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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #10063 > unrolled thread

hexump.c

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

Contents

  hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-09 22:53 +0200
    Re: hexump.c tea strainer <nospam@nospam.com> - 2011-09-09 21:06 +0000
      Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-09 23:57 +0200
      Re: hexump.c NicStevens <nic.stevens@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 13:22 -0700
    Re: hexump.c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-10 09:18 +1200
      Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-09 23:59 +0200
    Re: hexump.c Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-09 22:29 +0000
      Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-10 00:39 +0200
        Re: hexump.c Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-09 22:53 +0000
          Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-10 00:58 +0200
          Re: hexump.c Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-13 06:44 +0000
            Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-13 10:33 +0200
              Re: hexump.c Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201109.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-09-13 18:02 +0200
              Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-13 16:36 -0400
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-13 22:44 +0200
                  Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-14 13:31 +0100
                    Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-14 15:27 +0200
                      Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-14 11:49 -0400
                      Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-14 13:27 -0700
                        Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-09-14 20:59 +0000
                          Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-14 22:20 +0100
                          Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-14 17:20 -0400
                            Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-09-15 01:51 +0000
                              Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-14 19:29 -0700
                          Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-14 19:21 -0700
                            Re: Teaching C Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-09-14 19:58 -0700
                              Re: Teaching C Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-09-14 21:55 -0600
                              Re: Teaching C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-15 06:54 -0400
                                Re: Teaching C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-15 11:58 -0700
                                  Re: Teaching C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 12:57 -0800
                              Re: Teaching C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-15 14:25 +0100
                              Re: Teaching C Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-16 22:00 +0000
                  Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-14 12:54 -0400
                    Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-14 13:26 -0400
                      Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-14 19:33 +0200
                        Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) jameskuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-14 11:33 -0700
                          Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-14 21:17 +0200
                            Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-16 11:47 -0400
                          Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-14 20:43 +0000
                        Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-14 22:35 +0100
                        Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) gordonb.8a7i1@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-09-14 17:31 -0500
                    Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-14 19:32 +0200
                      Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-16 11:27 -0400
                        Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-16 08:49 -0700
                          Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-17 15:04 -0400
              Re: hexump.c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-13 20:31 -0700
                Re: hexump.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-14 03:22 -0700
                Re: hexump.c "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-14 11:40 +0100
                  Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-14 13:54 +0200
                    Re: hexump.c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-14 13:50 +0100
                    Re: hexump.c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-14 11:35 -0700
                      Re: hexump.c Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-14 19:12 +0000
                        Re: hexump.c John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2011-09-14 15:31 -0700
                          Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-15 00:59 +0200
                            Re: hexump.c Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-14 23:14 +0000
                            Re: hexump.c John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2011-09-15 08:52 -0700
                      Re: hexump.c Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-09-14 21:22 +0200
                        Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-14 21:26 +0200
                          Re: hexump.c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-15 07:32 +1200
                            Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-14 21:44 +0200
                              Re: hexump.c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-14 13:49 -0700
                            Re: hexump.c Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-16 00:50 +0300
                              Re: hexump.c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-15 18:34 -0700
                    Re: hexump.c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-14 12:16 -0700
                      Hypocrites jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-14 21:40 +0200
                        Re: Hypocrites Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-14 19:11 -0700
                  Re: hexump.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-14 15:05 +0100
                    Re: hexump.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-14 07:56 -0700
                    Re: hexump.c "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-14 17:23 +0100
                Re: hexump.c Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-14 19:12 +0000
                Re: hexump.c John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2011-09-14 15:24 -0700
        Re: hexump.c gordonb.ik17p@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-09-09 18:16 -0500
          Re: hexump.c Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-12 22:24 +0000
    Re: hexump.c "Morris Keesan" <mkeesan@post.harvard.edu> - 2011-09-09 20:33 -0400
      Re: hexump.c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-10 12:42 +1200
        Re: hexump.c "Morris Keesan" <mkeesan@post.harvard.edu> - 2011-09-10 17:16 -0400
      Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-10 10:03 +0200
    Re: hexump.c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-10 10:04 +0100
      Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-10 11:41 +0200
        Re: hexump.c pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-09-10 05:51 -0400
          Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-10 12:38 +0200
            Re: hexump.c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-10 17:53 +0100
    Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-10 12:46 +0200
      Re: hexump.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-10 13:03 +0100
        Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-10 15:34 +0200
      Re: hexump.c "Morris Keesan" <mkeesan@post.harvard.edu> - 2011-09-10 17:37 -0400
        Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-11 00:10 +0200
          Re: hexump.c Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-10 21:03 -0700
    Re: hexump.c Barry Schwarz <schwarz45@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 00:37 -0700
      Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-11 13:56 +0200

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#10257 — Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c)

> Do you know of an existing system that doesn't set argv[0] to the name
> of the program?
> 
> ANY EXAMPLE?

On systems with execl() or execv(), systems don't set argv[0], *APPLICATION
PROGRAMMERS DO (or don't)*.

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

#10234 — Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c)

Le 14/09/11 18:54, Kenneth Brody a écrit :
> On 9/13/2011 4:44 PM, jacob navia wrote:
>> Le 13/09/11 22:36, Kenneth Brody a écrit :
>>
>>> I think all classes on C programming should be taught on the DS-9000,
>>> unless you are specifically teaching "Brand X's C compiler". It's a lot
>>> easier to learn "the right way" first and then learn system-specific
>>> extensions, than it is to learn system-specific extensions and then
>>> "unlearn" them when working on other platforms.
>>>
>>
>> 1) argv[0] is a system specific extension ???? That would be news to me.
>
> I never said it was.

You said it is easier to learn "the right way" and system specific
extensions later, what implies that you consider using argv[0] as a
"system specific extension". Nice that you say that that isn't the case

:-)

>
>
>> 2) Can you tell me of an EXISTING system that sets argv[0] to anything
>> else than the name of the program?
>
> Under MS-DOS, argv[0] used to always be "C", as the program's name was
> not passed to the program.
>

That is not true, MSDOS sets the value of argv[0] to the name of the
program since MSDOS 3.0, introduced in 1984! That is 27 YEARS ago.

Urban legends. Yes, I should (in a beginners program in 2011) take care
that one of the students uses an msdos version that is older than 27
years. Note that my question was

"... EXISTING system..."

and you come up with MSDOS 2.0, from 1983. GREAT!

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

#10330 — Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c)

On 9/14/2011 1:32 PM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 14/09/11 18:54, Kenneth Brody a écrit :
>> On 9/13/2011 4:44 PM, jacob navia wrote:
>>> Le 13/09/11 22:36, Kenneth Brody a écrit :
>>>
>>>> I think all classes on C programming should be taught on the DS-9000,
>>>> unless you are specifically teaching "Brand X's C compiler". It's a lot
>>>> easier to learn "the right way" first and then learn system-specific
>>>> extensions, than it is to learn system-specific extensions and then
>>>> "unlearn" them when working on other platforms.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1) argv[0] is a system specific extension ???? That would be news to me.
>>
>> I never said it was.
>
> You said it is easier to learn "the right way" and system specific
> extensions later, what implies that you consider using argv[0] as a
> "system specific extension". Nice that you say that that isn't the case
>
> :-)

Well, the "system specific extension" I was referring to originally was 
someone's post that there is/are systems where argc==0 and argv[1] points to 
some system-specific information.

Other things would be more like "all the world's a VAX" mentality, only 
today it's more like "all the world's a 32-bit Windows box with Visual 
Studio 2010 as the compiler".  In that case, it's no "system-specific 
extensions" that's usually the concern, but "implementation-specific 
behavior and libraries".  I have no problem with such specificity, as long 
as you are aware you're using it.

>>> 2) Can you tell me of an EXISTING system that sets argv[0] to anything
>>> else than the name of the program?
>>
>> Under MS-DOS, argv[0] used to always be "C", as the program's name was
>> not passed to the program.
>
> That is not true, MSDOS sets the value of argv[0] to the name of the
> program since MSDOS 3.0, introduced in 1984! That is 27 YEARS ago.

Perhaps.  But, that doesn't mean that MS-DOS C compilers used that 
information initially.  I certainly developed on several MS-DOS C compilers 
that documented that argv[0] was "C", regardless of the executable name. 
Since I never cared about it, I never noticed if/when it changed.

> Urban legends.

Nope.  BTDT.

> Yes, I should (in a beginners program in 2011) take care
> that one of the students uses an msdos version that is older than 27
> years. Note that my question was
>
> "... EXISTING system..."
>
> and you come up with MSDOS 2.0, from 1983. GREAT!

I used it as an example because I used such systems myself.

So such systems no longer exist?  Or, by "existing system" did you really 
mean "a system which is likely to still be used by numerous people"?

And, as pointed out elsethread, Unix/Linux systems simply set argv[0] to 
whatever the calling program says to set it to.  It is just by convention 
that command shells use the program name as argv[0].


-- 
Kenneth Brody

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

#10333 — Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c)

On Sep 16, 6:27 pm, Kenneth Brody <kenbr...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> Perhaps.  But, that doesn't mean that MS-DOS C compilers used that
> information initially.  I certainly developed on several MS-DOS C compilers
> that documented that argv[0] was "C", regardless of the executable name.
> Since I never cared about it, I never noticed if/when it changed.
>
You tended not to use the command line with old DOS. One problem was
that there was a 256 character limit. The other, related problem was
that wildcards weren't expanded. So it tended to be a grief to write
programs that took filenames as arguments. However you knew the width
and height of your screen, so it was easy to knock up a character-
mapped GUI.

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

#10406 — Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c)

On 09/16/2011 11:49 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sep 16, 6:27�pm, Kenneth Brody <kenbr...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps. �But, that doesn't mean that MS-DOS C compilers used that
>> information initially. �I certainly developed on several MS-DOS C compilers
>> that documented that argv[0] was "C", regardless of the executable name.
>> Since I never cared about it, I never noticed if/when it changed.
>>
> You tended not to use the command line with old DOS.

You might not have, I did.

> ... One problem was
> that there was a 256 character limit. The other, related problem was
> that wildcards weren't expanded. ...

I find the wildcard expansion that is automatically performed by most
shells on most Unix-like systems very convenient. However, MSDOS did
offer functions that could be called to perform wildcard matching, and I
did write code making use of them.

... So it tended to be a grief to write
> programs that took filenames as arguments. However you knew the width
> and height of your screen, so it was easy to knock up a character-
> mapped GUI.

I almost never had a standard-sized screen. I remember that when I used
MSDOS, I set configuration parameters somewhere that gave the screen a
non-standard size (I think I had a larger number of lines, with a
smaller font size). It confused a number of programs that had built-in
assumptions like the ones you're implying, but those assumptions were
never justified, because it could be re-configured.
-- 
James Kuyper

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

#10209

jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:
> Le 13/09/11 08:44, Seebs a écrit :
>> On 2011-09-09, Ike Naar<ike@iceland.freeshell.org>  wrote:
>>> I agree that argc = 0 is unlikely. But the standard allows it.
>>
>> I think there was some system with the convention that argc = 0 meant
>> that argv[1] was a pointer to a system-specific magical structure that
>> had information about a GUI invocation or something to that effect.
>>
>> -s
>
> WHO CARES?
>
> Not me. I think you can't possible try to satisfy all the systems that
> existed some time in the past to make your application portable to
> PDP11 or whatever. Specially not for new students of the C language
> that will surely work in a PC (windows or linux) or a MacIntosh when
> doing their homework.

Ok, you don't care.  But the standard is quite explicit about *not*
requiring argv[0] to be non-null.  See C99 5.1.2.2.1p2:

    -- The value of argc shall be nonnegative.
    -- argv[argc] shall be a null pointer.
    -- If the value of argc is greater than zero, [...]

But consider this: students who learned to program on a PDP-11 or a VAX
are probably no longer using those systems.  Students learning today on
a Windows, Linux, or Macintosh system may be using very different
systems in the future.  It's never too early to learn good habits.

I'm not necessarily saying that a tutorial intended for beginners needs
to check for every possibility; assuming that argv[0] != NULL might be
reasonable in that context.  But in code that's intended to be robust, a
test is worth the effort, perhaps something like:

    const char *const program_name = argv[0] ? argv[0] : "<program>";
    fprintf(stderr, "Usage: %s <filename>\n", program_name);

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#10212

On Sep 14, 6:31 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> But in code that's intended to be robust, a
> test is worth the effort, perhaps something like:
>
>     const char *const program_name = argv[0] ? argv[0] : "<program>";
>     fprintf(stderr, "Usage: %s <filename>\n", program_name);
>
>
The problem with that is that you might get a full path in argv[0].

Ypu can use strrchr() to chop, using either / or \ as a path
separator. That will work in most real situations, but not if a unixy
person includes a backslash in a file name.

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

#10213

"Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> wrote in message 
news:ln39fzby0w.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org...

> But consider this: students who learned to program on a PDP-11 or a VAX
> are probably no longer using those systems.

I bet they were taught a bunch of other stuff that was also specific to 
those systems and which is now irrelevant, but still managed to gradually 
progress to new systems without too much trouble.

And the chances are that a couple of decades later, they will be using a 
different language anyway, if they are still even programming.

-- 
Bartc 

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

#10216

Le 14/09/11 12:40, BartC a écrit :
> "Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> wrote in message
> news:ln39fzby0w.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org...
>
>> But consider this: students who learned to program on a PDP-11 or a VAX
>> are probably no longer using those systems.
>
> I bet they were taught a bunch of other stuff that was also specific to
> those systems and which is now irrelevant, but still managed to
> gradually progress to new systems without too much trouble.
>
> And the chances are that a couple of decades later, they will be using a
> different language anyway, if they are still even programming.
>

This obsession with portability reaches here new heights...

Programs must be written (by beginners) such that they run still
unmodified in 20 years, so the children of the students can peek into
their father's homework and copy it unmodified.


Well, this Thompson guy has never presented any program here, not
even a small utility like the one I presented. The only thing he knows
is to pick a small detail from a post and add his nonsense.

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

#10219

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:54:06 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

> This obsession with portability reaches here new heights...
> 
> Programs must be written (by beginners) such that they run still
> unmodified in 20 years, so the children of the students can peek into
> their father's homework and copy it unmodified.

It isn't always necessary to write portable code. However, whether
your code is portable or not should be a deliberate choice, not an
accidental consequence of not knowing what is or isn't portable.

Anyone with a brain can discover typical behaviour through trial and
error, but that won't tell you whether such behaviour is actually
guaranteed. People will only learn that information if they specifically
go looking for it (which won't happen if they /think/ they already know),
or if someone actually tells them.

Why does it matter if code "only" works 99.999% of the time? Because if
security is an issue, it's often quite straightforward for someone to
force the "0.001%" case to happen.

If you ever need to write a program which has security implications, it's
not enough to know what should happen or what will probably happen. You
have to know what /could/ happen; all of it: every, single possibility.

Admittedly, argv[0]==NULL doesn't have much scope for exploitation,
although it has some; e.g. a potential DoS if you can force a program to
segfault while reporting an error which should otherwise be recoverable
(or if the program should at least be able to "clean up" before
terminating).

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

#10236

jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:
> Le 14/09/11 12:40, BartC a écrit :
>> "Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> wrote in message
>> news:ln39fzby0w.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org...
>>
>>> But consider this: students who learned to program on a PDP-11 or a VAX
>>> are probably no longer using those systems.
>>
>> I bet they were taught a bunch of other stuff that was also specific to
>> those systems and which is now irrelevant, but still managed to
>> gradually progress to new systems without too much trouble.
>>
>> And the chances are that a couple of decades later, they will be using a
>> different language anyway, if they are still even programming.
>>
>
> This obsession with portability reaches here new heights...
>
> Programs must be written (by beginners) such that they run still
> unmodified in 20 years, so the children of the students can peek into
> their father's homework and copy it unmodified.
>
>
> Well, this Thompson guy has never presented any program here, not
> even a small utility like the one I presented. The only thing he knows
> is to pick a small detail from a post and add his nonsense.

And once again, jacob, you take a technical discussion and turn it into
a personal attack.  For the Nth time, what is your problem?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#10238

On 2011-09-14, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> And once again, jacob, you take a technical discussion and turn it into
> a personal attack.  For the Nth time, what is your problem?

He seems really quick to take offense, and I've never quite understood why.
Not to dispute that there have been clear examples of people harassing him,
but he seems convinced that all technical disagreements are attempts to
discredit him.

I just assume it's a pretty much textbook case of pathological narcissism,
and I plonked him for it some time ago.  He's got some great ideas, but
they're all hidden behind a wall of becoming bound and determined to prove
people wrong no matter what if they disagree with him.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

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

#10258

On Sep 14, 2:12 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2011-09-14, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>
> > And once again, jacob, you take a technical discussion and turn it into
> > a personal attack.  For the Nth time, what is your problem?
>
> He seems really quick to take offense, and I've never quite understood why.
> Not to dispute that there have been clear examples of people harassing him,
> but he seems convinced that all technical disagreements are attempts to
> discredit him.
>

He's one of those people who thrives on drama.  It's like that small,
unpleasant part of me that can't ignore certain conspiracy theorist
wackaloons (Apollo hoaxers, birthers, 9/11 truthers, etc.) and let
them stew in their own insanity.  The rational part of my brain
realizes that engaging them is a fruitless endeavor, but the part of
my brain that's usually in charge just can't let it go.

It's a compulsion.

> I just assume it's a pretty much textbook case of pathological narcissism,
> and I plonked him for it some time ago.  He's got some great ideas, but
> they're all hidden behind a wall of becoming bound and determined to prove
> people wrong no matter what if they disagree with him.
>

Or he may just be a jackass.

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

#10259

Le 15/09/11 00:31, John Bode a écrit :
>
> Or he may just be a jackass.

Then, those hypocrites say:

WHY ( oh WHY) this guy is SO PARANOIC!

I never insulted him, we are all so KIND with him and HE treat us so
BADLY

You aren't even an insult worth Mr Bode.

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

#10260

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:59:56 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

> Le 15/09/11 00:31, John Bode a écrit :
>>
>> Or he may just be a jackass.
> 
> Then, those hypocrites say:
> 
> WHY ( oh WHY) this guy is SO PARANOIC!
> 
> I never insulted him, we are all so KIND with him and HE treat us so
> BADLY
> 
> You aren't even an insult worth Mr Bode.

If someone says you *may* be a jackass, why do you feel the need to
prove that hypothesis? 

I'm just being curious, since it seems to be counterproductive.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ______
< Yow! >
 ------
  \
   \
       ___  
     {~._.~}
      ( Y )
     ()~*~()   
     (_)-(_)   
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

#10285

On Sep 14, 5:59 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 15/09/11 00:31, John Bode a écrit :
>
>
>
> > Or he may just be a jackass.
>
> Then, those hypocrites say:
>
> WHY ( oh WHY) this guy is SO PARANOIC!
>
> I never insulted him, we are all so KIND with him and HE treat us so
> BADLY
>
> You aren't even an insult worth Mr Bode.

Dude, you're the one who told me that I should just piss off and no
longer participate in the group when I mentioned I wasn't writing C
professionally any more.  You've been excessively rude to just about
everyone who had an honest disagreement with you.

I don't claim to have never insulted you; I'm the one that called you
a drama queen (a term that I still think fits you the best).  I did
that because you were taking criticism over *technical* issues as
personal insults and, well, being overly dramatic about it.

You *invite* this crap.

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

#10242

Am 09/14/2011 08:35 PM, schrieb Keith Thompson:
> And once again, jacob, you take a technical discussion and turn it into
> a personal attack.  For the Nth time, what is your problem?

Your patience with him is just admirable :)

I personally just find his attitude somewhere between annoying and
disgusting.

And I have impression that his problem is not with you but of a more
general nature.

Jens

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

#10243

Le 14/09/11 21:22, Jens Gustedt a écrit :
> Am 09/14/2011 08:35 PM, schrieb Keith Thompson:
>> And once again, jacob, you take a technical discussion and turn it into
>> a personal attack.  For the Nth time, what is your problem?
>
> Your patience with him is just admirable :)
>
> I personally just find his attitude somewhere between annoying and
> disgusting.
>
> And I have impression that his problem is not with you but of a more
> general nature.
>
> Jens

Yes, it is a longer story. Years of supporting insults from him and
heathfield.

He and his band of "regulars". All my posts are polluted by this people.

I have been patient too long. Now I just do not want that they 
participate in the discussions I start. He, Seebs, Kuyper, all of them.

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

#10244

On 09/15/11 07:26 AM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 14/09/11 21:22, Jens Gustedt a écrit :
>> Am 09/14/2011 08:35 PM, schrieb Keith Thompson:
>>> And once again, jacob, you take a technical discussion and turn it into
>>> a personal attack.  For the Nth time, what is your problem?
>>
>> Your patience with him is just admirable :)
>>
>> I personally just find his attitude somewhere between annoying and
>> disgusting.
>>
>> And I have impression that his problem is not with you but of a more
>> general nature.
>
> Yes, it is a longer story. Years of supporting insults from him and
> heathfield.

I've been following this group for a number of years (probably too 
many...) and in that time I don't think I've ever seen Keith insult you 
or anyone else.  Care to cite an example?

-- 
Ian Collins

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

#10246

Le 14/09/11 21:32, Ian Collins a écrit :
> On 09/15/11 07:26 AM, jacob navia wrote:
>> Le 14/09/11 21:22, Jens Gustedt a écrit :
>>> Am 09/14/2011 08:35 PM, schrieb Keith Thompson:
>>>> And once again, jacob, you take a technical discussion and turn it into
>>>> a personal attack. For the Nth time, what is your problem?
>>>
>>> Your patience with him is just admirable :)
>>>
>>> I personally just find his attitude somewhere between annoying and
>>> disgusting.
>>>
>>> And I have impression that his problem is not with you but of a more
>>> general nature.
>>
>> Yes, it is a longer story. Years of supporting insults from him and
>> heathfield.
>
> I've been following this group for a number of years (probably too
> many...) and in that time I don't think I've ever seen Keith insult you
> or anyone else. Care to cite an example?
>

No, Heathfield and co never insulted directly.

They let other people do that work and then they would aprove those
posts, never saying a word against the people that insulted.

Thompson is too mean to directly insult anyone. He just will implicitely
approve insults.

The only time where he insulted me was when I proposed him to jointly
write a proposal to the standard committee about integer overflow.

That was too much for him.

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

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web