Han from China's comp.lang.c 2009 resolution
Nomen Nescio
My New Year's resolution on comp.lang.c is to be on-topic according
to the examples shown by our respected regulars.
For starters, I've decided that in 2009 I will keep comp.lang.c
subscribers updated on the status of my killfile.
Thus, every time Chuck, Jack Klein, Richard Heathfield, etc.,
tell the world about whom they've supposedly killfiled/plonked,
I will start a new thread on this newsgroup giving the status
of my own killfile.
I may also decide to reply to a few dozen posts a week, describing
how I've killfiled the person quoted up a few levels of quote
nesting.
So my posts might go as follows:
--------------------------------------------
Joe wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>> Yeah, I agree about that, but I think ...
>
> That's where you're wrong. You're not supposed to ...
Hello, I plonked Jack last week.
Yours,
Han from China
--------------------------------------------
I have other on-topic ideas I'm planning as well.
Welcome to 2009!
Yours,
Han from China
__PaTeR
what do you mean for "killfiled/plonked"?
Anonymous
> mm... wtf is a killfile?
> what do you mean for "killfiled/plonked"?
It's the Usenet equivalent of an IM ignore/block list.
When people *really* killfile/plonk someone, they usually
do so silently. I can respect that. But when people announce
that they've killfiled/plonked someone - and worse, continually
remind the world that they've killfiled/plonked someone - not
only is the probability great that they haven't *really* done
so, but they clutter newsgroups with their self-absorbed bullshit.
Richard Heathfield's attempts to convince the group he has a
functional killfile aren't worth discussing, since they fall so
flat, especially in the light of his bloated ego that would
prevent him ignoring what others are possibly saying about him.
You can be sure he's reading this post, for example. And for
someone who claims not to read posts from Google Groups users,
well, the evidence is in the bag.
On the other hand, Chuck and Jack Klein are both famous for their
creative methods in replying directly to someone whom they've
supposedly killfiled. Although Klein simply does a disingenuous
"I took you off my killfile, but now you're going back in it. *plonk*",
Chuck really takes the creativity to a whole new level. One of
Chuck's favorites is "When I changed news servers, you got out of
my killfile". A couple of weeks ago, Chuck said that Richard's
nymshifting had gotten around his killfile, but those who remember
Chuck's killfile/plonk drivel from last year know how amusing that was.
Chuck is my favorite killfile/plonk announcer because he's the only
one for whom I have 100% certainty that he has an empty killfile,
based on technical idiosyncrasies of his news software of which he's
unaware. (To be fair, he has *at most* one person on his killfile,
but if he had *at least* two, the behavior of his news software
would be different.)
Yours,
Han from China
Richard Heathfield
> mm... wtf is a killfile?
> what do you mean for "killfiled/plonked"?
"Killfile" is a term meaning a list of criteria for scoring down, or
even rejecting completely, Usenet articles that meet those
criteria. It's a sort of blacklist. Very often it is provided as a
feature of your newsreader (where it might be known as scoring, or
filtering, or something like that, rather than as a "killfile").
Some people, however, merely use the term to refer to a list in
their head, which is why sometimes you see people replying to a
person even though they claim to have killfiled him (i.e. they've
forgotten or decided temporarily to ignore the fact that he's on
their list). If you're a Google poster, the mental killfile is your
only option (as far as I'm aware).
To "killfile" someone is to add (some way of identifying) them to
one's killfile. It is perfectly reasonable to killfile someone not
out of any particular disrespect but purely as a pragmatic measure
(e.g. two local experts who are always fighting like cats in a
sack, but each of them knows his subject well, may decide to
killfile each each other for the sake of peaceful group dynamics).
Nevertheless, it is usually an action reserved for use against
those whose articles are not worth the bother of reading, and when
this is the case it is often referred to as "plonking" (from the
(imaginary) sound - "plonk!" - that the luser makes as they hit the
bottom of your killfile.
How does this affect you? Well, it doesn't really, except that you
might want to remember this: if you don't use a killfile, 90% of
what you read in comp.lang.c is crud.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
blargg
> mm... wtf is a killfile?
> what do you mean for "killfiled/plonked"?
Here's a new year's resolution for you: learn about something called
"Google". It'll blow your mind.
JC
Don't sweat it, the question was likely a troll given that "pater"
seems to coincidentally show up every time "Han from China" goes on
streaks of having conversations with himself on Usenet groups, e.g.:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/browse_frm/thread/2e8af7a80a277e00
The "spinoza" name seems to show up around the same times also,
sharing a similar disdain for some guy named Richard, a similar
trolling style, and appearing to be "from China" as well, at least
according to the Hong Kong IP addresses left in his signatures when he
was trolling Wikipedia articles on Herb Schildt and Ayn Rand (after
his real user name was apparently banned from Wikipedia).
Who knows? The internet sure is a strange place sometimes, although
sometimes it seems like people would be better served by buying a Wii
and playing some video games or something instead of spending downtime
trolling Usenet groups...
Jason
Han from China - Master Troll
> Some people, however, merely use the term to refer to a list in
> their head, which is why sometimes you see people replying to a
> person even though they claim to have killfiled him (i.e. they've
> forgotten or decided temporarily to ignore the fact that he's on
> their list).
That should tell you all you need to know about killfiles on
comp.lang.c, __PaTeR. Sums up the situation beautifully.
Yours,
Han from China
--
"Only entropy comes easy." -- Anton Chekhov
Han from China - Master Troll
> Don't sweat it, the question was likely a troll given that "pater"
> seems to coincidentally show up every time "Han from China" goes on
> streaks of having conversations with himself on Usenet groups, e.g.:
>
[I was too lazy to address this post at first, but since we've been
having something of a civil exchange...]
I don't get what we're supposed to be looking at. I've replied to
only a couple of threads started by pater, as far as I know. I'm not
the only one who has replied to pater. I've replied to many more
threads started by other posters. What's your point?
> The "spinoza" name seems to show up around the same times also,
> sharing a similar disdain for some guy named Richard, a similar
I can't find any evidence of Nilges (spinoza) showing up another time
around me. I haven't seen him on this newsgroup for ages. If you overlook
his tinfoil tendencies, he makes some good points on comp.programming.
> trolling style, and appearing to be "from China" as well, at least
> according to the Hong Kong IP addresses left in his signatures when he
I'm an American citizen. Whether you believe me doesn't bother
me in the slightest.
> was trolling Wikipedia articles on Herb Schildt and Ayn Rand (after
> his real user name was apparently banned from Wikipedia).
Quite frankly, I'm not a Herb Schildt fan (nor a Spinoza or a Rand
fan, for that matter). However, I do find it odd that Heathfield & Co.
roast Schildt for his book errors when their own book is riddled with
errors and grievous misunderstandings as well. So are many C books.
Look at the huge errata for H&S. Where Nilges and I differ is that
Nilges has been inclined to defend all errors by Schildt, whereas I
have not been so inclined. Where Nilges and I agree is that the vast
majority of the Schildt "corrections" are so ridiculous that they don't
even deserve to be called nitpicks. The same word parsing applied to
any other C book would unearth a legion of so-called errors. Heathfield
tries to imply that his errors are simply typos based on time constraints,
something like forgetting a semicolon, and not the oh-so-horrendous
fundamental misunderstandings of Schildt. I fail to see how one can
typo his way into alignment violations, identifier violations, calls
to string functions that do nothing, realloc()/memcpy() overflows,
unnecessary casts, flawed linked-list traversal, bungled array
calculations, and so on. And that was for only one Heathfield chapter.
Don't bother looking at Heathfield's published errata for these
errors -- he lacks the intellectual integrity to update it. He said
he'd be reading my corrections when I'm polite about the matter, just
as he said years ago that he'd be publishing my complete cryptographic
break of his encryption algorithm when I was "polite and civil". That
didn't stop him updating his algorithm and dumping it in the sci.crypt
sandbox, while still claiming on his old Web site that the original
algorithm hadn't been broken yet (for details, see the recent
thread "Heathfield's intellectual integrity"). Isn't the bone they
pick with Schildt something to do with his refusal to acknowledge
his errors?
Richard Heathfield
Han from China - Master Troll said:
<snip>
> I can't find any evidence of Nilges (spinoza) showing up another
> time around me. I haven't seen him on this newsgroup for ages. If
> you overlook his tinfoil tendencies, he makes some good points on
> comp.programming.
Name one.
<snip>
> Quite frankly, I'm not a Herb Schildt fan (nor a Spinoza or a Rand
> fan, for that matter). However, I do find it odd that Heathfield &
> Co. roast Schildt for his book errors when their own book is
> riddled with errors and grievous misunderstandings as well.
An unsupported claim. Note, however, that Schildt publishes no
errata for any of his C books (if I'm wrong about that, please show
me the URL).
<snip>
> Don't bother looking at Heathfield's published errata for
> these errors -- he lacks the intellectual integrity to update it.
On the contrary, I update it whenever anyone whose opinion I respect
reports an error that, on inspection, turns out to be a correct and
previously unsubmitted report.
I don't bother listening to error reports from those whose opinion I
don't respect, because to do so would be to invite any troll - such
as yourself, perhaps - to waste my time with junk reports.
> He said he'd be reading my corrections when I'm polite about the
> matter, just as he said years ago that he'd be publishing my
> complete cryptographic break of his encryption algorithm when I
> was "polite and civil".
That's a lie. It is certainly true that I have used sci.crypt in the
past, but I've never had any discussion there with anyone named
"Han from China". In fact, according to Google Groups (whose
archives are, admittedly, rather patchy in places), you've never
posted there.
> That didn't stop him updating his
> algorithm and dumping it in the sci.crypt sandbox, while still
> claiming on his old Web site that the original algorithm hadn't
> been broken yet
As far as I'm aware, CDX-1 output is distinguishable from random
data. Tom St Denis posted a proof of this a few years ago. My
response was CDX-2. For your information, the Web account to which
you refer is ancient, and I no longer own it. That the hosting
company has continued to serve its pages is their decision, not
mine, and I don't have write access to those pages.
> (for details, see the recent thread "Heathfield's
> intellectual integrity").
Your opinion about intellectual integrity is meaningless, since you
hide behind a pseudonym.
> Isn't the bone they pick with Schildt
> something to do with his refusal to acknowledge his errors?
I am perfectly prepared to investigate and, where necessary,
acknowledge errors reported to me by reliable sources. I don't see
the point in promising to investigate every error report provided
by an unreliable source. As you are a troll, you are an unreliable
source. In short, you behave like an idiot, so I assume you are an
idiot. If you want to be treated like a non-idiot, stop behaving
like an idiot.
JC
pedan...@comp.lang.c> wrote:
> [snip]
I have nothing more to add to what I've already said.
In any case, it's all the same to me. From my point of view there are
two people on Usenet: me, and somebody that isn't me with a hell of a
lot of pseudonyms. Of course, I really liked Fight Club and can't
discount the possibility of it being only me.
Jason (I think)
Antoninus Twink
> If you don't use a killfile, 90% of what you read in comp.lang.c is
> crud.
Yes, I'd noticed. Every week when those stats are posted, it's always
Heathfield, Thomson and Falconer as the three most prolific posters.
Antoninus Twink
> On the contrary, I update it whenever anyone whose opinion I respect
> reports an error that, on inspection, turns out to be a correct and
> previously unsubmitted report.
I mean, you do realize that the correctness or otherwise of a bug report
is completely independent of your opinion of the person who submits it?
Jeez.