure.
Didn't you say that you too dropped out of University.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
spinoza1111
wrote:
> In article <17152fb7-aaf9-4da7-8483-3b91edde8...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Lubow <dynamitem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 16, 2:56 pm, Chad <cdal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The person that wrote the early *nix versions of Netscape, XEmacs,
> >> XScreensavers, and Mozilla only had a high school diploma. His "email
> >> algorithm" is used in alot of the modern email clients. In an old
> >> interview, he told the person interviewing him that he almost
> >> considered dropping out of high school in the 11th grade because
> >> school just wasn't working out for him.
>
> The point that we are trying to make here is that those days are gone.
> Programming has become, as spinoza puts it, overly-socialized. The
> maverick days are over.
That's correct: and, in the "maverick" days, we early programmers (I
started in 1973) had in many cases been educated in strict,
traditional Catholic schools (in my case), equally strict and
traditional Communist schools (in the case of Szymonyi and others),
and public schools before California's prop. 13, a neutron bomb which
destroyed teachers in California and created today's hatred and
contempt for teachers.
We didn't jump into coding in an adolescent fashion. Instead, we were
able to write complete sentences such as "this program will match the
x and y files, removing duplicates from y; and for each pair of
matching records, this program will update the x record with
information from the y file".
It is often said the old bastards "always" do this, but there's a
strong possibility here that owing to the desire of the rich for world
domination based on wealth alone, younger people have indeed devolved
into Troglodytes by design.
Old programmers were disruptive. Companies had to hire us despite our
long hair because we could write complete, end to end solutions while
the Nixon voters from business schools were playing with their
dinguses. But Peter S and Richard Heathfield give no sign of being
actually able to develop code. Seebach is a script kiddie, and while
Heathfield seems to have been a PART of big projects, more a manager
than a coder, his linked list proves that his programming background
is light in weight.
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111wrote:
> > But what's most troubling is your apparent record of educational
> > failure.
>
> Didn't you say that you too dropped out of University.
I completed a BA and most of the work towards MSCS, but left the
latter program after completing most of the work with an A average. I
had family responsibilities.
I have said:
* It was not only possible, in the early days, to not take computer
science, it was necessary. There was no CS. I took the first ever CS
class offered at my undergrad university
* There have been many programmers with partial or no prep in
academic cs. But those programmers have produced interesting and
important code, and generally would be loth to attack someone with
Schildt's academic qualifications from a basic sense of standing and
decency.
The question is Seebach's strange attitude towards education. The
minorities I taught at DeVry had a respect for educations they
couldn't afford whereas Seebach seems, despite the fact that his
father seems to be a professor, to have a Fascistic anti-
intellectualism.
A Humble Programmer doesn't believe that academic preparation is
useless or pernicious, but there is an urban legend to this effect
which has destroyed good people, and far less important, projects.
Had Seebach been completely autodidact, this would have been OK. But
in his case, his lack of academic preparation is accompanied by a deep
level of ignorance and a George Bush-reminiscent level of incuriosity,
whence his claim that Herb couldn't speak of stacks and that the heap
is a DOS term.
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---
spinoza1111
> On Mar 17, 6:34 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2010-03-17, Chad <cdal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yeah. There is a former FreeBSD Engineer, who is know a Senior
> > > Executive at Apple, who never actually graduated High School.
>
> > It's surprisingly common. I usually save the Big Reveal that I never
> > finished high school (or got a GED, or anything comparable) until I have
> > someone like Nilges to play with, but given how much mileage he got
> > out of merely knowing I hadn't taken CS courses, I was sorta worried that
> > it would cause him to explode in outrage.
>
> While you may not have finished high school or college, I'm sure you
> put at least as much effort into learning programming as people who
> did go to college, probably more. Some people work best when they are
> self-directed because their interest drives a good work ethic. Then
> there are those that won't do anything unless someone tells them they
> need to do it. College is usually good for those kinds of people, but
> it's certainly not a requirement to follow a career in programming.
> Then there are those who won't do anything no matter who tells them to
> do it.
>
> Were you pretty much self-taught, or did you have a mentor of some
> kind? As a college guy myself, I'm curious about people who found
> their way as a programmer through paths less traveled.
Give me a break. This suspension of educational requirements is a
white male privilege in companies in which jobs are designed around
white males identified as future managers (mostly because of evidence
that they are willing to destroy others), where, for example, the
white male only has to find bugs and report them, whereas the
difficult jobs are farmed out to consultants in Asia.
It is in fact welfare for white males.
By law, people should today be required to have a BS in computer
science or pass an examination before being permitted to call
themselves programmers, on the internet or anywhere else. This is not
the case simply because corporations want to define reality.
We were largely self-taught in 1973, but I returned to graduate school
in 1976 out of intellectual curiosity. I did not get the degree
because I had a family, but I have a respect for people who either
finish the degree, or learn as I did without the piece of paper.
I then returned to school (Princeton in an unusual program) ten years
later but at this point I was more curious about philosophy.
Whereas Peter seems to believe that he's learning when he attacks
others and plays computer games.
Walter Banks
spinoza1111 wrote:
> On Mar 18, 11:40 am, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> > spinoza1111wrote:
> > > But what's most troubling is your apparent record of educational
> > > failure.
> >
> > Didn't you say that you too dropped out of University.
>
> I completed a BA and most of the work towards MSCS, but left the
> latter program after completing most of the work with an A average. I
> had family responsibilities.
Dropout
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Seebs
> While you may not have finished high school or college,
Oh, I finished college. I have a degree in psychology. :)
> Were you pretty much self-taught, or did you have a mentor of some
> kind? As a college guy myself, I'm curious about people who found
> their way as a programmer through paths less traveled.
I never studied CS in college, but I had the good fortune to run into
a fairly good programmer sort (one of the authors of GNU grep, as
it happens, more recently a CPU designer), who decided that it would be
interesting to try to teach me how to think about computers. It appears
to have taken.
I don't know why I never took CS courses; I think it simply hadn't
occurred to me, and anyway it was mostly obvious.
-s
--
Seebs
> spinoza1111 wrote:
>> But what's most troubling is your apparent record of educational
>> failure.
> Didn't you say that you too dropped out of University.
What's interesting to me is that he assumes that there was educational
"failure" involved. I think I failed two classes ever -- trigonometry
(couldn't memorize things; I could never do trig until I learned enough
calculus to derive it) and a chemistry class that was scheduled at 7:45
AM, which I think I attended a good three or four times.
It says a lot more about Nilges than about me that he'd assume that there
was any kind of failure involved. I didn't say I flunked out of high
school, only that I didn't continue taking high school classes. Similarly,
I never said I failed college, only that I didn't do CS... Because I
was busy doing math, philosophy, and psychology. ;)
-s
--
spinoza1111
> On 2010-03-18, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>
> >spinoza1111wrote:
> >> But what's most troubling is your apparent record of educational
> >> failure.
> > Didn't you say that you too dropped out of University.
>
> What's interesting to me is that he assumes that there was educational
> "failure" involved. I think I failed two classes ever -- trigonometry
> (couldn't memorize things; I could never do trig until I learned enough
> calculus to derive it) and a chemistry class that was scheduled at 7:45
> AM, which I think I attended a good three or four times.
That's failure, Peter. What I find utterly reprehensible is that such
a level of failure receives "zero tolerance" in inner city high
schools yet is excused in white schools.
>
> It says a lot more about Nilges than about me that he'd assume that there
> was any kind of failure involved. I didn't say I flunked out of high
> school, only that I didn't continue taking high school classes. Similarly,
> I never said I failed college, only that I didn't do CS... Because I
> was busy doing math, philosophy, and psychology. ;)
Fine. Many early programmers had that background.
However, those early programmers:
* Developed Fortran compilers with one trip do loops
* Failed to deliver OS for the 360 on time
* Developed software for the SAGE air defense system which never,
ever worked: the Russians believed it worked, and that was used in
negotiation
* Developed what's now the content of CS classes
If you, as it appears, were born in 1970, there was no excuse for not
learning from their mistakes.
And there was less reason for you to write CTCN. You had no standing.
>
> -s
> --
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 11:40 am, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> > > spinoza1111wrote:
> > > > But what's most troubling is your apparent record of educational
> > > > failure.
>
> > > Didn't you say that you too dropped out of University.
>
> > I completed a BA and most of the work towards MSCS, but left the
> > latter program after completing most of the work with an A average. I
> > had family responsibilities.
>
> Dropout
Name calling doesn't change the facts. The fact is that like most
younger white people, Peter has benefited from the real affirmative
action of American society, which is second chances and mega tolerance
for white failure, and zero tolerance for everyone else. This becomes
contempt for teachers and authors.
And fathers, which I was when I decided to "drop out". I was working,
asshole, for a company that had a minimum work week of 45 hours and a
norm of 100. I was also teaching at adjunct level. If you want to call
this "dropping out", you can shove it up your ass.
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---
spinoza1111
> On 2010-03-18, ImpalerCore <jadil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > While you may not have finished high school or college,
>
> Oh, I finished college. I have a degree in psychology. :)
>
> > Were you pretty much self-taught, or did you have a mentor of some
> > kind? As a college guy myself, I'm curious about people who found
> > their way as a programmer through paths less traveled.
>
> I never studied CS in college, but I had the good fortune to run into
> a fairly good programmer sort (one of the authors of GNU grep, as
> it happens, more recently a CPU designer), who decided that it would be
> interesting to try to teach me how to think about computers. It appears
> to have taken.
>
> I don't know why I never took CS courses; I think it simply hadn't
> occurred to me, and anyway it was mostly obvious.
Again, how would you know? It wasn't obvious to you several years ago
that the heap is NOT a "DOS term", and that using a stack is a common
way to explain and implement a C runtime. And yo' ass don't improve
with age like a fine wine. Last month, you showed that you CANNOT
simulate strlen in an acceptable way or write a simple filter. While
such tasks do not form part of computer science theory, studying the
theory gives one skill in avoiding these types of errors.
Whereas in computer science at the level of graduate school, I did a
lot of programming which enhanced my skills:
* Polynomial arithmetic: my insight being that I could use the same
type of Cobol algorithm used in "matching and merging" two or more
sequential files (something unmastered by many Cobol programmers now
mooted by data base join operations) in matching exponents
* Writing the microcode for a DEC PDP-8 machine, which in 1978 I
carefully typed using a manual typewriter, astonishing the department
chair
* Simulating a Turing machine on a programmable calculator
* Etc.
My discovery at the time was that there was indeed a two way feedback
between my Cobol mainframe job and computer science. While I was in
grad school, my company needed someone who could match, not two, but
an arbitrary number of sequential files.
I'd fixed any number of buggy solutions written at a time when many
Cobol programmers had, relative to business programming (which
Dijkstra pointed out is not "simple"), no skill in writing such code
for two, let alone n, files, leaving any number of "off by one" and
"doesn't do the job but who gives a shit" solutions like Peter's code.
I wrote an n way match in Cobol using my experience writing the
polynomial solution.
I also discovered that stacks were not only useful at American
Re(insurance): in reinsurance they are essential. I also realized that
to properly bill customers from telecom files that recorded only
atomic events that the Cobol program needed only to simulate the
switch.
It was then I was aggressively recruited to write compilers in Silicon
Valley, and was relocated at my new employers' expense.
Peter, can you give us a better feel for some real accomplishments
beyond backstabbing?
Oh, and by the way. I also studied math, philosophy and psychology.
>
> -s
> --