Help! I can't compile this.
William Scott Lockwood III
flames may be directed to /dev/null, I know not everyone likes
Schildt.)
I'm trying to compile the following small sample program on a Linux
system (Mandrake 8.1) using gcc 2.96, and I keep getting this really
odd error message that I don't understand. Can someone please explain
this to me? Why doesn't the following compile???
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h> /* Needed by sqrt() */
int main(void)
{
double answer;
answer = sqrt(10.0);
printf("%f", answer);
return 0;
}
Here is what happens when I try to compile it.
[wsl3@wsl3 c]$ gcc -ansi -O6 hw9.c -o hw9
/tmp/ccJ7XyLN.o: In function `main':
/tmp/ccJ7XyLN.o(.text+0x24): undefined reference to `sqrt'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
Gergo Barany
> [wsl3@wsl3 c]$ gcc -ansi -O6 hw9.c -o hw9
I suggest adding -Wall and -pedantic; those are very helpful.
> /tmp/ccJ7XyLN.o: In function `main':
> /tmp/ccJ7XyLN.o(.text+0x24): undefined reference to `sqrt'
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
That's FAQ 14.3. See http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
Gergo
--
Q: What looks like a cat, flies like a bat, brays like a donkey, and
plays like a monkey?
A: Nothing.
Richard Heathfield
>
> I'm learning C by using Herbert Schildt's "Teach yourself C." (All
> flames may be directed to /dev/null, I know not everyone likes
> Schildt.)
Most people on this newsgroup would strongly recommend that you avoid
Schildt's books, and you appear to be aware of this. If you don't trust
the group to know which C books are good and which are bad, why would
you trust the group to give you any other advice?
>
> I'm trying to compile the following small sample program on a Linux
> system (Mandrake 8.1) using gcc 2.96, and I keep getting this really
> odd error message that I don't understand. Can someone please explain
> this to me? Why doesn't the following compile???
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <math.h> /* Needed by sqrt() */
>
> int main(void)
> {
> double answer;
>
> answer = sqrt(10.0);
> printf("%f", answer);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> Here is what happens when I try to compile it.
>
> [wsl3@wsl3 c]$ gcc -ansi -O6 hw9.c -o hw9
> /tmp/ccJ7XyLN.o: In function `main':
> /tmp/ccJ7XyLN.o(.text+0x24): undefined reference to `sqrt'
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
This is FAQ 14.3. See my sig block for the URL.
--
Richard Heathfield : bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Eric Gorr
> I'm trying to compile the following small sample program on a Linux
> system (Mandrake 8.1) using gcc 2.96, and I keep getting this really
> odd error message that I don't understand. Can someone please explain
> this to me? Why doesn't the following compile???
> [wsl3@wsl3 c]$ gcc -ansi -O6 hw9.c -o hw9
> /tmp/ccJ7XyLN.o: In function `main':
> /tmp/ccJ7XyLN.o(.text+0x24): undefined reference to `sqrt'
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
Just because you have included the header a function was defined in,
does not mean that you are compiling with the code that implements the
function.
My guess is that you need to include the library that sqrt was defined
in. How to do that is specific to your setup and as such, you would
likely get an answer faster in a newsgroup related to your setup.
--
== Eric Gorr == http://home.cox.rr.com/NeOrSiPcAgMorr == ICQ:9293199 ===
"Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both
benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu
== Insults, like violence, are the last refuge of the incompetent... ===
Keith Thompson
> I'm learning C by using Herbert Schildt's "Teach yourself C." (All
> flames may be directed to /dev/null, I know not everyone likes
> Schildt.)
>
> I'm trying to compile the following small sample program on a Linux
> system (Mandrake 8.1) using gcc 2.96, and I keep getting this really
> odd error message that I don't understand. Can someone please explain
> this to me? Why doesn't the following compile???
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <math.h> /* Needed by sqrt() */
>
> int main(void)
> {
> double answer;
>
> answer = sqrt(10.0);
> printf("%f", answer);
>
> return 0;
> }
This happens to be question 14.3 of the C FAQ, in the section on
Floating Point. (The FAQ is at
<http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>.)
You need to use "-lm" when you compile the program; for example:
gcc foo.c -o foo -lm
Also, I strongly recommend changing the format string from "%f" to
"%f\n". If output is not terminated by a newline, it may not appear
on some systems. (On a Linux system, you'll probably get the output,
but it will run into the next shell prompt -- depending on just how
you run the program.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) k...@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Cxiuj via bazo apartenas ni.
Mike Frink
adding a "-lm" option to your gcc command.
William Scott Lockwood III (thatli...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: I'm learning C by using Herbert Schildt's "Teach yourself C." (All
--
Alcatel USA, Inc. Internet: <userid>@ssd.usa.alcatel.com
1000 Coit Road, Plano, Texas 75075
******* The opinions expressed are not those of Alcatel USA, Inc. *******
Martin Ambuhl
> Here is what happens when I try to compile it.
>
> [wsl3@wsl3 c]$ gcc -ansi -O6 hw9.c -o hw9
> /tmp/ccJ7XyLN.o: In function `main':
> /tmp/ccJ7XyLN.o(.text+0x24): undefined reference to `sqrt'
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
This is what happens when you don't check the FAQ. Always check the
FAQ before posting. Your question is answered there. You can trust
the FAQ, unlike Herb Schildt who doesn't know a damn thing about what
legal C looks like.
William Scott Lockwood III
Also, I didn't know about the FAQ. Thanks to everyone who pointed me in
that direction, including Martin.
"Martin Ambuhl" <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3BF97800...@earthlink.net...
Ben Pfaff
> I'd like to thank everyone who was actually helpful, unlike Martin here.
Martin was helpful. He just wasn't polite as could be. Not
everyone is a Stephan Wilms.
> Also, I didn't know about the FAQ. Thanks to everyone who pointed me in
> that direction, including Martin.
It's not acceptable to not know about the FAQ. Being able to
find the FAQ and charter for a newsgroup is required knowledge
for Usenet. You should read the articles in
news.announce.newusers.
--
"Am I missing something?"
--Dan Pop
William Scott Lockwood III
Scott
"Ben Pfaff" <b...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:878zd2p...@pfaff.stanford.edu...
Micah Cowan
> "Martin Ambuhl" <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3BF97800...@earthlink.net...
> > William Scott Lockwood III wrote:
> >
> > > Here is what happens when I try to compile it.
> > >
> > > [wsl3@wsl3 c]$ gcc -ansi -O6 hw9.c -o hw9
> > > /tmp/ccJ7XyLN.o: In function `main':
> > > /tmp/ccJ7XyLN.o(.text+0x24): undefined reference to `sqrt'
> > > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> >
> > This is what happens when you don't check the FAQ. Always check the
> > FAQ before posting. Your question is answered there. You can trust
> > the FAQ, unlike Herb Schildt who doesn't know a damn thing about what
> > legal C looks like.
>
> I'd like to thank everyone who was actually helpful, unlike Martin here.
> Also, I didn't know about the FAQ. Thanks to everyone who pointed me in
> that direction, including Martin.
I fixed your top-posting.
Tell me, in what way was Martin less helpful than anyone else who
responded? Everyone else said exactly the same thing: don't trust
Shildt (true, some ommitted that, as you seem to have expected it
anyway), and read the FAQ. Except one person, who posted the answer
directly - that's actually generally discouraged on USENET when it's
in the FAQ, as it tempts the OP to just accept the answer rather than
read the FAQ before posting again.
In any case, it is very poor behavior to (1) Post to a USENET group
without bothering to see if a FAQ exists, let alone read it; (2)
top-post in your responses to people; and (3) Insult someone for
correct behavior (redirecting you to the FAQ; warning you about very
inaccurate resources such as Shildt).
When Martin says that Mr. Shildt doesn't know a damn thing about what
legal C looks like, he's not trolling. If you doubt his assertion,
please do a search on Shildt using groups.google.com. In fact, I'll
do it for you; here's the link:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Shildt&as_ugroup=comp.lang.c&hl=en
-Micah
--
Did you know that one particular fflush(stdin) written in 1984
caused the retroactive extinction of the dinosaurs?
- Gordon Burditt
Ben Pfaff
> When Martin says that Mr. Shildt doesn't know a damn thing about what
> legal C looks like, he's not trolling. If you doubt his assertion,
> please do a search on Shildt using groups.google.com. In fact, I'll
> do it for you; here's the link:
You mean "Schildt", not "Shildt".
Dann Corbit
news:IlgK7.4260$Rw2.2...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
I've responded to this utterly ludicrous, top-posting follow-up by...
*PLONK*
--
C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
"The C-FAQ Book" ISBN 0-201-84519-9
C.A.P. FAQ: ftp://cap.connx.com/pub/Chess%20Analysis%20Project%20FAQ.htm
Richard Heathfield
William Scott Lockwood III wrote:
>
> "Ben Pfaff" <b...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
> news:878zd2p...@pfaff.stanford.edu...
> > "William Scott Lockwood III" <vladi...@ameritech.net> writes:
> >
> > > I'd like to thank everyone who was actually helpful, unlike Martin here.
> >
> > Martin was helpful. He just wasn't polite as could be. Not
> > everyone is a Stephan Wilms.
> >
> > > Also, I didn't know about the FAQ. Thanks to everyone who pointed me in
> > > that direction, including Martin.
> >
> > It's not acceptable to not know about the FAQ. Being able to
> > find the FAQ and charter for a newsgroup is required knowledge
> > for Usenet. You should read the articles in
> > news.announce.newusers.
> I've responded to this (utterly ludicrous) missive by email.
What's ludicrous about what Ben said? Have a good long think before you
alienate any more people in this newsgroup. Remember - you're the one
asking for help, not them.
Ben is quite right. It's *not* acceptable not to know about the FAQ. He
was also right about Martin being helpful. You may not have liked
Martin's tone, but that's your fault, not his - you didn't read the FAQ,
for a start.
Well, I won't plonk you just yet - clc can be a bit of a culture shock,
after all - but I doubt you'll stay out of my killfile very long if you
get into the habit of using words like "ludicrous" about people like Ben
Pfaff. Sheesh.
Eric Gorr
> Ben is quite right. It's *not* acceptable not to know about the FAQ.
Of course it is acceptable not to know about the FAQ.
It is simply unreasonable to expect everyone to know everything another
person believes they should know.
og...@bioinfo.pbi.nrc.ca
> Of course it is acceptable not to know about the FAQ.
> It is simply unreasonable to expect everyone to know everything another
> person believes they should know.
Funny, I always thought that the correct path to posting questions on
Usenet is: 1. RTFM, 2. try to help yourself some more (think about the
problem, search Google etc.), 3. find the appropriate newsgroup, 4. read
its FAQ and finally 5. when all else fails, post to the newsgroup
This assumes certain knowledge prior to posting, which obviously includes
knowing about the FAQ :)
Ognen
Eric Gorr
> This assumes certain knowledge prior to posting, which obviously includes
> knowing about the FAQ :)
The knowledge and experience of computer users othere out there is
widely varried. Not everyone will discover USENET only in the way others
find acceptable.
Bart Kowalski
news:1f363ef.en4n8g1fze0r9N%er...@cox.rr.com...
> Richard Heathfield <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Ben is quite right. It's *not* acceptable not to know about the FAQ.
>
> Of course it is acceptable not to know about the FAQ.
>
> It is simply unreasonable to expect everyone to know everything another
> person believes they should know.
No it's not acceptable.
New Usenet users should subscribe to and read news.announce.newusers, where all
those things are explained. Good newsreaders can subscribe you to this newsgroup
by default, and good news providers should make you aware of all of this.
Unfortunately, in today's age of self-centeredness and ruthlessness it seems
that there are more and more clueless people who couldn't care less for
established netiquette rules. <sigh>!
Bart.
Eric Gorr
> New Usenet users should subscribe to and read news.announce.newusers,
> where all those things are explained.
I agree, they should, but not everyone will. Everyone will not discover
USENET only in the way others find acceptable and treating those people
rudely is what should be considered unacceptable. Unfortunately, around
comp.lang.c, it is perfectly acceptable - by some at least.
Bart Kowalski
> <og...@bioinfo.pbi.nrc.ca> wrote:
>
> > This assumes certain knowledge prior to posting, which obviously includes
> > knowing about the FAQ :)
>
> The knowledge and experience of computer users othere out there is
> widely varried. Not everyone will discover USENET only in the way others
> find acceptable.
See my other post.
Bart.
willem veenhoven
>
> *** wrote:
>
> > Richard Heathfield <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Ben is quite right. It's *not* acceptable not to know
> > > about the FAQ.
> >
> > Of course it is acceptable not to know about the FAQ.
> >
> > It is simply unreasonable to expect everyone to know
> > everything another person believes they should know.
>
> No it's not acceptable.
Maybe it's time to remind you that you are responding to an
article by someone who is invisible to at least half the clc
community ;-)
willem
Lawrence Kirby
vladi...@ameritech.net writes:
>I've responded to this (utterly ludicrous) missive by email.
What Ben says is quite correct. If you don't understand it then start
reading news.announce.newusers and continue reading and rereading it
until you do understand.
--
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fr...@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 7073...@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------
Micah Cowan
I like my spelling better; but you're right, of course ;)
Micah
Richard Heathfield
That's a reasonable summary, IMHO. Don't worry about the trolls, by the
way - we get quite a few of them in here.
You missed one important point, though - for newsgroups which have a
charter (unlike comp.lang.c), it's a good idea to read it before, or
whilst, subscribing to the group. In this newsgroup, of course, it's a
moot point, since it has no charter, but the general point remains
valid.
Peter Pichler
> Bart Kowalski wrote:
> > *** wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course it is acceptable not to know about the FAQ.
> >
>
> Maybe it's time to remind you that you are responding to an
> article by someone who is invisible to at least half the clc
> community ;-)
You mean Eric Gorr? ;-)
--
Peter Pichler, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK
My "From" address is valid; try pichloN+1 should pichloN bounce.
Richard Bos
> Bart Kowalski <m...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > New Usenet users should subscribe to and read news.announce.newusers,
> > where all those things are explained.
>
> I agree, they should, but not everyone will.
Not everyone will refrain from spitting on the pub floor. Does that mean
spitting in pubs is expected and the rest of its customers shouldn't
complain about it?
Richard
Eric Gorr
> Not everyone will refrain from spitting on the pub floor. Does that mean
> spitting in pubs is expected and the rest of its customers shouldn't
> complain about it?
That is a health issue. People's lives are placed at risk when sanitary
concerns are not taken seriously by everyone.
As such, your analogy does not apply.
--
== Eric Gorr =========================================== ICQ:9293199 ===
pete
>
> Not everyone will refrain from spitting on the pub floor.
> Does that mean
> spitting in pubs is expected and the rest of its customers shouldn't
> complain about it?
If there are spitoons available and
the floor is covered with sawdust and woodshavings,
then yes.
--
pete
Mike Wahler
Eric Gorr wrote in message <1f363ef.en4n8g1fze0r9N%er...@cox.rr.com>...
>Richard Heathfield <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Ben is quite right. It's *not* acceptable not to know about the FAQ.
>
>Of course it is acceptable not to know about the FAQ.
"Um, officer, I didn't see a sign, so I didn't know
the speed limit."
Will he cite you or not? :-)
-Mike
Mike Wahler
I feel your sigh. :-)
Virtually every ISP provides new subscribers with
much information, e.g. their 'terms of service', info
about the various aspects of the Internet, including
how Usenet works, etc.
But who actually *reads* that stuff nowadays? It seems
that many, upon getting their access, behave like a child
with a new bicycle, who 'doesn't hear' Mom's admonishment
to wear a helmet. This much increases the possiblity
of unpleasant incidents.
$.02,
-Mike
Ben Pfaff
> It seems that many, upon getting their access, behave like a
> child with a new bicycle, who 'doesn't hear' Mom's admonishment
> to wear a helmet.
I see children around here on *tricycles* wearing helmets.
Apparently it's a thing that's done regularly now.
--
"I'm not here to convince idiots not to be stupid.
They won't listen anyway."
--Dann Corbit
og...@bioinfo.pbi.nrc.ca
>> It seems that many, upon getting their access, behave like a
>> child with a new bicycle, who 'doesn't hear' Mom's admonishment
>> to wear a helmet.
> I see children around here on *tricycles* wearing helmets.
> Apparently it's a thing that's done regularly now.
Your message gives off a feeling that you dont necessarily agree with it?
Ognen
Mike Wahler
Ben Pfaff wrote in message <87elmsf...@pfaff.stanford.edu>...
>"Mike Wahler" <mkwa...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>> It seems that many, upon getting their access, behave like a
>> child with a new bicycle, who 'doesn't hear' Mom's admonishment
>> to wear a helmet.
>
>I see children around here on *tricycles* wearing helmets.
>Apparently it's a thing that's done regularly now.
Yes, and imo it's a good idea. Also required by law
in many jurisdictions.
-Mike
Mark McIntyre
>"Mike Wahler" <mkwa...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>> It seems that many, upon getting their access, behave like a
>> child with a new bicycle, who 'doesn't hear' Mom's admonishment
>> to wear a helmet.
>
>I see children around here on *tricycles* wearing helmets.
>Apparently it's a thing that's done regularly now.
I don't suppose the pavement /tree /car cares much how many wheels
your bike has when it hits you. My kid gets up a fair lick of speed
on the trike...
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
Eric Gorr
> "Um, officer, I didn't see a sign, so I didn't know
> the speed limit."
>
> Will he cite you or not? :-)
Not knowing about the FAQ is not illegal. As such, your analogy does not
apply.
Now, if the analogy is an attempt to claim that it should be illegal,
then that would be an interesting discussion.
--
== Eric Gorr == http://home.cox.rr.com/e ricgorr == ICQ:9293199 ===
Mark McIntyre
>Mike Wahler <mkwa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> "Um, officer, I didn't see a sign, so I didn't know
>> the speed limit."
>>
>> Will he cite you or not? :-)
>
>Not knowing about the FAQ is not illegal. As such, your analogy does not
>apply.
>
>Now, if the analogy is an attempt to claim that it should be illegal,
>then that would be an interesting discussion.
Mike, please can we not feed the trolls by replying?
Mike Wahler
>Mike Wahler <mkwa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> "Um, officer, I didn't see a sign, so I didn't know
>> the speed limit."
>>
>> Will he cite you or not? :-)
>
>Not knowing about the FAQ is not illegal.
Never said it was.
>As such, your analogy does not
>apply.
I think it's 'spot on'. Perhaps you missed that
there were also metaphors involved.
Perhaps it was not obvious, but 'legal' as implied
by my analogy, was a metaphor for 'consensually
accepted practice,' and 'citation', one for the
admonishments one often recieves when misusing Usenet.
I'm talking about 'common sense' here, e.g. when
Mom says "don't hit your playmates." This advice
isn't really about 'legal' or not, but that 'hitting
folks' is not a good idea for many reasons.
"Don't kick folks."
-- Atticus Finch, to his nine-year old
daughter who was trying to defend his
honor, in "To Kill A Mockingbird."
:-)
Finally, I found the analogy quite appopriate,
re 'info superhighway' and all that. :-)
>Now, if the analogy is an attempt to claim that it should be illegal,
>then that would be an interesting discussion.
It was not, and I though this was obvious.
-Mike
Mike Wahler
>On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:55:58 GMT, er...@cox.rr.com (Eric Gorr) wrote:
>
>>Mike Wahler <mkwa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Um, officer, I didn't see a sign, so I didn't know
>>> the speed limit."
>>>
>>> Will he cite you or not? :-)
>>
>>Not knowing about the FAQ is not illegal. As such, your analogy does not
>>apply.
>>
>>Now, if the analogy is an attempt to claim that it should be illegal,
>>then that would be an interesting discussion.
>
>Mike, please can we not feed the trolls by replying?
Oops, too late. :-) I only read this after I already did.
I'll stop now.
-Mike
Eric Gorr
> Eric Gorr wrote in message <1f3habv.69piy51835kaaN%er...@cox.rr.com>...
> >Mike Wahler <mkwa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Um, officer, I didn't see a sign, so I didn't know
> >> the speed limit."
> >>
> >> Will he cite you or not? :-)
> >
> >Not knowing about the FAQ is not illegal.
>
> Never said it was.
The only reason why the officer will (and should) cite you is because
what you did was illegal and it has been well established over the
period of hundreds if not thousands of years that ignorance of the law
is no excuse.
No such strong precedent exists for the comp.lang.c FAQ, even though
some people would like to claim that it does.
Mark McIntyre
>Mike Wahler <mkwa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Eric Gorr wrote in message <1f3habv.69piy51835kaaN%er...@cox.rr.com>...
>> >Mike Wahler <mkwa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Um, officer, I didn't see a sign, so I didn't know
>> >> the speed limit."
>> >>
>> >> Will he cite you or not? :-)
>> >
>> >Not knowing about the FAQ is not illegal.
>>
>> Never said it was.
>
>The only reason why the officer will (and should) cite you is because
>what you did was illegal and it has been well established over the
>period of hundreds if not thousands of years that ignorance of the law
>is no excuse.
Laws are merely the codification of the rules of a society. The
longest that such rules can exist is the duration of the society.
>No such strong precedent exists for the comp.lang.c FAQ, even though
>some people would like to claim that it does.
Eric, you should read the Usenet Ettiquette guides before you make
such ludicrous statements. These have been around for 20 years or so,
and make it plain that reading FAQs is required. Furthermore the
regular posts here from many people also advise this.
<apologies to the group for wasting your time with this but as you may
recall Eric has threatened action against me if I email him>
>As such, your analogy does not apply.
Yes it does.
ps *plonk*
Eric Gorr
> Laws are merely the codification of the rules of a society. The
> longest that such rules can exist is the duration of the society.
In most (all?) civilized society for hundreds of years, it has been a
common belief that ignorance of the law is no excuse. One can walk up to
nearly any random person and they would know this to be true.
> Eric, you should read the Usenet Ettiquette guides before you make
> such ludicrous statements. These have been around for 20 years or so,
> and make it plain that reading FAQs is required. Furthermore the
> regular posts here from many people also advise this.
Unfortunately, the ludicrous statement here is that you believe I could
walk up to nearly any random person and ask them about this and expect
that they would even know what USENET was.
When that happens, then the analogy may be appropriate.
Richard Heathfield
>
> Mark McIntyre <ma...@garthorn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> > Eric, you should read the Usenet Ettiquette guides before you make
> > such ludicrous statements. These have been around for 20 years or so,
> > and make it plain that reading FAQs is required. Furthermore the
> > regular posts here from many people also advise this.
>
> Unfortunately, the ludicrous statement here is that you believe I could
> walk up to nearly any random person and ask them about this and expect
> that they would even know what USENET was.
Irrelevant. Anyone *posting to Usenet* ought to know what Usenet is.
> When that happens, then the analogy may be appropriate.
Sod the analogy. The community here wants people to read the FAQs, to
save them the trouble of asking stupid questions and to save us the
trouble of answering those stupid questions. The community here wants
people to read the group for a while, so that they get a feel for what's
on topic here and what would be better asked elsewhere. How you feel
about it is up to you, but in this respect your desires clearly differ
from those of the community, and we see no particular reason why
everyone should change their views or posting style just to suit your
personal whim.
I don't expect *you* to buy into the above paragraph, of course, given
your track record on this issue. I'm just making it clear for those who
may have been confused by your drivel.
Eric Gorr
> Irrelevant. Anyone *posting to Usenet* ought to know what Usenet is.
People ought to do a lot of things, but they don't.
That does not give anyone the right to treat those people poorly who
haven't read the FAQ.
> > When that happens, then the analogy may be appropriate.
>
> The community here wants people to read the FAQs, to
> save them the trouble of asking stupid questions and to save us the
> trouble of answering those stupid questions.
The only stupid question is the one that wasn't asked.
No one is required to answer any question they choose not to.
Richard Heathfield
>
> Richard Heathfield <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Irrelevant. Anyone *posting to Usenet* ought to know what Usenet is.
>
> People ought to do a lot of things, but they don't.
That's why they get yelled at.
>
> That does not give anyone the right to treat those people poorly who
> haven't read the FAQ.
It certainly doesn't give people who don't read the FAQ the right to
treat readers of comp.lang.c poorly. And that's far more common than the
problem you mention. The regulars here *occasionally* lose their
patience and react angrily to inconsiderate people, because *so many*
people are inconsiderate. A courteous OP is a rarity nowadays.
>
> > > When that happens, then the analogy may be appropriate.
> >
> > The community here wants people to read the FAQs, to
> > save them the trouble of asking stupid questions and to save us the
> > trouble of answering those stupid questions.
>
> The only stupid question is the one that wasn't asked.
Two counter-examples:
What neophytes does your rabbit deride?
Who is a banana with the grommets unplugged?
For thousands more, check the Google archives.
> No one is required to answer any question they choose not to.
Agreed. And nobody is required to put up indefinitely with inconsiderate
behaviour, thoughtlessness, or sheer stupidity from OPs or from idiots
who support and defend the idiot's right to be idiotic irrespective of
the cost to others of that idiocy.
Steve Gravrock
>Richard Heathfield <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Irrelevant. Anyone *posting to Usenet* ought to know what Usenet is.
>
>People ought to do a lot of things, but they don't.
>
>That does not give anyone the right to treat those people poorly who
>haven't read the FAQ.
No one was treated poorly. Re-read what Martin said, quoted by the OP
at the start of the thread:
(Martin Ambuhl)
> This is what happens when you don't check the FAQ. Always check the
> FAQ before posting. Your question is answered there. You can trust
> the FAQ, unlike Herb Schildt who doesn't know a damn thing about what
> legal C looks like.
Far from treating the OP badly, I'd say that Martin helped him out quite
a bit. He pointed the OP to a solution, reminded him to always read the
FAQ before posting to an unfamiliar group, and warned him to avoid an
author whose books contain a great deal of information.
Martin would have done the OP a disservice by spoon-feeding him the
solution instead of showing how to help himself *and* teaching him good
nettiquite.
<snip>
(Eric again)
>No one is required to answer any question they choose not to.
All questions asked have some impact on the newsgroup. Many questions
provoke interesting discussion or otherwise add value, but common questions
with trivial answers only increase the noise level. Compiling a list of
frequently asked questions and asking people to read it before posting
is good for both the community and the people asking the questions.
Upthread a bit, you wrote this:
> Of course it is acceptable not to know about the FAQ.
> It is simply unreasonable to expect everyone to know everything another
> person believes they should know.
You miss the point. Any human community has a set of basic rules which
come about by consensus and exist to keep things running smoothly. Two
of the most basic rules of Usenet are that one is expected to lurk for
a while and read the FAQ before posting to an unfamiliar group. It *is*
reasonable to expect someone to follow those rules, especially before
asking complete strangers for help.
Many newbies do not know the rules when they start posting to Usenet.
The fix for this is simple: when a newbie asks a question that's in the
FAQ or makes some other mistake, a regular points out the error. That's
precisely what Martin and Ben were doing, and they did it a good deal
more gently than is often the case.
If you don't learn to get along with people, the result is simple: you
get ignored. Looking at this thread, it appears that many regulars have
begun to ignore you. I'm not surprised. This is the first time that I've
ever had to explain basic nettiquite to someone who's posted to Usenet over
1300 times.
--
Edgar Allan Poe? Yeah, sure I love Poe. He gives BOFHs some great
ideas on how to scare people shitless.
Suresh Ramasubramanian in the scary devil monastary
Eric Gorr
> That's why they get yelled at.
I do not believe anyone has the right to yell at them.
> > That does not give anyone the right to treat those people poorly who
> > haven't read the FAQ.
>
> It certainly doesn't give people who don't read the FAQ the right to
> treat readers of comp.lang.c poorly.
Of course not.
> And that's far more common than the
> problem you mention. The regulars here *occasionally* lose their
> patience and react angrily to inconsiderate people, because *so many*
> people are inconsiderate.
Reacting angrily is the sole responsibility of the person who is
reacting angrily. People choose to be angry. No one forces it upon them.
> Two counter-examples:
> What neophytes does your rabbit deride?
> Who is a banana with the grommets unplugged?
If those questions are coming from people who are genuinely seeking
information (and those are the only people I am talking about, for the
moment), they are not stupid questions.
No one may have a clue as to what the answer is, but that would still
not make the question stupid.
If I am not mistaken, there is a line of thought that asking such
questions is a wonderful thing (hence, not stupid), but that would
likely be a question for a philosophy group.
> And nobody is required to put up indefinitely with inconsiderate
> behavior, thoughtlessness, or sheer stupidity from OPs or from idiots
> who support and defend the idiot's right to be idiotic irrespective of
> the cost to others of that idiocy.
Actually, this will remain false until such a time as USENET becomes a
strictly moderated forum or at least comp.lang.c does.
Once someone notices a person who they believe is acting
inconsiderately, the best recourse is to simply ignore them and to
possibly add them to a kill file.
This is simply the way USENET was setup...allowing, of course, for
moderated groups as well, but comp.lang.c isn't moderated.
As such, there are certain requirements placed upon those people who
would read it. If someone is unwilling to accept those requirements
and/or are consistently getting angry as a result, they may be better
off just leaving.
Richard Heathfield
>
> Richard Heathfield <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > That's why they get yelled at.
>
> I do not believe anyone has the right to yell at them.
It is your right to hold that belief. Not many regulars here share it.
>
> > > That does not give anyone the right to treat those people poorly who
> > > haven't read the FAQ.
> >
> > It certainly doesn't give people who don't read the FAQ the right to
> > treat readers of comp.lang.c poorly.
>
> Of course not.
Okay, we agree - they should read the group before posting, and reading
the group will inevitably lead them to the FAQ, which they should *also*
read before posting. Only by so doing will they be treating comp.lang.c
properly.
>
> > And that's far more common than the
> > problem you mention. The regulars here *occasionally* lose their
> > patience and react angrily to inconsiderate people, because *so many*
> > people are inconsiderate.
>
> Reacting angrily is the sole responsibility of the person who is
> reacting angrily. People choose to be angry. No one forces it upon them.
Yes, people do sometimes choose to be angry, especially when put upon
continually. If you don't like that idea, you may be happier in a
moderated group.
>
> > Two counter-examples:
> > What neophytes does your rabbit deride?
> > Who is a banana with the grommets unplugged?
>
> If those questions are coming from people who are genuinely seeking
> information (and those are the only people I am talking about, for the
> moment),
Ground-shifting. You claimed there are no stupid questions. Now you are
claiming that there are no stupid questions provided some pre-condition
is met.
> they are not stupid questions.
Of course they are.
>
> No one may have a clue as to what the answer is, but that would still
> not make the question stupid.
It is true that even universal ignorance of the correct answer does not
make a question stupid (e.g. "how can we beat the speed of light
boundary in a practical way?"), but this is entirely irrelevant to my
point, which is that stupid questions *do* exist. It is particularly
stupid to ask a question that is already listed in the FAQ.
>
> If I am not mistaken, there is a line of thought that asking such
> questions is a wonderful thing (hence, not stupid), but that would
> likely be a question for a philosophy group.
Then it's off-topic here.
>
> > And nobody is required to put up indefinitely with inconsiderate
> > behavior, thoughtlessness, or sheer stupidity from OPs or from idiots
> > who support and defend the idiot's right to be idiotic irrespective of
> > the cost to others of that idiocy.
>
> Actually, this will remain false until such a time as USENET becomes a
> strictly moderated forum or at least comp.lang.c does.
Do you mean that some people *are* required to put up indefinitely with
inconsiderate behaviour, thoughtlessness, or sheer stupidity? What an
interesting position. I find your argument intolerably intolerant.
>
> Once someone notices a person who they believe is acting
> inconsiderately, the best recourse is to simply ignore them and to
> possibly add them to a kill file.
To killfile someone is a harsh judgement indeed if their only crime is
to be a little ignorant of Usenet customs. Better, surely, to correct
their behaviour and thus give them the chance to understand those
customs more quickly, so that they can start to benefit from the advice
on offer, rather than get plonked by all and sundry. Furthermore, if
every regular contributor to a newsgroup killfiles someone, there is a
danger that that person could give incorrect advice which would then
remain uncorrected. This is why I don't killfile you or Ioannis Vranos.
> This is simply the way USENET was setup...
No, it's just the way /you/ want it to work. Other people have different
ideas.
> allowing, of course, for
> moderated groups as well, but comp.lang.c isn't moderated.
>
> As such, there are certain requirements placed upon those people who
> would read it.
Agreed. Here is a list of what I consider to be the requirements that
people who read this group regularly are more or less agreed upon (given
that they are programmers and therefore cannot be relied upon to agree
about very much):
Requirement 1 - lurk a while before posting.
Requirement 2 - lurk for *comprehension*.
Requirement 3 - read the FAQs.
Requirement 4 - don't ask an FAQ - read the FAQ answer instead.
Requirement 5 - stay reasonably topical.
Requirement 6 - don't incorrectly "correct" replies.
Requirement 7 - be prepared to say "sorry" if you screw up.
> If someone is unwilling to accept those requirements
> and/or are consistently getting angry as a result, they may be better
> off just leaving.
Off you go, then. Don't forget your coat.
Eric Gorr
> It is your right to hold that belief. Not many regulars here share it.
I know.
> Only by so doing will they be treating comp.lang.c
> properly.
I find it unfortunate that this group is filled with so many people who
don't believe common decency is necessary even in the face of the
inconsiderate.
The lack of a moral and ethical compass is a terrible thing.
Richard Heathfield
> don't believe common decency is necessary even in the face of the
> inconsiderate.
<shrug> I find it unfortunate that so many people in this group are so
inconsiderate as to make your observation even remotely relevant.
>
> The lack of a moral and ethical compass is a terrible thing.
I agree. I don't agree, however, that the comment is at all relevant to
this discussion, since - as far as I can work out - most regulars in
this group have high moral and ethical standards. The only exception
that comes immediately to mind is you yourself.
Eric Gorr
> I agree. I don't agree, however, that the comment is at all relevant to
> this discussion, since - as far as I can work out - most regulars in
> this group have high moral and ethical standards.
People are yelling and getting angry at others who truly don't know any
better. That others generally don't express any dissatisfaction with
this situation demonstrates acceptance of this behavior.
The FAQ clearly tries to place the blame on the person, making what
would be considered an inconsiderate post, for being treated poorly by
others. Blaming another person for ones own behavior indicates something
that a psychologist would be better qualified to answer.
Richard Heathfield
>
> Richard Heathfield <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I agree. I don't agree, however, that the comment is at all relevant to
> > this discussion, since - as far as I can work out - most regulars in
> > this group have high moral and ethical standards.
>
> People are yelling and getting angry at others who truly don't know any
> better. That others generally don't express any dissatisfaction with
> this situation demonstrates acceptance of this behavior.
Yelling? This happens very rarely indeed. In fact, I'd go so far as to
say that very few articles from clc regulars contain yelling.
As for getting angry, well, how can you possibly tell whether someone is
angry based purely on what they type? I'm perfectly capable of posting a
redirection without losing my temper, and I'm sure most regulars here
are too.
It seems to me that your assumptions are flawed.
>
> The FAQ clearly tries to place the blame on the person,
Please provide evidence of this claim. I can find no such evidence
myself.
> making what
> would be considered an inconsiderate post, for being treated poorly by
> others. Blaming another person for ones own behavior indicates something
> that a psychologist would be better qualified to answer.
People should take responsibility for their own actions, especially when
dealing with a community. Communities, whether you like it or not, have
customs which it is generally wise to learn and to observe when wishing
to participate in those communities.
It is interesting to observe, by the way, the number of points I have
made in this thread to which you did not respond. Am I right to conclude
that you agree with those points? Or can you simply think of no
convincing arguments against them?
It is also interesting to observe that you, one of the most boorish,
hostile, and defamatory posters on the group, are trying to teach other
people Netiquette. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you're doing
it badly.
Eric Gorr
> Yelling?
"People ought to do a lot of things, but they don't."
"That's why they get yelled at."
> This happens very rarely indeed.
Doesn't seem that rare, by this definition.
> As for getting angry, well, how can you possibly tell whether someone is
> angry based purely on what they type?
"The regulars here *occasionally* lose their
patience and react angrily to inconsiderate people..."
How was this determination made?
> I'm perfectly capable of posting a
> redirection without losing my temper, and I'm sure most regulars here
> are too.
Being capable of something and actually doing it can be two very
different things.
> People should take responsibility for their own actions, especially when
> dealing with a community. Communities, whether you like it or not, have
> customs which it is generally wise to learn and to observe when wishing
> to participate in those communities.
Some people have little or absolutely no choice in which communities
they deal with and not all customs are positive ones and should be
changed.
Richard Heathfield
>
> Richard Heathfield <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Yelling?
>
> "People ought to do a lot of things, but they don't."
> "That's why they get yelled at."
Yes, fair enough. I did indeed use the word first. Touché. Your first,
or possibly second, point scored in - what is it, a year now? Well done.
I suggest you break out a can of beer to celebrate.
>
> > This happens very rarely indeed.
>
> Doesn't seem that rare, by this definition.
It's not as common as you would like to think. Most newbies are treated
pretty gently, and probably more gently than they deserve.
>
> > As for getting angry, well, how can you possibly tell whether someone is
> > angry based purely on what they type?
>
> "The regulars here *occasionally* lose their
> patience and react angrily to inconsiderate people..."
>
> How was this determination made?
Long experience of the posting styles of regulars in this group.
>
> > I'm perfectly capable of posting a
> > redirection without losing my temper, and I'm sure most regulars here
> > are too.
>
> Being capable of something and actually doing it can be two very
> different things.
Indeed. Nevertheless, being true and being relevant are *also* two
entirely different things, and your reply is true but, in this case,
irrelevant.
>
> > People should take responsibility for their own actions, especially when
> > dealing with a community. Communities, whether you like it or not, have
> > customs which it is generally wise to learn and to observe when wishing
> > to participate in those communities.
>
> Some people have little or absolutely no choice in which communities
> they deal with and not all customs are positive ones and should be
> changed.
If you're campaigning for a change of policy, that's entirely up to you.
Making enemies of the regulars of the group might not be the best way to
get them to change their posting policy, though. And making enemies of
the regulars of this group appears[1] to have been your strategy ever
since your infamous "this group does too have a charter" re-entry into
this newsgroup.
[1] I wouldn't have to say this with most people, but since you appear
to be clinically thick, I ought to point out that "appear to" and
"appears to" are phrases designed to indicate that the observation
immediately following it is indeed an observation, not necessarily an
objective fact. In other words, "this is how it seems to me".
Eric Gorr
> and probably more gently than they deserve.
They all deserve to be treated gently, until, at least, they are known
to know better.
And when they are not, those that try to defend them they are called
idiots:
"Idiots who support and defend the idiot's right to be idiotic"
These are not what I would consider to be the actions of those with a
strong sense of integrity, morals or ethics.
> Making enemies of the regulars of the group
No one makes an enemy. People choose to be the enemy of another.
Richard Heathfield
>
> Richard Heathfield <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > and probably more gently than they deserve.
>
> They all deserve to be treated gently, until, at least, they are known
> to know better.
That is a matter of opinion. It would appear that our opinions differ.
Those who seek to interact with a community would be wise to learn a
little about that community before commencing the interaction.
>
> And when they are not, those that try to defend them they are called
> idiots:
>
> "Idiots who support and defend the idiot's right to be idiotic"
>
> These are not what I would consider to be the actions of those with a
> strong sense of integrity, morals or ethics.
I don't see any incompatibility between the position I took (and which
you quote here) and integrity, morality, or ethics.
>
> > Making enemies of the regulars of the group
>
> No one makes an enemy. People choose to be the enemy of another.
By not following the customs and conventions of those others when
seeking to participate in their community, yes.
Morris Dovey
Please forgive me for intruding on what appears to be an (almost)
private debate. I'd like to offer a few observations:
I hear Eric staunchly advocating respect for individuals.
I hear Richard advocating, equally staunchly, respect for
community.
The debate appears to center on which of these two principles is
more important - and I'd like to suggest that they go hand in
hand: that respect for individuals is an essential part of
respect for the community; and that respect for the community
derives from respect for its constituants.
It appears to me that you are both arguing that the coin has only
one side; when in fact it has two. I'd like to suggest that you
are /both/ right; and that perhaps there is more validity in the
sum of your positions than in either separate position.
We do seem to run afoul of ourselves when we get into discussions
that have more to do with being right than about being correct...
I rather liked something Yo-Yo Ma said about discussing and
performing music; and thought it might also apply to our
discussions on comp.lang.c: "It's not about proving anything -
it's about sharing."
--
Morris Dovey
West Des Moines, Iowa USA
Eric Gorr
> It appears to me that you are both arguing that the coin has only
> one side; when in fact it has two.
Not true.
It is possible for a community to demand certain things from people new
to the community that are unreasonable to expect.
Demanding perfection in the way they participate and labeling them and
the people who defend them as idiots if they do not conform perfectly is
simply wrong.
Most, if not all, civilized communities make at least some allowances
for first offences, extenuating circumstances, etc., not absolutely
condemning individuals who don't know any better...giving them the
benefit of the doubt and a chance to learn how they should behave.
It was made clear that on occasion anger is expressed towards a new
member, not because of anything they have done, but because so many
before them have made similar mistakes. When this anger is expressed,
there is generally a vast silence (not many would risk the anger, veiled
and not so veiled threats, etc. of the community defenders by telling
them they have done something wrong), making such poor behavior seem as
it should be acceptable and, in fact, such responses have clearly been
stated to be acceptable, even necessary.
What is truly fascinating is how the defenders feel free to ignore their
own rules when it suits them and how such outrage is expressed when
others dare to do so, even unknowingly.
The community as defended here, is one that is truly offensive. It's
defenders are not people deserving of any respect because of the shear
arrogance and hypocrisy clearly indicating a lack of integrity, morality
and ethics.
Richard Heathfield
>
> Eric, Richard...
>
> Please forgive me for intruding on what appears to be an (almost)
> private debate.
I wish it weren't, since an important metatopic is being discussed.
Nevertheless, since E Gorr has been plonked by so many people, I suppose
it's not surprising.
> I'd like to offer a few observations:
>
> I hear Eric staunchly advocating respect for individuals.
I hear him staunchly advocating negative and hostile interpretations of
perfectly sensible behaviour.
>
> I hear Richard advocating, equally staunchly, respect for
> community.
And indeed for individuals within that community.
>
> The debate appears to center on which of these two principles is
> more important - and I'd like to suggest that they go hand in
> hand: that respect for individuals is an essential part of
> respect for the community; and that respect for the community
> derives from respect for its constituants.
Of course.
>
> It appears to me that you are both arguing that the coin has only
> one side;
But it's not really a coin, and...
> when in fact it has two.
...in fact it probably has rather more than two sides.
> I'd like to suggest that you
> are /both/ right;
Feel free. I half-agree with your suggestion. :-)
Richard Heathfield
>
> Morris Dovey <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote:
> > It appears to me that you are both arguing that the coin has only
> > one side; when in fact it has two.
>
> Not true.
>
> It is possible for a community to demand certain things from people new
> to the community that are unreasonable to expect.
Yes, it is possible for that to happen, but I don't think that's
happening in comp.lang.c.
>
> Demanding perfection in the way they participate
Nobody demands perfection. Just common sense and consideration for
others. You appear to think that's too much to ask of people. Well,
tough.
> and labeling them and
> the people who defend them as idiots if they do not conform perfectly is
> simply wrong.
Not perfectly - just adequately will do. I fail to see what's wrong with
calling idiots idiots, though.
>
> Most, if not all, civilized communities make at least some allowances
> for first offences, extenuating circumstances, etc.,
And we do.
> not absolutely
> condemning individuals who don't know any better
We don't.
> ...giving them the
> benefit of the doubt and a chance to learn how they should behave.
We do.
>
> It was made clear that on occasion anger is expressed towards a new
> member, not because of anything they have done, but because so many
> before them have made similar mistakes.
Not true. Specifically, it is not true that anger is expressed "*not*
because of anything they have done". If that were true, you'd have a
point. But it isn't. It *is* true that the reaction of regulars to
clueless people is likely to be somewhat more robust after they've dealt
with huge numbers of them and are getting frustrated at the general
level of cluelessness out there. But the newbie does actually have to
step on some toes before the toes start stomping back. We don't stomp on
newbies just for the hell of it, as you seem to think.
> When this anger is expressed,
> there is generally a vast silence (not many would risk the anger, veiled
> and not so veiled threats,
ROTFL! You're a fine one to talk about veiled threats, you hypocrite.
> etc. of the community defenders by telling
> them they have done something wrong), making such poor behavior seem as
> it should be acceptable and, in fact, such responses have clearly been
> stated to be acceptable, even necessary.
The poor behaviour is unacceptable. This newsgroup's reaction to it is,
therefore, understandable.
>
> What is truly fascinating is how the defenders feel free to ignore their
> own rules when it suits them and how such outrage is expressed when
> others dare to do so, even unknowingly.
This paragraph shows a profound misunderstanding of group dynamics that
would take considerably more time to rectify than I have available.
Perhaps someone else would take up that mantle.
>
> The community as defended here, is one that is truly offensive.
No, it's not. You just worked yourself up into a bit of oratory. It's
actually remarkably polite and pleasant, given the provocations it
faces. It is composed of very many helpful and kind people who give
*freely* of their time to offer top-quality expert C programming advice
(present company excepted, of course). All you are doing is denigrating
those people who give this expert advice for free. If you are successful
in driving them away from the newsgroup, that wellspring of advice will
be diminished. Is *that* your hidden agenda?
> It's
> defenders are not people deserving of any respect because of the shear
> arrogance and hypocrisy clearly indicating a lack of integrity, morality
> and ethics.
Its defenders are indeed people deserving of much respect, and include
Dann Corbit, Martin Ambuhl, Ben Pfaff - these are not just some of the
people who defend the newsgroup but also some of those people who make
the group worth defending.
As for your accusations of arrogance, hypocrisy, lack of integrity,
morality, and ethics, I presume you'll forgive me for laughing in your
face. Surely you can't believe anyone will listen to any accusation you
make, until you set matters straight with regard to previous false
accusations you have made on this newsgroup? Get a clue, E Gorr.
John
"Richard Heathfield" <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3C1EDA53...@eton.powernet.co.uk...
>
> > I'd like to suggest that you
> > are /both/ right;
>
> Feel free. I half-agree with your suggestion. :-)
I have been lurking here for a few months and can assure you that from an
'outsiders' perspective there is a degree of harsh treatment here. The word
'outsiders' may indicate where the main problem arises.
If a new person joins a 'real' community his/her transgressions are in the
beginning tolerated to an extent - and there will be the recognition of that
particular persons physical form each time he/she is seen doing said
misdemeanours.
In the virtual community of a news group the faceless words that appear on
one's screen are not accompanied by the physical recognition that could help
'regulars' moderate their behaviour. The words are just words coming from
the same location each time, perhaps contributing to a false impression that
mistakes are coming from the same source each time - which in the real world
would be a factor contributing to intolerance towards the new-comer.
Before anyone takes umbrage thinking that my comments are an insult to
regulars - allow me to say that we humans do behave in a semi automatic way,
this is not an insult but a fact of life.
Persons that meet each new situation properly as a unique circumstance that
deserves a fresh response that excludes any baggage carried over from
previous encounters are very rare.
John
Eric Gorr
> Nobody demands perfection.
"Here is a list of what I consider to be the requirements that
people who read this group regularly are more or less agreed upon."
If something is required, that implies a lot more then just common sense
on the part of the members, whether new or old.
Richard Heathfield
>
> Richard Heathfield <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Nobody demands perfection.
>
> "Here is a list of what I consider to be the requirements that
> people who read this group regularly are more or less agreed upon."
Note that perfection wasn't on the list.
>
> If something is required, that implies a lot more then just common sense
> on the part of the members, whether new or old.
No, it just implies that *common sense* is required.
Of course, the trouble with common sense is that it ain't so common. But
that's true in all walks of life.
Richard Heathfield
>
> "Richard Heathfield" <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3C1EDA53...@eton.powernet.co.uk...
> >
> > > I'd like to suggest that you
> > > are /both/ right;
> >
> > Feel free. I half-agree with your suggestion. :-)
>
> I have been lurking here for a few months and can assure you that from an
> 'outsiders' perspective there is a degree of harsh treatment here. The word
> 'outsiders' may indicate where the main problem arises.
I think there's little doubt that this is a common perception from
"outsiders", and of course all of us were newbies here once. I myself
thought this newsgroup a most grumpy place when I first started reading
it regularly. It seems *to me* that it's got less grumpy over time, but
of course that's almost certainly because of desensitisation on my part.
On the other hand, I had another, even stronger, first impression about
comp.lang.c, which was that the regulars here knew far more about C than
I did. They "spoke" with confidence and authority - the kind of
authority that stems from knowing what you're talking about. That had a
big impact on me, and gave me the motivation to persevere with the
newsgroup and harvest that knowledge for my own use. And I'm thoroughly
glad I did, even though it involved getting stomped on a couple of times
in the early stages.
People who are serious about learning the language /will/ acclimatise
very quickly, for the most part. And those who aren't serious about it
are probably not of tremendous concern (rightly or wrongly) to the
regulars here.
>
> If a new person joins a 'real' community his/her transgressions are in the
> beginning tolerated to an extent - and there will be the recognition of that
> particular persons physical form each time he/she is seen doing said
> misdemeanours.
>
> In the virtual community of a news group the faceless words that appear on
> one's screen are not accompanied by the physical recognition that could help
> 'regulars' moderate their behaviour. The words are just words coming from
> the same location each time, perhaps contributing to a false impression that
> mistakes are coming from the same source each time - which in the real world
> would be a factor contributing to intolerance towards the new-comer.
This is an interesting observation that almost certainly has some basis
in fact. Nevertheless, I try to treat each new name (and each "nick") as
a new individual. But it would be useful if those new names did take the
trouble to read through the newsfeed for a while before posting.
Actually, I suspect that a great many people *do* do exactly that;
consequently, we don't even hear from them until they have a question
that is *not* frequently asked. And consequently, they receive much
friendlier treatment when they /do/ post.
>
> Before anyone takes umbrage thinking that my comments are an insult to
> regulars
No, I don't think we'll do that. At least, I hope not. Your comments
appear rational, well thought out, and polite. :-)
> - allow me to say that we humans do behave in a semi automatic way,
> this is not an insult but a fact of life.
Yes. In fact, it's not just a liability - it can even be an asset.
Forgive me for talking about C for a moment, but coding styles are a
good example of this. If I do this:
struct foo *p = (struct foo *)malloc(N * sizeof(struct foo));
I have to concentrate on making sure the cast is right, the sizeof is of
the right type, and so on. But if I cultivate the habit of:
struct foo *p = malloc(N * sizeof *p);
then, once that habit is ingrained, I can type the malloc
semi-automatically, with considerably less need to think hard about the
mechanics of the line. (As an added bonus, I have fewer characters to
type!) Consequently, I can devote my attention to semantics instead -
which saves me time and bugs.
> Persons that meet each new situation properly as a unique circumstance that
> deserves a fresh response that excludes any baggage carried over from
> previous encounters are very rare.
Yes. Of course, another word for "baggage" (in this context) is
"experience". :-)
Ben Pfaff
> I myself thought this newsgroup a most grumpy place when I
> first started reading it regularly. It seems *to me* that it's
> got less grumpy over time, but of course that's almost
> certainly because of desensitisation on my part.
I'm not so sure about that. I know that I personally have become
a lot less grumpy over the years. Perhaps the departure of
firewind helped me to moderate a bit.
Eric Gorr
> No, it just implies that *common sense* is required.
Having "common sense" wasn't on the list.
With a list of requirements, "common sense" isn't required as long as
one follows the requirements.
The reason for even having requirements, laws, codes of behavior is to
guide those who do not have common sense or lack it in some form or
another.
Eric Gorr
> > No one makes an enemy. People choose to be the enemy of another.
>
> By not following the customs and conventions of those others when
> seeking to participate in their community, yes.
There is nothing someone can do to make me an enemy of theirs if I
choose not to be an enemy.
Again, there is an attempt to place the blame on another person for ones
own actions. This is, at best, on psychological shaky ground.
Steve Gravrock
this because as Richard says this is an important meta-discussion, and
because although John's views seem to be more in line with Eric's, he is
approaching the matter in a much more mature and civil manner.>
In article <9vn2pj$gemcf$1...@ID-97861.news.dfncis.de>, John wrote:
>
>"Richard Heathfield" <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3C1EDA53...@eton.powernet.co.uk...
>>
>> > I'd like to suggest that you
>> > are /both/ right;
>>
>> Feel free. I half-agree with your suggestion. :-)
>
>I have been lurking here for a few months and can assure you that from an
>'outsiders' perspective there is a degree of harsh treatment here.
That seems to be the case in general. I didn't see things that way when I
started lurking here, however. That may be because I was accustomed to
groups where mistakes like failing to read the FAQ before posting provoked
much harsher treatment. Or it may be that I had read other high-traffic
technical groups in the past and therefore understood why things are the
way they are here.
> The word 'outsiders' may indicate where the main problem arises.
I think you've hit the nail right on the head. The problem is culture
clash. Most newbies come to clc with a specific question which they want
to get an answer to. They don't know how strongly clc values topicality,
so they sometimes take redirections personally. They don't know how
strongly clc values keeping to the standard, so they sometimes take
objections to their use of language extensions personally. They don't
know how strongly clc values correctness, so they take it personally
when parts of their code *other* than the part they asked about get
criticised.
I'll grant that newbies are occasionally treated rudely, but I think it's
a lot more common for newbies to react badly to polite (or at least non-
rude) correction. Most environments don't prepare people to take
correction graciously, but we expect it here because correction is
*necessary* in a technical newsgroup, both to maintain the quality of
information made available and for the good of the person making the
error.
It's the same way with redirections. Redirecting someone to a more
appropriate newsgroup helps clc by keeping things on topic, and helps the
poster by referring them to a group where they are more likely to get a
high-quality answer to their question. However, I think many people take
redirection to mean "we don't want you here", not "you should ask that
particular question over there".
>If a new person joins a 'real' community his/her transgressions are in the
>beginning tolerated to an extent - and there will be the recognition of that
>particular persons physical form each time he/she is seen doing said
>misdemeanours.
That's true here as well. The difference is that in a face-to-face
environment, incorrect behavior often provokes relatively subtle non-
verbal responses that we've all learned to recognize. Here, the only
options are to ignore the behavior or correct it directly. The latter
option is often seen as rude.
>In the virtual community of a news group the faceless words that appear on
>one's screen are not accompanied by the physical recognition that could help
>'regulars' moderate their behaviour. The words are just words coming from
>the same location each time, perhaps contributing to a false impression that
>mistakes are coming from the same source each time - which in the real world
>would be a factor contributing to intolerance towards the new-comer.
>
>Before anyone takes umbrage thinking that my comments are an insult to
>regulars - allow me to say that we humans do behave in a semi automatic way,
>this is not an insult but a fact of life.
>
>Persons that meet each new situation properly as a unique circumstance that
>deserves a fresh response that excludes any baggage carried over from
>previous encounters are very rare.
Indeed.
Here is the situation as I see it. In any newsgroup, newbies are expected
to read the FAQ and lurk for some time before posting. Those who do so
before posting to clc are very unlikely to run into trouble, and are very
likely to understand *why* things are the way they are. Unfortunately, a
majority post without having lurked or read the FAQ. This is a Usenet-wide
problem, not a clc-specific problem. Those people are likely to be put
off by corrections and redirections.
As I see it, there are three unchangeable components of this problem:
- Regulars are very interested in maintaining the quality of clc both as
a resource and as a community, so incorrect posts *will* be corrected and
offtopic posts *will* be redirected
- Most newbies will not lurk or read the FAQ before posting, therefore
they will not know what to expect
- Instances of genuine rudeness to newbies are relatively rare, so simply
saying "don't be rude to the newbies" won't help much
Given all that, how can we handle redirections and correcctions in such
a way that newbies are less likely to be put off? This is not a
rhetorical question, I'm genuinely hoping someone can answer it.
John, please continue to follow this thread. It's helpful to have the
dissenting viewpoint coming from someone who's not a flaming asshole.
--
Server rooms should be unfriendly! They should look dangerous, they
should be uncomfortably cold, they should be inexplicably noisy. If
anything, I'd rather see rackmounted servers designed in dark foreboding
colors with lots of metal spikes sticking out of them. -- Mike Sphar in asr
Richard Heathfield
>
> Richard Heathfield <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > No one makes an enemy. People choose to be the enemy of another.
> >
> > By not following the customs and conventions of those others when
> > seeking to participate in their community, yes.
>
> There is nothing someone can do to make me an enemy of theirs if I
> choose not to be an enemy.
Fortunately, this is self-evidently fallacious.
Equally fortunately, someone else has now chipped in on your side of the
debate, someone with whom (it appears) meaningful dialogue is possible,
so I shan't be wasting any more words on your idiotic and highly
selective responses in this thread.
> Again, there is an attempt to place the blame on another person for ones
> own actions. This is, at best, on psychological shaky ground.
Ah, the joy of unwitting irony!
John
> John wrote:
>
> > Persons that meet each new situation properly as a unique circumstance
that
> > deserves a fresh response that excludes any baggage carried over from
> > previous encounters are very rare.
>
> Yes. Of course, another word for "baggage" (in this context) is
> "experience". :-)
Only one comment.
Experience is always in the present, baggage is what we carry over from the
past.
John
John
"Steve Gravrock" <grav...@cheetah.it.wsu.edu> wrote in message
news:slrna1vn34....@cheetah.it.wsu.edu...
I did not intend to have a continuing discussion about this but you directly
requested.
> I think you've hit the nail right on the head. The problem is culture
> clash. Most newbies come to clc with a specific question which they want
> to get an answer to. They don't know how strongly clc values topicality,
> so they sometimes take redirections personally. They don't know how
> strongly clc values keeping to the standard, so they sometimes take
> objections to their use of language extensions personally. They don't
> know how strongly clc values correctness, so they take it personally
> when parts of their code *other* than the part they asked about get
> criticised.
Another point is that many people are not here to become part of the group,
they just want an answer or answers to a few questions. Rules or in-group
etiquette will not appear as important to such a one and never will.
Regulars have a vested interest in maintaining correctness, topicality etc.
but these people have no reason to even consider these things. Consider
yourself in their position.
So, with the 'culture clash' as you rightly said where can be found a
solution? I don't think solutions are likely. But, I will say this - the
onus has to be on the regulars not newbies. Why? Because the newbies have no
knowledge of this other culture, whereas the regulars have, although their
recollection of being a newbie may be vague after years of news group
discussions.
> That's true here as well. The difference is that in a face-to-face
> environment, incorrect behavior often provokes relatively subtle non-
> verbal responses that we've all learned to recognize. Here, the only
> options are to ignore the behavior or correct it directly. The latter
> option is often seen as rude.
Of course. You have highlighted one of the problems of virtual communities.
So, here is an inherent potential for misunderstanding or friction between
old timers and newbies that will probably continue. Take for example your
use of the word 'asshole', would you really use that word in real life?
Civility appears not as necessary here because of no impending physical
threat.
> Given all that, how can we handle redirections and correcctions in such
> a way that newbies are less likely to be put off? This is not a
> rhetorical question, I'm genuinely hoping someone can answer it.
My observation is that sometimes a 'regular' will reply cordially and
sometimes not, probably depending on mood or whatever.
Can you solve that one?
John
Ben Pfaff
> "Richard Heathfield" <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3C1FAE20...@eton.powernet.co.uk...
> > Yes. Of course, another word for "baggage" (in this context) is
> > "experience". :-)
>
> Only one comment.
>
> Experience is always in the present, baggage is what we carry over from the
> past.
I think that's a false distinction. If you don't carry over your
experiences from the past into the present (and the future), then
you didn't learn anything from them.
Tak-Shing Chan
> Eric Gorr wrote:
>> Demanding perfection in the way they participate
>
> Nobody demands perfection.
Except Dan Pop. I still remember the ``cultural shock''
last February...
Tak-Shing
John
I could not reply to your message, my news server will not allow the
following line in the header, says line too long.
Does anyone know if it is possible edit the header in Outlook express mails?
References: <3BF97800...@earthlink.net>
<9tgj8k$qbb$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>
<1f3habv.69piy51835kaaN%er...@cox.rr.com>
<9v8bsv$g6f$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
<1f4clvy.3e6sq41xjeb64N%er...@cox.rr.com>
<1f4dfj2.d6oics1hii9sN%er...@cox.rr.com>
<3C19BF54...@eton.powernet.co.uk>
<1f4fc1o.rs1ufy1fa1d2wN%er...@cox.rr.com>
<3C1AD2E7...@eton.powernet.co.uk>
<1f4gcsd.1xvbmdv1tbeizaN%er...@cox.rr.com>
<3C1B9201...@eton.powernet.co.uk>
<1f4gz4d.z0hx2n1bl3xdqN%er...@cox.rr.com>
<3C1C4F18...@eton.powernet.co.uk>
<1f4i5l5.ftd41r1agl2qmN%er...@cox.rr.com>
<3C1CE711...@eton.powernet.co.uk>
<1f4ilvk.s4wjjafdiylkN%er...@cox.rr.com>
<3C1D7726...@eton.powernet.co.uk>
<1f4jzgf.yurr691hwtvm2N%er...@cox.rr.com>
<3C1E5893...@eton.powernet.co.uk> <3C1E8D17...@iedu.com>
<3C1EDA53...@eton.powernet.co.uk>
<9vn2pj$gemcf$1...@ID-97861.news.dfncis.de>
<3C1FAE20...@eton.powernet.co.uk>
<9vpkfv$goc3m$1...@ID-97861.news.dfncis.de> <87sna7r...@pfaff.stanford.edu>
John
Bill Godfrey
> I could not reply to your message, my news server will not allow the
> following line in the header, says line too long.
Yep. It does that when threads reach a certain length.
> Does anyone know if it is possible edit the header in Outlook express mails?
I don't know about OE, but if you do find out, remember to start removing
message IDs from the *second* one. The "root" message ID (listed first)
is often useful for establishing the starting point of a thread.
You should also leave behind the most recent three (on the end of the list)
to establish it's place in the thread hierarchy.
The rest are fair game.
Keep this one.
> References: <3BF97800...@earthlink.net>
And these.
> <3C1FAE20...@eton.powernet.co.uk>
> <9vpkfv$goc3m$1...@ID-97861.news.dfncis.de> <87sna7r...@pfaff.stanford.edu>
Bill, begat <9vpqip$gqr0j$1...@ID-97861.news.dfncis.de>
(F'ups set to news.software.readers)
Ben Pfaff
> I could not reply to your message, my news server will not allow the
> following line in the header, says line too long.
Sorry, that means that the thread is now full, so you'll have to
start a new one. Just ask Ioannis.
Tak-Shing Chan
> "John" <John....@btinternet.com> writes:
>> Experience is always in the present, baggage is what we carry over from the
>> past.
>
> I think that's a false distinction. If you don't carry over your
> experiences from the past into the present (and the future), then
> you didn't learn anything from them.
Baggage is the one who invented the computer, which we carry
over from the past into the present. ;-)
Tak-Shing, context-blind
Joona I Palaste
That would be "Babbage", not "Baggage", my dear Tak-Shing.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schitzophrenic and so am I."
- Bob Wiley
Dan Pop
>On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>> Eric Gorr wrote:
>>> Demanding perfection in the way they participate
>>
>> Nobody demands perfection.
>
> Except Dan Pop.
Chapter and verse, please.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, IT Division
Email: Dan...@cern.ch
Mail: CERN - IT, Bat. 31 1-014, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
Eric Gorr
> > There is nothing someone can do to make me an enemy of theirs if I
> > choose not to be an enemy.
>
> Fortunately, this is self-evidently fallacious.
If it is believed that someone can force another to be an enemy of
theirs, I suggest speaking with a psychologist about just how false that
is.
No major lines of thought (Freudian, Adlerian, etc..) would accept any
other conclusion.
Tak-Shing Chan
> In <Pine.GSO.4.21.0112190948200.2171-100000@exeter> Tak-Shing Chan <es...@city.ac.uk> writes:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Gorr wrote:
>>>> Demanding perfection in the way they participate
>>>
>>> Nobody demands perfection.
>>
>> Except Dan Pop.
>
> Chapter and verse, please.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Right here. How pedantic you are. You always ask for C&V
or official definitions. It seems like you are unable to
tolerate any inaccuracies.
Tak-Shing
Tak-Shing Chan
> Tak-Shing Chan <es...@city.ac.uk> scribbled the following:
>> Baggage is the one who invented the computer, which we carry
>> over from the past into the present. ;-)
>
> That would be "Babbage", not "Baggage", my dear Tak-Shing.
Sorry about my drivel, I wasn't paying attention when I
learned the history of computing.
Tak-Shing
Joona I Palaste
Wow, a recursive Chapter-And-Verse reference. Whatever next?
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"Shh! The maestro is decomposing!"
- Gary Larson
Tak-Shing Chan
> Wow, a recursive Chapter-And-Verse reference. Whatever next?
int
Whatever(int next, int chapter, int verse)
{
return !next ? chapter + verse :
verse == 1 ? chapter :
Whatever(next - 1, chapter,
Whatever(next, chapter, verse - 1));
}
Tak-Shing
Eric Gorr
> Wow, a recursive Chapter-And-Verse reference.
Let's hope the stack size is big enough. ;-)
Richard Heathfield
Had you considered the possibility that Mr Pop was joking?
Mark McIntyre
wrote:
You //need// to get out more....
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
Steve Gravrock
>
>"Steve Gravrock" <grav...@cheetah.it.wsu.edu> wrote in message
>news:slrna1vn34....@cheetah.it.wsu.edu...
<snip>
>Another point is that many people are not here to become part of the group,
>they just want an answer or answers to a few questions. Rules or in-group
>etiquette will not appear as important to such a one and never will.
>Regulars have a vested interest in maintaining correctness, topicality etc.
>but these people have no reason to even consider these things. Consider
>yourself in their position.
I agree on all counts except one. Posters who are just dropping in
to get an answer have one very good reason to observe the customs of the
group: because they are asking for a favor, and people are more likely
to do a favor for someone who asks respectfully. To see this in action,
read a few posts by (for instance) Chris Torek. Consider how much time
must have gone into each of those posts, and compare the attitudes of the
newbies who get that type of response with the attitudes of the newbies
who are treated abruptly.
>So, with the 'culture clash' as you rightly said where can be found a
>solution? I don't think solutions are likely. But, I will say this - the
>onus has to be on the regulars not newbies. Why? Because the newbies have no
>knowledge of this other culture, whereas the regulars have, although their
>recollection of being a newbie may be vague after years of news group
>discussions.
The newbies can easily acquire knowledge of "this other culture" by
lurking and reading the FAQ. This is pretty much the minimum level of
nettiquite expected anywhere. The phrase "lurk and read the FAQ before
posting" has got to be more frequently uttered on Usenet than anything
else. We've already established that many newbies somehow miss that bit
of advice, a problem which is corrected when someone who posts a question
addressed in the FAQ is asked to read it.
Reading the FAQ and lurking is not too much to ask in exchange for free
C help. It does require investing some time, but I think it's reasonable
to expect that of someone who is asking countless strangers around the
world for help.
>> That's true here as well. The difference is that in a face-to-face
>> environment, incorrect behavior often provokes relatively subtle non-
>> verbal responses that we've all learned to recognize. Here, the only
>> options are to ignore the behavior or correct it directly. The latter
>> option is often seen as rude.
>
>Of course. You have highlighted one of the problems of virtual communities.
>So, here is an inherent potential for misunderstanding or friction between
>old timers and newbies that will probably continue. Take for example your
>use of the word 'asshole', would you really use that word in real life?
That would depend on the situation. To prove your point, I certainly would
not use the term "flaming asshole" (which is what I actually said),
because it has a a specific meaning in Usenet that's probably loost
elsewhere.
>Civility appears not as necessary here because of no impending physical
>threat.
I think that nearly all newbies here are treated civilly, if not cordially.
Instances of genuine rudeness do occur but are uncommon. Unless I
misunderstand, you appear to think that newbies are frequently treated
rudely. I think that we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
>> Given all that, how can we handle redirections and correcctions in such
>> a way that newbies are less likely to be put off? This is not a
>> rhetorical question, I'm genuinely hoping someone can answer it.
>
>My observation is that sometimes a 'regular' will reply cordially and
>sometimes not, probably depending on mood or whatever.
Mood is one factor. I'm more of an irregular but I can say that I tend
to be more cordial when I'm in a good mood. Other factors that influence
my response are the OP's attitude and the amount of effort put into the
query.
>Can you solve that one?
Yes, at least as far as I'm concerned. I'll avoid following up to top-level
posts when I'm in a bad mood. That'll let someone else set the tone.
I think the most important point of disagreement is whether it's reasonable
to expect people to read the FAQ and lurk before posting. I don't want
to put words in your mouth (or in the mouths of those who agree with me),
but I've observed that people who find such an expectation unreasonable
usually see newsgroups as question-and-answer services wheras people who
find it reasonable usually see newsgroups as communities which often
help people with questions.
The basic rules of Usenet help preserve newsgroups as functional communities.
You'll have a hard time persuading people that that's worth giving up in
order to be nicer to newbies, especially in a group like comp.lang.c which
has such a strong sense of identity.
--
Give me a couple of years and a large research grant, and I'll give you
a receipt.
-- Richard Heathfield in comp.lang.c
John
> In article <9vpkg0$goc3m$2...@ID-97861.news.dfncis.de>, John wrote:
> >
> I agree on all counts except one. Posters who are just dropping in
> to get an answer have one very good reason to observe the customs of the
> group: because they are asking for a favor, and people are more likely
> to do a favor for someone who asks respectfully. To see this in action,
> read a few posts by (for instance) Chris Torek. Consider how much time
> must have gone into each of those posts, and compare the attitudes of the
> newbies who get that type of response with the attitudes of the newbies
> who are treated abruptly.
Hey, I'm not on anyone's side, some newbies _are_ rude. I repeat though,
some want a quick fix and that's all. No time to study how a news group
operates.
> The newbies can easily acquire knowledge of "this other culture" by
> lurking and reading the FAQ. This is pretty much the minimum level of
> nettiquite expected anywhere.
See above.
> I think that nearly all newbies here are treated civilly, if not
cordially.
> Instances of genuine rudeness do occur but are uncommon. Unless I
> misunderstand, you appear to think that newbies are frequently treated
> rudely. I think that we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
No, I've not stated that but it does occur.
> I think the most important point of disagreement is whether it's
reasonable
> to expect people to read the FAQ and lurk before posting. I don't want
> to put words in your mouth (or in the mouths of those who agree with me),
> but I've observed that people who find such an expectation unreasonable
> usually see newsgroups as question-and-answer services wheras people who
> find it reasonable usually see newsgroups as communities which often
> help people with questions.
What you say is reasonable, I'm pointing out the reality that many will not
take the time to lurk. And yes, a question and answer service is what many
will perceive a news group to be. This is the biggest single issue in my
opinion, the two basic views of what a news group is. Some will see it as a
resource that can be tapped into anytime without having to be a regular or
be a contributor in any way, some regulars will recent this view because of
all the time and effort they have 'put in' here - but for now it is
inevitable.
> The basic rules of Usenet help preserve newsgroups as functional
communities.
> You'll have a hard time persuading people that that's worth giving up in
> order to be nicer to newbies, especially in a group like comp.lang.c which
> has such a strong sense of identity.
My experience is that c.l.c. has a stronger identity than most groups.
What I find strange is that an off topic thread will often result in a large
number of messages, sometimes an enormous number. Surely by just ignoring
off topic messages this unwelcome rubbish would be reduced. There was a case
yesterday about 'fonts', it resulted in 20 messages, totally unnecessary in
my opinion.
How about a simple reply sent by one or two persons.
"Sorry you are off topic for this news group try searching with Google"
There is certainly no need to carry on debating or arguing back and forth.
John
Richard Bos
> "Steve Gravrock" <grav...@cheetah.it.wsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:slrna23dkc....@cheetah.it.wsu.edu...
> > In article <9vpkg0$goc3m$2...@ID-97861.news.dfncis.de>, John wrote:
> > >
> > I agree on all counts except one. Posters who are just dropping in
> > to get an answer have one very good reason to observe the customs of the
> > group: because they are asking for a favor, and people are more likely
> > to do a favor for someone who asks respectfully. To see this in action,
> > read a few posts by (for instance) Chris Torek. Consider how much time
> > must have gone into each of those posts, and compare the attitudes of the
> > newbies who get that type of response with the attitudes of the newbies
> > who are treated abruptly.
>
> Hey, I'm not on anyone's side, some newbies _are_ rude. I repeat though,
> some want a quick fix and that's all.
If they want a quick fix, they can bugger off to Central Park.
> No time to study how a news group operates.
If they can have the indecency to claim that they haven't got time for
the newsgroup, they can't very well complain if the newsgroup won't take
the time for them. We are not an answering machine, and we do not get
paid to post here.
Richard
pete
>
> On 19 Dec 2001, Dan Pop wrote:
> >>> Nobody demands perfection.
> >>
> >> Except Dan Pop.
> >
> > Chapter and verse, please.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Right here. How pedantic you are.
*I* thought it was funny.
--
pete
pete
>
> Tak-Shing Chan wrote:
> >
> > On 19 Dec 2001, Dan Pop wrote:
> >
> > > In <Pine.GSO.4.21.0112190948200.2171-100000@exeter> Tak-Shing Chan <es...@city.ac.uk> writes:
> > >
> > >>On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Eric Gorr wrote:
> > >>>> Demanding perfection in the way they participate
> > >>>
> > >>> Nobody demands perfection.
> > >>
> > >> Except Dan Pop.
> > >
> > > Chapter and verse, please.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Right here. How pedantic you are. You always ask for C&V
> > or official definitions. It seems like you are unable to
> > tolerate any inaccuracies.
>
> Had you considered the possibility that Mr Pop was joking?
I'm sure that he has.
These guys have been reverse hypermetatrolling each other lately:
> On 19 Dec 2001, Joona I Palaste wrote:
>
> > Tak-Shing Chan <es...@city.ac.uk> scribbled the following:
> >> Baggage is the one who invented the computer, which we carry
> >> over from the past into the present. ;-)
> >
> > That would be "Babbage", not "Baggage", my dear Tak-Shing.
>
> Sorry about my drivel, I wasn't paying attention when I
> learned the history of computing.
--
pete
Richard Heathfield
>
<snip>
>
> Hey, I'm not on anyone's side, some newbies _are_ rude. I repeat though,
> some want a quick fix and that's all. No time to study how a news group
> operates.
You're right to identify this as a problem, but it's *their* problem,
not *our* problem. If they don't have the time to be civil, why should
we take the time to give them their quick fix?
<snip>
> [...] I'm pointing out the reality that many will not
> take the time to lurk.
See above.
> And yes, a question and answer service is what many
> will perceive a news group to be.
Sure. And we probably tolerate that more than we otherwise would because
newbie questions and the initial answers to them have a wonderful way of
provoking very interesting discussions that are at best only
tangentially connected to the original question.
> This is the biggest single issue in my
> opinion, the two basic views of what a news group is. Some will see it as a
> resource that can be tapped into anytime without having to be a regular or
> be a contributor in any way, some regulars will recent this view because of
> all the time and effort they have 'put in' here - but for now it is
> inevitable.
I see no problem with people treating clc as a resource, but it is
*also* a community. Also, we should remember that it's a *human*
resource which is not paid-for (or at least, if people /do/ get paid for
answering questions in clc, then I think it's high time someone here
published the necessary information on where to submit invoices), so it
shouldn't be taken for granted.
>
> > The basic rules of Usenet help preserve newsgroups as functional
> communities.
> > You'll have a hard time persuading people that that's worth giving up in
> > order to be nicer to newbies, especially in a group like comp.lang.c which
> > has such a strong sense of identity.
>
> My experience is that c.l.c. has a stronger identity than most groups.
Yes, I think I agree with that.
>
> What I find strange is that an off topic thread will often result in a large
> number of messages, sometimes an enormous number. Surely by just ignoring
> off topic messages this unwelcome rubbish would be reduced.
No. The effect would actually be to increase the number of off-topic
posts to the point where they swamped the newsgroup, damaging it beyond
all usefulness. This has happened in other newsgroups, notably
comp.lang.c++. Fortunately, clc++ was able to recover from it - by
clamping down on off-topic posts - and has once more become a useful
resource.
> There was a case
> yesterday about 'fonts', it resulted in 20 messages, totally unnecessary in
> my opinion.
>
> How about a simple reply sent by one or two persons.
Usenet isn't an instantaneous medium. There can be a significant delay
between OP and reply. Many people tend to "do Usenet" in batch - i.e.
they download the current feed, come off-line, and read the feed in one
sitting, replying as they see appropriate. If they see an off-topic post
with no reply to it, they might feel it appropriate to write a quick
redirection suggestion. Then, next time they happen to be online, they
post all their replies. As you can see, this is more or less bound to
result in multiple responses to messages, with several saying the same
thing.
To achieve your objective, we'd probably have to have some kind of rota
system, or perhaps an algorithm that we could all more or less agree to
use for randomising our decision about whether to reply to an off-topic
post.
>
> "Sorry you are off topic for this news group try searching with Google"
>
> There is certainly no need to carry on debating or arguing back and forth.
I agree. Tell that to the off-topic poster.
Dave Vandervies
John <John....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"Steve Gravrock" <grav...@cheetah.it.wsu.edu> wrote in message
>news:slrna23dkc....@cheetah.it.wsu.edu...
>> I think the most important point of disagreement is whether it's
>reasonable
>> to expect people to read the FAQ and lurk before posting. I don't want
>> to put words in your mouth (or in the mouths of those who agree with me),
>> but I've observed that people who find such an expectation unreasonable
>> usually see newsgroups as question-and-answer services wheras people who
>> find it reasonable usually see newsgroups as communities which often
>> help people with questions.
>
>What you say is reasonable, I'm pointing out the reality that many will not
>take the time to lurk. And yes, a question and answer service is what many
>will perceive a news group to be. This is the biggest single issue in my
>opinion, the two basic views of what a news group is. Some will see it as a
>resource that can be tapped into anytime without having to be a regular or
>be a contributor in any way, some regulars will recent this view because of
>all the time and effort they have 'put in' here - but for now it is
>inevitable.
Even if a newsgroup is a resource that can be tapped into anytime
without having to be a regular or contributor of any sort, that doesn't
immediately imply that people can get away with not doing their homework
before tapping into that resource.
As a university student, my interactions with professors are best
defined by describing my view of them as a resource that can be tapped
into anytime (a particularly good illustration, since in both cases the
reality is that this is an accurate but very incomplete description);
this does not mean that I can expect to ask any professor any question at
any time without following the appropriate protocol (in this case, things
like finding a professor whose area of interest includes my question,
finding out when their office hours are, thinking through my question
in advance so that I can, at the very least, present it coherently,
and deferring to students who have questions related to courses that
the professor is teaching if my questions aren't) and expect to continue
getting good answers.
I hope that no reasonable person would claim that a student should
expect to get away with abandoning the appropriate protocol when asking
professors for help; it's equally important to follow the appropriate
protocol when attempting to get an answer from a newsgroup, even
if the person asking the question views the newsgroup (accurately
but incompletely) as a question-and-answer service. The points made
earlier about being careful, in the absence of face-to-face interaction,
to retain the civil behavior one would expect in a face-to-face meeting
apply just as much to people asking for help as to the people being asked.
dave
--
Dave Vandervies dj3v...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
So... it only took us around six months to come up with a workable
solution. Nice going! :-)
--Richard Heathfield in comp.lang.c
John
> John wrote:
> >
> You're right to identify this as a problem, but it's *their* problem,
> not *our* problem. If they don't have the time to be civil, why should
> we take the time to give them their quick fix?
It is everyone's problem, you would not bother to talk about it otherwise.
Wasn't it you who said it this is a meta-topic?
> > And yes, a question and answer service is what many
> > will perceive a news group to be.
>
> Sure. And we probably tolerate that more than we otherwise would because
> newbie questions and the initial answers to them have a wonderful way of
> provoking very interesting discussions that are at best only
> tangentially connected to the original question.
Well, that's a new perspective I've not seen mentioned here before. You
didn't go as far as saying you are grateful to them though. ;)
> I see no problem with people treating clc as a resource, but it is
> *also* a community. Also, we should remember that it's a *human*
> resource which is not paid-for (or at least, if people /do/ get paid for
> answering questions in clc, then I think it's high time someone here
> published the necessary information on where to submit invoices), so it
> shouldn't be taken for granted.
I'll pay yer when the lottery turns my way.
> > How about a simple reply sent by one or two persons.
>
> Usenet isn't an instantaneous medium. There can be a significant delay
> between OP and reply. Many people tend to "do Usenet" in batch - i.e.
<snip>
Yes, I knew that would be one answer. Perhaps it could be restated - many
regulars continue posting to an off topic thread even a day or two later
later when it is obvious that the post has been replied to many times.
> > There is certainly no need to carry on debating or arguing back and
forth.
> I agree. Tell that to the off-topic poster.
It goes both ways.
John
John
"Dave Vandervies" <dj3v...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:9vt0du$ppn$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca...
> In article <9vsg95$hggj3$1...@ID-97861.news.dfncis.de>,
> >
>snip<
> As a university student, my interactions with professors are best
> defined by describing my view of them as a resource that can be tapped
> into anytime (a particularly good illustration, since in both cases the
> reality is that this is an accurate but very incomplete description);
> this does not mean that I can expect to ask any professor any question at
> any time without following the appropriate protocol
One issue is that many do not know the protocol, worse, they would not care
even when told. This is one of the problems I am highlighting. If one
intends to become part of a group one will take the time to learn/observe
protocol but this will/may not be the case when one does not intend to
become a group member.
> I hope that no reasonable person would claim that a student should
> expect to get away with abandoning the appropriate protocol when asking
> professors for help; it's equally important to follow the appropriate
> protocol when attempting to get an answer from a newsgroup, even
> if the person asking the question views the newsgroup (accurately
> but incompletely) as a question-and-answer service. The points made
> earlier about being careful, in the absence of face-to-face interaction,
> to retain the civil behavior one would expect in a face-to-face meeting
> apply just as much to people asking for help as to the people being asked.
It happens that newbies are sometimes rude but it also happens that regulars
are sometime rude without provocation.
I am not defending newbies just trying to show from an outsiders perspective
what the problems are. Someone asked what the solution was, I don't think
there is a solution.
John
Eric Gorr
> But, I will say this - the
> onus has to be on the regulars not newbies.
I agree with you, however, I doubt you will find any "regular" who will.
It has been made clear time and time again, that the onus is on the
newbies. The regulars have no responsibility at all.
Unjust, expressed anger is accepted and defended. If a newbie asks a
question already answered in the FAQ, which they are likely totally
unaware even exists, for if they were aware of it or could locate the
question, the question wouldn't have been asked, they are labeled
(perhaps silently, perhaps not) as idiots and the question as stupid.
As for your defense of them, you likely have been labeled as an idiot as
well.
"Idiots who support and defend the idiot's right to be idiotic"
If you have any expectation that they will change their viewpoint,
remember that you will be fighting against years of successful
acquisition and maintaince of power.
John
"Eric Gorr" <er...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1f4pquj.13jocloroocn4N%er...@cox.rr.com...
> John <John....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> As for your defense of them, you likely have been labeled as an idiot as
> well.
So be it. Actually I not take sides with this issue but have expressed an
opinion why friction occurs.
> "Idiots who support and defend the idiot's right to be idiotic"
>
> If you have any expectation that they will change their viewpoint,
> remember that you will be fighting against years of successful
> acquisition and maintaince of power.
I have no expectations in this regard.
John
Tak-Shing Chan
> If you have any expectation that they will change their viewpoint,
> remember that you will be fighting against years of successful
> acquisition and maintaince of power.
Usenet-wise, ``acquisition and maintainance of power''
suggests a moderator with the power to cancel unwanted articles.
As the regulars here have no such power, I would instead call it
``spreading and maintaining social norms''.
Tak-Shing
Eric Gorr
> I hope that no reasonable person would claim that a student should
> expect to get away with abandoning the appropriate protocol when asking
> professors for help;
This is true. However, the aspect here that is being ignored is that
this protocol is permeated the whole of society. One can literally ask
any random person on the street whether what you suggest is reasonable
or not when it comes to student/teacher interactions in the way you
described. The vast majority of them will answer that yes, it is
reasonable.
However, such a situation does not exist for USENET. Based on hundreds
of conversations over the past 12+ years or so that I've been using
USENET, very few people know what USENET even is or that there would
even be protocols to follow.
When one could begin asking a random selection of people about USENET
and not expect to get the answer "Huh?", your analogy might apply.
Believe me, when I was a USENET newbie, I largely felt as the regulars
do around here about newbies, until I realized just how unfair it was to
expect behavior from people that they may not even know is necessary or
even know to look for guidelines.
It was simply an unethical way to behave.
Eric Gorr
> Someone asked what the solution was, I don't think
> there is a solution.
Sure there is.
Interact with the individual without anger or feelings of mental
superiority (believing they have asked a stupid question) even if you
feel they have done otherwise and when someone doesn't interact in such
a manner, make it clear that it isn't acceptable.