[Hmm; I go away for a few days and he's still at it.]
>>>>> Not all of us have the patience of a Schildt who has been silent >>>>> online about his treatment. [...] >> I don't believe he cares one whit or jot about Peter's page or mine. >> He's probably laughing all the way to the bank.
> That might make you feel good, but according to my sources, it is > untrue. You and your friend Seebach maligned him at a level actionable > especially in British libel law.
Bwa-ha-ha-ha.
(1) There's no such thing as "British libel law".
(2) I probably know far more about the topic of libel than you do. See (3).
(3) One of the most experienced and best-known QCs at the libel Bar has my personal mobile number in his phone and calls me for advice on Internet libel cases. He thinks you're talking total and utter twaddle.
(4) If it ever came to court [pauses to stop rolling around the floor laughing] I'd just call Dennis Ritchie [deliberate name-drop, far better than this Nash person you rely on]: he's said that I know C better than him.
> But while you're here, I need from you a statement of your educational > qualifications in computer science. Thank you.
No, you don't.
You *want* a statement of my educational qualifications. You don't need them. I suspect you either want to poke fun at them, or to write to the establishment in question and try to cause trouble, or something else like that.
If you were collegiate, polite, and wrote relevantly over a sustained period of time I might consider answering. But while you're uncollegiate, rude, and post full of irrelevant crap I'm not going to. [And one or two polite posts aren't going to be enough to change my mind.]
If you're desperate to find out, do what any decent collegiate academic would do and research it for yourself. The answer is out there if you look.
-- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: cl...@davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer -- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
On 2009-11-06, Clive D.W. Feather <cl...@davros.org> wrote:
> [Hmm; I go away for a few days and he's still at it.]
You've missed much of the fun.
> If you're desperate to find out, do what any decent collegiate academic > would do and research it for yourself. The answer is out there if you look.
You know, the more I think about it, the funnier this has the potential to be.
Consider: Imagine that he were to research your qualifications. And imagine that he brought the same obsessiveness, accuacy, care, and attention to detail to this task that he brought to his study of C and his writing about various documents critical of Schildt's writings.
I really can't see a way this can fail to be comedy gold. I imagine that, even now, he's carefully reviewing some teenager's Harry Potter fan site to see whether perhaps you studied at Hogwarts. Later, he'll reveal that, as the creator of the Daleks, you are a threat to liberty and humanity, and make fun of you about the whole "stairs" thing.
-s -- Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! -- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
> [Hmm; I go away for a few days and he's still at it.]
> >>>>> Not all of us have the patience of a Schildt who has been silent > >>>>> online about his treatment. > [...] > >> I don't believe he cares one whit or jot about Peter's page or mine. > >> He's probably laughing all the way to the bank.
> > That might make you feel good, but according to my sources, it is > > untrue. You and your friend Seebach maligned him at a level actionable > > especially in British libel law.
> Bwa-ha-ha-ha.
> (1) There's no such thing as "British libel law".
Wow. Izzat so? I teach British constitutional law based on "AV Dicey's Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution", and Ian Loveland's "Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights", and of course, Britain is known for its libel law, which is used world- wide owing to its severity and entrenchment.
Your statement ranks in stupidity with Seebach's gem ("the 'heap' is a DOS term") and in addition it has the usually cowardly negation in which you hope to prevent critique and stop thought by issuing a paradoxical negative, for the same reason that the C Standard likes things "undefined" even when for specific compilers they are not.
> (2) I probably know far more about the topic of libel than you do. See (3).
> (3) One of the most experienced and best-known QCs at the libel Bar has my > personal mobile number in his phone and calls me for advice on Internet > libel cases. He thinks you're talking total and utter twaddle.
If there is no such thing as British libel law, there's no such thing as a libel bar, and your Queen's Counsel friend is a peri-wigg'd fraud. I have communicated from time to time with Geoffrey Robertson since he liked my review of his 1999 book Crimes Against Humanity but I don't bother him with silly questions.
> (4) If it ever came to court [pauses to stop rolling around the floor > laughing] I'd just call Dennis Ritchie [deliberate name-drop, far better > than this Nash person you rely on]: he's said that I know C better than > him.
How would he know? Your logic is exactly wrong. Someone who KNOWS MORE THAN YOU must certify your knowledge. Indeed, that's what education is all about except in this topsy-turvy world where the people with the biggest mouths "know more".
Since you have nothing but contempt for most of your fathers, you demand certification from people who claim to know less than you, but this is logically impossible. Seebach was too cowardly to go for a Master's in CS since he was afraid that his self-diagnosed "learning disorder" would sabotage him, but claims to judge people on the use of terms which are in fact common in CS education.
The Father is expected to certify the false knowledge of the Horde of sons lest he be killed in this crazy world, and the result is that most software is garbage.
> > But while you're here, I need from you a statement of your educational > > qualifications in computer science. Thank you.
> No, you don't.
> You *want* a statement of my educational qualifications. You don't need > them. I suspect you either want to poke fun at them, or to write to the > establishment in question and try to cause trouble, or something else like > that.
Perhaps. I graduated from Roosevelt University in 1973. It is a fifth- rate educational institution but a member of its math faculty offered its first computer science class ever in 1970, which I took. I got a B. I then attended DePaul's MSCS program for three years, not completing all the requirements, but taking a significant number of classes (seven if memory serves) with straight As save in compiler development, where I got a B. At the time, of course, I also did a considerable amount of self-study and was publishing on programming by 1976.
Whereas Seebach has told us that he hasn't taken ANY computer science classes whatsoever. I concede that one can be a qualified practitioner by self study. But what constitutes libel under British and American law is to make absurd, and demonstrably false statements, such as "the 'heap' is a DOS term" with malicious intent to defame a person who has far more certification than thee.
> If you were collegiate, polite, and wrote relevantly over a sustained > period of time I might consider answering. But while you're uncollegiate, > rude, and post full of irrelevant crap I'm not going to. [And one or two > polite posts aren't going to be enough to change my mind.]
I am quite polite to the extent I am reciprocated but "this animal is dangerous: it defends itself when attacked".
> If you're desperate to find out, do what any decent collegiate academic > would do and research it for yourself. The answer is out there if you look.
Here's an example of your irresponsibility, Clive:
Schildt: ## In other words, one copy of a library function in memory may ## not be used by two or more currently executing programs.
Clive: "This is blatant nonsense - on most Unix systems, if the same program is executing several times, all the code is shared by both processes. Indeed, many go further and share one copy of the standard C library among every process on the system. What this section of the standard is talking about is re-entrancy. The functions in the library are not re-entrant, and so may not be called from within themselves."
You completely confuse the issue. The fact that "library functions are not re-entrant" implies the weaker fact that "library functions are not recursive and may not call themselves directly or indirectly". Most C programmers know that you cannot (or should not) malloc inside a malloc error handler for this reason.
The unix practise (it's spelled unix) is no more part of your C standard than is the stack (although in an extensive discussion last month, nobody was able to think of a way to replace the stack). Herb is in fact saying clearly what you are not able to: that concurrent (multitask or recursive) use of a library program is unsafe.
He does not mention, nor do you, that this is a legacy fact that you should have addressed in "standardizing" C but were too cowardly to address. Nor is it mentioned that this facts makes many library functions candidates for rewriting.
It's more convenient for you to bully Herb than speak truth to vendor power.
Here's more of your nonsense:
Herb: ## A compound statement is a block of code.
You: "A nice sounding statement, but totally meaningless. A compound statement is a block of code beginning with { and ending with the matching }. For example, the body of a function is a compound statement."
You're wrong and you end with a stunning error of your own. The word "block" has referred to a clump of code surrounded by curly braces in C or the "fat parentheses" begin and end in Pascal and Algol for fifty years. In fact, it's not a "block" until it is so delimited: an ungrouped set of statements is just an ungrouped set of statements, and cannot be used in an if statement, for statement, or while without the first statement (only) being controlled.
But the really stunning error is "for example, the body of a function is a compound statement". That is PRECISELY wrong. The syntax of a function declaration is separate from the syntax of if, for, and while, each of which control a "statement", which can be either a simple statement, or a block.
Writing this shows in fact you're incompetent, and have had no experience, as Herb and I have had, in developing either a parser or a compiler. It is fine for you to program, and to bullshit about programming online. What's not fine is for you, with no expert standing, to maliciously attack a person's reputation and livelihood, the reputation and livelihood of each of Herb's editors and technical reviewers at McGraw-Hill, and that of anyone who disagrees with you.
It is civil and criminal libel.
## * Block scope begins with the opening { of a block and ends with ## its associated closing }. "This is not true: while the scopes end as described, they begin, for each identifier, at the end of its "declarator" (that is, at the comma, equals sign, or semicolon after it is declared). This is particularly important for identifiers with block scope."
If i is declared at the beginning of a block (as it must be in certain dialects of the ill-defined mess C) then it's moot whether you say its scope starts at the beginning of the block or at its definition. Common sense tells us not to use the variable above its declaration. Here, you are just showing off.
Your critique is mostly nits, matters of interpretation, and Microsoft hatred. It is criminal and civil libel and if I were Herb, I'd of old have sued you for libel. If I were your father, I'd kick your ass. -- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
> On 2009-11-06, Clive D.W. Feather <cl...@davros.org> wrote:
> > [Hmm; I go away for a few days and he's still at it.]
> You've missed much of the fun.
> > If you're desperate to find out, do what any decent collegiate academic > > would do and research it for yourself. The answer is out there if you look.
> You know, the more I think about it, the funnier this has the potential > to be.
> Consider: Imagine that he were to research your qualifications. And > imagine that he brought the same obsessiveness, accuacy, care, and > attention to detail to this task that he brought to his study of C > and his writing about various documents critical of Schildt's writings.
> I really can't see a way this can fail to be comedy gold. I imagine > that, even now, he's carefully reviewing some teenager's Harry Potter > fan site to see whether perhaps you studied at Hogwarts. Later, he'll > reveal that, as the creator of the Daleks, you are a threat to liberty > and humanity, and make fun of you about the whole "stairs" thing.
Your care was on display as a moderator when you allowed a post that accidentally involved Seibel. Why is it OK for you to pretend to be a newsgroup moderator? You're not competent at the job.
I believe that you, without adequate educational qualifications, are trying to make a career in two ways
(1) You volunteer for jobs at which you're not competent.
(2) You destroy careers of competent people.
For example, you appear to have volunteered to "serve" on the ISO standards effort strictly in order to appear to be an expert, in preference to returning to graduate school to actually learn comp science. Had you done so, you would not have written, in "C: The Complete Nonsense" this howler: "the 'heap' is a DOS term".
You are the Sarah Palin of this newsgroup, because you claim competence in roughly the same way she did when she claimed competence in foreign policy based on Alaska being next to Russia. You take jobs for personal advancement but act in them as irresponsibly as she acted when she quit her job as governor to work on her personal advancement, and, while governor, ruined the careers of her opponents.
Herb knew that you need SOME sort of linked list "heap" and SOME sort of LIFO data structure to implement a language with recursive procedures because he, unlike you, has written a small implementation of C and has, unlike you, completed the BS and MSCS in computer science. He knows there's no such thing as truly undefined behavior unless you are closet programmer in the sense of somebody who speculates idly about code and who trashes real programmers.
> -s > -- > Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! > -- > comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must > have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, > or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
-- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
> On Nov 7, 12:56 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote: <snip>
> Your care was on display as a moderator when you allowed a post that > accidentally involved Seibel. Why is it OK for you to pretend to be a > newsgroup moderator? You're not competent at the job.
Why did you make the error in the first place? It is your responsibility to review and edit your posts prior to sending.
Dennis
. -- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
> But the really stunning error is "for example, the body of a function > is a compound statement". That is PRECISELY wrong. The syntax of a > function declaration is separate from the syntax of if, for, and > while, each of which control a "statement", which can be either a > simple statement, or a block.
Wrong again.
The grammar for a function definition is in C99 6.9.1p1:
Oh, and you also managed to confuse function definitions with function declarations.
> Writing this shows in fact you're incompetent, and have had no > experience, as Herb and I have had, in developing either a parser or a > compiler. It is fine for you to program, and to bullshit about > programming online. What's not fine is for you, with no expert > standing, to maliciously attack a person's reputation and livelihood, > the reputation and livelihood of each of Herb's editors and technical > reviewers at McGraw-Hill, and that of anyone who disagrees with you.
> It is civil and criminal libel.
Hahahahahahahaha!
-- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> Nokia "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister" -- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
On 2009-12-22, Dennis (Icarus) <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> Why did you make the error in the first place? > It is your responsibility to review and edit your posts prior to sending.
And again, I have no idea how I should have guessed that it was an error. There is such a person as Peter Siebel, he's an Apress author, he was an English major... Even if I thought it WERE my job to determine whether people were posting sense, I can't imagine how I was supposed to realize that Spinoza had not only the name wrong, but other attributes as well, such that by amazing coincidence he used a name which matched the other attributes he picked.
And frankly, really, if I were in the business of rejecting posts for containing obvious errors, we'd never have heard of Spinoza.
FWIW, I don't plan to stop posting his perhaps-maybe-topical rants, but I don't expect anyone to refrain from killfiling him. I know I have; he was funny briefly and has since ceased to amuse. When I want comparably qualified opinions on Schildt's writing, I'll ask my cat.
-s -- Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! -- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
> > But the really stunning error is "for example, the body of a function > > is a compound statement". That is PRECISELY wrong. The syntax of a > > function declaration is separate from the syntax of if, for, and > > while, each of which control a "statement", which can be either a > > simple statement, or a block.
> Wrong again.
> The grammar for a function definition is in C99 6.9.1p1:
> Oh, and you also managed to confuse function definitions with > function declarations.
I use declaration and definition interchangeably because the two concepts are incorrectly separated in C. The body of the function "definition" is not a statement in any meaningful sense. Therefore it should not be called a "compound statement". It should be called a block.
The problem here is that the out of date grammar and semantics of C structure your thought. But, a grammar is not science. It's just a taxonomy, a "terminology" which here blinds you to the fact that it's a pure accident that compound statements and the bodies of function definitions/declarations have identical syntax.
You lack experience outside of C which causes you to think of artifacts such as sequence points are real science when in fact they have roughly the same status as astrology. But you also never have implemented C, which also causes you to treat an artifact as natural.
> > Writing this shows in fact you're incompetent, and have had no > > experience, as Herb and I have had, in developing either a parser or a > > compiler. It is fine for you to program, and to bullshit about > > programming online. What's not fine is for you, with no expert > > standing, to maliciously attack a person's reputation and livelihood, > > the reputation and livelihood of each of Herb's editors and technical > > reviewers at McGraw-Hill, and that of anyone who disagrees with you.
> > It is civil and criminal libel.
> Hahahahahahahaha!
Hmm, I thought you were ignoring me, Kiki.
> -- > Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> > Nokia > "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." > -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister" > -- > comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must > have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, > or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
-- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
On Dec 23, 7:52 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2009-12-22, Dennis (Icarus) <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> > Why did you make the error in the first place? > > It is your responsibility to review and edit your posts prior to sending.
> And again, I have no idea how I should have guessed that it was an > error. There is such a person as Peter Siebel, he's an Apress author, > he was an English major... Even if I thought it WERE my job to determine > whether people were posting sense, I can't imagine how I was supposed to > realize that Spinoza had not only the name wrong, but other attributes > as well, such that by amazing coincidence he used a name which matched the > other attributes he picked.
It was pretty obvious. The inattention was yours, and I believe you took the job as moderator to appear to be more qualified than you actually are.
> And frankly, really, if I were in the business of rejecting posts for > containing obvious errors, we'd never have heard of Spinoza.
Gee, what part of comp.lang.c [unmoderated} don't you understand?
> FWIW, I don't plan to stop posting his perhaps-maybe-topical rants, but > I don't expect anyone to refrain from killfiling him. I know I have; he > was funny briefly and has since ceased to amuse. When I want comparably > qualified opinions on Schildt's writing, I'll ask my cat.
> -s > -- > Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! > -- > comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must > have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, > or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
-- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
> > On Nov 7, 12:56 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote: > <snip>
> > Your care was on display as a moderator when you allowed a post that > > accidentally involved Seibel. Why is it OK for you to pretend to be a > > newsgroup moderator? You're not competent at the job.
> Why did you make the error in the first place? > It is your responsibility to review and edit your posts prior to sending.
Oooooohhhh....personal Responsibility. Yes, of course. It's also the responsibility of the "moderator" of a "moderated" group to "moderate" the "group": cf. comp.risks for an example of proper moderation. Peter Neumann, when sent something questionable, has the personal courage and maturity to in all cases use email to communicate about posts with errors, but Seebach, who took the job as moderator (as far as I can tell) to appear to be more qualified than he is, is afraid to do this.
In real publication, fact checkers and editors catch the inevitable confusions and errors that creep in. The poster to a moderated group has the right to expect this of the moderator.
I believe Seebach saw the error and posted the submission anyway as a stunt. I could have made the error deliberately to show his incompetence as a stunt as well. But such stunts are a waste of time and render these groups useless for their intended purpose.
The matter at hand is whether Seebach and Feather libeled Schildt while making the same type of errors they accuse Schildt of making, and "the 'heap' is a DOS term" demonstrates this to be the case.
> Dennis
> . > -- > comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must > have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, > or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
-- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
> On 2009-12-22, Dennis (Icarus) <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> > Why did you make the error in the first place? > > It is your responsibility to review and edit your posts prior to sending.
> And again, I have no idea how I should have guessed that it was an > error. There is such a person as Peter Siebel, he's an Apress author, > he was an English major... Even if I thought it WERE my job to determine > whether people were posting sense, I can't imagine how I was supposed to > realize that Spinoza had not only the name wrong, but other attributes > as well, such that by amazing coincidence he used a name which matched the > other attributes he picked.
> And frankly, really, if I were in the business of rejecting posts for > containing obvious errors, we'd never have heard of Spinoza.
> FWIW, I don't plan to stop posting his perhaps-maybe-topical rants, but > I don't expect anyone to refrain from killfiling him. I know I have; he > was funny briefly and has since ceased to amuse. When I want comparably > qualified opinions on Schildt's writing, I'll ask my cat.
> -s > -- > Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! > -- > comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must > have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, > or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
Peter, you seem to have very little real-world business experience, because if you'd had such experience, you'd have learned to "never knock the competition". I think you make Apress look bad with your Schildt post, since, as I have said, the post has gone viral and is the single source of all rumors about Schildt, because (as I have said) Internet users confuse duplicate information with new information.
I know you're not speaking as an Apress author in the Schildt post, since you posted it before your publication, but that's how it appears.
As it happened, Schildt wrote a book that for all of its flaws, actual C programmers (mostly Microsoft) were able to use to do their jobs. Had the book not been useful, the free market would have rejected it. It would have had Richard's sales for C Unleashed.
When I was actively working with Apress (back in 2004), it seemed to me that they had a great deal of gracious tolerance of a variety of authorial voices. One author thanked his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the preface.
However, I have learned since that time that because the norm for people today is so very dysfunctional, there are some "authorial voices" that should be silenced. NOT authors who make "mistakes", real or imagined (especially not usenet posters who make mistakes and then almost immediately post corrections). No, authors who
(1) Demonize other writers, allowing a single document to go viral
(2) Refuse as editors and moderators to get in touch with them to clear things up, as in your cases where you refused to work with McGraw Hill without being paid a probably unconscionable sum or where you "moderate" without using email to fact-check and to edit
Perhaps had you been an English major like friend Seebach, or just a truly cultivated person, you would have realized that there are multiple ways of saying things. Herb wasn't saying that "there must be a stack at low memory and a heap growing down" any more than the teacher of geometry says that the right triangle of which the Pythagorean theorem is true must have a certain size. "Authorial voice" means that the author phrases things a certain way which because of the nature of natural, as opposed to computer language, can be misinterpreted.
Grow up. Learn how to review books with more tolerance. Or just don't. Instead, get a real programming job in Asia and learn how real programmers make and admit mistakes while tolerating alternate ways. -- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
-- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> Nokia "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister" -- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
> In real publication, fact checkers and editors catch the inevitable > confusions and errors that creep in. The poster to a moderated group > has the right to expect this of the moderator.
No, they have the right to expect the moderator to carry out the policy of the specific group.Rejecting posts here (as in the other newsgroups I take) because of factual error is not part of the policy of clc.moderated. If it were then the job would be impossible.
The only issue here is whether a moderator should censor criticism of himself. My answer is an emphatic 'No'. However I think that rejecting your posts for foul language and personal abuse would be fine. -- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
spinoza1111 wrote: > On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote: >> spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> But the really stunning error is "for example, the body of a function >>> is a compound statement". That is PRECISELY wrong. The syntax of a >>> function declaration is separate from the syntax of if, for, and >>> while, each of which control a "statement", which can be either a >>> simple statement, or a block. >> Wrong again.
>> The grammar for a function definition is in C99 6.9.1p1:
>> Oh, and you also managed to confuse function definitions with >> function declarations.
> I use declaration and definition interchangeably because the two > concepts are incorrectly separated in C.
As a definition is also a declaration I fail to see how they have been separated except in so far as there are declarations that are not definitions (in the technical sense applied within the C Standard)
6.7 para 5 of the 1999 Standard states: A declaration specifies the interpretation and attributes of a set of identifiers. A definition (in italics so it is a 'definition of the word within the technical context as required by ISO rules) of an identifier is a declaration for that identifier that: -- for an object, causes storage to be reserved for that object; -- for a function, includes the function body; -- for an enumeration constant or typedef name, is the (only) declaration of the identifier.
The body of the function
> "definition" is not a statement in any meaningful sense. Therefore it > should not be called a "compound statement". It should be called a > block.
I think you are using plain English meanings for words that have been specifically refined for use in the C Standard. The usage of statement in C is described in 6.8 and a function definition is exactly a group of zero or more C statements and such a group is called a compound statement.
If you want to argue about these things you are in the wrong newsgroup. The correct newsgroup for such issues is comp.std.c.
> The problem here is that the out of date grammar and semantics of C > structure your thought. But, a grammar is not science. It's just a > taxonomy, a "terminology" which here blinds you to the fact that it's > a pure accident that compound statements and the bodies of function > definitions/declarations have identical syntax.
Rubbish. When discussing technical issues it is desirable to understand what others are saying. This is achieved by having an agreement as to the meaning of some terms.
> You lack experience outside of C which causes you to think of > artifacts such as sequence points are real science when in fact they > have roughly the same status as astrology. But you also never have > implemented C, which also causes you to treat an artifact as natural.
Sequence points are exactly what the C Standard says they are and whether or not they have any relevance outside C is immaterial. Yes they are problematic but identifying places where side effects of a computation will be complete is of benefit to those writing high quality (and high integrity) code. One of the problems WG14 is grappling with at the moment is that sequence points are rather less useful in a world of multi-core, multi-CPU systems. But that does not make them useless or some mythical invention.
From the above I deduce that Herbert Schildt for all his failings both real and imagined knows a great deal more about C than you do, just not as much as he thinks he does (on the evidence of his published works.)
What degrees a person has is relevant for a few years after they have obtained them but they should be increasingly judged on what they have done subsequently. This is particularly true in technological areas where change and development happens at such a fast rate. There is nothing magical in having a degree in computer science. Indeed I recall that the only person I ever had removed from a computer programming course was one of the few people attending these courses who had such a degree. It amazed me to discover that he had succeeded in getting a BA in CS without ever having written a successful program (i.e. one that compiled and executed to do what it was designed to do.) My employers had to send him back to his employer with a recommendation that he spend the next few weeks intensively gaining experience of actually writing code. After which they were willing to allow him to redo the course. -- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
>> > On Nov 7, 12:56 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote: >> <snip>
>> > Your care was on display as a moderator when you allowed a post that >> > accidentally involved Seibel. Why is it OK for you to pretend to be a >> > newsgroup moderator? You're not competent at the job.
>> Why did you make the error in the first place? >> It is your responsibility to review and edit your posts prior to sending.
> Oooooohhhh....personal Responsibility. Yes, of course.
That's where you should've stopped.
> In real publication, fact checkers and editors catch the inevitable > confusions and errors that creep in. The poster to a moderated group > has the right to expect this of the moderator.
Not necessarily. You may want to read the comp.lang.c.moerated faq. Also, in the books I've read, the author will take responsibility for any errors, and not try to blame others. It's usually in the acknowledgements/introduction section.
<snip>
Dennis
. -- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
In <clcm-20091222-0...@plethora.net>, spinoza1111 wrote:
<snip>
> It's also the > responsibility of the "moderator" of a "moderated" group to > "moderate" the "group": cf. comp.risks for an example of proper > moderation.
Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com, but this does seem to be one such occasion. I have only occasionally dipped into comp.risks, and never posted there as far as I can recall, but a quick Google search gives at least one indicator that the moderator is doing a grand job; it seems that not a single article by spinoza1111 has ever been approved. It seems to be a very successful policy.
-- Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk> Email: -http://www. +rjh@ "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line vacant - apply within -- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
spinoza1111 wrote: > I think you make xxxxxx look bad with your > Schildt post, since, as I have said, the post has gone viral and is > the single source of all rumors about Schildt, because (as I have > said) Internet users confuse duplicate information with new > information.
No one has provided more duplicate information on Schildt reviews than you have.
You have been relentless in making sure that Schildt reviews should be read by everyone who reads these newsgroups.
I can only assume you have some reason to promote the Schildt reviews
w.. -- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
> spinoza1111wrote: > > I think you make xxxxxx look bad with your > > Schildt post, since, as I have said, the post has gone viral and is > > the single source of all rumors about Schildt, because (as I have > > said) Internet users confuse duplicate information with new > > information.
> No one has provided more duplicate information > on Schildt reviews than you have.
> You have been relentless in making sure that Schildt > reviews should be read by everyone who reads > these newsgroups.
> I can only assume you have some reason to promote > the Schildt reviews
There's no such thing as bad publicity. My own book royalties have been increasing as people see me flamed.
If people revisit Schildt's books after realizing how thin the case against him actually was, this benefits him.
Once you publish a computer book, you're in the public eye for good or bad.
> w.. > -- > comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must > have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, > or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
-- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
> In <clcm-20091222-0...@plethora.net>,spinoza1111wrote:
> <snip>
> > It's also the > > responsibility of the "moderator" of a "moderated" group to > > "moderate" the "group": cf. comp.risks for an example of proper > > moderation.
> Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the > self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com, but this does seem to be one such > occasion. I have only occasionally dipped into comp.risks, and never > posted there as far as I can recall, but a quick Google search gives > at least one indicator that the moderator is doing a grand job; it > seems that not a single article byspinoza1111has ever been > approved. It seems to be a very successful policy.
You're lying; see for example "The Total Information Awareness program is a RISK! (Edward G. Nilges)" in Risks 22.24 at http://lists.jammed.com/RISKS/2002/12/0003.html. In that post, I critiqued an enormous Homeland Security boondoggle run by thugs like you from a technical data base standpoint.
How does it feel to have your lack of credibility and vicious dishonesty so completely exposed?
Peter Neumann, unlike Seebach, reads submissions and he has contacted me with questions. Furthermore, he agreed in 2003 to be interviewed by me on his memories of Dijkstra for my book.
Unfortunately, he is not getting any younger, and the new generation of liars, fools and thugs (like you, Peter Seebach, and "quertyuiop" at www.lamma.com.HK) are too dishonest, too careless, and too biased to moderate "moderated" groups with any moderation or decency.
Asshole.
> -- > Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk> > Email: -http://www. +rjh@ > "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 > Sig line vacant - apply within > -- > comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must > have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, > or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
-- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes: > In <clcm-20091222-0...@plethora.net>, spinoza1111 wrote:
> <snip>
>> It's also the >> responsibility of the "moderator" of a "moderated" group to >> "moderate" the "group": cf. comp.risks for an example of proper >> moderation.
> Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the > self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com, but this does seem to be one such > occasion. I have only occasionally dipped into comp.risks, and never > posted there as far as I can recall, but a quick Google search gives > at least one indicator that the moderator is doing a grand job; it > seems that not a single article by spinoza1111 has ever been > approved. It seems to be a very successful policy.
A groups.google.com advanced search shows no articles in comp.risks with "spinoza1111" or "Nilges" as the author, but that's because of the way the digest is generated. Each posting to the comp.risks newsgroup is a collection of individual articles; the author of the collection is shown as "RISKS List Owner". Apparently groups.google.com doesn't dig into the body of each sub-article in a digest to extract the individual headers.
A groups.google.com search for "spinoza1111" or "Nilges" in the body of messages in comp.risks, or a search on the comp.risks web site, <http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks>, does get a number of hits.
(I've dropped comp.lang.c from the Newsgroups line; there's no reason for this to be cross-posted.)
-- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> Nokia "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister" -- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes: > > In <clcm-20091222-0...@plethora.net>,spinoza1111wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> It's also the > >> responsibility of the "moderator" of a "moderated" group to > >> "moderate" the "group": cf. comp.risks for an example of proper > >> moderation.
> > Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the > > self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com, but this does seem to be one such > > occasion. I have only occasionally dipped into comp.risks, and never > > posted there as far as I can recall, but a quick Google search gives > > at least one indicator that the moderator is doing a grand job; it > > seems that not a single article byspinoza1111has ever been > > approved. It seems to be a very successful policy.
> A groups.google.com advanced search shows no articles in comp.risks > with "spinoza1111" or "Nilges" as the author, but that's because of > the way the digest is generated. Each posting to the comp.risks > newsgroup is a collection of individual articles; the author > of the collection is shown as "RISKS List Owner". Apparently > groups.google.com doesn't dig into the body of each sub-article in > a digest to extract the individual headers.
I thought you were staying out of this, Kiki, but never mind...
If this is meant to defend Heathfield, it fails. To be considered free of malicious (and therefore libelous) intent, Heathfield had to exercise diligence, using the expertise he claims.
If I claim to have posted and Heathfield says I'm lying, the matter is serious enough for him to investigate a null result. He would quickly learn that the "author" is the Risks list owner, and would have to (to be considered by a court of law free of malicious intent) (1) note that each post contains several authors and (2) find the proper archive.
Even with malicious intent, a normal user would do this merely to avoid looking foolish and incompetent in light of Richard's claims to expertise.
If Richard even occasionally dipped into comp.risks, he would see that each post is a collective of authors, each of whom has been approved by the moderator.
> A groups.google.com search for "spinoza1111" or "Nilges" in the body > of messages in comp.risks, or a search on the comp.risks web site, > <http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks>, does get a number of hits.
Yes, and what this shows is that the "isolated lone nuts" here are people like Heathfield, since Neumann is a highly respected person who takes a great deal of care in moderating comp.risks.
> (I've dropped comp.lang.c from the Newsgroups line; there's no reason > for this to be cross-posted.)
> -- > Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> > Nokia > "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." > -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister" > -- > comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must > have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, > or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
-- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
Mr. Moderator, I call for a cutoff of this "Herb Schildt" thread, as the primary poster in it has admitted that the motive behind it is COMMERCIAL SPAM:
>There's no such thing as bad publicity. My own book royalties have >been increasing as people see me flamed.
-- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
On Dec 25, 3:47 pm, gordonb.6r...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
> Mr. Moderator, I call for a cutoff of this "Herb Schildt" thread, > as the primary poster in it has admitted that the motive behind it > is COMMERCIAL SPAM:
> >There's no such thing as bad publicity. My own book royalties have > >been increasing as people see me flamed.
That's not my motivation. It's just a happy accident. Trust me: I could make money a lot faster than by posting here.
> -- > comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must > have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, > or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
-- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
spinoza1111 wrote: > On Dec 24, 3:15 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote: >> In <clcm-20091222-0...@plethora.net>,spinoza1111wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> It's also the >>> responsibility of the "moderator" of a "moderated" group to >>> "moderate" the "group": cf. comp.risks for an example of proper >>> moderation. >> Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the >> self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com, but this does seem to be one such >> occasion. I have only occasionally dipped into comp.risks, and never >> posted there as far as I can recall, but a quick Google search gives >> at least one indicator that the moderator is doing a grand job; it >> seems that not a single article byspinoza1111has ever been >> approved. It seems to be a very successful policy.
> You're lying; see for example "The Total Information Awareness program > is a RISK! (Edward G. Nilges)" in Risks 22.24 at > http://lists.jammed.com/RISKS/2002/12/0003.html. In that post, I > critiqued an enormous Homeland Security boondoggle run by thugs like > you from a technical data base standpoint.
> How does it feel to have your lack of credibility and vicious > dishonesty so completely exposed?
> Peter Neumann, unlike Seebach, reads submissions and he has contacted > me with questions. Furthermore, he agreed in 2003 to be interviewed by > me on his memories of Dijkstra for my book.
> Unfortunately, he is not getting any younger, and the new generation > of liars, fools and thugs (like you, Peter Seebach, and "quertyuiop" > at www.lamma.com.HK) are too dishonest, too careless, and too biased > to moderate "moderated" groups with any moderation or decency.
> Asshole.
And why would one search for the name Edward Nilges when checking for posts by spinoza1111? Apparently to add to all your other deficiencies, you are unable to read plain English.
A lie is something said with the deliberate intent to deceive. I can see no evidence that Richard has done any such thing. What I do see is evidence that you have mental deficiencies (and sue me, please do, I would really love it in view of the mountain of evidence you have provided here and elsewhere in usenet newsgroups)
If you choose to post rubbish as spinoza1111 and sense as Edward Nilges (assuming without looking that that is the case, and I will take the moderator of comp.risks word for that). that is your affair. -- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
On 2009-12-25, Gordon Burditt <gordonb.6r...@burditt.org> wrote:
> Mr. Moderator, I call for a cutoff of this "Herb Schildt" thread, > as the primary poster in it has admitted that the motive behind it > is COMMERCIAL SPAM: >>There's no such thing as bad publicity. My own book royalties have >>been increasing as people see me flamed.
Tempting, but I think I'll let it run. I don't think it qualifies as commercial spam, even if it might theoretically be yeilding positive results. Also, we have no credible source for the claim that book royalties are affected at all by this.
-s -- Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! -- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
|
