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


Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #88625 > unrolled thread

Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set

Started byBonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>
First post2023-01-19 15:42 +0100
Last post2023-01-19 16:48 +0000
Articles 20 on this page of 92 — 24 participants

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: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-01-19 15:42 +0100
    Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-19 16:18 +0100
      Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-19 16:32 +0000
        Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-19 19:22 +0100
          Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-19 20:00 +0000
          Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-20 15:48 +0000
        Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 13:00 +0000
          Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-25 14:52 -0500
            Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 14:13 -0800
              Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-26 00:03 +0100
                Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set ikook <iKook@GMAIL.COM> - 2023-01-25 23:17 +0000
                  Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-25 23:37 +0000
                  Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-26 09:19 +0100
            Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-26 00:09 +0000
              Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-25 23:55 -0500
      Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-19 08:40 -0800
        Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2023-01-19 08:42 -0800
          Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-19 20:10 +0000
            Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-19 20:17 +0000
              Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-20 15:49 +0000
                Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-20 17:21 +0000
                  Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-21 15:50 +0000
                Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-20 11:35 -0800
                  Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-21 13:06 +0100
                    Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-21 15:56 +0000
                      Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-22 13:33 +0100
                        Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-23 09:34 +0000
                          Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-23 14:29 +0100
                            Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 14:21 +0000
                              Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2023-01-23 13:03 -0600
                                Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 20:06 +0000
                                  Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2023-01-23 14:46 -0600
                                    Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 22:00 +0000
                                    Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-24 14:20 +0100
                                      Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-24 15:36 +0000
                                        Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 08:06 -0800
                                        Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-24 18:30 +0100
                                          Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-24 18:50 +0000
                                            Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-24 20:36 +0100
                                            Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2023-01-24 19:50 +0000
                                              Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities Marc SCHAEFER <schaefer@alphanet.ch> - 2023-01-24 19:56 +0000
                                            Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2023-01-24 20:31 -0600
                                              Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 20:07 -0800
                                                Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2023-01-25 05:02 +0000
                                      Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 17:47 +0000
                                        Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-24 13:30 -0500
                                          Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-24 20:42 +0100
                                        Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-24 20:46 +0100
                                          Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-24 19:56 +0000
                                            Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-24 22:00 +0000
                                              Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-25 00:00 +0100
                                                Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-01-25 00:17 +0000
                                                  Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-25 09:43 +0100
                                          Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2023-01-25 10:39 -0600
                                            Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-25 14:51 -0500
                                            Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-26 00:00 +0100
                                              Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 23:49 +0000
                                                Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-26 09:23 +0100
                                              Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) iKook <iKook@gmail.com> - 2023-01-26 02:27 +0000
                                                Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-25 23:55 -0500
                                                  Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) iKook <iKook@gmail.com> - 2023-01-26 18:22 +0000
                                                Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-26 09:44 +0100
                                                  Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-26 01:40 -0800
                                                    Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-26 13:14 +0100
                                                  Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) iKook <iKook@gmail.com> - 2023-01-26 18:13 +0000
                                                  Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2023-01-27 22:12 -0600
                                                    Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-28 13:20 +0100
                                                  Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> - 2023-01-28 20:20 -0800
                                                    Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-29 12:00 +0100
                                                      Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-01-29 12:01 +0000
                                                        Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 16:23 -0800
                                                          [OT] Writing IMHO Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-30 01:14 +0000
                                          Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 22:58 +0000
                                            Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-26 13:10 +0100
                                          Thunderbird Broken Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> - 2023-01-28 19:54 -0800
                                            Re: Thunderbird Broken Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-29 12:04 +0100
                                        Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2023-01-24 20:30 -0600
                                      Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2023-01-24 20:25 -0600
                                        Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-25 00:10 -0500
                                        Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-25 10:56 +0100
                                      Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> - 2023-01-28 19:28 -0800
                                        Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-29 12:36 +0100
                                          Pluted Pup is trolling you, you blithering idiot (was: Server glitch vs other possibilities) "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2023-01-29 17:23 +0000
                                            Re: Pluted Pup is trolling you, you blithering idiot (was: Server glitch vs other possibilities) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-30 08:22 +0100
                                  Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2023-01-23 22:18 +0000
        Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2023-01-19 17:08 +0000
          Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-19 17:15 +0000
      Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-01-19 16:54 +0000
      Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> - 2023-01-21 13:03 -0800
        Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> - 2023-01-21 14:01 -0800
    Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-19 16:30 +0000
    Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-19 16:48 +0000

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →


#88625 — Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set

FromBonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>
Date2023-01-19 15:42 +0100
SubjectRe: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set
Message-ID<tqbkrr$1ja1c$1@dont-email.me>
Are you the twin-brother of Amine Moulay Ramdane ?

Am 19.01.2023 um 10:31 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> There are many people who believe that people don't change. As was said in a recent movie, “People don't change, they become more of what they are.” These people have obviously not studied history.
> 
> In fact, people change all the time, for all sorts of reasons, and in all sorts of different directions. The Germans were complete jerks during the Second World War, but they are not now. The Jews were liberal pacifists before the Second World War, whereas Israeli Jews at this time are fascists.
> 
> Many of the same people who claim to speak in favor of responsibility also claim that some people – such as sociopaths - are evil and can only be evil whatever they do. These two claims are mutually contradictory. If people are responsible for their actions, then anyone – even a sociopath - can choose to act rightfully; and if some people cannot act rightfully whatever they do, then people are not responsible for their actions. Two mutually contradictory claims are made by the same mentality. And that means that at least one of these claims is a lie.
> 
> This foolishness has gone so far that now, in Australia, they attack people who have been born in disadvantaged situations under the claim that they are going to be criminals and abusers. As if they weren't already suffering enough. I know many people who come from disadvantage who are not abusers or criminals. Many of these people are very impressive individuals. They overcame disadvantage to become decent citizens; and, in a number of cases, are much more than just that.
> 
> People do change. People change all the time and in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of reasons. To deny the same is to deny that people have the capacity for choice. Anything that is capable of choice is capable of right choice, and it is also capable of change. And yes, that includes sociopaths.
> 
> When I was writing against someone who was shouting about sociopaths, I was asked why I was advocating for the scum of the earth. What I am advocating for is choice and free will. You have to make up your mind. Are people responsible for their actions or aren't they? If they are, then anyone can choose to act rightfully, and anyone can change. And if some people cannot do such a thing, then people are not responsible for their actions. Pick either one or the other; both cannot be.
> 
> I am also advocating for constitutional intent. In America, people are meant to be protected from witch hunts and persecutions. I was never diagnosed as a sociopath or anything similar. I do however take seriously human rights and constitutional intent. And I know that the same extends to everyone, including sociopaths.
> 
> When I see a hysteria and a witch hunt, I tell you about it. And this is exactly what we have seen. Precisely, we have seen the worst hysteria in America's history, something that makes Joseph McCarthy look like an angel. You have no idea what causes this disorder. You have no idea how to treat it. And yet you claim that people who have this disorder are evil and can only be evil whatever they do.
> 
> What we are seeing here goes against most basic reason. Evil is not psychology, evil is choice. Anyone can act right, and anyone can act wrong. That is because of choice. And choice trumps psychology and neurology.
> 
> If someone does not know how to cure a disorder, all that says is that he has no valuable insight on the subject. Valuable insight comes from somebody else. If you have been born with a neurological abnormality, that does not mean that you are damned for life or that you can only be evil. Use your mind. Understand how your actions affect others. And then use choice and intelligence to correct the effects of whatever is wrong with your brain.
> 
> Anyone therefore can choose to act rightfully. This is the case even with sociopaths. Whereas there are any number of perfectly normal people out there who do horrible things. They do not have a bad neurology. What they have is bad values.
> 
> Not all sociopaths are evil, and not all evil people are sociopaths. There are many sociopaths who've never committed a crime. And there are many perfectly normal people who murder, rape, scam, abuse and pollute. Spanish colonialists were perfectly normal, but they were at least as cruel as the Nazis. Most people in Texas Oil are perfectly normal, but they have poisoned the world.
> 
> To believe that there is such a thing as a criminal personality is an Orwellian institution of crimethink. It says that people can be made criminal by virtue of how they think. And this creates a de facto totalitarianism that is so absolute that people are not allowed to be free from it even within the privacy of their minds.
> 
> If you really want to treat people who actually have this disorder, the correct solution is to get them to use their minds. Teach them to see how what they do affects other people. And then they will be able to use the mind to do the job that the heart fails to do.
> 
> As for people being able to change, that is a given. People change all the time and in all sorts of ways. Denying change is denying choice. It is denying the driving force for all action. And it is dehumanizing people and turning them into beasts.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#88627

FromDavid Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date2023-01-19 16:18 +0100
Message-ID<tqbn12$1jgmh$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#88625
On 19/01/2023 15:42, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Are you the twin-brother of Amine Moulay Ramdane ?
> 
> Am 19.01.2023 um 10:31 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>> There are many people who believe that people don't change. As was 
...

And you thought it was necessary to quote the /entire/ post to make that 
comment?

I think there has been some hiccup on a Usenet server somewhere - I've 
seen a few posts end up in the wrong groups today.  I have no idea if 
Muttley's post is appropriate or not in rec.arts.books - I'm sure it 
makes more sense in the context of threads there.

(By the way, Muttley, there is a term for people who write "The Germans 
are this" or "The Jews are that" - it is "racist".  Make comments about 
individuals if you like, but sweeping statements about a group of people 
based on irrelevant factors such as nationality, religion, gender, etc., 
is bigotry and has no place anywhere.  I'm assuming you did not mean to 
write that way, but you should choose your words more carefully in the 
future.)

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


#88630

FromMuttley@dastardlyhq.com
Date2023-01-19 16:32 +0000
Message-ID<tqbrbm$1htl$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#88627
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:18:58 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 19/01/2023 15:42, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Are you the twin-brother of Amine Moulay Ramdane ?
>> 
>> Am 19.01.2023 um 10:31 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>>> There are many people who believe that people don't change. As was 
>....
>
>And you thought it was necessary to quote the /entire/ post to make that 
>comment?
>
>I think there has been some hiccup on a Usenet server somewhere - I've 
>seen a few posts end up in the wrong groups today.  I have no idea if 
>Muttley's post is appropriate or not in rec.arts.books - I'm sure it 
>makes more sense in the context of threads there.
>
>(By the way, Muttley, there is a term for people who write "The Germans 
>are this" or "The Jews are that" - it is "racist".  Make comments about 
>individuals if you like, but sweeping statements about a group of people 
>based on irrelevant factors such as nationality, religion, gender, etc., 
>is bigotry and has no place anywhere.  I'm assuming you did not mean to 
>write that way, but you should choose your words more carefully in the 
>future.)

I never wrote any such thing. The only post I've seen is Bonita "reposting"
something I apparently wrote. Either she wrote it herself or someone spoofed
by id which is hardly hard to do on usenet.

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


#88637

FromDavid Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date2023-01-19 19:22 +0100
Message-ID<tqc1ok$1lcdp$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#88630
On 19/01/2023 17:32, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

> I never wrote any such thing. The only post I've seen is Bonita "reposting"
> something I apparently wrote. Either she wrote it herself or someone spoofed
> by id which is hardly hard to do on usenet.
> 

OK.  That's good to know.

For your information, the post appeared as though it were a reply to one 
of the current threads here in "comp.lang.c++", though it was marked 
"rec.arts.books", and was marked with you as the author.  (I suspect a 
Usenet server mixup somewhere.)  So I believe Bonita merely quoted it.

I have no idea if someone intentionally posted it in your name, or if 
that too was part of the server fault.

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


#88638

FromSpiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com>
Date2023-01-19 20:00 +0000
Message-ID<=jQ6EdBv+ldlLy4n2@bongo-ra.co>
In reply to#88637
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 19:22:12 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 19/01/2023 17:32, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> 
> > I never wrote any such thing. The only post I've seen is Bonita "reposting"
> > something I apparently wrote. Either she wrote it herself or someone spoofed
> > by id which is hardly hard to do on usenet.
> > 
> 
> OK.  That's good to know.
> 
> For your information, the post appeared as though it were a reply to one 
> of the current threads here in "comp.lang.c++", though it was marked 
> "rec.arts.books", and was marked with you as the author.  (I suspect a 
> Usenet server mixup somewhere.)  So I believe Bonita merely quoted it.
> 
> I have no idea if someone intentionally posted it in your name, or if 
> that too was part of the server fault.

What I see is
    References: <36403165-3cf1-4b73-8ad1-da339b960339n@googlegroups.com>
     <tqbkrr$1ja1c$1@dont-email.me> <tqbn12$1jgmh$1@dont-email.me>
     <tqbrbm$1htl$1@gioia.aioe.org>

where  <tqbkrr$1ja1c$1@dont-email.me>  is the post by Montero which allegedly
quotes  Muttley@dastardlyhq.com  but
<36403165-3cf1-4b73-8ad1-da339b960339n@googlegroups.com>  has as its author
Ilya Shambat. I don't know if people see something different (I see these
things using  news2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de) or did not bother to follow
the references.

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


#88661

FromMuttley@dastardlyhq.com
Date2023-01-20 15:48 +0000
Message-ID<tqed4c$lld$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#88637
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 19:22:12 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 19/01/2023 17:32, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>> I never wrote any such thing. The only post I've seen is Bonita "reposting"
>> something I apparently wrote. Either she wrote it herself or someone spoofed
>> by id which is hardly hard to do on usenet.
>> 
>
>OK.  That's good to know.
>
>For your information, the post appeared as though it were a reply to one 
>of the current threads here in "comp.lang.c++", though it was marked 
>"rec.arts.books", and was marked with you as the author.  (I suspect a 
>Usenet server mixup somewhere.)  So I believe Bonita merely quoted it.
>
>I have no idea if someone intentionally posted it in your name, or if 
>that too was part of the server fault.

Quoting is done by the client and can easily be modified by the user. I can't
see how a server fault fault would cause it tbh.

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


#88834

FromRichard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com>
Date2023-01-25 13:00 +0000
Message-ID<tqr95u$luor$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#88630
On 19/01/2023 16:32, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:18:58 +0100
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 19/01/2023 15:42, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Are you the twin-brother of Amine Moulay Ramdane ?
>>>
>>> Am 19.01.2023 um 10:31 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>>>> There are many people who believe that people don't change. As was
>> ....
>>
>> And you thought it was necessary to quote the /entire/ post to make that
>> comment?
>>
>> I think there has been some hiccup on a Usenet server somewhere - I've
>> seen a few posts end up in the wrong groups today.  I have no idea if
>> Muttley's post is appropriate or not in rec.arts.books - I'm sure it
>> makes more sense in the context of threads there.
>>
>> (By the way, Muttley, there is a term for people who write "The Germans
>> are this" or "The Jews are that" - it is "racist".  Make comments about
>> individuals if you like, but sweeping statements about a group of people
>> based on irrelevant factors such as nationality, religion, gender, etc.,
>> is bigotry and has no place anywhere.  I'm assuming you did not mean to
>> write that way, but you should choose your words more carefully in the
>> future.)
> 
> I never wrote any such thing. The only post I've seen is Bonita "reposting"
> something I apparently wrote. Either she wrote it herself or someone spoofed
> by id which is hardly hard to do on usenet.
> 

The orginal post, "Change and Choice" on rec.arts.books is dated Thu, 19 
Jan 2023 09:42:01 +0000

Bonita's follow-up and x-post has an attribution line of "Am 19.01.2023 
um 10:31 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:"

So, the attribution line is wrong - since there are no 49min time-zones.

Bonita forging/over-typing that, for whatever reason, is more likely 
than a server/client glitch.


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


#88837

FromJames Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>
Date2023-01-25 14:52 -0500
Message-ID<tqs190$pf5a$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to#88834
On 1/25/23 08:00, Richard Harnden wrote:
...
> The orginal post, "Change and Choice" on rec.arts.books is dated Thu,
> 19 Jan 2023 09:42:01 +0000
>
> Bonita's follow-up and x-post has an attribution line of "Am
> 19.01.2023 um 10:31 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:"
>
> So, the attribution line is wrong - since there are no 49min time-zones.
>
> Bonita forging/over-typing that, for whatever reason, is more likely
> than a server/client glitch.

The time that Bonita posted is the time for the message that Muttley
posted to comp.lang.c. It shows up as such in the header summary that
eternal-september.org sends to Thunderbird. The corresponding message
body is the message body for Ilya Shambat's message, and contains a
header indicating the time at which he posted that message. Dave Brown
looked at both and compared them. So are you claiming that Dave lied
about what he says he saw in the message headers and corresponding
message body served up by eternal-september.org? If so, why do you think
that?

Or are you claiming that Bonita hacked eternal-september.org to make it
give him the evidence he saw? Such a hack would, legitimately, qualify
as a server-glitch, and would therefore not refute his assertion that
there was such a glitch.

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


#88840

FromMalcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com>
Date2023-01-25 14:13 -0800
Message-ID<7d311b7c-4088-4dac-b91c-292cc078a8e3n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#88837
On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 19:52:15 UTC, james...@alumni.caltech.edu wrote:
> 
> Or are you claiming that Bonita hacked eternal-september.org to make it 
> give him the evidence he saw? Such a hack would, legitimately, qualify 
> as a server-glitch, and would therefore not refute his assertion that 
> there was such a glitch.
>
I suspect that Bonita's cat walked over the keyboard and somehow put a spurious
message into comp.lang.c++. 

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


#88843

FromDavid Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date2023-01-26 00:03 +0100
Message-ID<tqscfq$rpkn$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#88840
On 25/01/2023 23:13, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 19:52:15 UTC, james...@alumni.caltech.edu wrote:
>>
>> Or are you claiming that Bonita hacked eternal-september.org to make it
>> give him the evidence he saw? Such a hack would, legitimately, qualify
>> as a server-glitch, and would therefore not refute his assertion that
>> there was such a glitch.
>>
> I suspect that Bonita's cat walked over the keyboard and somehow put a spurious
> message into comp.lang.c++.

I really think people should read the information posted in this thread, 
and stop posting the same incorrect nonsense.  The time for guessing 
theories is long past - the admin of the newsserver in question has 
already said there was a fault on the server.

Bonita has a style and manner that annoys many people, and has ended up 
in several kill-files as a result.  (The same applies to Muttley.)  That 
does not mean it is fair to continually accuse her and blame her of 
something she did not do.

There was a server glitch.  Bonita responded to the post as she saw it, 
because the newsserver she used returned the wrong message body.  That's 
all there is to it.

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


#88844

Fromikook <iKook@GMAIL.COM>
Date2023-01-25 23:17 +0000
Message-ID<tPiAL.54062$b7Kc.29744@fx39.iad>
In reply to#88843
On 25/01/2023 23:03, David Brown wrote:
>
>
>
> There was a server glitch. Bonita responded to the post as she saw 
> it, because the newsserver she used returned the wrong message body.
> That's all there is to it.
>

Which particular message you are referring to that shows there was a 
glitch? Post the FULL HEADER OF THAT MESSAGE.







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


#88845

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2023-01-25 23:37 +0000
Message-ID<k3jAL.437310$iS99.125412@fx16.iad>
In reply to#88844
ikook <iKook@GMAIL.COM> writes:
>On 25/01/2023 23:03, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> There was a server glitch. Bonita responded to the post as she saw 
>> it, because the newsserver she used returned the wrong message body.
>> That's all there is to it.
>>
>
>Which particular message you are referring to that shows there was a 
>glitch? Post the FULL HEADER OF THAT MESSAGE.
>

I posted the full set of headers and the body of the message in
question which was extracted from nntp.usenetserver.com using
the pan newsreader yesterday.   The headers matched those in David's
screenshot perfectly, including the posting date.  The body,
on the other hand was correct (a message from Muttley) on nntp.usenetserver.com
and incorrect (the rant) on eternal-september.   A poster further noted later
that eternal-september has explictly acknowledged that there was
a glitch in the association between headers and bodies in their
index, which explains how David (and others) saw the incorrect body
on eternal-september.

So, it was a server glitch, propogated when someone replied to the
article on eternal-september quoting the false body and the thread
began.

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


#88853

FromDavid Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date2023-01-26 09:19 +0100
Message-ID<tqtd2a$13som$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#88844
On 26/01/2023 00:17, ikook wrote:
> On 25/01/2023 23:03, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> There was a server glitch. Bonita responded to the post as she saw it, 
>> because the newsserver she used returned the wrong message body.
>> That's all there is to it.
>>
> 
> Which particular message you are referring to that shows there was a 
> glitch? Post the FULL HEADER OF THAT MESSAGE.
> 

If you are interested, read the other posts in this thread.  I've gone 
over this in excruciating detail, and I am not doing it again.  And if 
you've read them all, and followed my guide to replicating the issue, 
and /still/ have more questions - then I can try to answer them.



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


#88847

FromSpiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com>
Date2023-01-26 00:09 +0000
Message-ID<Jv6r1Wv=4jxouXmZ6@bongo-ra.co>
In reply to#88837
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 14:52:00 -0500
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On 1/25/23 08:00, Richard Harnden wrote:
> ...
> > The orginal post, "Change and Choice" on rec.arts.books is dated Thu,
> > 19 Jan 2023 09:42:01 +0000
> >
> > Bonita's follow-up and x-post has an attribution line of "Am
> > 19.01.2023 um 10:31 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:"
> >
> > So, the attribution line is wrong - since there are no 49min time-zones.
> >
> > Bonita forging/over-typing that, for whatever reason, is more likely
> > than a server/client glitch.
> 
> The time that Bonita posted is the time for the message that Muttley
> posted to comp.lang.c.

If you mean  <tqb2m7$1aqa$1@gioia.aioe.org>  which says

    Really? How would go about predicting what packets will arrive on the network
    or when a user will press a key then?

then it was posted on  comp.lang.c++  not  comp.lang.c .

[...]

> Or are you claiming that Bonita hacked eternal-september.org to make it
> give him the evidence he saw? Such a hack would, legitimately, qualify
> as a server-glitch, and would therefore not refute his assertion that
> there was such a glitch.

I don't think that a hack qualifies as a glitch.

-- 
vlaho.ninja/prog

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


#88851

FromJames Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>
Date2023-01-25 23:55 -0500
Message-ID<tqt13n$11og6$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#88847
On 1/25/23 19:09, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 14:52:00 -0500
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
...
>> Or are you claiming that Bonita hacked eternal-september.org to make it
>> give him the evidence he saw? Such a hack would, legitimately, qualify
>> as a server-glitch, and would therefore not refute his assertion that
>> there was such a glitch.
>
> I don't think that a hack qualifies as a glitch.

The server shouldn't allow such a hack to occur. If it does, the server
has a flaw. Keep in mind that this wasn't just a matter of faking a few
of the headers. Every header from Muttley's message appeared in the
summary header list. Every header from Ilya Shambat's message appeared
in the body of the corresponding message body. Several of those headers
are supposed to be created or modified by the server itself just before
delivering them to the subscriber. Any hack that could affect those
headers implies a large degree of control over at least the news server
daemon, and possibly many other parts of the server computer.

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


#88631

FromÖö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>
Date2023-01-19 08:40 -0800
Message-ID<ea2f3bb3-532d-4014-9acd-24fe10a1feecn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#88627
On Thursday, 19 January 2023 at 17:19:16 UTC+2, David Brown wrote:
> On 19/01/2023 15:42, Bonita Montero wrote: 
> > Are you the twin-brother of Amine Moulay Ramdane ? 
> > 
> > Am 19.01.2023 um 10:31 schrieb Mut...@dastardlyhq.com: 
> >> There are many people who believe that people don't change. As was
> ... 
> 
> And you thought it was necessary to quote the /entire/ post to make that 
> comment? 
>
BM probably made it up. I can find no server with "quoted" post.

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


#88632

Fromred floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid>
Date2023-01-19 08:42 -0800
Message-ID<tqbrub$1kco3$1@redfloyd.dont-email.me>
In reply to#88631
On 1/19/2023 8:40 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 January 2023 at 17:19:16 UTC+2, David Brown wrote:
>> On 19/01/2023 15:42, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Are you the twin-brother of Amine Moulay Ramdane ?
>>>
>>> Am 19.01.2023 um 10:31 schrieb Mut...@dastardlyhq.com:
>>>> There are many people who believe that people don't change. As was
>> ...
>>
>> And you thought it was necessary to quote the /entire/ post to make that
>> comment?
>>
> BM probably made it up. I can find no server with "quoted" post.

It showed up in my feed as well.  The frickin' HEADER said
rec.arts.books, and it showed as from someone else, even though
it came as from Muttley.

I just figured it was a server glitch.  (I use eternal sept).

red floyd

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


#88639

FromSpiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com>
Date2023-01-19 20:10 +0000
Message-ID<Xl3lFrvdCHAcHgye5@bongo-ra.co>
In reply to#88632
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 08:42:51 -0800
red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote:
> It showed up in my feed as well.  The frickin' HEADER said
> rec.arts.books, and it showed as from someone else, even though
> it came as from Muttley.

"It"  being  <36403165-3cf1-4b73-8ad1-da339b960339n@googlegroups.com> ?
Using  news2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de  or
paganini.bofh.team  I see it as coming from Ilya Shambat. What do you
mean "it came as from Muttley" ?

> I just figured it was a server glitch.  (I use eternal sept).

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


#88641

FromSpiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com>
Date2023-01-19 20:17 +0000
Message-ID<glAd6+V1QpMVQTwiD@bongo-ra.co>
In reply to#88639
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 20:10:09 -0000 (UTC)
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 08:42:51 -0800
> red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote:
> > It showed up in my feed as well.  The frickin' HEADER said
> > rec.arts.books, and it showed as from someone else, even though
> > it came as from Muttley.
> 
> "It"  being  <36403165-3cf1-4b73-8ad1-da339b960339n@googlegroups.com> ?
> Using  news2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de  or
> paganini.bofh.team  I see it as coming from Ilya Shambat. What do you
> mean "it came as from Muttley" ?

And I see the same using  news.aioe.org .

> > I just figured it was a server glitch.  (I use eternal sept).

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


#88662

FromMuttley@dastardlyhq.com
Date2023-01-20 15:49 +0000
Message-ID<tqed5k$mbn$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#88641
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 20:17:33 -0000 (UTC)
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 20:10:09 -0000 (UTC)
>Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 08:42:51 -0800
>> red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote:
>> > It showed up in my feed as well.  The frickin' HEADER said
>> > rec.arts.books, and it showed as from someone else, even though
>> > it came as from Muttley.
>> 
>> "It"  being  <36403165-3cf1-4b73-8ad1-da339b960339n@googlegroups.com> ?
>> Using  news2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de  or
>> paganini.bofh.team  I see it as coming from Ilya Shambat. What do you
>> mean "it came as from Muttley" ?
>
>And I see the same using  news.aioe.org .

You think I'm the only person who uses that server?? Idiot.

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


Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

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


csiph-web