Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #79722 > unrolled thread

Re: lamda-optimization

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: lamda-optimization red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2021-05-31 12:41 -0700
    Re: lamda-optimization Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-01 06:15 +0200
      Re: lamda-optimization Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-01 15:24 +0200
        Re: lamda-optimization Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-01 09:04 -0700
          Re: lamda-optimization Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-01 18:42 +0200
        Re: lamda-optimization red floyd <no.spam@its.invalid> - 2021-06-01 20:26 -0700
          Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 05:33 +0200
      Re: lamda-optimization Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-01 14:51 +0200
    Re: lamda-optimization Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-06-01 07:10 +0000
      Re: lamda-optimization Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-01 10:29 +0100
      Re: lamda-optimization MrSpook_x510g@6uikovuenojv.gov.uk - 2021-06-01 18:27 +0000
        Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 05:10 +0200
          Re: lamda-optimization James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-02 00:14 -0400
            Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 07:26 +0200
              Re: lamda-optimization Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-02 01:47 -0700
                Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 11:49 +0200
                  Re: lamda-optimization James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-02 09:34 -0400
                    Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 15:50 +0200
                      Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 16:28 +0200
                        Re: lamda-optimization scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-06-02 14:45 +0000
                          Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 17:58 +0200
                      Re: lamda-optimization James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-02 10:14 -0400
                      Re: lamda-optimization David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-02 16:19 +0200
                        Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 16:30 +0200
                        Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 16:38 +0200
                          Re: lamda-optimization David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-02 17:46 +0200
                            Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 18:00 +0200
                              Re: lamda-optimization Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-02 10:17 -0700
                                Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 19:30 +0200
                  Re: lamda-optimization Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-02 10:11 -0700
                    Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 19:30 +0200
            Re: lamda-optimization David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-02 09:39 +0200
              Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 10:23 +0200
                Re: lamda-optimization "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-02 11:38 -0700
              Re: lamda-optimization James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-02 10:15 -0400
                Re: lamda-optimization Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-02 19:01 +0200
                  Re: lamda-optimization Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> - 2021-06-02 19:30 +0200
                  Re: lamda-optimization "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-02 11:39 -0700
          Re: lamda-optimization scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-06-02 14:21 +0000
            Re: lamda-optimization MrSpook_2TF@zp_6z10zl3.info - 2021-06-03 08:12 +0000
        Re: lamda-optimization Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-06-02 05:05 +0000
          Re: lamda-optimization MrSpook_9na7kf9y25@bv5tkwx.biz - 2021-06-03 08:10 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#80095

On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 14:45:41 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> writes:
>>On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 10:14:05 -0400, James Kuyper
>><jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>>>You're behaving rudely by discussing issues which aren't related to the
>>>topic of this newsgroup. You're being sexist by claiming that a woman
>>>deserves more respect than she would otherwise be entitled to if she
>>>were instead male, but that's a separate issue. And you're showing bad
>>>judgement by praising that particular woman, which is yet a third issue.
>>>Also, keep in mind that this is the internet - there's no guarantee that
>>>any particular person actually possesses the same gender that they claim
>>>to possess. According to you, would I be entitled to more respect if I
>>>posted using the name Juanita?
>>
>>what a misinterpretation of my intentions: I never claimed woman merit
>>"more" respect, I claimed woman merit respect, which was being negated
>>in this case.
>>
>
>Respect should be earned.   Politeness should be de rigueur.

again disagreeing totally.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80088

On 6/2/21 9:50 AM, Doctor Who wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:34:04 -0400, James Kuyper
> <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/2/21 5:49 AM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 01:47:58 -0700, Keith Thompson
>>> <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>> if you are not a moderator of this newsgroup please refrain from
>>> trying to educate people on how they must behave online.
>>
>> This is an unmoderated newsgroup, which means that Keith can't do any
>> more to stop you from acting rudely than you can do to stop him from
>> pointing out your rudeness. Enjoy!
> 
> Thus I am acting rudely because I defend a woman?

You're behaving rudely by discussing issues which aren't related to the
topic of this newsgroup. You're being sexist by claiming that a woman
deserves more respect than she would otherwise be entitled to if she
were instead male, but that's a separate issue. And you're showing bad
judgement by praising that particular woman, which is yet a third issue.
Also, keep in mind that this is the internet - there's no guarantee that
any particular person actually possesses the same gender that they claim
to possess. According to you, would I be entitled to more respect if I
posted using the name Juanita?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80090

On 02/06/2021 15:50, Doctor Who wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:34:04 -0400, James Kuyper
> <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/2/21 5:49 AM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 01:47:58 -0700, Keith Thompson
>>> <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>> if you are not a moderator of this newsgroup please refrain from
>>> trying to educate people on how they must behave online.
>>
>> This is an unmoderated newsgroup, which means that Keith can't do any
>> more to stop you from acting rudely than you can do to stop him from
>> pointing out your rudeness. Enjoy!
> 
> Thus I am acting rudely because I defend a woman?
> 

You did not "defend a woman" - you /belittled/ a woman.  (Assuming, of
course, that Bonita /is/ a woman.)

Gender does not matter in programming, or in discussions about
programming.  Therefore, any treatment based on gender in a forum about
programming is necessarily sexist and prejudice.  It doesn't matter
whether you are attacking a person for their gender, or defending them
because of it.  You have, in essence, been saying that Bonita needs help
to argue on the internet because she is merely a woman - it is clearly
sexist on your part.

(It is absolutely fine to call out and complain about prejudice of any
sort - that is a different matter.)

> what nicety, and what a pity.
> 

It is a pity that people are rude and sexist.  I can't judge your
motives - without further evidence, I can assume that you meant well and
did not realise that you were being sexist.  But now you know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80091

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:19:32 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 02/06/2021 15:50, Doctor Who wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:34:04 -0400, James Kuyper
>> <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/2/21 5:49 AM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 01:47:58 -0700, Keith Thompson
>>>> <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> if you are not a moderator of this newsgroup please refrain from
>>>> trying to educate people on how they must behave online.
>>>
>>> This is an unmoderated newsgroup, which means that Keith can't do any
>>> more to stop you from acting rudely than you can do to stop him from
>>> pointing out your rudeness. Enjoy!
>> 
>> Thus I am acting rudely because I defend a woman?
>> 
>
>You did not "defend a woman" - you /belittled/ a woman.  (Assuming, of
>course, that Bonita /is/ a woman.)
>
>Gender does not matter in programming, or in discussions about
>programming.  Therefore, any treatment based on gender in a forum about
>programming is necessarily sexist and prejudice.  It doesn't matter
>whether you are attacking a person for their gender, or defending them
>because of it.  You have, in essence, been saying that Bonita needs help
>to argue on the internet because she is merely a woman - it is clearly
>sexist on your part.
>
>(It is absolutely fine to call out and complain about prejudice of any
>sort - that is a different matter.)
>
>> what nicety, and what a pity.
>> 
>
>It is a pity that people are rude and sexist.  I can't judge your
>motives - without further evidence, I can assume that you meant well and
>did not realise that you were being sexist.  But now you know.

believe as you want, I take your words as a total herring from the
truth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80092

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:19:32 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 02/06/2021 15:50, Doctor Who wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:34:04 -0400, James Kuyper
>> <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/2/21 5:49 AM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 01:47:58 -0700, Keith Thompson
>>>> <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> if you are not a moderator of this newsgroup please refrain from
>>>> trying to educate people on how they must behave online.
>>>
>>> This is an unmoderated newsgroup, which means that Keith can't do any
>>> more to stop you from acting rudely than you can do to stop him from
>>> pointing out your rudeness. Enjoy!
>> 
>> Thus I am acting rudely because I defend a woman?
>> 
>
>You did not "defend a woman" - you /belittled/ a woman.  (Assuming, of
>course, that Bonita /is/ a woman.)
>
>Gender does not matter in programming, or in discussions about
>programming.  Therefore, any treatment based on gender in a forum about
>programming is necessarily sexist and prejudice.  It doesn't matter


the problem at hand is not the forum, but the person which was being
negated respect, and according to nickname she is a woman.


>whether you are attacking a person for their gender, or defending them
>because of it.  You have, in essence, been saying that Bonita needs help
>to argue on the internet because she is merely a woman - it is clearly
>sexist on your part.

Yes! and I am free to help anybody I want to help.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80094

On 02/06/2021 16:38, Doctor Who wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:19:32 +0200, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/06/2021 15:50, Doctor Who wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:34:04 -0400, James Kuyper
>>> <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/2/21 5:49 AM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 01:47:58 -0700, Keith Thompson
>>>>> <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> if you are not a moderator of this newsgroup please refrain from
>>>>> trying to educate people on how they must behave online.
>>>>
>>>> This is an unmoderated newsgroup, which means that Keith can't do any
>>>> more to stop you from acting rudely than you can do to stop him from
>>>> pointing out your rudeness. Enjoy!
>>>
>>> Thus I am acting rudely because I defend a woman?
>>>
>>
>> You did not "defend a woman" - you /belittled/ a woman.  (Assuming, of
>> course, that Bonita /is/ a woman.)
>>
>> Gender does not matter in programming, or in discussions about
>> programming.  Therefore, any treatment based on gender in a forum about
>> programming is necessarily sexist and prejudice.  It doesn't matter
> 
> 
> the problem at hand is not the forum, but the person which was being
> negated respect, and according to nickname she is a woman.

You are free to complain about people being rude or disrespectful - you
are /not/ free to do so because someone is (or appears to be) a woman.

If you had asked Mr. Spock to be more respectful and polite, that would
have been fine.  But you said he should be respectful because she is a
woman - no other reason.  /That/ is sexist, and disrespectful to Bonita.

How can this be difficult for you to understand?

(I know what it is like to communicate in a language other than one's
mother tongue - if you think the language is an issue, please say so.
You write perfectly good English so I will assume you understand my
language.)

> 
> 
>> whether you are attacking a person for their gender, or defending them
>> because of it.  You have, in essence, been saying that Bonita needs help
>> to argue on the internet because she is merely a woman - it is clearly
>> sexist on your part.
> 
> Yes! and I am free to help anybody I want to help.
> 

You are free to help - you are not free to be sexist (or bigoted in
other ways) without being called out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80096

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 17:46:05 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 02/06/2021 16:38, Doctor Who wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:19:32 +0200, David Brown
>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 02/06/2021 15:50, Doctor Who wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:34:04 -0400, James Kuyper
>>>> <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/2/21 5:49 AM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 01:47:58 -0700, Keith Thompson
>>>>>> <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> if you are not a moderator of this newsgroup please refrain from
>>>>>> trying to educate people on how they must behave online.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an unmoderated newsgroup, which means that Keith can't do any
>>>>> more to stop you from acting rudely than you can do to stop him from
>>>>> pointing out your rudeness. Enjoy!
>>>>
>>>> Thus I am acting rudely because I defend a woman?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You did not "defend a woman" - you /belittled/ a woman.  (Assuming, of
>>> course, that Bonita /is/ a woman.)
>>>
>>> Gender does not matter in programming, or in discussions about
>>> programming.  Therefore, any treatment based on gender in a forum about
>>> programming is necessarily sexist and prejudice.  It doesn't matter
>> 
>> 
>> the problem at hand is not the forum, but the person which was being
>> negated respect, and according to nickname she is a woman.
>
>You are free to complain about people being rude or disrespectful - you
>are /not/ free to do so because someone is (or appears to be) a woman.
>
>If you had asked Mr. Spock to be more respectful and polite, that would
>have been fine.  But you said he should be respectful because she is a
>woman - no other reason.  /That/ is sexist, and disrespectful to Bonita.
>
>How can this be difficult for you to understand?

because it is simply wrong.

>(I know what it is like to communicate in a language other than one's
>mother tongue - if you think the language is an issue, please say so.
>You write perfectly good English so I will assume you understand my
>language.)
>
>> 
>> 
>>> whether you are attacking a person for their gender, or defending them
>>> because of it.  You have, in essence, been saying that Bonita needs help
>>> to argue on the internet because she is merely a woman - it is clearly
>>> sexist on your part.
>> 
>> Yes! and I am free to help anybody I want to help.
>> 
>
>You are free to help - you are not free to be sexist (or bigoted in
>other ways) without being called out.

effectively I am free to do and be as I like, this is the free
internet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80105

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> writes:
[...]
> effectively I am free to do and be as I like, this is the free
> internet.

Yes, you are free to post whatever you want in this unmoderated
newsgroup (which is carried on systems paid for by others, but
that's not particularly relevant).

I have seen nothing from you relevant to C++.  I believe my view of
this newsgroup will be improved by your absence, and fortunately my
newsreader provides the tools to make that happen.  I do not intend
to argue with you any further.  (I would like to see others do the
same, but of course that's up to them.)

If you want to discuss C++, you're in the right place.  If you want
to discuss how we should respect women, you're not.  And to be clear,
this has nothing to do with whether you're right or wrong.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80106

On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 10:17:34 -0700, Keith Thompson
<Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:

>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> writes:
>[...]
>> effectively I am free to do and be as I like, this is the free
>> internet.
>
>Yes, you are free to post whatever you want in this unmoderated
>newsgroup (which is carried on systems paid for by others, but
>that's not particularly relevant).
>
>I have seen nothing from you relevant to C++.  I believe my view of
>this newsgroup will be improved by your absence, and fortunately my
>newsreader provides the tools to make that happen.  I do not intend
>to argue with you any further.  (I would like to see others do the
>same, but of course that's up to them.)
>
>If you want to discuss C++, you're in the right place.  If you want
>to discuss how we should respect women, you're not.  And to be clear,
>this has nothing to do with whether you're right or wrong.


poop.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80104

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> writes:
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 01:47:58 -0700, Keith Thompson
> <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> writes:
>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 00:14:14 -0400, James Kuyper
>>> <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>>>On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>>>...
>>>>> AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.
>>>>
>>>>That's a fairly sexist attitude. Respect is something that must be
>>>>earned, not something that you're automatically entitled to by reason of
>>>>your gender or your position. Bonita has rather spectacularly failed to
>>>>earn my respect, which I'm quite certain doesn't bother her in the least.
>>>
>>> disagreeing totally. Respect is due to woman by virtue of ethics and
>>> civilization.
>>
>>If you respect the participants in this newsgroup, consider refraining
>>from coming in here and lecturing us on things that are unrelated to its
>>topic.
>
> if you are not a moderator of this newsgroup please refrain from
> trying to educate people on how they must behave online.

You first.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80107

On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 10:11:42 -0700, Keith Thompson
<Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:

>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> writes:
>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 01:47:58 -0700, Keith Thompson
>> <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> writes:
>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 00:14:14 -0400, James Kuyper
>>>> <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>>>>On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>>>>...
>>>>>> AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's a fairly sexist attitude. Respect is something that must be
>>>>>earned, not something that you're automatically entitled to by reason of
>>>>>your gender or your position. Bonita has rather spectacularly failed to
>>>>>earn my respect, which I'm quite certain doesn't bother her in the least.
>>>>
>>>> disagreeing totally. Respect is due to woman by virtue of ethics and
>>>> civilization.
>>>
>>>If you respect the participants in this newsgroup, consider refraining
>>>from coming in here and lecturing us on things that are unrelated to its
>>>topic.
>>
>> if you are not a moderator of this newsgroup please refrain from
>> trying to educate people on how they must behave online.
>
>You first.


poop.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80075

On 02/06/2021 06:14, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
> ...
>> AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.
> 
> That's a fairly sexist attitude. Respect is something that must be
> earned, not something that you're automatically entitled to by reason of
> your gender or your position. Bonita has rather spectacularly failed to
> earn my respect, which I'm quite certain doesn't bother her in the least.
> 

Respect is something that you are automatically entitled to by reason of
being a /person/.  (Since both Dr. Who and Mr. Spock are in this thread,
that could be extended to any kind of sentient being.)

Respect for the knowledge or the value of the opinions of a person might
start at zero until it is earned.

Greater respect can then be earned, or it can be lost.

You are right that gender, position, and any other unrelated issue
should have no influence on respect.


I am confident that you are respectful to people you meet - independent
of their gender and anything else.  Then the respect goes up or down
according to politeness, rudeness, knowledge, how they treat others, etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80076

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:39:43 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 02/06/2021 06:14, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
>> ...
>>> AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.
>> 
>> That's a fairly sexist attitude. Respect is something that must be
>> earned, not something that you're automatically entitled to by reason of
>> your gender or your position. Bonita has rather spectacularly failed to
>> earn my respect, which I'm quite certain doesn't bother her in the least.
>> 
>
>Respect is something that you are automatically entitled to by reason of
>being a /person/.  (Since both Dr. Who and Mr. Spock are in this thread,
>that could be extended to any kind of sentient being.)

you are absolutely right, respect is extended also to Vulcanians and
Time Lords.

>Respect for the knowledge or the value of the opinions of a person might
>start at zero until it is earned.
>
>Greater respect can then be earned, or it can be lost.
>
>You are right that gender, position, and any other unrelated issue
>should have no influence on respect.
>
>
>I am confident that you are respectful to people you meet - independent
>of their gender and anything else.  Then the respect goes up or down
>according to politeness, rudeness, knowledge, how they treat others, etc.

I find Bonita nice, polite and exceptional programmer, thus she has my
wholehearted respect.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80111

On 6/2/2021 1:23 AM, Doctor Who wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:39:43 +0200, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/06/2021 06:14, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.
>>>
>>> That's a fairly sexist attitude. Respect is something that must be
>>> earned, not something that you're automatically entitled to by reason of
>>> your gender or your position. Bonita has rather spectacularly failed to
>>> earn my respect, which I'm quite certain doesn't bother her in the least.
>>>
>>
>> Respect is something that you are automatically entitled to by reason of
>> being a /person/.  (Since both Dr. Who and Mr. Spock are in this thread,
>> that could be extended to any kind of sentient being.)
> 
> you are absolutely right, respect is extended also to Vulcanians and
> Time Lords.
> 
>> Respect for the knowledge or the value of the opinions of a person might
>> start at zero until it is earned.
>>
>> Greater respect can then be earned, or it can be lost.
>>
>> You are right that gender, position, and any other unrelated issue
>> should have no influence on respect.
>>
>>
>> I am confident that you are respectful to people you meet - independent
>> of their gender and anything else.  Then the respect goes up or down
>> according to politeness, rudeness, knowledge, how they treat others, etc.
> 
> I find Bonita nice, polite and exceptional programmer, thus she has my
> wholehearted respect.
> 

She does have a tenancy to call people stupid morons. Also, she has this 
rather strange habit of failing to quote properly. Oh well, shit 
happens. :^)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80089

On 6/2/21 3:39 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 02/06/2021 06:14, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
>> ...
>>> AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.
>>
>> That's a fairly sexist attitude. Respect is something that must be
>> earned, not something that you're automatically entitled to by reason of
>> your gender or your position. Bonita has rather spectacularly failed to
>> earn my respect, which I'm quite certain doesn't bother her in the least.
>>
> 
> Respect is something that you are automatically entitled to by reason of
> being a /person/.  (Since both Dr. Who and Mr. Spock are in this thread,
> that could be extended to any kind of sentient being.)
> 
> Respect for the knowledge or the value of the opinions of a person might
> start at zero until it is earned.
> 
> Greater respect can then be earned, or it can be lost.
> 
> You are right that gender, position, and any other unrelated issue
> should have no influence on respect.
> 
> 
> I am confident that you are respectful to people you meet - independent
> of their gender and anything else.  Then the respect goes up or down
> according to politeness, rudeness, knowledge, how they treat others, etc.

Yes, that's an accurate summary of my intent. I should perhaps have said
that "respect, beyond the basic respect that every person is entitled
to, must be earned".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80103

On 6/2/2021 4:15 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 6/2/21 3:39 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 02/06/2021 06:14, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>> ...

It's also possible that Bonita and Doctor Who are the same person, and 
they are joyfully trolling along

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80108

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 19:01:28 +0200, Manfred <noname@add.invalid> wrote:

>On 6/2/2021 4:15 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 6/2/21 3:39 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 02/06/2021 06:14, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>>> ...
>
>It's also possible that Bonita and Doctor Who are the same person, and 
>they are joyfully trolling along


poop.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80112

On 6/2/2021 10:01 AM, Manfred wrote:
> On 6/2/2021 4:15 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 6/2/21 3:39 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 02/06/2021 06:14, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>>> ...
> 
> It's also possible that Bonita and Doctor Who are the same person, and 
> they are joyfully trolling along

Oh my. Perhaps... Na, but... Humm.... Maybe?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80085

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> writes:
>On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 18:27:44 +0000 (UTC),
>MrSpook_x510g@6uikovuenojv.gov.uk wrote:

>>Calling someone stupid fits that description nicely.
>
>AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.

That is two assumptions, and I've strong doubts about the first,
and the second is silly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80124

On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 14:21:31 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> writes:
>>On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 18:27:44 +0000 (UTC),
>>MrSpook_x510g@6uikovuenojv.gov.uk wrote:
>
>>>Calling someone stupid fits that description nicely.
>>
>>AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.
>
>That is two assumptions, and I've strong doubts about the first,
>and the second is silly.

Can't you spot sarcasm?

Plus stick her name into google translate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web