JKop bashing thread
JKop
Though this thread is off-topic, I feel that it will make the rest of
the entire newsgroup more on-topic by confining the JKop bashing to this
one thread.
So... bash away!
I'm going to be reading the replies, so if there's anything credible
there, I'll be happy to respond!
-JKop
chris
OK, heres a question. Can you point me to a thread or two for which you
deserve some bashing? The only slightly dodgy thing I remember reading
was the "Microsoft are fools, they don't know what a polymorphic type"
thread is, on which I agree with you at least partly (but feel the urge
to defend Microsoft occasionally, just to annoy linux obsessives).
Chris
JKop
> OK, heres a question. Can you point me to a thread or two for which you
> deserve some bashing? The only slightly dodgy thing I remember reading
> was the "Microsoft are fools, they don't know what a polymorphic type"
> thread is, on which I agree with you at least partly (but feel the urge
> to defend Microsoft occasionally, just to annoy linux obsessives).
>
> Chris
Well I get the odd insult now and again, plus that latest thread where the
fella proposed myself for a prestigious award.
Just seems to me that if people are going to be derogatory toward me, then
they should be open about why exactly they are so - otherwise, I advise them
that other than satisfying their own personal pleasures, they're wasting
their time.
Plus, if I'm rreeaallyy honest, this is fun!
-JKop
DaKoadMunky
unprofessional.
You have made statements similar to the following...
"Why the fuck does C++ do it this way? It is so fucking stupid!"
"Only a shit compiler would allow this to compile. It is bullshit"
I find such a manner of communicating to be very unpleasant. If you speak like
you write then I would be hesistant to work with you.
Basically it comes across as arrogance without the knowledge to back it up.
I believe that your interest in C++ and your growing knowledge of C++ could
make you a valued member of this group or a development team.
All you gotta do is lose the attitude.
JKop
I see what you're getting at here, and to be honest, I do actually think
twice before posting a word like "fuck" to a newsgroup. It really just
depends on the way one is interpreted. For instance, it wouldn't be uncommon
for myself, in a social context, to react in disbelief with the exclamation
"Fuck off!", as in:
Some-one: He sold the car -- he got EUR 4,000 for it.
Me: Fuck Off!
Now, in my opinion this really has to do with social context. I often hear
the argument, "People who curse are exhibiting their lack of intelligence
and inferior vocabulary.". This makes a little bit of sense to me and in a
professional context, I do strive to find a non-slang word for what I want
to express (for instance, some-one recently referred to my comments as
"vacuous", which is in obvious alternative to "fucking stupid").
I do see the merit in being more professional like this, but the more I buy
into it, the more I see that there really is a use for cursing, it just
depends on the context. I used to post the likes of "This is a farce.", but
really I'm sort-of lying about what I'm trying to express. The phrase "This
is bullshit.", while equally getting the point across, also gives an insight
into my disposition. So I think to myself, if I explicitly, consciously use
"big words" over curses, am I really just being coerced (even bullied) into
expressing myself in a way in which other people will like? I haven't really
decided yet. At the moment, I'm experimenting a little.
I just have to add that when I see other people here curse a little, like
Ron Natalie, who says the likes of "This is retarded." from time to time, it
alters my perception of the group and the whole social context. At the
beginning, when I started posting to such an "upper-class" newsgroup like
this, I was purely in the mindset that, if I were to curse, I'd just be
exhibiting stupidity and immaturity. But now, I'm thinking more along the
lines of expressing myself openly and accurately. Just because I'm a
proficient programmer doesn't mean I've to bare the social stigma attached
to it - that is, that I must be "professional". Also, one does not have to
be "professional" in order to be "intelligent". The film "Good Will
Hunting" tries to conveys this.
Regarding:
> I find such a manner of communicating to be very unpleasant. If you
> speak like you write then I would be hesistant to work with you.
This is exactly the kind of thing that encourages me to be more
"professional". If we were all to use our own colloquialisms, then the text
in this newsgroup would be unintelligible; as such, we use the common
denominator: "official" English. But the truth of the matter in my opinion
is that there's more to conversation than "official" language. I find that
the odd curse works will to set the tone (eg. light-hearted) and to express
our actual personality openly.
I'm not a hostile person. I won't express unwarranted aggression toward a
person for absoultely no reason. Perhaps what's going on is that people who
are of different social background to me interpret my cursing as "hostile"
and thus interpret myself as "hostile"?
I just think it's better to be professional and to honestly and openly
express yourself, rather than to simply be professional.
-JKop
Patrick Kowalzick
Do you have kind of dictionary to translate from "professional, honestly and
openly c.l.c++-english" to "simply professional c.l.c++-english"?
Something like:
This is bullshit. - You are a **** ****. And really stupid.
This is bullshit. - You are absolutly wrong. See Standard and Stroustoup.
This is bullshit. - You might be wrong, but I have to investigate further.
This is bullshit. - I always did it in a different fashion.
This is bullshit. - I have no clue at all.
Bullshit,
Patrick
P.S.: Is bashing off-topic ?
JKop
Rhetorical questions don't do much.
-JKop
Victor Bazarov
> [...]
> P.S.: Is bashing off-topic ?
Usually it is. I just kill-filed him a long time ago.
Jonathan Turkanis
"JKop" <NU...@NULL.NULL> wrote in message:
>
> Though this thread is off-topic, I feel that it will make the rest of
> the entire newsgroup more on-topic by confining the JKop bashing to this
> one thread.
>
> So... bash away!
Maybe the best solution would be for you to study a couple of good C++ books,
pick a new alias, and start fresh. ... Unless your name is really "JKop." Or is
it "NULL"?
Jonathan
Jonathan Turkanis
"JKop" <NU...@NULL.NULL> wrote in message:
>
> the entire newsgroup more on-topic by confining the JKop bashing to this
> one thread.
>
> So... bash away!
Maybe the best solution would be for you to study a couple of good C++ books,
JKop
"JKop" is what we call a pseudonym.
"NULL" I believe is defined in <stddef>.
-JKop
Jonathan Turkanis
"Jonathan Turkanis" <tech...@kangaroologic.com> wrote in message
news:2uf8cnF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Maybe the best solution would be for you to study a couple of good C++ books,
> pick a new alias, and start fresh. ... Unless your name is really "JKop." Or
is
> it "NULL"?
Sorry for the duplicate message ... duplicate message ... duplicate message ...
>
> Jonathan
Jonathan Turkanis
"JKop" <NU...@NULL.NULL> wrote:
> Jonathan Turkanis posted:
> > Maybe the best solution would be for you to study ... pick a new alias
>
> "JKop" is what we call a pseudonym.
The technical term is "nom de trolle."
> -JKop
Jonathan
John Harrison
"JKop" <NU...@NULL.NULL> wrote in message
I think you could pick a better variable name than poo. I liked it when you
used animal names.
john
Simon
> JKop wrote:
> > Though this thread is off-topic, I feel that it will make the rest of
> > the entire newsgroup more on-topic by confining the JKop bashing to this
> > one thread.
> >
> > So... bash away!
> >
> > I'm going to be reading the replies, so if there's anything credible
> > there, I'll be happy to respond!
> >
>
> OK, heres a question. Can you point me to a thread or two for which you
> deserve some bashing?
I will:
o http://tinyurl.com/6pu58
o http://tinyurl.com/3vtwb
o http://tinyurl.com/4lfnb
o http://tinyurl.com/4ahkn
I'm sure there are more, but I don't have the time.
The kid needs to grow up, lose his arrogant, obnoxious attitude and
learn responsibility.
In any case, I'm sure he'll look back on his posts in 10 years from
now and laugh (and feel embarrased) at how immature he was back then.
Rolf Magnus
Yes, and a pseudonym is what many usenet users call impolite. The problem is
that many use a pseudonym because they don't want their "good" name to be
connected to what thay write on usenet. So a pseudonym in combination with
a fake e-mail address is a red flag to many usenet users.
> "NULL" I believe is defined in <stddef>.
Right. However, it is not defined as a valid - or invalid - toplevel domain.
E. Robert Tisdale
> "JKop" is what we call a pseudonym.
Or a troll handle.
JKop
> o http://tinyurl.com/6pu58
The one in which I state that I pirate software.
The one in which I ask for a copy of the Standard. I believe I covered this
in the piracy discussion.
Piracy again.
Here I post a link to the C++ Standard.
-JKop
Frederic Banaszak
>JKop wrote:
>
>> "JKop" is what we call a pseudonym.
>
>Yes, and a pseudonym is what many usenet users call impolite. The problem is
>that many use a pseudonym because they don't want their "good" name to be
>connected to what thay write on usenet. So a pseudonym in combination with
>a fake e-mail address is a red flag to many usenet users.
>
On the other hand, how do we know your name is really Rolf Magnus? And
furthermore, why should we care?
I'm not trying to pick a fight here, and I'm certainly not trying to
defend "JKop", but does it really matter what someone calls himself?
A person should not be be judged by their screen name but by the
content of their character (with apologies to MLK).
Mabden
> Patrick Kowalzick posted:
>
> > Hi JKop,
> >
> > Do you have kind of dictionary to translate from "professional,
> > honestly and openly c.l.c++-english" to "simply professional
> > c.l.c++-english"?
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > This is bullshit. - You are a **** ****. And really stupid.
> > This is bullshit. - You are absolutly wrong. See Standard and
> > Stroustoup. This is bullshit. - You might be wrong, but I have to
> > investigate further. This is bullshit. - I always did it in a
different
> > fashion. This is bullshit. - I have no clue at all.
> >
In my experience of using "bad" language all the time, I have found that
a curse word allows the person you are talking to to dismiss your point
out of hand. They can choose to make their particular "I'm outa here"
noise and/or gesture and quit the discussion. And they can then run to
the nearest spectator with a loud, "Did you just hear what I heard?!!!"
This allows the onlookers and the "offended" person to hold the "moral
high ground" and by default win the argument, in their eyes.
By using inoffensive, alternate words you stave off the automatic loss
due to process, and remove an opponent's immediate victory by your
default. And that may make a difference when the excrement hits the fan.
> > P.S.: Is bashing off-topic ?
>
> Rhetorical questions don't do much.
Do you mean that?
--
Mabden
JKop
> "JKop" <NU...@NULL.NULL> wrote in message
> news:avqgd.40414$Z14....@news.indigo.ie...
>> Patrick Kowalzick posted:
>>
>> > Hi JKop,
>> >
>> > Do you have kind of dictionary to translate from "professional,
>> > honestly and openly c.l.c++-english" to "simply professional
>> > c.l.c++-english"?
>> >
>> > Something like:
>> >
>> > This is bullshit. - You are a **** ****. And really stupid.
>> > This is bullshit. - You are absolutly wrong. See Standard and
>> > Stroustoup. This is bullshit. - You might be wrong, but I have to
>> > investigate further. This is bullshit. - I always did it in a
>> > different fashion. This is bullshit. - I have no clue at all.
>> >
>
> In my experience of using "bad" language all the time, I have found that
> a curse word allows the person you are talking to to dismiss your point
> out of hand.
Understood. But, regarding sociality, you could say this about absolutely
*aannyytthhiinngg*. It's just that in our own society, one thing that the
"posh" people hold dearly is that they don't curse, aledgely because they've
superior vocabulary and have no need to curse.
On the other hand, take LA gang members. They're the total opposite. Cursing
is the norm for them, while using alternate words in their place is what's
"frowned upon".
So if you want to "fit in" seemlessly with both groups, you've to behave
differently in their respective presences.
> They can choose to make their particular "I'm outa here"
> noise and/or gesture and quit the discussion. And they can then run to
> the nearest spectator with a loud, "Did you just hear what I heard?!!!"
Again, the royalty will be saying this, while the gang members will not have
batted an eyelid.
> This allows the onlookers and the "offended" person to hold the "moral
> high ground" and by default win the argument, in their eyes.
In *their* eyes, yes.
No matter what way an argument goes, one party can say that *they* won,
while the other can say that _they_ won.
If neither will compromise, then there's is no resolution to the conflict.
Except violence ofcourse ( the laws of physics govern all! ).
>> Rhetorical questions don't do much.
>
> Do you mean that?
I meant that they don't get an answer - not that the don't make one ponder.
-JKop
Gary Labowitz
> Mabden posted:
>
> > "JKop" <NU...@NULL.NULL> wrote in message
> > news:avqgd.40414$Z14....@news.indigo.ie...
> Understood. But, regarding sociality, you could say this about absolutely
> *aannyytthhiinngg*. It's just that in our own society, one thing that the
> "posh" people hold dearly is that they don't curse, aledgely because
they've
> superior vocabulary and have no need to curse.
I doubt your theory on why cursing is considered offensive. Serfs in the
Middle Ages regarded cursing as undesirable for their own reasons. I'd
hardly call them "posh" people. (And, totally off the subject, the use of
"people" here is wrong. It should be "persons.")
>
> On the other hand, take LA gang members. They're the total opposite.
Cursing
> is the norm for them, while using alternate words in their place is what's
> "frowned upon".
>
> So if you want to "fit in" seemlessly with both groups, you've to behave
> differently in their respective presences.
>
<<snip>>
Okay and so what? Which of those two opposites (both poorly nuanced and
judgmentally defined) are you putting the members of this ng in?
Are we "posh" people or LA gang members?
Do you see how silly your remarks appear?
We, of course, are neither. Most of us are professional or semi-professional
computer programmers and/or students of c++. What do you suppose the social
norms are for this group, assuming you wish to "fit in?"
--
Gary