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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #144804 > unrolled thread

Ken Thompson ?

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

Contents

  Ken Thompson ? Mehdi Amini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2019-06-13 19:35 +0430
    Re: Ken Thompson ? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-06-13 08:23 -0700
      Re: Ken Thompson ? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-13 17:23 +0000
      Re: Ken Thompson ? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2019-06-14 21:23 -0600
    Re: Ken Thompson ? mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-06-13 08:29 -0700
      Re: Ken Thompson ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-06-13 23:56 -0700
    Re: Ken Thompson ? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-06-13 09:49 -0700
      Re: Ken Thompson ? My nuts hurt <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2019-06-13 10:02 -0700
        Re: Ken Thompson ? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-06-13 10:22 -0700
          Re: Ken Thompson ? queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-06-14 10:07 +0000
            Re: Ken Thompson ? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2019-06-14 21:18 -0600
              Re: Ken Thompson ? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-06-15 10:52 +0000
                Re: Ken Thompson ? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2019-06-15 14:55 -0600
              [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-06-15 13:41 +0000
                Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-06-15 08:19 -0700
                  Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-06-15 19:28 +0000
                    Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-06-15 12:37 -0700
                      Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-06-15 21:32 +0000
                        Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-06-15 23:45 -0700
                          Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-06-16 12:26 +0000
                            Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-16 14:48 +0000
                              Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-06-17 13:38 +0000
                            Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-06-16 14:23 -0700
                              Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-06-16 14:24 -0700
                                Ricky, don't lose that number... (Was: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-17 02:14 +0000
                                  Re: Ricky, don't lose that number... (Was: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-06-16 23:20 -0700
                                    Re: Ricky, don't lose that number... queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-06-17 13:47 +0000
                                      Re: Ricky, don't lose that number... "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-06-17 15:36 -0700
                                        Re: Ricky, don't lose that number... gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-17 23:07 +0000
                                          Re: Ricky, don't lose that number... "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-06-20 01:35 -0700
                                        Re: Ricky, don't lose that number... queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-06-18 14:19 +0000
                                          Re: Ricky, don't lose that number... Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-06-18 19:34 +0000
                                      Re: Ricky, don't lose that number... Real Troll <Real.Troll@Trolls.com> - 2019-06-18 16:25 -0400
                                        Re: Ricky, don't lose that number... gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-18 21:09 +0000
                                          Re: Ricky, don't lose that number... Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-06-19 03:51 -0700
                                            Re: Ricky, don't lose that number... Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-19 13:14 +0200
                                  Re: Ricky, don't lose that number... (Was: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ?) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-06-17 02:08 -0700
                  Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-06-16 02:08 -0700
                    Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-06-16 02:20 -0700
                      Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-06-17 08:06 -0700
                        Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-06-17 22:50 +0200
                          Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-06-17 14:40 -0700
                        Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-06-17 15:46 -0700
                          Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-06-18 06:17 -0700
                            Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-06-20 01:37 -0700
          Re: Ken Thompson ? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-06-14 15:07 -0700
    Re: Ken Thompson ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-06-13 13:20 -0700
      Re: Ken Thompson ? Mehdi Amini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2019-06-14 18:49 +0430
      Re: Ken Thompson ? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-14 18:41 -0700
    Re: Ken Thompson ? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2019-06-14 21:16 -0600
      Re: Ken Thompson ? Mehdi Amini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2019-06-15 19:49 +0430
      Re: Ken Thompson ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-06-15 17:56 +0200
        Re: Ken Thompson ? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2019-06-15 21:49 +0000
          Re: Ken Thompson ? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2019-06-16 19:22 -0600
        Re: Ken Thompson ? Mehdi Amini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2019-06-16 23:13 +0430

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

#144922 — Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ?

In article <dd4d64b9-f917-42d8-832e-933923f5d2fd@trust.no1>,
Queequeg <queequeg@trust.no1> wrote:
>fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Come on, you insulted me really so many times. You can do better.
>> 
>> ah i see you you wasted my time with stupidity..another dik-like
>> idiot showed
>
>Rick, who you insist on calling "dik" (which tells much about your own 
>maturity level), definitely isn't an idiot. Despite being delusional, 
>or simply mentally ill, he's a smart guy.

That's where you are wrong.

He (Rick) *is* an idiot.

-- 

First of all, I do not appreciate your playing stupid here at all.

	- Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn -

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

#144944 — Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ?

Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:

> He (Rick) *is* an idiot.

An idiot wouldn't write and quote in such careful and mindful manner as 
Rick does. Look how Rick snips unnecessary quotations and how he writes, 
and compare it to how fir does it.

-- 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

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

#144928 — Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ?

On 6/16/2019 5:26 AM, Queequeg wrote:
> fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Come on, you insulted me really so many times. You can do better.
>>
>> ah i see you you wasted my time with stupidity..another dik-like idiot showed
> 
> Rick, who you insist on calling "dik" (which tells much about your own
> maturity level), definitely isn't an idiot. Despite being delusional,
> or simply mentally ill, he's a smart guy.
> 

Agreed.

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

#144929 — Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ?

On 6/16/2019 2:23 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/16/2019 5:26 AM, Queequeg wrote:
>> fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Come on, you insulted me really so many times. You can do better.
>>>
>>> ah i see you you wasted my time with stupidity..another dik-like 
>>> idiot showed
>>
>> Rick, who you insist on calling "dik" (which tells much about your own
>> maturity level), definitely isn't an idiot. Despite being delusional,
>> or simply mentally ill, he's a smart guy.
>>
> 
> Agreed.

However, I don't think he is mentally ill at all...

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

#144938 — Ricky, don't lose that number... (Was: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ?)

In article <qe6c1k$2k9$2@gioia.aioe.org>,
Chris M. Thomasson <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 6/16/2019 2:23 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 6/16/2019 5:26 AM, Queequeg wrote:
>>> fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Come on, you insulted me really so many times. You can do better.
>>>>
>>>> ah i see you you wasted my time with stupidity..another dik-like 
>>>> idiot showed
>>>
>>> Rick, who you insist on calling "dik" (which tells much about your own
>>> maturity level), definitely isn't an idiot. Despite being delusional,
>>> or simply mentally ill, he's a smart guy.
>>>
>> 
>> Agreed.
>
>However, I don't think he is mentally ill at all...

I seriously wonder why you say that.

Granted, we are not psychiatrists and, even if we were, we wouldn't make an
actual clinical diagnosis over Usenet - i.e., without actually seeing and
examining the patient - but, nevertheless, in layman's terms, Rick exhibits
all the symptoms.  I really don't understand why anyone would conclude
otherwise.

Again, all in layman's terms, of course.

-- 
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long.  As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs.  In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
	http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/RightWingMedia

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

#144941 — Re: Ricky, don't lose that number... (Was: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ?)

On 6/16/2019 7:14 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <qe6c1k$2k9$2@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Chris M. Thomasson <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 6/16/2019 2:23 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 6/16/2019 5:26 AM, Queequeg wrote:
>>>> fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Come on, you insulted me really so many times. You can do better.
>>>>>
>>>>> ah i see you you wasted my time with stupidity..another dik-like
>>>>> idiot showed
>>>>
>>>> Rick, who you insist on calling "dik" (which tells much about your own
>>>> maturity level), definitely isn't an idiot. Despite being delusional,
>>>> or simply mentally ill, he's a smart guy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>> However, I don't think he is mentally ill at all...
> 
> I seriously wonder why you say that.
> 
> Granted, we are not psychiatrists and, even if we were, we wouldn't make an
> actual clinical diagnosis over Usenet - i.e., without actually seeing and
> examining the patient - but, nevertheless, in layman's terms, Rick exhibits
> all the symptoms.  I really don't understand why anyone would conclude
> otherwise.

I just cannot say he has a real mental illness. Afaict, Rick is not 
like, say, John Nash. Who was very smart, yet apparently needed to take 
daily mind bending anti-psychotics. Rick is a smart individual, and does 
not need to blast his brain with hardcore drugs. Rick is nice: I have 
been very mean to him in the past. I apologize. His Christianity, and 
talking a heck of a lot about it, can be off putting. However, that does 
not mean he is insane. I just don't personally think so. Ahhh well, to 
each their own. :^)

When he says we all have sin, well, I feel its better to not get 
radically angry and think about committing sins, like violently cursing 
him out, calling him horrible names.

Btw, perhaps, the sin he is talking about refers to the fact that we are 
not perfect. God is perfect => Therefore we have sin. Can it be as 
simple as that? Seems innocent enough. An Atheist can say, okay Rick. 
Peach be with you. Instead of, You are a #$%#$% 346%^$%^45 
6$%^$%^%$$%@!!!!#$%. In Q-Bert speak.


> 
> Again, all in layman's terms, of course.
> 

Indeed.

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

#144945 — Re: Ricky, don't lose that number...

Chris M. Thomasson <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

> When he says we all have sin, well, I feel its better to not get 
> radically angry and think about committing sins, like violently cursing 
> him out, calling him horrible names.

A normal, sane man, including a Christian, would understand when he's 
severely crossing boundaries of other people and they explicitly tell him 
to stop. Rick doesn't see, or accept, other people's boundaries in 
communication, therefore he's either a troll (doing it deliberately), or 
mentally ill (and lacking capacity to realize that other people have right 
to their own beliefs, that certain places require certain behaviors, and 
that preaching is not welcome on a technical group).

Of course I'm not an expert on mental illness and I'm far from diagnosing 
him, but you don't have to be an airplane accident investigator to 
conclude that something's wrong when you see an airplane hanging from a 
tree.

> An Atheist can say, okay Rick. Peach be with you. Instead of, You are a 
> #$%#$% 346%^$%^45 6$%^$%^%$$%@!!!!#$%. In Q-Bert speak.

It can be said politely for the first time, or for the first three 
times...

-- 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

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

#144952 — Re: Ricky, don't lose that number...

On 6/17/2019 6:47 AM, Queequeg wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
[...]
>> An Atheist can say, okay Rick. Peach be with you. Instead of, You are a
>> #$%#$% 346%^$%^45 6$%^$%^%$$%@!!!!#$%. In Q-Bert speak.
> 
> It can be said politely for the first time, or for the first three
> times...
>
I can see that, and am not sure, but you seem to be referencing a very 
slight form of Aspergers Syndrome? When person A is taking to person B, 
and does not notice that B is totally disinterested and rolling their 
eyes, yet A keeps going... B moves away, if A follows B: the first time 
is encountered. If A follows B two more times, Bingo: B calls the cops?

The rule of three... ;^)

Am I close here?

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

#144954 — Re: Ricky, don't lose that number...

In article <qe94ku$dh5$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Chris M. Thomasson <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 6/17/2019 6:47 AM, Queequeg wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>[...]
>>> An Atheist can say, okay Rick. Peach be with you. Instead of, You are a
>>> #$%#$% 346%^$%^45 6$%^$%^%$$%@!!!!#$%. In Q-Bert speak.
>> 
>> It can be said politely for the first time, or for the first three
>> times...
>>
>I can see that, and am not sure, but you seem to be referencing a very 
>slight form of Aspergers Syndrome? When person A is taking to person B, 
>and does not notice that B is totally disinterested and rolling their 
>eyes, yet A keeps going... B moves away, if A follows B: the first time 
>is encountered. If A follows B two more times, Bingo: B calls the cops?
>
>The rule of three... ;^)
>
>Am I close here?

I actually think that Rick knows perfectly well that no one wants to hear
his garbage.  But, in his insanity, he just doesn't care; in fact, people's
unwillingness to listen is taken as further evidence that they need to be
further instructed.

See, the point is this: As a thought experiment, imagine that (rhetorical) you
actually believed the nonsense that Rick (claims to) believe.  This is very
hard for normal, sensible people to do; most people (i.e., people who do
claim, nominally, to be "Christians") have figured out how to deal with
their religion in a way that doesn't cause them to be completely unsuitable
for life in the modern world.  But Rick hasn't managed this; he actually
believes (i.e., would have us believe that he believes) the stuff
literally.

Well, if (rhetorical) you really, really, really do believe the stuff, then
it is the most important thing in the world.  Nothing (and I do mean
NOTHING) could possibly stand in the way of his so-called "teaching".
As noted above, the fact that people don't want to hear it, is clear and
present proof that they really, really, really, really need to hear it.

And, of course, silly things like newsgroup topicality rules, mean nothing.

-- 
I am not a troll.
    Rick C. Hodgin
I am not a crook.
    Rick M. Nixon

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

#144988 — Re: Ricky, don't lose that number...

On 6/17/2019 4:07 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <qe94ku$dh5$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Chris M. Thomasson <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 6/17/2019 6:47 AM, Queequeg wrote:
>>> Chris M. Thomasson <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> An Atheist can say, okay Rick. Peach be with you. Instead of, You are a
>>>> #$%#$% 346%^$%^45 6$%^$%^%$$%@!!!!#$%. In Q-Bert speak.
>>>
>>> It can be said politely for the first time, or for the first three
>>> times...
>>>
>> I can see that, and am not sure, but you seem to be referencing a very
>> slight form of Aspergers Syndrome? When person A is taking to person B,
>> and does not notice that B is totally disinterested and rolling their
>> eyes, yet A keeps going... B moves away, if A follows B: the first time
>> is encountered. If A follows B two more times, Bingo: B calls the cops?
>>
>> The rule of three... ;^)
>>
>> Am I close here?
> 
> I actually think that Rick knows perfectly well that no one wants to hear
> his garbage.  But, in his insanity, he just doesn't care; in fact, people's
> unwillingness to listen is taken as further evidence that they need to be
> further instructed.
> 
> See, the point is this: As a thought experiment, imagine that (rhetorical) you
> actually believed the nonsense that Rick (claims to) believe.  This is very
> hard for normal, sensible people to do; most people (i.e., people who do
> claim, nominally, to be "Christians") have figured out how to deal with
> their religion in a way that doesn't cause them to be completely unsuitable
> for life in the modern world.  But Rick hasn't managed this; he actually
> believes (i.e., would have us believe that he believes) the stuff
> literally.
> 
> Well, if (rhetorical) you really, really, really do believe the stuff, then
> it is the most important thing in the world.  Nothing (and I do mean
> NOTHING) could possibly stand in the way of his so-called "teaching".
> As noted above, the fact that people don't want to hear it, is clear and
> present proof that they really, really, really, really need to hear it.
> 
> And, of course, silly things like newsgroup topicality rules, mean nothing.
> 

Hummm... Need to ponder on this.

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

#144965 — Re: Ricky, don't lose that number...

Chris M. Thomasson <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

> I can see that, and am not sure, but you seem to be referencing a very 
> slight form of Aspergers Syndrome? When person A is taking to person B, 
> and does not notice that B is totally disinterested and rolling their 
> eyes, yet A keeps going... B moves away, if A follows B: the first time 
> is encountered. If A follows B two more times, Bingo: B calls the cops?
> 
> The rule of three... ;^)
> 
> Am I close here?

Not really. I believe (although I didn't have any contact with Aspergers 
in real life) that if you tell them straight and directly that you're not 
interested, they will get the message.

-- 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

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

#144969 — Re: Ricky, don't lose that number...

On Tue, 2019-06-18, Queequeg wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> I can see that, and am not sure, but you seem to be referencing a very 
>> slight form of Aspergers Syndrome? When person A is taking to person B, 
>> and does not notice that B is totally disinterested and rolling their 
>> eyes, yet A keeps going... B moves away, if A follows B: the first time 
>> is encountered. If A follows B two more times, Bingo: B calls the cops?
>> 
>> The rule of three... ;^)
>> 
>> Am I close here?
>
> Not really. I believe (although I didn't have any contact with Aspergers 
> in real life) that if you tell them straight and directly that you're not 
> interested, they will get the message.

IME, yes they will.  People with Aspergers aren't typically
rude or insensitive.

Now can we stop this thread here, please?

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

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

#144970 — Re: Ricky, don't lose that number...

On 17/06/2019 14:47, Queequeg wrote:
> A normal, sane man, including a Christian,

<crap snipped>

Can you take this where you can get a bigger crowd such as on some 
religious newsgroup.  We are rejoicing that the religious nutter has 
gone but you guys seem to be still going on about this nonsense.

If you can't find any newsgroups then please start a group on Google or 
share your eMail so that people can contact you via eMail and you can 
start a fanMail with them.

Whatever you do, we need to get back to discussing C and/or C++ on these 
newsgroups.  Religion has no place here.

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

#144973 — Re: Ricky, don't lose that number...

In article <qebh9p$12rn$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Real Troll  <Real.Troll@Trolls.com> wrote:
>On 17/06/2019 14:47, Queequeg wrote:
>> A normal, sane man, including a Christian,
>
><crap snipped>
>
>Can you take this where you can get a bigger crowd such as on some 
>religious newsgroup.  We are rejoicing that the religious nutter has 
>gone but you guys seem to be still going on about this nonsense.
>
>If you can't find any newsgroups then please start a group on Google or 
>share your eMail so that people can contact you via eMail and you can 
>start a fanMail with them.
>
>Whatever you do, we need to get back to discussing C and/or C++ on these 
>newsgroups.  Religion has no place here.

Well, see, that's where you're wrong.

if (and I stess "if") religion is true, then is far, far, far, far, far,
far, far, far, far, far more important than any piffling newsgroup
topicality rules.

Given the position that Ricky either holds or is (trolling) trying to make
us believe he holds, it is entirely right for him to ignore stupid
topicality rules.

-- 
Trump has normalized hate.

The media has normalized Trump.

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

#144980 — Re: Ricky, don't lose that number...

On Tuesday, 18 June 2019 22:09:31 UTC+1, Kenny McCormack  wrote:
> In article <qebh9p$12rn$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Real Troll  <Real.Troll@Trolls.com> wrote:
> >On 17/06/2019 14:47, Queequeg wrote:
> >> A normal, sane man, including a Christian,
> >
> ><crap snipped>
> >
> >Can you take this where you can get a bigger crowd such as on some 
> >religious newsgroup.  We are rejoicing that the religious nutter has 
> >gone but you guys seem to be still going on about this nonsense.
> >
> >If you can't find any newsgroups then please start a group on Google or 
> >share your eMail so that people can contact you via eMail and you can 
> >start a fanMail with them.
> >
> >Whatever you do, we need to get back to discussing C and/or C++ on these 
> >newsgroups.  Religion has no place here.
> 
> Well, see, that's where you're wrong.
> 
> if (and I stess "if") religion is true, then is far, far, far, far, far,
> far, far, far, far, far more important than any piffling newsgroup
> topicality rules.
> 
> Given the position that Ricky either holds or is (trolling) trying to make
> us believe he holds, it is entirely right for him to ignore stupid
> topicality rules.
> 
The idea is that normative Christianity is evangelical North American
Protestantism, of an aggressive kind. But historically most Christians
have either been members of the Church (Catholics), or claimed to be 
members of a branch in temporary separation from it (Episcopalians/Anglicans, 
Eastern Orthodox).

The Church has a structure that controls and directs evangelisation 
efforts. Whilst amateur attempts to help are to an extent tolerated,
even encouraged, they are a bit like irregular forces during a war -
generals are usually in two minds about them. 

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

#144982 — Re: Ricky, don't lose that number...

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 03:51:50 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McLean
<malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 18 June 2019 22:09:31 UTC+1, Kenny McCormack  wrote:
>> In article <qebh9p$12rn$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
>> Real Troll  <Real.Troll@Trolls.com> wrote:
>> >On 17/06/2019 14:47, Queequeg wrote:
>> >> A normal, sane man, including a Christian,
>> >
>> ><crap snipped>
>> >
>> >Can you take this where you can get a bigger crowd such as on some 
>> >religious newsgroup.  We are rejoicing that the religious nutter has 
>> >gone but you guys seem to be still going on about this nonsense.
>> >
>> >If you can't find any newsgroups then please start a group on Google or 
>> >share your eMail so that people can contact you via eMail and you can 
>> >start a fanMail with them.
>> >
>> >Whatever you do, we need to get back to discussing C and/or C++ on these 
>> >newsgroups.  Religion has no place here.
>> 
>> Well, see, that's where you're wrong.
>> 
>> if (and I stess "if") religion is true, then is far, far, far, far, far,
>> far, far, far, far, far more important than any piffling newsgroup
>> topicality rules.
>> 
>> Given the position that Ricky either holds or is (trolling) trying to make
>> us believe he holds, it is entirely right for him to ignore stupid
>> topicality rules.
>> 
>The idea is that normative Christianity is evangelical North American
>Protestantism, 

protestant ... better atei than protestant 

eretics are wrorst than atei for me...

>of an aggressive kind. But historically most Christians
>have either been members of the Church (Catholics), or claimed to be 
>members of a branch in temporary separation from it (Episcopalians/Anglicans, 
>Eastern Orthodox).
>
>The Church has a structure that controls and directs evangelisation 
>efforts. Whilst amateur attempts to help are to an extent tolerated,
>even encouraged, they are a bit like irregular forces during a war -
>generals are usually in two minds about them. 

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

#144942 — Re: Ricky, don't lose that number... (Was: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ?)

On Monday, 17 June 2019 03:14:56 UTC+1, Kenny McCormack  wrote:
> In article <qe6c1k$2k9$2@gioia.aioe.org>,
>
> >
> >However, I don't think he is mentally ill at all...
> 
> I seriously wonder why you say that.
> 
Rick's behaviour is socially bound. There's a group of people he knows
who think like he does and, probably, give him validation and approval
for what he is doing.

Therefore it isn't pathological. It's not an illness.

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

#144914 — Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ?

W dniu sobota, 15 czerwca 2019 17:19:51 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał:
> 
> Walesa is defamated by the same kind of idiots wo could name Hilary Clinton as a reptilian and Trump as a great Christian
> 

note, not that im saying i think 'american people' should vote on hilary clinton.. im not much knowledgable in ameruican politics and got no special opinion on hilary clinton (hovever she is probably ok).. trump is disaster thats for sure...being americans i would probably  give bernie sanders a chance and see what will happen then

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

#144915 — Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ?

On 6/16/2019 2:08 AM, fir wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 15 czerwca 2019 17:19:51 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał:
>>
>> Walesa is defamated by the same kind of idiots wo could name Hilary Clinton as a reptilian and Trump as a great Christian
>>
> 
> note, not that im saying i think 'american people' should vote on hilary clinton.. im not much knowledgable in ameruican politics and got no special opinion on hilary clinton (hovever she is probably ok).. trump is disaster thats for sure...being americans i would probably  give bernie sanders a chance and see what will happen then
> 

Imvvvho, Hillary really messed up with that "server". Was it even 
encrypted? That's one thing that makes me wince. Extremely Careless, 
Grossly Negligent. Makes me cringe. Oh well, shi% happens. ;^o

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

#144947 — Re: [OT] Re: Ken Thompson ?

"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com>
writes:

> Imvvvho, Hillary really messed up with that "server".

There are some opinions I would feel obliged to be
humble about, but that isn't one of them.

[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