headers
Olin Lathrop | 7 Sep 00:47

Re: [PIC] C mailing list

Matthew Miller wrote:
> Oh, I fully realize this. It's just that when I was reading, some
> regular posters were obnoxious about this issue.

You fully realize those posts are off topic, but yet are surprised when
people get upset about them!!?

********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Matthew Miller | 7 Sep 01:49

Re: [PIC] C mailing list

On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 06:47:03PM -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Matthew Miller wrote:
> > Oh, I fully realize this. It's just that when I was reading, some
> > regular posters were obnoxious about this issue.
> 
> You fully realize those posts are off topic, but yet are surprised when
> people get upset about them!!?

Oh, come on Olin! There is a great difference between being helpful and
flaming someone to death! :)  I was merely providing a warning. A person
posting to comp.lang.c shouldn't step on the pedantic's toes, that's all.

Matthew.
--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Olin Lathrop | 7 Sep 13:56

Re: [PIC] C mailing list

Matthew Miller wrote:
> Oh, come on Olin! There is a great difference between being helpful
> and flaming someone to death!

Exactly, and the latter is very effective and totally appropriate when some
bozo can't be bothered with basic things like staying on topic.

********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Gerhard Fiedler | 7 Sep 14:57

[OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic (was: (PIC) C mailing list)

Olin Lathrop wrote:

> Matthew Miller wrote:
>> Oh, come on Olin! There is a great difference between being helpful
>> and flaming someone to death!
> 
> Exactly, and the latter is very effective and totally appropriate when some
> bozo can't be bothered with basic things like staying on topic.

Not necessarily. There are often responses in such flame threads that are
way more out of line than the original offender -- and not useful at all.
Something like one slightly off-topic message, and fifteen flame
responses... IMO maybe effective, but definitely not efficient, and not
that appropriate. The "bozo" part often can be applied to more than one in
such threads :)

Just because one thinks one is right doesn't make it so, necessarily.

Gerhard

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Apptech | 8 Sep 00:23

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic (was: (PIC) C mailinglist)

>>> Oh, come on Olin! There is a great difference between being helpful
>>> and flaming someone to death!

>> Exactly, and the latter is very effective and totally appropriate when 
>> some
>> bozo can't be bothered with basic things like staying on topic.

> Not necessarily. There are often responses in such flame threads that are
> way more out of line than the original offender -- and not useful at all.
> Something like one slightly off-topic message, and fifteen flame
> responses... IMO maybe effective, but definitely not efficient, and not
> that appropriate. The "bozo" part often can be applied to more than one in
> such threads :)

> Just because one thinks one is right doesn't make it so, necessarily.

Whether 'drag along and beating' * is apposite is not only language 
sensitive (and very largely not relevant to C) but also modal / context 
sensitive / non-transportable / somewhat local wrt the list in question. 
There are, apparently, some parts of the internet world where such is 
acceptable, productive and a good way of doing things. In such areas of 
unusual space time curvature and alternative realities 15 flames to one 
query are, apparently, a useful productive mature and he-manly way of doing 
things. Fortunately, perhaps, such is not true here, by definition. The 
effects of locality are such that 'bozo' is at, or perhaps somewhat beyond 
the end of the universe of descriptors; and flames, flaming, ad hominem 
attack, related displays of alpha-capability and virility (as opposed to 
some other forms) are proscibed, verboten, unnaccepatbale and downright 
disallowed. The main problem wih such a benign and nurturing emvironment is 
its incompatability with the expectation set of denizens who are accustomed
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Vitaliy | 8 Sep 10:23

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic (was: (PIC) Cmailinglist)

Apptech wrote:
> Whether 'drag along and beating' * is apposite is not only language
> sensitive (and very largely not relevant to C) but also modal / context
> sensitive / non-transportable / somewhat local wrt the list in question.
> There are, apparently, some parts of the internet world where such is
> acceptable, productive and a good way of doing things. In such areas of
> unusual space time curvature and alternative realities 15 flames to one
> query are, apparently, a useful productive mature and he-manly way of 
> doing
> things. Fortunately, perhaps, such is not true here, by definition. The
> effects of locality are such that 'bozo' is at, or perhaps somewhat beyond
> the end of the universe of descriptors; and flames, flaming, ad hominem
> attack, related displays of alpha-capability and virility (as opposed to
> some other forms) are proscibed, verboten, unnaccepatbale and downright
> disallowed. The main problem wih such a benign and nurturing emvironment 
> is
> its incompatability with the expectation set of denizens who are 
> accustomed
> to the environments where 'drag along and beating' is a de rigeur means of
> demonstrating ones importance priority capability learnednss and the like.
> Even though eschewed such behaviour can cause ripples which lead to large
> amounts of debate and even a fair bit of drivel such as the current 
> example.
> One solution may be to ban languages such as APL* and/or those whose
> mindsets correspond. Never works, but leads to endless fun for all
> concerned.

Russell, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about ("Russell's 
English"). :)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Apptech | 8 Sep 12:10

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic (was: (PIC)Cmailinglist)

> Russell, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about ("Russell's
> English"). :)

I was fully aware of that when I wrote it ;-).
Let those who have ears ... ;-)

> There is no doubt in my mind that you have obfuscated the message on
> purpose. However, I am still not clear on what your motives are.

"Oh! Question not the need!!! " :-) *

The translatiuon:

> Why not: "While on other forums it may be considered OK to call someone
> 'bozo', such behavior is not acceptable here. If Olin continues to be mean
> to newbies, he will be banned."

Was closish BUT I'll have to say, alas, that the " ... he will be banned" 
would more properly be rendered something like " ... banning is an apparent 
solution, but in fact turns out to never work but causes lots of excitement 
for all concerned..."

ie it was NOT a threat of any sort, just a social comment.
I don't think that there was much newbie fish-splatting goiung on here - 
just, that i saw, opinions that a round of fish-splatting never did a newbie 
any harm and was good for their character.

> James Newton once said that a part of his brain enjoys constructing
> relational database schema. Do you get an endorphine hit when you use 
> fancy
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Wouter van Ooijen | 8 Sep 12:40
Favicon

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic

> I don't think that there was much newbie fish-splatting goiung on here - 

If you are referring to the "wave a dead fish" phrase I think you 
misunderstand is't meaning. It is used (on this list only?) to point out 
that a proposed solution has no relation whatsoever with the problem at 
hand. "You did X? No use, you might as well wave a dead fish over it (at 
full moon)."

-- 

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Vitaliy | 8 Sep 21:33

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic

Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>> I don't think that there was much newbie fish-splatting goiung on here -
>
> If you are referring to the "wave a dead fish" phrase I think you
> misunderstand is't meaning. It is used (on this list only?) to point out
> that a proposed solution has no relation whatsoever with the problem at
> hand. "You did X? No use, you might as well wave a dead fish over it (at
> full moon)."

Wouter, I think Russell of all people knows the meaning of the phrase. 
"Fish-splatting" is not the same as "fish-waving".

Vitaliy 

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Spehro Pefhany | 9 Sep 09:28

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic

At 03:33 PM 9/8/2008, you wrote:
>Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> >> I don't think that there was much newbie fish-splatting goiung on here -
> >
> > If you are referring to the "wave a dead fish" phrase I think you
> > misunderstand is't meaning. It is used (on this list only?) to point out
> > that a proposed solution has no relation whatsoever with the problem at
> > hand. "You did X? No use, you might as well wave a dead fish over it (at
> > full moon)."
>
>Wouter, I think Russell of all people knows the meaning of the phrase.
>"Fish-splatting" is not the same as "fish-waving".
>
>Vitaliy

What is "fish-splatting"?

This is the only thing I can think of: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9SSOWORzw4

>Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
speff <at> interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Gerhard Fiedler | 9 Sep 13:41

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

> At 03:33 PM 9/8/2008, you wrote:
>>Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>>>> I don't think that there was much newbie fish-splatting goiung on here -
>>>
>>> If you are referring to the "wave a dead fish" phrase I think you
>>> misunderstand is't meaning. It is used (on this list only?) to point out
>>> that a proposed solution has no relation whatsoever with the problem at
>>> hand. "You did X? No use, you might as well wave a dead fish over it (at
>>> full moon)."
>>
>>Wouter, I think Russell of all people knows the meaning of the phrase.
>>"Fish-splatting" is not the same as "fish-waving".
>>
>>Vitaliy
> 
> What is "fish-splatting"?
> 
> This is the only thing I can think of: 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9SSOWORzw4

Then you must never have read Asterix... probably worth it (pick one of the
earlier ones :)

Gerhard

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Vitaliy | 8 Sep 21:38

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic (was:(PIC)Cmailinglist)

Apptech wrote:
> The translatiuon:
>
>> Why not: "While on other forums it may be considered OK to call someone
>> 'bozo', such behavior is not acceptable here. If Olin continues to be 
>> mean
>> to newbies, he will be banned."
>
> Was closish BUT I'll have to say, alas, that the " ... he will be banned"
> would more properly be rendered something like " ... banning is an 
> apparent
> solution, but in fact turns out to never work but causes lots of 
> excitement
> for all concerned..."
>
> ie it was NOT a threat of any sort, just a social comment.
> I don't think that there was much newbie fish-splatting goiung on here -
> just, that i saw, opinions that a round of fish-splatting never did a 
> newbie
> any harm and was good for their character.

Yes, that's how I understood your meaning. It wasn't just the language that 
wasn't direct, it was the underlying message. :) Hence, "why not:"

> Some opine that I get an endorphin hit when I use language, fancy or other
> :-) - whether in my writing or elsewhere.

:)

Vitaliy
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bob Blick | 8 Sep 17:50
Favicon

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 01:23:56 -0700, "Vitaliy" <spam <at> maksimov.org> said:

> Russell, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about
> ("Russell's 
> English"). :)
> 
> There is no doubt in my mind that you have obfuscated the message on 
> purpose. However, I am still not clear on what your motives are.
> 
> Why not: "W.........

You guys are funny.

Russell perfectly understands "A rose by any other name doth remain
sweet" and he uses it to his advantage.

So does Olin, but by being direct he uses it in the opposite fashion.

Which is better/worse? You seem to object to Olin's way. Previously I
would object to Russell's way, but since he is my brother now I have the
utmost respect for him and his methods. 

It all depends who the target audience is. 

Russell could tear you to ribbons but since English is not your native
language you would be left scratching your head.

If Olin tells you you're a bozo, it doesn't matter who you are, you know
what he's saying!
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Vitaliy | 8 Sep 21:31

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic

Bob Blick wrote:
> Russell could tear you to ribbons but since English is not your native
> language you would be left scratching your head.

I beg your pardon? :)

> If Olin tells you you're a bozo, it doesn't matter who you are, you know
> what he's saying! One is direct. The other obfuscates. Which offends?

You seem to have totally missed the point, Bob. It's OK to be direct, it's 
not OK to call people names.

> Should we even
> bother to take offense when there are real topics to discuss?

I look at it from a practical viewpoint. *We* may choose not to take 
offense. Most newcomers do take offense (as any normal person would). I 
think everyone, including people I don't like or don't agree with, has 
something useful to contribute. I don't want Grant to leave.

> Don't you
> sometimes feel tricked when you reply, when ignoring it might be the
> better choice?

I said in an earlier message that often times I don't reply to Russell's 
posts, precisely because of his excessive use of allegories.

Vitaliy 

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bob Blick | 8 Sep 22:49
Favicon

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 12:31:31 -0700, "Vitaliy" <spam <at> maksimov.org> said:

> You seem to have totally missed the point, Bob. It's OK to be direct,
> it's 
> not OK to call people names.

Oh, I get your point. It's just that I think George Carlin made a better
one 30 years ago, with seven words you can't say on television.

Because when someone is indirectly called names it has always been
deemed OK. That's where I disagree. I think whether directly or
indirectly, it's impolite but generally tolerated. Not always. I don't
like it. But it's part of life.

> I look at it from a practical viewpoint. *We* may choose not to take 
> offense. Most newcomers do take offense (as any normal person would). I 
> think everyone, including people I don't like or don't agree with, has 
> something useful to contribute. I don't want Grant to leave.

If this is referring to the thread I am remembering, lots of people gave
him a hard time. I gave him some code. Olin gave him a word. 

The invisible hand guided him along. There are some people for whom the
piclist doesn't work. It seemed to work this time. It doesn't have to
work all the time. There's no safety net.

If you really want to help newbies, then please do it. I didn't notice
you giving him the code examples he asked for.

I don't think we need more vigilantes on the piclist. If you have a
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Vitaliy | 9 Sep 01:10

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic

Bob Blick wrote:
> If you really want to help newbies, then please do it. I didn't notice
> you giving him the code examples he asked for.

I help when I can, how I can. When I was new here, I appreciated people 
standing up for me when some bully made me get red in the face.

> I don't think we need more vigilantes on the piclist. If you have a
> problem with a post, ignore it or complain to me or directly to the
> offender offlist. Don't air it in public. Thank you.

What are you going to do, ban me?

Best regards,

Vitaliy 

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bob Blick | 9 Sep 01:16
Favicon

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic


On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:10:22 -0700, "Vitaliy" <spam <at> maksimov.org> said:

> > offender offlist. Don't air it in public. Thank you.
> 
> What are you going to do, ban me?

Smile when you say that.

-Bob

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely differentÂ…

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Apptech | 9 Sep 01:37

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic

>> I don't think we need more vigilantes on the piclist. If you have a
>> problem with a post, ignore it or complain to me or directly to the
>> offender offlist. Don't air it in public. Thank you.

> What are you going to do, ban me?

Please allow me to agree with Bob while not wishing to offend Vitaliy. Bob's 
response has been standard admin position here since way way back. I think 
that one can honour the spirit of that and still feel able to occasionally 
wade into a situation on list where it helps a beginner. I've also in quite 
a few cases over the years sent offlist messages to beginners where they are 
subject to  responses which may make them wonder what they've wandered into 
and be inclined to leave. This has, hopefully,  the positive effect of 
counterbalancing some of the more rigorous responses and the probable 
negative effect of having the hobnailed boot wearers think that their rough 
style has had the desired effect of getting a newbie to jump into line.

For all I know the that-which-does-not-kill-them-makes-them-stronger folks 
also send offlist advice when I am commenting on list, advising newbies that 
I am just a woos / (insert favourite bleeding heart terminology here) and 
that if they ignore me for a while then on average they will start to be 
treated more roughly and rudely after a while, if they can but hang in there 
a while :-).

FWIW one young man ignored my advice in relatively recent times and went 
head to head with you know who and got moderated for his pains. I was 
genuinely impressed to see how well he took it and how resilient he has 
proven to be :-).

               Russell
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Vitaliy | 9 Sep 09:59

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic

Apptech wrote:
> Please allow me to agree with Bob while not wishing to offend Vitaliy. 
> Bob's
> response has been standard admin position here since way way back.

What are you saying, Russell? That it is OK to insult a person (granted, in 
a deniable sort of way), but it's taboo to call the insultor on it?

May I remind you that I am not the originator of this conversation, 
therefore I am not the only one concerned? May I also allude to a certain 
post by a certain moderator whose intricate reply appeared to concur with 
OP's position? Would I be taking it too far, if I said that I regard the 
conduct of a certain other moderator of a list not unbeknownst to us, as 
that unbecoming of said respected post? Shall I regret uttering that certain 
individuals appear to be seeking a position of higher status and authority 
not to serve their fellow man, but in pursuit of their own selfish 
ambitions?

"What have I become, My sweetest friend?"

Vitaliy 

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Apptech | 9 Sep 11:39

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic

Vitaliy, and y'all:

>> Please allow me to agree with Bob while not wishing to offend Vitaliy.

I don't seem to have succeeeed :-(.
I really really wasn't mean to be critical or enflambant (just made that up 
but Gargoyle has 19 hits in French)(whose meaning may or may not coincide 
with mine)( :-) ).

I was TRYING to say that the standard list admins position on PICList since 
time immemorial (or since as long as I can remember, whichever is the 
shorter) has been to damp things down, get potential flame bait offlist etc. 
You may notice that I'm not a model citizen when responding to relevant 
situations.

> What are you saying, Russell? That it is OK to insult a person (granted, 
> in
> a deniable sort of way),

No.
(Except when I do it).

> but it's taboo to call the insultor on it?

Rather:

... that the list admins would prefer that people brought such to their 
attention. [[Do what I say, not what I do ;-) ]].
>
> May I remind you that I am not the originator of this conversation,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Vitaliy | 10 Sep 05:31

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic

Apptech wrote:
>>> Please allow me to agree with Bob while not wishing to offend Vitaliy.
>
> I don't seem to have succeeeed :-(.

Russell, I've been on PICList for too long, and can't remember the last time 
I was offended by anybody or anything (except perhaps on someone else's 
behalf (if such thing is possible (probably isn't, sometimes I just feel the 
urge to 'stand up' for someone to prevent an undesirable outcome))).

I'm a watermelon.

Vitaliy 

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Gerhard Fiedler | 9 Sep 13:47

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic

Vitaliy wrote:

> I said in an earlier message that often times I don't reply to Russell's 
> posts, precisely because of his excessive use of allegories.

Being not a native speaker, like you (but currently, differently from you,
not living in an English-speaking country), I actually appreciate the
occasional invasion of non-technical-style English (like what Russell
occasionally provides) into my daily routine. Sort of as reminders and
examples of what one could do with the language -- besides being just
plainly (and sometimes boringly) direct -- if one could, of course :)

Gerhard

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Apptech | 9 Sep 14:35

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic

> Being not a native speaker, like you (but currently, differently from you,
> not living in an English-speaking country), I actually appreciate the
> occasional invasion of non-technical-style English (like what Russell
> occasionally provides) into my daily routine. Sort of as reminders and
> examples of what one could do with the language -- besides being just
> plainly (and sometimes boringly) direct -- if one could, of course :)

I recommend  Lewis Carol (aka C L Dodgson) for language and mind expansion 
(less damaging than Leary).
"The hunting of the Snark" is great. I enjoy it still after many occasional 
readings over the years.

Hiawatha's photographing is clever for the sting in the tail.
Based on, but not the beloved of my childhood : "By the shores of Gitchee 
Goomee ..."

AND he may have invented Venn diagrams, or if not, did some useful work with 
them.

        http://www.cut-the-knot.org/LewisCarroll/index.shtml

And then there's Jabberwocky !!! :-)

"Twas brillig, and the Slithey Toves did gyre amd gimble in the wabe ..."

     Russell

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bob Blick | 9 Sep 00:38
Favicon

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic (was: (PIC) Cmailinglist)

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 01:23:56 -0700, "Vitaliy" <spam <at> maksimov.org> said:

> Why not: "While on other forums it may be considered OK to call someone 
> 'bozo', such behavior is not acceptable here. 

BTW, I just tracked back on two threads and found the one that contained
the offending word. As far as I can tell it was not directed at anyone
on the piclist. It appeared to be used as a label for offtopic posters
to the C mailing list. Nobody specific and not anyone on the piclist.

That's about all the time I have for the piclist today, I'm glad it was
so productive :)

Cheerful regards,

Bob

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail...

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Apptech | 9 Sep 02:28

Re: [OT] Flaming to death not necessarily on-topic (was: (PIC)Cmailinglist)

> BTW, I just tracked back on two threads and found the one that contained
> the offending word. As far as I can tell it was not directed at anyone
> on the piclist. It appeared to be used as a label for offtopic posters
> to the C mailing list. Nobody specific and not anyone on the piclist.

That's also what I have already noted - albeit, perhaps, more obtusely.
I'm glad that we brothers are so harmoniously opined.

     R

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Spehro Pefhany | 7 Sep 14:18

Re: [PIC] C mailing list

At 07:49 PM 9/6/2008, you wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 06:47:03PM -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> > Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > Oh, I fully realize this. It's just that when I was reading, some
> > > regular posters were obnoxious about this issue.
> >
> > You fully realize those posts are off topic, but yet are surprised when
> > people get upset about them!!?
>
>Oh, come on Olin! There is a great difference between being helpful and
>flaming someone to death! :)  I was merely providing a warning. A person
>posting to comp.lang.c shouldn't step on the pedantic's toes, that's all.
>
>Matthew.

I suppose those enthusiastically flaming would contend that they were being
helpful to desirable users and contributors by discouraging posts which would
otherwise cause the on-topic discussions to drown in a sea of noise
related to more general programming topics (a MUCH larger set of possible
discussions). Penalty for transgressions: death by flaming.

(hmm.. Eudora doesn't like the word 'flaming' and has flagged it as 'one
chili pepper' on a scale of 0 to 3). No offence/offense is intended. ;-)

>Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
speff <at> interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane