Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #9053 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "BarryG" <barryg2@peoplepc.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-08-06 23:55 -0500 |
| Last post | 2011-08-15 17:03 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 127 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Too bad this group is gone "BarryG" <barryg2@peoplepc.com> - 2011-08-06 23:55 -0500
Re: Too bad this group is gone Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-08-06 23:44 -0600
Re: Too bad this group is gone cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-08-07 20:38 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2011-08-07 16:13 -0500
Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-07 18:28 -0400
Re: Too bad this group is gone Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-08-08 09:53 -0400
Re: Too bad this group is gone jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-08 00:16 +0200
Re: Too bad this group is gone August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-08-08 00:40 +0200
Re: Too bad this group is gone jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-08 10:05 +0200
Re: Too bad this group is gone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-08 12:51 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-08-08 10:17 +0200
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-08 14:25 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-08 14:22 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-08 17:30 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-08 17:04 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-08 19:10 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-08 18:38 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-08 20:38 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-08 20:43 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 16:02 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-08-09 00:15 +0200
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 15:44 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-09 08:07 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 20:20 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-09 12:42 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-08-08 23:50 +0200
Re: Too bad this group is gone Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-09 10:08 +1200
Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-08 18:18 -0400
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 15:33 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-08-08 15:23 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 15:20 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2011-08-08 23:18 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 05:06 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-08-09 11:11 +0200
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 15:01 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-09 14:23 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-08-09 14:53 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-09 17:45 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 20:51 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-09 20:23 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-08-10 07:27 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 22:02 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-12 22:28 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-08-10 11:16 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-10 14:59 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-10 11:30 -0400
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-10 16:20 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-10 13:14 -0400
Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-11 08:00 -0400
Re: Too bad this group is gone gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-08-11 12:13 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-12 00:06 -0400
Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-12 00:39 -0400
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-10 17:32 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-08-10 23:14 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-11 14:02 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 21:49 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-12 21:14 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-12 17:49 -0400
Re: Too bad this group is gone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-13 01:46 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-08-13 09:19 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-13 08:39 -0400
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-13 16:34 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-13 20:18 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-18 06:34 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-18 12:20 +0300
Re: Too bad this group is gone BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-18 17:36 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-18 07:10 -0400
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-13 16:39 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-13 20:15 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-13 18:21 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-08-12 04:36 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-12 00:03 -0400
Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-13 15:29 -0400
Re: Too bad this group is gone Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-14 04:26 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-08-13 20:51 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-08-14 03:15 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-14 02:29 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-14 05:48 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-14 06:24 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-14 08:12 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-14 04:39 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-14 11:36 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-10 17:55 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 16:43 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-09 17:47 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-09 18:26 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 21:13 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 20:42 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-09 19:54 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 21:11 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-12 20:25 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 22:41 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-09 11:28 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 20:38 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-09 19:59 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-09 20:01 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-08-09 22:42 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-09 13:16 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-10 12:12 +0200
Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-10 08:44 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-10 11:36 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2011-08-10 23:11 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-11 15:05 +0200
Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-11 08:43 -0400
Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-11 08:02 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-08-10 10:39 -0600
Re: Too bad this group is gone gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-08-11 03:47 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-08-11 00:33 +0200
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 20:57 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 20:40 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-12 20:14 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-12 13:51 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 22:12 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-13 01:42 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-13 23:52 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-14 00:35 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-13 18:23 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone gordonb.mbkym@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-08-10 20:50 -0500
Re: Too bad this group is gone gordonb.6v878@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-08-11 03:34 -0500
Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-11 08:23 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-10 03:16 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2011-08-11 11:12 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 20:15 +0100
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-12 20:07 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-12 20:39 +0000
Re: Too bad this group is gone John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2011-08-15 08:00 -0700
Re: Too bad this group is gone gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-08-15 17:03 +0000
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 00:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4E405FED.4040206@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #9083 |
Am 08/08/2011 08:10 PM, schrieb Rui Maciel: > On the other hand, if a user actually gives any weight to what votes an > answer received and takes that in consideration when deciding which > suggestion to follow, independent of what answer has been provided, then > that user is a moron. Wow. Just a typical example why comp.lang.c is sometimes just disgusting and what I mean by bad culture. From the discussion of a particular site (here stackoverflow) this quickly leads to the insult of a certain type of users. This is clearly not the level of discussion I want to be involved with. Jens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 15:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e414ac3$0$9131$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #9089 |
Jens Gustedt wrote: > Wow. > > Just a typical example why comp.lang.c is sometimes just disgusting > and what I mean by bad culture. From the discussion of a particular > site (here stackoverflow) this quickly leads to the insult of a > certain type of users. This is clearly not the level of discussion I > want to be involved with. A moron is, by definition, a person "lacking in good judgment"[1]. If a person's judgement is deficient to the point that he is unable to judge by himself the merits of an answer to his very own question, requiring instead that a group of peers (which may as well be equally oblivious to the topic being discusse) chime in with a public vote, then that person, by definition, is a moron. This is as much of an insult as claiming that describing an orange as having an orange-like color is an insult to oranges. With that said, it appears that you are too keen to advertise stackoverflow as some sort of panacea, which it clearly isn't. So, due to your insistence in advertising that site in here and to criticize Usenet with a string of veilled attacks on Usenet in general and this group in particular, I feel compelled to ask you this: are you in any way employed by or in any way associated with stack overflow? Rui Maciel [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moron
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 08:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnfwlabp2r.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #9107 |
Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
> Jens Gustedt wrote:
>> Wow.
>>
>> Just a typical example why comp.lang.c is sometimes just disgusting
>> and what I mean by bad culture. From the discussion of a particular
>> site (here stackoverflow) this quickly leads to the insult of a
>> certain type of users. This is clearly not the level of discussion I
>> want to be involved with.
>
> A moron is, by definition, a person "lacking in good judgment"[1].
Following your link (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moron),
a moron is, by definition, (1) "a person who is notably stupid
or lacking in good judgment", or (2) in psychology, "a person
of borderline intelligence in a former classification of mental
retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69".
It is, in common usage, a serious insult, not merely a criticism.
It probably qualifies as "fighting words".
I suggest that you have exhibited a lack of good judgment by
introducing the word into this discussion, and by defending that
usage by cherry-picking the most innocuous portion of its definition.
[snip]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 20:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e418b9d$0$9123$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #9109 |
Keith Thompson wrote: > Following your link (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moron), > a moron is, by definition, (1) "a person who is notably stupid > or lacking in good judgment", or (2) in psychology, "a person > of borderline intelligence in a former classification of mental > retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69". > It is, in common usage, a serious insult, not merely a criticism. > It probably qualifies as "fighting words". > > I suggest that you have exhibited a lack of good judgment by > introducing the word into this discussion, and by defending that > usage by cherry-picking the most innocuous portion of its definition. You can't accuse others of cherry-picking words by cherry-picking yourself a couple of definitions which clearly don't apply to this discussion. If you read what I've posted, you will understand that I referred explicitly and exclusively to the inability to judge by ourselves if any given answer to our question is any good or bad. Nowhere I've accused anyone of being "notably stupid" or having received a poor mark on any test intended to evaluate an intelligence quotient. You only mentioned that because you intentionally cherry-picked a couple of references which you certainly acknowledge that they don't have any relevance to this subject and therefore were innapropriate and wrong. Through this sort of stunt, any word can be twisted and mangled into "fighting words", but it doesn't mean it's reasonable to do so. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 12:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnty9q9xta.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #9119 |
Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Following your link (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moron),
>> a moron is, by definition, (1) "a person who is notably stupid
>> or lacking in good judgment", or (2) in psychology, "a person
>> of borderline intelligence in a former classification of mental
>> retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69".
>> It is, in common usage, a serious insult, not merely a criticism.
>> It probably qualifies as "fighting words".
>>
>> I suggest that you have exhibited a lack of good judgment by
>> introducing the word into this discussion, and by defending that
>> usage by cherry-picking the most innocuous portion of its definition.
>
> You can't accuse others of cherry-picking words by cherry-picking yourself a
> couple of definitions which clearly don't apply to this discussion. If you
> read what I've posted, you will understand that I referred explicitly and
> exclusively to the inability to judge by ourselves if any given answer to
> our question is any good or bad. Nowhere I've accused anyone of being
> "notably stupid" or having received a poor mark on any test intended to
> evaluate an intelligence quotient. You only mentioned that because you
> intentionally cherry-picked a couple of references which you certainly
> acknowledge that they don't have any relevance to this subject and therefore
> were innapropriate and wrong. Through this sort of stunt, any word can be
> twisted and mangled into "fighting words", but it doesn't mean it's
> reasonable to do so.
Referring to people as "morons" is insulting. Perhaps you weren't
aware of that. (Is English your first language?) Reading a
dictionary definition of a word doesn't necessarily tell you how
it's used in practice. I base this both on the *full* definition
of the word in the source you cited and on my own experience.
Again, I'm telling you, as a life-long native speaker of English,
that calling someone a "moron" is almost invariably intended as
an insult. Do you disbelieve me for some reason?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-08 23:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4E405A22.20006@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #9081 |
Am 08/08/2011 06:30 PM, schrieb Rui Maciel: > So, what exactly is there to be gained? avoid endless discussions like this one? what I mean by that is that everyone explains his point, eventually edits it if necessary and that's it. No need of seeking threads and extracting information spread over hundreds of posts, where people bark at each other, or insult the less knowledgable, or the less English capable, or divert on the economic crisis, or are simply rude or only impolite. Jens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 10:08 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <9ab53cFv2pU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #9087 |
On 08/ 9/11 09:50 AM, Jens Gustedt wrote: > Am 08/08/2011 06:30 PM, schrieb Rui Maciel: >> So, what exactly is there to be gained? > > avoid endless discussions like this one? > > what I mean by that is that everyone explains his point, eventually > edits it if necessary and that's it. No need of seeking threads and > extracting information spread over hundreds of posts, where people bark > at each other, or insult the less knowledgable, or the less English > capable, or divert on the economic crisis, or are simply rude or only > impolite. Moderated news groups offer the best of both worlds. The moderated C group is somewhat stodgy, but the moderated C++ group is still decent, despite loosing a number of its top contributors. It is unfortunate that Usenet has lost many of it's more knowledgeable posters and they haven't been replaced. I sometimes wonder where they have gone and why they moved on. Boredom maybe? -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-08 18:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4E4060CA.7020806@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #9088 |
On 08/08/2011 06:08 PM, Ian Collins wrote: ... > It is unfortunate that Usenet has lost many of it's more knowledgeable > posters and they haven't been replaced. I sometimes wonder where they > have gone and why they moved on. Boredom maybe? I think the more knowledgeable posters tend to be somewhat older, and as a result many have died off or retired. Their younger replacements aren't using usenet, because it's too old-fashioned for their tastes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 15:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e414848$0$9130$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #9090 |
James Kuyper wrote: > I think the more knowledgeable posters tend to be somewhat older, and as > a result many have died off or retired. Their younger replacements > aren't using usenet, because it's too old-fashioned for their tastes. Maybe it isn't a question of usenet being "too old-fashioned for their tastes". Possibly, they simply don't know what it is or how to access it. Usenet has effectively been buried by Google et al, and there is no incentive in place to advertise this medium. Meanwhile, those who invest their time putting in place web forums do have economic incentives to advertise their site, and do invest their time manipulating search engines to get their site to rank as high as possible. Some of these sites even mirror newsgroups such as this one, which includes trying to pass off Usenet's content as their own, and they tend to be ranked considerably high in search engines. Meanwhile, it's impossible to get a result on any post made to any newsgroup through any search engine. Sometimes it is also not possible to find Usenet results through google groups. If you can't find it then it doesn't exist, and if it doesn't exist then it is hard to get an influx of new users. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-08 15:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87y5z3fsqf.fsf@blp.benpfaff.org> |
| In reply to | #9088 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > It is unfortunate that Usenet has lost many of it's more knowledgeable > posters and they haven't been replaced. I sometimes wonder where they > have gone and why they moved on. Boredom maybe? I don't know whether I qualify as a "more knowledgeable poster" but if so, I used to both have more free time and more interest in the discussions that go on here. I got a bit tired of answering essentially the same questions over and over. I still read the group and chime in occasionally on topics that seem new and interesting, but that's fewer and fewer of them as time goes on. -- "If I've told you once, I've told you LLONG_MAX times not to exaggerate." --Jack Klein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 15:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e414528$0$9121$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #9092 |
Ben Pfaff wrote: > I don't know whether I qualify as a "more knowledgeable poster" > but if so, I used to both have more free time and more interest > in the discussions that go on here. I got a bit tired of > answering essentially the same questions over and over. I still > read the group and chime in occasionally on topics that seem new > and interesting, but that's fewer and fewer of them as time goes > on. From my personal experience, I've noticed that. as time goes by, the number of questions that I tend to have regarding the C programming language are frequently answered by searching through this group's backlog. Probably we will see a bit more traffic due to C's 201x standard. The same applies to comp.lang.c++ and C++0x. Nevertheless, as time goes by, the new posts either are repeats or refer to details from the far end of the programming language's long tail. Meanwhile, if it is possible to get an answer by searching through the group's backlog then the need to post new messages to this group, a process that tends to take considerably more time, simply goes away. Therefore, it is only natural that this group receives less traffic, but this in no way means that it is becoming useless and irrelevant. Quite the opposite. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-08 23:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9ab95aF6e4U1@mid.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #9087 |
Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> wrote:
> Am 08/08/2011 06:30 PM, schrieb Rui Maciel:
> > So, what exactly is there to be gained?
> avoid endless discussions like this one?
My aplogies that I continue it anyway;-)
> what I mean by that is that everyone explains his point, eventually
> edits it if necessary and that's it. No need of seeking threads and
> extracting information spread over hundreds of posts, where people bark
> at each other, or insult the less knowledgable, or the less English
> capable, or divert on the economic crisis, or are simply rude or only
> impolite.
My feeling is that this more an issue with inferior tools
for reading newsgroups on the one hand and different ex-
pectations of "getting things done".
With a decent newsreader (NOT google) it's rather easy to
killfile the worst offenders, which often gets rid of a lot
of annoyances (not all, of course, but a good deal of them).
And having a threading newsreader also helps quite a bit to
skip the parts of a discussion one isn't interested in.
But the more important point to me is that "getting some-
thing done now" is only one part of the problem. Of course,
when I am stuck I would like the answer as soon as pos-
sible to be able continue. But that's only one side of the
coin. I typically don't read a newsgroup just because I am
waiting for my specific question to become answered but much
more often to further my education, reading about topics
I may never have considered before - and then I am more in-
terested in the discussions, descriptions of how things work
on different architectures, different interpretations of
the standards etc., than straight, simple answers to a
certain question. I.e. the discussions, even if they some-
times may stray into regions I don't care about too much,
are what makes usenet so valuable in my point of view.
The fixation on "here's a question, who's coming up first
with the answer that directly addresses it" which I feel
to dominate stack overflow and similar sites is for me not
what makes them really helpful. To me it feels a bit like
the help function in Windows where you search for some-
thing and may find a recipe for your specific question
(which is quite fine if you're really in a hurry) but
normally leaves me with the feeling that, while if I do
exactly what's written there it usually works, I still
don't understand why this method works but others don't,
i.e. it tells me how to do something but not why.
Or, to give a different example: I like cooking. Of course,
I look up recipes on the internet for new ideas. And, if I
want to do e.g. a roastbeef just right, I can follow a re-
cipe that gives me detailed instructions in the form of a
rather simple "algorithm". That can be fine (and rather
satisfying) if it works. But my experience is (in cooking
as in programming) that this isn't always the case. And thus
I am much more interested in the reasons behind a recipe (e.
g. the chemistry of cooking etc.) than just an "algorithm"
I have to follow religiously. Moreover, with an understanding
of what's going on I have a much better chance at solving
similar but different problems, allowing me to consider
alternatives or make educated guesses when I am confronted
with recipes that seem to contradict each other.
For one one of the best examples of how this can work try to
find postings by Chris Torek (just as a especially shining
example, there were and are others) to questions in this
group) - they are going to be from a few years back. When
he answered a question the answer typically was really long,
going into all kinds of details of how things were implemen-
ted on all kinds of architectures, what pitfalls to look out
for etc. This weren't answers that gave just a solution for
the problem at hand but which told you why certain things
work, why others don't and some others only do so on certain
systems. This may be maddening for someone who doesn't really
care why or why not something works and just wants to get
"it done", but for those a bit more interested into solving
problems on their own those answers were invaluable. And I
doubt quite a bit that someone like Chris Torek would fit in
well into e.g. stackoverflow where the emphasis seems to be
more on recipes and less on explanations.
Regards, Jens
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ jt@toerring.de
\__________________________ http://toerring.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 05:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2011.08.09.05.07.00@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #9093 |
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 23:18:02 +0000, Jens Thoms Toerring wrote: [snip] > For one one of the best examples of how this can work try to find > postings by Chris Torek (just as a especially shining example, there > were and are others) to questions in this group) - they are going to be > from a few years back. When he answered a question the answer typically > was really long, going into all kinds of details of how things were > implemen- ted on all kinds of architectures, what pitfalls to look out > for etc. This weren't answers that gave just a solution for the problem > at hand but which told you why certain things work, why others don't and > some others only do so on certain systems. This may be maddening for > someone who doesn't really care why or why not something works and just > wants to get "it done", but for those a bit more interested into solving > problems on their own those answers were invaluable. And I doubt quite a > bit that someone like Chris Torek would fit in well into e.g. > stackoverflow where the emphasis seems to be more on recipes and less on > explanations. I prefer the long and winding Torek-ish answers. :) Todd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 11:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4E40F9D7.2010107@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #9093 |
Am 08/09/2011 01:18 AM, schrieb Jens Thoms Toerring: > Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> wrote: >> avoid endless discussions like this one? > > My aplogies that I continue it anyway;-) :) > For one one of the best examples of how this can work try to > find postings by Chris Torek (just as a especially shining > example, there were and are others) to questions in this > group) - they are going to be from a few years back. When > he answered a question the answer typically was really long, > going into all kinds of details of how things were implemen- > ted on all kinds of architectures, what pitfalls to look out > for etc. This weren't answers that gave just a solution for > the problem at hand but which told you why certain things > work, why others don't and some others only do so on certain > systems. This may be maddening for someone who doesn't really > care why or why not something works and just wants to get > "it done", but for those a bit more interested into solving > problems on their own those answers were invaluable. And I > doubt quite a bit that someone like Chris Torek would fit in > well into e.g. stackoverflow where the emphasis seems to be > more on recipes and less on explanations. I don't think that this bound to the media that people are using. There are examples of very careful, knowledgeable and detailed answers on stackoverflow, too. If you do an abstraction of the "getting more reputation" hype you find people that do a really good job in explaining things and there is the comment section that often gives you more background. Jens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 15:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e4140c0$0$9125$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #9087 |
Jens Gustedt wrote: > Am 08/08/2011 06:30 PM, schrieb Rui Maciel: >> So, what exactly is there to be gained? > > avoid endless discussions like this one? So, why didn't you choose to avoid "discussions like this one" and instead you choose to reply yet again? And why do you believe that censorship would help you with your choices, which you make out of your own free will? Do you believe it would be any better if a nanny-type figure forced you to avoid messages that she (and not you) didn't believe you should access? > what I mean by that is that everyone explains his point, eventually > edits it if necessary and that's it. No need of seeking threads and > extracting information spread over hundreds of posts, where people bark > at each other, or insult the less knowledgable, or the less English > capable, or divert on the economic crisis, or are simply rude or only > impolite. No one forces you to follow every thread to it's last post. You have free will, don't you? You are free to simply ignore any post you wish. Heck, I bet your newsreader provides an option to ignore any thread you wish to ignore. If you are so keen on moderation, you can look at it as you yourself being your own personal moderator. Is that a bad thing? Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 14:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j1rfso$hft$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #9101 |
In <4e4140c0$0$9125$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
> > what I mean by that is that everyone explains his point, eventually
> > edits it if necessary and that's it. No need of seeking threads and
> > extracting information spread over hundreds of posts, where people bark
> No one forces you to follow every thread to it's last post. You have free
> will, don't you? You are free to simply ignore any post you wish. Heck, I
If he ignores posts, he might miss one that has a good answer. Sites such
as stackoverflow provide a mechanism for such answers to naturally bubble
to the top so they are easily seen.
(However, throwing around such terms as "free will" tells me that you're
not interested in having a genuine debate about this matter. Good day.)
--
John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
-- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 14:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j1rhkp$1tu$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #9102 |
In article <j1rfso$hft$1@reader1.panix.com>, John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> wrote: ... >(However, throwing around such terms as "free will" tells me that you're >not interested in having a genuine debate about this matter. Good day.) Why is that? What do you have against the concept of free will? -- Windows 95 n. (Win-doze): A 32 bit extension to a 16 bit user interface for an 8 bit operating system based on a 4 bit architecture from a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition. Modern day upgrade --> Windows XP Professional x64: Windows is now a 64 bit tweak of a 32 bit extension to a 16 bit user interface for an 8 bit operating system based on a 4 bit architecture from a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 17:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j1rroh$qvu$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #9108 |
In <j1rhkp$1tu$1@news.xmission.com> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
> In article <j1rfso$hft$1@reader1.panix.com>,
> John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> wrote:
> ...
> >(However, throwing around such terms as "free will" tells me that you're
> >not interested in having a genuine debate about this matter. Good day.)
> Why is that? What do you have against the concept of free will?
I object when it is used as justification for providing bad service.
Someone said that one advantage of sites such as stackoverflow is that
they don't make you grovel through hundreds of old usenet posts searching
for answers.
I took Rui's comment about free will to mean, in essence, "well, nobody is
*making* you look through all those posts, so what's the problem?"
That's not a legitimate objection.
Stackoverflow frees me from the burden of looking through all those posts,
so that is, in my opinion, a clear point in stackoverflow's favor.
--
John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
-- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 20:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e4192e5$0$9127$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #9114 |
John Gordon wrote: > I object when it is used as justification for providing bad service. > > Someone said that one advantage of sites such as stackoverflow is that > they don't make you grovel through hundreds of old usenet posts searching > for answers. > > I took Rui's comment about free will to mean, in essence, "well, nobody is > making you look through all those posts, so what's the problem?" > > That's not a legitimate objection. Tell me, when you search through a newsgroup's backlog, does anyone forces you to rummage through all the messages ever posted to that newsgroup? If you stumble on a discussion which you start reading/following but meanwhile you lose interest, does anything force you to read ever message ever posted to that thread? > Stackoverflow frees me from the burden of looking through all those posts, > so that is, in my opinion, a clear point in stackoverflow's favor. As nothing forces anyone to carry the "burden of looking through all those posts" made to any newsgroup then I don't see how sites such as the one you've pointed out come up ahead when compared to usenet. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 20:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j1s50l$k38$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #9125 |
In <4e4192e5$0$9127$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
> John Gordon wrote:
> > I object when it is used as justification for providing bad service.
> >
> > Someone said that one advantage of sites such as stackoverflow is that
> > they don't make you grovel through hundreds of old usenet posts searching
> > for answers.
> >
> > I took Rui's comment about free will to mean, in essence, "well, nobody is
> > making you look through all those posts, so what's the problem?"
> >
> > That's not a legitimate objection.
> Tell me, when you search through a newsgroup's backlog, does anyone forces
> you to rummage through all the messages ever posted to that newsgroup? If
> you stumble on a discussion which you start reading/following but meanwhile
> you lose interest, does anything force you to read ever message ever posted
> to that thread?
Tell me, when you go to a restaurant and receive bad service and complain
to the waitress, and her answer is "Nobody forced you to eat here", would
you accept that as a valid defense?
It strikes me that your defense of usenet seems to be of the same character
as the waitresses' defense of her poor service.
Yes, you're right, I'm not forced to search through hundreds of old usenet
posts. I can always choose to abandon my search.
But this entire discussion is taking place under the assumption that I
actually *want* to find an answer to my question, and the quality of the
tools that are provided for pursuing that end.
Saying "Nobody is forcing you to look" is not a useful objection under
those circumstances.
--
John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
-- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web