Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #94683 > unrolled thread
| Started by | MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-10 15:51 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-10 15:11 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 183 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
C Programming Tutorial on Youtube MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 15:51 +0000
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-10 17:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-10-10 13:25 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 11:06 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-10 22:18 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-10 16:29 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 00:07 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-11 08:36 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 09:51 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-11 07:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 09:48 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 10:10 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 11:54 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-11 08:13 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-11 07:49 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-11 12:28 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-11 09:51 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-11 21:02 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-13 14:48 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-13 10:20 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-15 12:18 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-15 16:47 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-15 14:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 15:21 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-15 22:47 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 05:19 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 08:37 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 17:59 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 15:48 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 00:27 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-16 17:42 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-17 10:23 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:07 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 18:28 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-17 10:08 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:51 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-18 13:29 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-18 13:24 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-16 13:29 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 18:36 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 11:39 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 15:54 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-16 15:38 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 23:53 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 19:40 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-17 06:31 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:09 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-17 14:16 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 19:40 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-16 19:23 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 22:33 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-10-16 20:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:13 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-17 10:58 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:14 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-17 07:44 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-17 13:22 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:22 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-17 08:32 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 17:21 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-17 16:07 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 21:00 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:49 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-18 10:45 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-17 10:55 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:01 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-17 19:29 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-18 00:33 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-18 08:41 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-18 01:54 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-18 08:28 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 10:05 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-11 11:12 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 11:52 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 12:18 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-11 22:15 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 14:40 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-11 23:45 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 18:08 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 18:41 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 18:55 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-10-14 22:09 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 10:51 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-15 19:11 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 21:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-15 22:33 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 23:13 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 15:34 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 00:37 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-16 01:00 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-17 17:48 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-17 20:09 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 23:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 16:19 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 00:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-16 01:11 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 22:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 23:11 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-10-16 19:55 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-17 01:12 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-17 01:56 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-17 14:27 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 04:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 11:49 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 14:55 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 12:47 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-15 11:02 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 12:12 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-15 14:56 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-17 05:27 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-17 08:41 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-17 10:18 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-17 11:34 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-18 08:05 +1300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-17 12:39 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-17 22:46 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-18 14:06 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-18 12:18 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-20 15:09 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-20 14:29 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-10-23 13:15 +0000
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 16:17 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-07 11:21 -0800
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-18 13:59 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-18 14:32 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 06:57 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 10:25 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 13:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 16:44 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 16:53 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 18:37 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 18:50 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 19:41 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 20:18 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-12 12:56 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 21:04 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 14:18 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-12 15:12 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 01:49 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 09:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 02:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 10:35 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:23 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 18:49 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 10:52 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 12:06 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-12 19:41 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 01:59 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 10:34 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 13:08 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 05:22 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 13:29 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 18:57 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 19:26 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:27 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-15 15:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 16:45 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 16:51 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-13 12:04 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 13:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-13 14:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 20:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-13 22:00 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-10-12 08:14 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-12 05:28 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 13:30 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 13:59 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 08:47 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 05:29 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 08:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 18:29 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 06:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 17:54 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 18:09 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-12 13:46 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 18:54 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:46 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-10 18:01 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-10 15:11 -0700
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 12:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3b0a70e3-9c51-d228-7995-286f75a162ef@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #94753 |
On 12/10/16 03:02, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 10/11/2016 12:51 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: ... >> Actually, as you've frequently demonstrated, you have no idea what >> the standard says. You almost never cite the words of the standard, >> and never present arguments based upon those words, and you never >> respond to such arguments with anything other than insults (see >> above). You know what you want it to say, and that's what you think >> it does say, and the actual words of the standard play no apparent >> role in the process that leads you to that conclusion. That the >> committee could deliberately choose to write the standard to mean >> something different from what you think it ought to say is >> completely beyond your comprehension. And then you accuse those of >> us who have learned how to comprehend the correct meaning of those >> words of lacking "reading comprehension" skills :-} >> > > No, I don't cite the language of the standard, because I'm not a > language lawyer. I look at the *meaning* of the standard - which > escapes you and the likes of you. It's why I won't discuss the > standard with the language lawyers. ... >> That's OK. I can explain the difference (or more importantly in >> this context, the lack of relevant differences) for the benefit of >> others, whether or not you're willing to pay any attention to my >> explanation. >> > > And quite frankly, I don't give a shit what a language lawyer > thinks. Including you. The C committee has never, as far as I can tell, issued a ruling directly addressing any of the issues you've argued about on this newsgroup. Few people who have misunderstandings of the standard as profound as yours have ever bothered filing defect reports about such issues - they believe that they're clearly in the right, so there's no need to ask the C committee to confirm it. Since you've never bothered to respond to any of the points I've raised with anything except insults against my intelligence, I'm not certain which particular parts of my arguments you find objectionable. However, since I know that my understanding of the meaning of the standard is reasonably close to that of the C committee (though I do disagree with them on a fair number of issues), I suspect that if I did know which parts you objected to, I could cite text from the C Rationale or official Defect Report responses that would indicate that the Committee agreed with me on at least some of these points. Of course, you'd probably respond by claiming that I'd misunderstood the Rationale and the Defect Reports just as badly as I misunderstood the standard. Still, while I might not be able to convince you that I was right, I could imagine convincing you that the Committee shares at least some of the same delusions as I do about what the standard means. However, your comments above leave me wondering whether even that would do any good. In the same sense that I'm a language lawyer, when the C Committee resolves Defect Reports, it's serving as the C language analog of the US Supreme Court. You can't get any more lawyerly than the Supreme Court. If you did somehow become convinced that the Committee shared the same delusions as me about the meaning of the standard, would you dismiss them, too, as language lawyers? Or would you follow your usual approach and simply insult their intelligence? The C Committee is the ultimate authority on C. If you would be inclined to dismiss their opinions due to them being language lawyers, then you're not really talking about ISO C at all. You're talking about your own private language, which could reasonably be called Stuckle-C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 16:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ntu4ke$ndr$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94867 |
On 10/15/2016 12:18 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote: > On 12/10/16 03:02, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 10/11/2016 12:51 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > ... >>> Actually, as you've frequently demonstrated, you have no idea what >>> the standard says. You almost never cite the words of the standard, >>> and never present arguments based upon those words, and you never >>> respond to such arguments with anything other than insults (see >>> above). You know what you want it to say, and that's what you think >>> it does say, and the actual words of the standard play no apparent >>> role in the process that leads you to that conclusion. That the >>> committee could deliberately choose to write the standard to mean >>> something different from what you think it ought to say is >>> completely beyond your comprehension. And then you accuse those of >>> us who have learned how to comprehend the correct meaning of those >>> words of lacking "reading comprehension" skills :-} >>> >> >> No, I don't cite the language of the standard, because I'm not a >> language lawyer. I look at the *meaning* of the standard - which >> escapes you and the likes of you. It's why I won't discuss the >> standard with the language lawyers. > ... >>> That's OK. I can explain the difference (or more importantly in >>> this context, the lack of relevant differences) for the benefit of >>> others, whether or not you're willing to pay any attention to my >>> explanation. >>> >> >> And quite frankly, I don't give a shit what a language lawyer >> thinks. Including you. > > The C committee has never, as far as I can tell, issued a ruling > directly addressing any of the issues you've argued about on this > newsgroup. Few people who have misunderstandings of the standard as > profound as yours have ever bothered filing defect reports about such > issues - they believe that they're clearly in the right, so there's no > need to ask the C committee to confirm it. > Then you either can't read or can't understand. I'm not sure which. > Since you've never bothered to respond to any of the points I've raised > with anything except insults against my intelligence, I'm not certain > which particular parts of my arguments you find objectionable. However, > since I know that my understanding of the meaning of the standard is > reasonably close to that of the C committee (though I do disagree with > them on a fair number of issues), I suspect that if I did know which > parts you objected to, I could cite text from the C Rationale or > official Defect Report responses that would indicate that the Committee > agreed with me on at least some of these points. Of course, you'd > probably respond by claiming that I'd misunderstood the Rationale and > the Defect Reports just as badly as I misunderstood the standard. Still, > while I might not be able to convince you that I was right, I could > imagine convincing you that the Committee shares at least some of the > same delusions as I do about what the standard means. > As I said - I've learned not to try to discuss the standard with language lawyers like you. You can cite text - but have no idea what it means. You promote absurd concepts and claim they are within the standards because the standard doesn't prohibit them. No, I won't discuss them with you. > However, your comments above leave me wondering whether even that would > do any good. In the same sense that I'm a language lawyer, when the C > Committee resolves Defect Reports, it's serving as the C language analog > of the US Supreme Court. You can't get any more lawyerly than the > Supreme Court. If you did somehow become convinced that the Committee > shared the same delusions as me about the meaning of the standard, would > you dismiss them, too, as language lawyers? Or would you follow your > usual approach and simply insult their intelligence? > Yes, you are a language lawyer. You argue the wording without understanding the underlying concepts. And you can't show any point where I disagree with the Committee - except your absurd concepts which even the Committee doesn't bother with discussing. > The C Committee is the ultimate authority on C. If you would be inclined > to dismiss their opinions due to them being language lawyers, then > you're not really talking about ISO C at all. You're talking about your > own private language, which could reasonably be called Stuckle-C. Yes, it is. But they are not language lawyers. They are people who understand the language and concepts, and create standards accordingly. Language lawyers can only cite wording and then create their own interpretations. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 14:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49981d65-38c6-4ea1-ac08-1885dd5aa130@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94878 |
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 4:47:36 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 10/15/2016 12:18 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote: > > On 12/10/16 03:02, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> On 10/11/2016 12:51 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: ... > Yes, you are a language lawyer. You argue the wording without > understanding the underlying concepts. You're a language ignoramus - you argue underlying concepts that you don't understand, and ignore wording that makes that fact clear. ... > And you can't show any point where I disagree with the Committee - > except your absurd concepts which even the Committee doesn't bother with > discussing. I only said that they haven't discussed the precise issues you've been arguing about. In the course of discussing those issues, you have frequently disagreed with particular concepts that the Committee has bothered discussing, and what they've said about those concepts is much more in line with what I'm saying, than it is in line with what you're saying. This has happened often enough that, if you were capable of logical argument rather than name-calling, it would tear your arguments to shreds. There would be a few pieces left of your arguments, but not enough to connect your premises to their conclusions. I could identify the conflicts between your concepts and theirs more clearly if you had ever bothered responding to the issues I raised, rather than simply insulting my intelligence. What I'm trying to find out is whether or not it would be worth my while to track down examples of such disagreements. The best I'll be able to do is find cases where the Committee reached a decision on some issue using a concept which was incompatible with your understanding of C; I won't necessarily be able to find an explicit statement of the concept they were using, nor a specific denial of the validity of your concept. If you're simply going to follow your usual approach, and respond to any such citations I might make, by saying I don't understand them correctly, without bothering to explain the misunderstanding you think I've made, then there's no point in my doing so. ... > > The C Committee is the ultimate authority on C. If you would be inclined > > to dismiss their opinions due to them being language lawyers, then > > you're not really talking about ISO C at all. You're talking about your > > own private language, which could reasonably be called Stuckle-C. > > Yes, it is. But they are not language lawyers. They are people who > understand the language and concepts, and create standards accordingly. > > Language lawyers can only cite wording and then create their own > interpretations. I have my own interpretations on a number of issues - but I recognize that it's the C committee's interpretation that is authoritative, even when I think they're wrong. However, most of my interpretations are entirely in line with the Committee's. I think that if you read more about the Committee's Rationale document and Defect Report resolutions, you'd quickly find something they said that would make you dismiss them as language lawyers, insane, or idiots. Have you ever bothered looking?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 15:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lneg3hgsmy.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #94880 |
jameskuyper@verizon.net writes:
> On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 4:47:36 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 10/15/2016 12:18 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote:
>> > On 12/10/16 03:02, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> >> On 10/11/2016 12:51 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote:
> ...
>> Yes, you are a language lawyer. You argue the wording without
>> understanding the underlying concepts.
>
> You're a language ignoramus - you argue underlying concepts that you don't
> understand, and ignore wording that makes that fact clear.
And you're wasting time arguing with him.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 22:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ntupo7$7bk$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94880 |
On 10/15/2016 5:31 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 4:47:36 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 10/15/2016 12:18 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote: >>> On 12/10/16 03:02, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 10/11/2016 12:51 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > ... >> Yes, you are a language lawyer. You argue the wording without >> understanding the underlying concepts. > > You're a language ignoramus - you argue underlying concepts that you don't > understand, and ignore wording that makes that fact clear. > A typical comment from you. You consistently prove you have no idea what you're talking about. And you're too stoopid to realize it. You present absurd concepts not even the Standards Committee concerns themselves with, claiming your concepts are legitimate according to the Standard. So stoopid... > ... >> And you can't show any point where I disagree with the Committee - >> except your absurd concepts which even the Committee doesn't bother with >> discussing. > > I only said that they haven't discussed the precise issues you've been arguing > about. In the course of discussing those issues, you have frequently disagreed > with particular concepts that the Committee has bothered discussing, and what > they've said about those concepts is much more in line with what I'm saying, > than it is in line with what you're saying. This has happened often enough > that, if you were capable of logical argument rather than name-calling, it > would tear your arguments to shreds. There would be a few pieces left of your > arguments, but not enough to connect your premises to their conclusions. I > could identify the conflicts between your concepts and theirs more clearly if > you had ever bothered responding to the issues I raised, rather than simply > insulting my intelligence. What I'm trying to find out is whether or not it > would be worth my while to track down examples of such disagreements. > No, you've claimed they haven't discussed the precise issues YOU'VE been arguing about - because they are so asinine and absurd the Committee doesn't even bother with them. But you seem to be king of the absurd. > The best I'll be able to do is find cases where the Committee reached a > decision on some issue using a concept which was incompatible with your > understanding of C; I won't necessarily be able to find an explicit statement > of the concept they were using, nor a specific denial of the validity of your > concept. If you're simply going to follow your usual approach, and respond to > any such citations I might make, by saying I don't understand them correctly, > without bothering to explain the misunderstanding you think I've made, then > there's no point in my doing so. > You have NEVER shown a case where the Committee has reached a decision which conflicts with what I've said. And no, you can't find an explicit statement because it doesn't exist. Nor have you been able to find a specific denial. But then I don't promote absurd and asinine concepts like you do. > ... >>> The C Committee is the ultimate authority on C. If you would be inclined >>> to dismiss their opinions due to them being language lawyers, then >>> you're not really talking about ISO C at all. You're talking about your >>> own private language, which could reasonably be called Stuckle-C. >> >> Yes, it is. But they are not language lawyers. They are people who >> understand the language and concepts, and create standards accordingly. >> >> Language lawyers can only cite wording and then create their own >> interpretations. > > I have my own interpretations on a number of issues - but I recognize that it's > the C committee's interpretation that is authoritative, even when I think > they're wrong. However, most of my interpretations are entirely in line with > the Committee's. > Yes, too bad your interpretation doesn't agree with the Committee's. > I think that if you read more about the Committee's Rationale document and > Defect Report resolutions, you'd quickly find something they said that would > make you dismiss them as language lawyers, insane, or idiots. Have you ever > bothered looking? > Oh, I have. And I hate to tell you, but I know a couple of the Committee members. They laugh at ideas like you promote. They also consider you an idiot. I don't dismiss them as language lawyers. They know what they're talking about. Unlike you. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 05:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ntuv3a$im3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94900 |
Libels should not be allowed to pass without challenge. On 16/10/16 03:47, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 10/15/2016 5:31 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: <snip> >> I think that if you read more about the Committee's Rationale document and >> Defect Report resolutions, you'd quickly find something they said that would >> make you dismiss them as language lawyers, insane, or idiots. Have you ever >> bothered looking? >> > > Oh, I have. And I hate to tell you, but I know a couple of the > Committee members. I don't believe that for a second. I can tell by the way you describe them. > They laugh at ideas like you promote. They also consider you an idiot. That's not true either. You see, I really genuinely am on speaking terms with several people (some people here may recall the initials PS, CF, DG) who, at the very least, /were/ on the ISO C Committee (I have no idea whether they still are), and /at least/ one who is still on the committee (LJ), so I know the kind of people they are. *None* of those people considers James Kuyper to be an idiot. Nor do they laugh at his ideas. They recognise him for the fellow expert he is. If you had even the slightest shred of credibility, James Kuyper would be perfectly within his rights to sue you for libel. Fortunately for you, however, you don't have enough credibility for your bilious words to have any impact whatsoever on James's reputation. > I don't dismiss them as language lawyers. They know what they're > talking about. Yes, they do. > Unlike you. Pure bile. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 08:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ntvsaa$3q8$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94903 |
On 10/16/2016 12:19 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > Libels should not be allowed to pass without challenge. > > On 16/10/16 03:47, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 10/15/2016 5:31 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > <snip> >>> I think that if you read more about the Committee's Rationale >>> document and >>> Defect Report resolutions, you'd quickly find something they said >>> that would >>> make you dismiss them as language lawyers, insane, or idiots. Have >>> you ever >>> bothered looking? >>> >> >> Oh, I have. And I hate to tell you, but I know a couple of the >> Committee members. > > I don't believe that for a second. I can tell by the way you describe them. > I don't give a damn what you think. >> They laugh at ideas like you promote. They also consider you an idiot. > > That's not true either. > As if you would know. > You see, I really genuinely am on speaking terms with several people > (some people here may recall the initials PS, CF, DG) who, at the very > least, /were/ on the ISO C Committee (I have no idea whether they still > are), and /at least/ one who is still on the committee (LJ), so I know > the kind of people they are. *None* of those people considers James > Kuyper to be an idiot. Nor do they laugh at his ideas. They recognise > him for the fellow expert he is. > So what? You claim to know them, and talk to them, but don't even know if they are Committee members? You know nothing. > If you had even the slightest shred of credibility, James Kuyper would > be perfectly within his rights to sue you for libel. Fortunately for > you, however, you don't have enough credibility for your bilious words > to have any impact whatsoever on James's reputation. > ROFLMAO! You can't win a libel suit when someone spreads the truth. >> I don't dismiss them as language lawyers. They know what they're >> talking about. > > Yes, they do. > You don't even know what a language lawyer is. So much for your respectability. >> Unlike you. > > Pure bile. > Pure truth. Too bad you don't like it. But idiots and trolls never like to be called what they are. And you've proven yourself all too many times. You are a laughing stock of knowledgeable programmers. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 17:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nu0blb$op3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94924 |
On 16/10/16 13:37, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 10/16/2016 12:19 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> Libels should not be allowed to pass without challenge. >> >> On 16/10/16 03:47, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 10/15/2016 5:31 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >> <snip> >>>> I think that if you read more about the Committee's Rationale >>>> document and >>>> Defect Report resolutions, you'd quickly find something they said >>>> that would >>>> make you dismiss them as language lawyers, insane, or idiots. Have >>>> you ever >>>> bothered looking? >>>> >>> >>> Oh, I have. And I hate to tell you, but I know a couple of the >>> Committee members. >> >> I don't believe that for a second. I can tell by the way you describe them. >> > > I don't give a damn what you think. Yes, I know. You really are a most unpleasant fellow, aren't you? But you don't give a damn about that, and you seem to think that makes it all right. Well, that's up to you. > >>> They laugh at ideas like you promote. They also consider you an idiot. >> >> That's not true either. >> > > As if you would know. I do. I do not expect you to understand this. > >> You see, I really genuinely am on speaking terms with several people >> (some people here may recall the initials PS, CF, DG) who, at the very >> least, /were/ on the ISO C Committee (I have no idea whether they still >> are), and /at least/ one who is still on the committee (LJ), so I know >> the kind of people they are. *None* of those people considers James >> Kuyper to be an idiot. Nor do they laugh at his ideas. They recognise >> him for the fellow expert he is. >> > > So what? You claim to know them, and talk to them, but don't even know > if they are Committee members? Yes, that's almost right. I claimed to be on speaking terms with them, which means we have spoken in the past and got on well. You see, I am not trying to exaggerate my acquaintance with these people. This refusal to exaggerate is called "honesty", a policy that I cannot recommend too highly. The people whose initials I cited are committee members (or, possibly, former committee members, bar one) with whom I have been involved in Usenet discussions. PP is another that springs to mind. Many committee members who used to use Usenet have long since stopped doing so, which is why I don't know whether they are still on the ISO C Committee. But I have communicated with them often enough in the past to know how they view people like James. > You know nothing. You say so. >> If you had even the slightest shred of credibility, James Kuyper would >> be perfectly within his rights to sue you for libel. Fortunately for >> you, however, you don't have enough credibility for your bilious words >> to have any impact whatsoever on James's reputation. >> > > ROFLMAO! You can't win a libel suit when someone spreads the truth. Well, I'm no lawyer, but I would tend to agree with that claim; it does not, however, apply in the current discussion, because what you have said about James is not true. But neither can one win a libel suit if the libeller has no credibility. So you're still safe. >>> I don't dismiss them as language lawyers. They know what they're >>> talking about. >> >> Yes, they do. > > You don't even know what a language lawyer is. So much for your > respectability. I haven't claimed respectability, have I? I'll let others decide that. >>> Unlike you. >> >> Pure bile. >> > > Pure truth. Too bad you don't like it. But idiots and trolls never > like to be called what they are. And you've proven yourself all too > many times. Well, in the ten months or so that you've been posting here, I've proved you wrong on a number of occasions. If I really am an idiot and a troll, that must sting a bit for you. > You are a laughing stock of knowledgeable programmers. Possibly so. Again, I'll let others decide that. I'm not entirely sure that you qualify. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 15:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu0lhr$tfs$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94928 |
On 10/16/2016 12:59 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 16/10/16 13:37, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 10/16/2016 12:19 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> Libels should not be allowed to pass without challenge. >>> >>> On 16/10/16 03:47, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 10/15/2016 5:31 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>> <snip> >>>>> I think that if you read more about the Committee's Rationale >>>>> document and >>>>> Defect Report resolutions, you'd quickly find something they said >>>>> that would >>>>> make you dismiss them as language lawyers, insane, or idiots. Have >>>>> you ever >>>>> bothered looking? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Oh, I have. And I hate to tell you, but I know a couple of the >>>> Committee members. >>> >>> I don't believe that for a second. I can tell by the way you describe >>> them. >>> >> >> I don't give a damn what you think. > > Yes, I know. You really are a most unpleasant fellow, aren't you? But > you don't give a damn about that, and you seem to think that makes it > all right. Well, that's up to you. > No, I don't give a damn what you think. I learned many years ago there are people in this world who are not worth caring about. It just leads to ulcers. You are one of them. >> >>>> They laugh at ideas like you promote. They also consider you an idiot. >>> >>> That's not true either. >>> >> >> As if you would know. > > I do. I do not expect you to understand this. > Oh, I know the truth, Richard. And some of your ideas on what the Standard says or allows are totally laughable. >> >>> You see, I really genuinely am on speaking terms with several people >>> (some people here may recall the initials PS, CF, DG) who, at the very >>> least, /were/ on the ISO C Committee (I have no idea whether they still >>> are), and /at least/ one who is still on the committee (LJ), so I know >>> the kind of people they are. *None* of those people considers James >>> Kuyper to be an idiot. Nor do they laugh at his ideas. They recognise >>> him for the fellow expert he is. >>> >> >> So what? You claim to know them, and talk to them, but don't even know >> if they are Committee members? > > Yes, that's almost right. I claimed to be on speaking terms with them, > which means we have spoken in the past and got on well. > Yea, right. So you spoke to them at a conference or similar, along with hundreds of other people. > You see, I am not trying to exaggerate my acquaintance with these > people. This refusal to exaggerate is called "honesty", a policy that I > cannot recommend too highly. > I don't need to exaggerate anything. The truth is the truth. But you seem to need to do that to prove your manhood, while calling me a liar. It doesn't work. > The people whose initials I cited are committee members (or, possibly, > former committee members, bar one) with whom I have been involved in > Usenet discussions. PP is another that springs to mind. Many committee > members who used to use Usenet have long since stopped doing so, which > is why I don't know whether they are still on the ISO C Committee. > Yes, you bumped into them and said "Sorry" at a conference. And BTW - many of those members STILL use usenet - just not public news servers. They use private ones to which you have no access. > But I have communicated with them often enough in the past to know how > they view people like James. > ROFLMAO. Right. >> You know nothing. > > You say so. > Yep. >>> If you had even the slightest shred of credibility, James Kuyper would >>> be perfectly within his rights to sue you for libel. Fortunately for >>> you, however, you don't have enough credibility for your bilious words >>> to have any impact whatsoever on James's reputation. >>> >> >> ROFLMAO! You can't win a libel suit when someone spreads the truth. > > Well, I'm no lawyer, but I would tend to agree with that claim; it does > not, however, apply in the current discussion, because what you have > said about James is not true. But neither can one win a libel suit if > the libeller has no credibility. So you're still safe. > No, you're obviously not a lawyer. You know as little about the law as you do about C programming. And I stand by everything I have said - about both James and you. And if necessary, I could prove it in court. Go ahead and sue. My countersuit would bankrupt you and you would never get another job in programming. >>>> I don't dismiss them as language lawyers. They know what they're >>>> talking about. >>> >>> Yes, they do. >> >> You don't even know what a language lawyer is. So much for your >> respectability. > > I haven't claimed respectability, have I? I'll let others decide that. > You keep thinking you are right. >>>> Unlike you. >>> >>> Pure bile. >>> >> >> Pure truth. Too bad you don't like it. But idiots and trolls never >> like to be called what they are. And you've proven yourself all too >> many times. > > Well, in the ten months or so that you've been posting here, I've proved > you wrong on a number of occasions. If I really am an idiot and a troll, > that must sting a bit for you. > No, you've proved me wrong on nothing. What you HAVE done is promote absurd ideas what make you the laughing stock of people who actually know the C standards. >> You are a laughing stock of knowledgeable programmers. > > Possibly so. Again, I'll let others decide that. I'm not entirely sure > that you qualify. > And once again, I don't give a damn what you think. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 00:27 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20161017002720.4fbb22b9bb5d2ab193a0dae4@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #94935 |
Jerry Stuckle: > No, the C Standards committee people in general > don't fool with public newsgroups. They've run > into too many idiots like those here and don't > care to waste their time. But they do correspond > on private news servers, to which you have no ac- > cess. Nobody shall believe you unless you tell us what those "private news servers" are, and you will not because there are none. The way you counterpose public newsgrousps and private news servers shows that you misunderstand the way Usenet works. You are cheap liar. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 17:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <629923db-be42-4c89-17cd-d0416fed3dac@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #94938 |
On 10/16/2016 05:27 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote: > Jerry Stuckle: > >> No, the C Standards committee people in general >> don't fool with public newsgroups. They've run >> into too many idiots like those here and don't >> care to waste their time. But they do correspond >> on private news servers, to which you have no ac- >> cess. > > Nobody shall believe you unless you tell us what > those "private news servers" are, and you will not > because there are none. The way you counterpose > public newsgrousps and private news servers shows > that you misunderstand the way Usenet works. You > are cheap liar. The C committee members who have posted to comp.lang.c or comp.std.c have revealed that the Committee does have it's own servers for enabling discussions between members that are inaccessible to non-members. I've never heard them referred to as news servers, however. They were always described as mailing lists, IIRC.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 10:23 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20161017102334.564fc45ab76b76088bc62484@g{oogle}mail.com> |
| In reply to | #94939 |
James R. Kuyper: >Anton Shepelev: >>Jerry Stuckle: >>> No, the C Standards committee people in general >>> don't fool with public newsgroups. They've run >>> into too many idiots like those here and don't >>> care to waste their time. But they do correspond >>> on private news servers, to which you have no ac- >>> cess. >> >>Nobody shall believe you unless you tell us what >>those "private news servers" are, and you will not >>because there are none. The way you counterpose >>public newsgrousps and private news servers shows >>that you misunderstand the way Usenet works. You >>are cheap liar. > >The C committee members who have posted to >comp.lang.c or comp.std.c have revealed that the Com- >mittee does have it's own servers for enabling dis- >cussions between members that are inaccessible to >non-members. I've never heard them referred to as >news servers, however. They were always described as >mailing lists, IIRC. Mailing list can be private, yes. But they have noth- ing to do with "news servers." -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 09:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu2idh$5c5$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94958 |
On 10/17/2016 3:23 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote: > James R. Kuyper: >> Anton Shepelev: >>> Jerry Stuckle: >>>> No, the C Standards committee people in general >>>> don't fool with public newsgroups. They've run >>>> into too many idiots like those here and don't >>>> care to waste their time. But they do correspond >>>> on private news servers, to which you have no ac- >>>> cess. >>> >>> Nobody shall believe you unless you tell us what >>> those "private news servers" are, and you will not >>> because there are none. The way you counterpose >>> public newsgrousps and private news servers shows >>> that you misunderstand the way Usenet works. You >>> are cheap liar. >> >> The C committee members who have posted to >> comp.lang.c or comp.std.c have revealed that the Com- >> mittee does have it's own servers for enabling dis- >> cussions between members that are inaccessible to >> non-members. I've never heard them referred to as >> news servers, however. They were always described as >> mailing lists, IIRC. > > Mailing list can be private, yes. But they have noth- > ing to do with "news servers." > News servers can also be private. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 18:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu0uua$sfp$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94938 |
On 10/16/2016 5:27 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote: > Jerry Stuckle: > >> No, the C Standards committee people in general >> don't fool with public newsgroups. They've run >> into too many idiots like those here and don't >> care to waste their time. But they do correspond >> on private news servers, to which you have no ac- >> cess. > > Nobody shall believe you unless you tell us what > those "private news servers" are, and you will not > because there are none. The way you counterpose > public newsgrousps and private news servers shows > that you misunderstand the way Usenet works. You > are cheap liar. > No, because they are PRIVATE. And I don't give out PRIVATE information, especially on a PUBLIC forum. If they wanted you on them, someone on them would invite you. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 10:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu2lvj$i30$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94938 |
On 10/16/2016 05:27 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote: ... > because there are none. The way you counterpose > public newsgrousps and private news servers shows > that you misunderstand the way Usenet works. ... I know from annoying personal experience that it's entirely possible to have a private usenet news server. More than a decade ago, Goddard Space Flight Center had a usenet news server which served many newsgroups that were GSFC-specific - groups devoted to things like the campus store, the yoga group, the day care center, employee notices, and the like. Messages posted to those newsgroups were not propagated outward. That same server also allowed us to read messages posted to a wide variety of non-GSFC newsgroups. It even allowed us to post messages to those groups. The annoying thing, which I didn't figure out until I'd already posted a half-dozen messages to comp.std.c, was that messages posted to non-GSFC groups didn't propagate outward, either - they were only visible to people using the GSFC news server. They shut down the news server many years ago, due to lack of interest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 17:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87r37edim6.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #94978 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > On 10/16/2016 05:27 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote: > ... >> because there are none. The way you counterpose >> public newsgrousps and private news servers shows >> that you misunderstand the way Usenet works. ... > > I know from annoying personal experience that it's entirely possible to > have a private usenet news server. More than a decade ago, Goddard Space > Flight Center had a usenet news server which served many newsgroups that > were GSFC-specific - groups devoted to things like the campus store, the > yoga group, the day care center, employee notices, and the like. Every university at which I studied or worked had the same system, although that was 15 years ago and they may well have died out now too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 13:29 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20161018132912.04f4ec7f091c56736fb34e1f@g{oogle}mail.com> |
| In reply to | #94999 |
Gareth Owen: >James Kuyper: >>Anton Shepelev to Jerry Stuckle: >> >>>because there are none. The way you counterpose >>>public newsgrousps and private news servers shows >>>that you misunderstand the way Usenet works. ... >> >>I know from annoying personal experience that it's >>entirely possible to have a private usenet news >>server. More than a decade ago, Goddard Space >>Flight Center had a usenet news server which >>served many newsgroups that were GSFC-specif- >>ic -- groups devoted to things like the campus >>store, the yoga group, the day care center, em- >>ployee notices, and the like. > >Every university at which I studied or worked had >the same system, although that was 15 years ago and >they may well have died out now too. Is it perfectly allright for a university to have its own news server with a set local newsgroups, as long as it provides read and write access to public newsgroups as well. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 13:24 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20161018132452.8bf1667e9bdd699ff201e5fd@g{oogle}mail.com> |
| In reply to | #94978 |
James Kuyper:
>Anton Shepelev to Jerry Stuckle:
>
>>because there are none. The way you counterpose
>>public newsgrousps and private news servers shows
>>that you misunderstand the way Usenet works. ...
>
>I know from annoying personal experience that it's
>entirely possible to have a private usenet news
>server. More than a decade ago, Goddard Space
>Flight Center had a usenet news server which served
>many newsgroups that were GSFC-specific -- groups
>devoted to things like the campus store, the yoga
>group, the day care center, employee notices, and
>the like. Messages posted to those newsgroups were
>not propagated outward.
The general meaning of "private news server" is a
server for a litmited group of users, which still
provides access to the same newsgroups that are vis-
ible from any public server. What you describe is a
private server that hosts private newsgroups, which
cannot properly be called Usenet groups.
>That same server also allowed us to read messages
>posted to a wide variety of non-GSFC newsgroups.
>It even allowed us to post messages to those
>groups. The annoying thing, which I didn't figure
>out until I'd already posted a half-dozen messages
>to comp.std.c, was that messages posted to non-GSFC
>groups didn't propagate outward, either -- they
>were only visible to people using the GSFC news
>server. They shut down the news server many years
>ago, due to lack of interest.
A most vexing configuration indeed, for it violated
what the programmers know as the principle of least
astonishment.
P.S.: I take back my offence to Jerry. It was his
very rude behavior that made me feel preju-
diced about anything he wrote.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 13:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <20a982bf-e1eb-1c09-db35-8f3c6671e1d3@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #94900 |
On 16/10/16 03:47, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/15/2016 5:31 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote:
<snip>
>> I think that if you read more about the Committee's Rationale document and
>> Defect Report resolutions, you'd quickly find something they said that would
>> make you dismiss them as language lawyers, insane, or idiots. Have you ever
>> bothered looking?
>>
>
> Oh, I have. And I hate to tell you, but I know a couple of the
> Committee members.
I doubt that - primarily because of the way you characterize them below.
The comp.std.c and comp.lang.c newsgroups have frequently been monitored
by members of the C committee, though I'm not sure whether any of them
are still doing so. It's not easy to tell - it's not like they're
required to add a line to their .sig identifying them as committee
members. However, the ones I'm pretty sure of include Doug Gwyn*, Nick
MacLaren*, Clive Feather*, Steve Clamage*, Peter Seebach* and Larry Jones*.
I don't know where I could find a comprehensive list of C committee
members, current and past. However, all of the following people were
either identified as the Submitter of a Defect Report numbered 400 or
higher, with Source==WG14, or as the Source of a Defect Report with
smaller numbers, with the Source field also containing XJ311; I believe
that, in both cases, this means they are all committee members. The
numbers following their names are the number of threads to which they
contributed at least one message, on comp.std.c and comp.lang.c,
respectively. These numbers are according to Google Groups, whose search
result must always be treated with a certain amount of skepticism.
Michael S. Ball 2/3 *
Hans Boehm 5/41
Stephen Clamage 238/253 *
Robert Paul Corbett 106/21 *
Paul Eggert 579/78 *
Jens Gustedt 51/140 *
Steve M. Hoxey 1/3
Andrew Josey 4/4
Derek M. Jones 43/8 *
David Keaton 0/1
Sam Kendall 3/6
Philipp Klaus Krause 8/86 *
Robbert Krebbers 10/0 *
Shao Miller 135/646 *
Walter J. Murray 87/68
Joseph Myers 46/2 *
Otto R. Newman 0/1
Rich Peterson 0/1
David F. Prosser 39/24
Robert Seacord 8/12
Fred J. Tydeman 103/12 *
Neal Weidenhofer 0/6
Freek Wiedijk 2/4
(Note on methodology: cross-posted messages were included in both
counts. I left out the middle name or middle initial when performing
searches. I otherwise made only a few changes from the names listed on
the defect reports: Steven Clamage => Stephen Clamage, Philip Klause
Krause => Philipp Krause, and Robert Krebbers => Robbert Krebbers).
For every person whose name is marked above with an '*', I've posted at
least one message mentioning their name, or vice versa, in the same
newsgroup, according to Google Groups. In most cases, those were direct
responses to each other's messages. Most of the people on that list that
I never talked with predated my monitoring of those newsgroups. These
are claims that, unlike yours, can easily be confirmed just by searching
on Google Groups.
> They laugh at ideas like you promote. They also consider you an idiot.
I seriously doubt that; that's completely inconsistent with the tone of
my discussions with any of the Committee members mentioned above.
In general, if I'm discussing an issue with someone, it's because we
have a difference of opinion about that issue. However, that doesn't
require that we're in complete disagreement about everything. Whenever
I've talked with C Committee members, the discussions were generally
polite and respectful - the least polite discussions I remember were
those with Doug Gwyn, but they were still far more polite than yours.
Unlike you, the worst insult that any of them used to describe me was
"pedant", which I don't consider particularly insulting. They usually
conceded most of the premises of my arguments (including many premises
you've rejected as ridiculous) even if they disagreed with my final
conclusion, and on many occasions, they would end up conceding my final
conclusion as well (even Doug has done that a few times). Sometimes I
would concede their argument, instead - those concessions form a part of
my current understanding of C, including many of the things I believe
that you consider most ridiculous.
All of this can be confirmed by anyone who's interested by searching
Google Groups.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 18:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nu0dpu$1br$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94929 |
On 16/10/16 18:29, James R. Kuyper wrote: <snip> > Whenever > I've talked with C Committee members, the discussions were generally > polite and respectful - Likewise. > the least polite discussions I remember were > those with Doug Gwyn, but they were still far more polite than yours. In the interactions I've had with Doug Gwyn (and there have been several), I have always found him to be unfailingly polite. I recall that in one discussion he was positively complimentary! > Unlike you, the worst insult that any of them used to describe me was > "pedant", which I don't consider particularly insulting. I have always wondered whether, when intended as a pejorative, it should be spelled 'peddant'. :-) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web