Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 21:12:21 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 48 Message-ID: <86jz6iv7fe.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <20250415153419.00004cf7@yahoo.com> <86h62078i8.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250504180833.00000906@yahoo.com> <86plggzilx.fsf@linuxsc.com> <86ldr4yx0x.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87wmam4xa5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <868qn2zl1m.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87jz6m4m2o.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86selaxprh.fsf@linuxsc.com> <874ixq41xs.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86frh9ykrv.fsf@linuxsc.com> <8634d9xe0p.fsf@linuxsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 06:12:21 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2c1451103104245a7b7395a980375437"; logging-data="3106249"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Gsxiqg+hdr3/8/nMNFsiYMxuMGwgP7kY=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:m8Czw4mzwDOfH8WCJ1l9rVrFtyY= sha1:0XzhixRk5pNbn8gnHvz32b6fjs4= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:393418 Richard Heathfield writes: > On 13/05/2025 06:42, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Richard Heathfield writes: >> >>> On 12/05/2025 15:19, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> >>>> It strikes me that you have a rather self-centered view of the >>>> world. >>> >>> So do you. So do I. So does everybody else. Your eyes are at the >>> precise centre of your observable universe. >> >> I think you have misunderstood me. > > I hope so, because the alternative is unpalatable. > >> (At some later time I may have more to say about your other >> comments, but it seemed important to respond to this part >> more promptly.) > > I think you chose the least important part to respond to, so maybe you > have misunderstood me, too. > > I was trying to defend an honourable man from what seemed to me to be > an unfair and unnecessarily unkind observation. The paragraph you > quote above acknowledges that in some literal sense your accusation of > self-centredness is accurate, and so implies by omission that the more > metaphorical sense that I think you intended is /not/ accurate. > > A fine distinction, some might say. But that's what the other > paragraphs were for. I responded twice to your earlier message. I want to acknowledge this later message and respond here in an effort to achieve some closure. I appreciate the intention of your two followups. It isn't easy to play the role of peacemaker, especially in comp.lang.c, and I think your comments are helping cool things down. Thank you for that. Clearly there have been some misunderstandings. I think it would be a real effort to unwind those (even assuming that they have all been identified), and besides this isn't the right venue at least for some of them. So I don't have more to say about that except to say I am making an effort to do better in the future. Thank you again for trying to help.