Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: bart again (UCX64)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 22:29:20 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <87frxu8clb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <b74c088d-09e6-4842-8b6c-1921d68154c7n@googlegroups.com> <ud2eod$10jv5$1@dont-email.me> <ud4604$1cbam$1@dont-email.me> <ud4a6a$1d4cd$1@dont-email.me> <ud4rbl$1h1t4$1@dont-email.me> <87h6o95znv.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86jzt5pgho.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87zg214c1j.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <uj9jnq$373ka$1@dont-email.me> <87sf53dvmd.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <861qcmxi7t.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87jzqde9hy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86sf3pu46x.fsf@linuxsc.com> <umii50$3p6q$1@dont-email.me> <umipme$8lo2$1@dont-email.me> <86zfwvejxi.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87r0i78uu2.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <uoqlbc$1og8m$1@dont-email.me> <uorfhp$1sonl$1@dont-email.me> <8734um7ctd.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86o7ci1f8e.fsf@linuxsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e5c98b55bbe910135c5e6009c29bfdcf"; logging-data="3346468"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19N7QK070uULRyBuYNC6jaF"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:04P/p4lTIioJ9MPFgFHQmNWjglU= sha1:sQE65IME9kRFxzpOHmjauUdl3dE=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:382509

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> [...]
> I have now read through your comments several times, first somewhat
> quickly and then more slowly and carefully.  (To be specific, the
> comments referred to are those in the posting being replied to, and
> also those three articles up from the immediately previous one, in
> the same thread.)  Here is a short synopsis of my perceptions from
> the prior discussions.
>
> I posted a followup containing only a short one-sentence comment,
> which precipitated a long series of postings and comments going
> back and forth.
>
> After realizing that my original one-sentence statement had been
> misunderstood, I withdrew the earlier statement, meaning the
> original one-sentence comment that precipitated it all.  I was
> hoping to wrap up the discussion.  Following my statement of
> withdrawal I have nothing more to say about that.

At the time, you had a great deal to say following your statement of
withdrawal.

I'm frankly tired of this whole thing.  Please do not feel obligated to
tell us yet again that you have nothing more to say, or to keep up
updated on how many times you've read my through comments.

If you have something relevant to say, especially something relevant to
C, by all means say it.  If you don't, I won't ask you not to post, but
I would prefer it.

You've expressed a desire to wrap this up.  You can do so now.  (I'll
also suggest that others not continue this discussion unless you have
something new and relevant to add.)

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */