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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #73670 > unrolled thread

Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows

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

Contents

  Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-24 13:56 +1300
    Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Cal Dershowitz <Cal@example.invalid> - 2015-10-23 21:02 -0700
      Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-10-24 17:43 +0200
        Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-24 13:08 -0700
          Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-10-25 09:23 +0100
            Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-25 08:31 +0000
              Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-10-25 12:13 +0100
                Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-25 13:23 +0000
                Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 13:52 -0500
            Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-25 11:08 -0400
            Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-25 12:14 -0700
              Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-25 19:35 +0000
                Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-25 20:10 +0000
                  Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-10-25 16:29 -0400
                    Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-25 20:51 +0000
                      Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 20:55 +0000
                        Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-25 20:59 +0000
                      Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-10-25 17:24 -0400
                        Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-25 21:53 +0000
                          Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-10-25 18:02 -0400
                            Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-25 22:11 +0000
                              Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-26 03:01 -0700
                                Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-26 10:21 +0000
                                  Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-26 03:31 -0700
                  Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-25 20:31 +0000
                    Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-25 13:44 -0700
                    Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-25 20:58 +0000
                      Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-25 17:09 -0400
                        Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-26 10:44 +1300
                  Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-25 13:32 -0700
                  Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-26 02:46 -0700
                    Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-26 10:20 +0000
      Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-20 10:41 +0000
        Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-20 11:14 +0000
          Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 03:31 -0800
            Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-20 12:13 +0000
            Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-20 14:28 +0000
              Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-20 14:47 +0000
              Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 07:13 -0800
      Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2015-11-20 07:54 -0500
        Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2015-11-20 09:35 -0500

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#73670 — Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/21/microsoft_promises_clang_for_windows_in_november_visual_c_update/

"Developers will also welcome Clang because of its better standards 
compliance compared with Visual C++, for C as well as C++. Microsoft 
Engineering Manager Steve Carroll (from the front-end team), who also 
spoke at CPPCon, explained that while Microsoft’s support of the C99 and 
C11 standards is already much improved, Clang/C2 will complete it."

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#73673

On 10/23/2015 5:56 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/21/microsoft_promises_clang_for_windows_in_november_visual_c_update/
>
>
> "Developers will also welcome Clang because of its better standards
> compliance compared with Visual C++, for C as well as C++. Microsoft
> Engineering Manager Steve Carroll (from the front-end team), who also
> spoke at CPPCon, explained that while Microsoft’s support of the C99 and
> C11 standards is already much improved, Clang/C2 will complete it."
>

Is there a (free) C version now for windows 7, so that there can be 
something to upgrade from?
-- 
Cal

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

#73695

Le 24/10/2015 06:02, Cal Dershowitz a écrit :
>
> Is there a (free) C version now for windows 7, so that there can be
> something to upgrade from?

Yes, you can download lcc-win from

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

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

#73732

jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> Le 24/10/2015 06:02, Cal Dershowitz a écrit :
>> Is there a (free) C version now for windows 7, so that there can be
>> something to upgrade from?
>
> Yes, you can download lcc-win from
>
> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

Quoting from that page:

    This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob
    Navia. It's free for non-commercial use, if you use it
    professionally you have to have to buy a licence

-- 
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]

#73754

Le 24/10/2015 22:08, Keith Thompson a écrit :
> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>> Le 24/10/2015 06:02, Cal Dershowitz a écrit :
>>> Is there a (free) C version now for windows 7, so that there can be
>>> something to upgrade from?
>>
>> Yes, you can download lcc-win from
>>
>> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
>
> Quoting from that page:
>
>      This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob
>      Navia. It's free for non-commercial use, if you use it
>      professionally you have to have to buy a licence
>

Keith Thompson and many people in this group attack lcc-win since at 
lest 15 years. There is no point in answering them.

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

#73755

On 25/10/15 08:23, jacobnavia wrote:
> Le 24/10/2015 22:08, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>>> Le 24/10/2015 06:02, Cal Dershowitz a écrit :
>>>> Is there a (free) C version now for windows 7, so that there can be
>>>> something to upgrade from?
>>>
>>> Yes, you can download lcc-win from
>>>
>>> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
>>
>> Quoting from that page:
>>
>>      This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob
>>      Navia. It's free for non-commercial use, if you use it
>>      professionally you have to have to buy a licence
>>
>
> Keith Thompson and many people in this group attack lcc-win since at
> lest 15 years. There is no point in answering them.

It isn't an attack. It's a clarification.

The question was whether there is a *free* C version for Windows 7.

You answered that lcc-win32 is free.

Keith clarified that it is free only for non-commercial use, quoting 
from your own Web page to do so.

That isn't an attack. It's a helpful comment intended to assist the OP 
in making an intelligent choice.

Consider the possibility that the OP wanted to use the compiler 
commercially. If so, then "lcc-win32" isn't a correct answer to his 
question, is it? After all, you'd expect him to pay for such usage. That 
is your right, and nobody is complaining about it, but in such a case 
lcc-win32 would not be "free" for the OP. It is only free for 
non-commercial use.

So, if the OP wants a C compiler for non-commercial use, he can indeed 
use lcc-win32. But if not, he can't.

-- 
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]

#73761

Le 25/10/2015 09:31, Richard Heathfield a écrit :
> It isn't an attack. It's a clarification.

Quoting from Visual Studio page:

Personal and Non-Commercial Use Limitation
------------------------------------------
Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and 
non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, 
display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works 
from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services 
obtained from the Services.


You did NOT clarify that for the announcement of this new additiopn to 
Visual Studio.

Of course not, since that is Microsoft, and they can do whatever they want.

When I do the same there is a never ending "clarification" campaign.

And OF COURSE those aren't attacks but well meant "clarifications".

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

#73762

On 25/10/15 11:13, jacobnavia wrote:
> Le 25/10/2015 09:31, Richard Heathfield a écrit :
>> It isn't an attack. It's a clarification.
>
> Quoting from Visual Studio page:
>
> Personal and Non-Commercial Use Limitation
> ------------------------------------------
> Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and
> non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit,
> display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works
> from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services
> obtained from the Services.
>
>
> You did NOT clarify that for the announcement of this new additiopn to
> Visual Studio.

I didn't clarify it for lcc-win32 either.


> Of course not, since that is Microsoft, and they can do whatever they want.

Yes, they can, and so can you. And, if anyone here touts Microsoft's 
compiler as "free", it would be perfectly correct and appropriate to 
point out that this is only for non-commercial use.

It is equally appropriate to point that out about lcc-win32.

> When I do the same there is a never ending "clarification" campaign.

If you find such clarifications objectionable, it is easy to forestall 
them. When someone asks: "Does anyone know of a free C compiler for 
Windows?", you can answer "lcc-win32 is free for non-commercial use".

> And OF COURSE those aren't attacks but well meant "clarifications".

That's right. And you would be wise to take them as such, instead of 
becoming offended and defensive. If you don't like being clarified, be 
clearer.

-- 
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]

#73780

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 12:13:06 +0100, jacobnavia
<jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:

>Le 25/10/2015 09:31, Richard Heathfield a écrit :
>> It isn't an attack. It's a clarification.
>
>Quoting from Visual Studio page:
>
>Personal and Non-Commercial Use Limitation
>------------------------------------------
>Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and 
>non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, 
>display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works 
>from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services 
>obtained from the Services.
>
>
>You did NOT clarify that for the announcement of this new additiopn to 
>Visual Studio.
>
>Of course not, since that is Microsoft, and they can do whatever they want.
>
>When I do the same there is a never ending "clarification" campaign.
>
>And OF COURSE those aren't attacks but well meant "clarifications".


I'm not sure what page you're quoting from, but the Visual Studio
Express page says:

"Commercial use of Express products
Visual Studio Express products are available at no charge and may be
used for commercial, production usage subject to the license terms
provided with each product. For example, you can use Express for
Windows to create apps that you can then submit for sale in the
Windows Store. "

https://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/products/visual-studio-express-vs.aspx

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

#73768

On 10/25/2015 04:23 AM, jacobnavia wrote:
> Le 24/10/2015 22:08, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>>> Le 24/10/2015 06:02, Cal Dershowitz a écrit :
>>>> Is there a (free) C version now for windows 7, so that there can be
>>>> something to upgrade from?
>>>
>>> Yes, you can download lcc-win from
>>>
>>> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
>>
>> Quoting from that page:
>>
>>      This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob
>>      Navia. It's free for non-commercial use, if you use it
>>      professionally you have to have to buy a licence
>>
> 
> Keith Thompson and many people in this group attack lcc-win since at 
> lest 15 years. There is no point in answering them.

How does that constitute an attack? He's simply quoting your own text!
If that's an attack, it's you attacking yourself; Keith is just serving
as the communications channel.

Why do you think that it constitute an attack to point out that you
charge for commercial use of your software? The way you always respond
when someone points it out makes is seem like you are ashamed of the
fact that you charge for commercial use. If you are ashamed, stop
charging for commercial use. If you're not ashamed, stop treating the
fact that someone points out that you charge for commercial use as if it
was an attack - it isn't, it's just important information, particularly
when someone is looking for a free compiler. If they intend to use it
commercially, than lcc-win32 isn't what they're looking for, and they
need to know that fact.

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

#73782

jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> Le 24/10/2015 22:08, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>>> Le 24/10/2015 06:02, Cal Dershowitz a écrit :
>>>> Is there a (free) C version now for windows 7, so that there can be
>>>> something to upgrade from?
>>>
>>> Yes, you can download lcc-win from
>>>
>>> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
>>
>> Quoting from that page:
>>
>>      This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob
>>      Navia. It's free for non-commercial use, if you use it
>>      professionally you have to have to buy a licence
>>
>
> Keith Thompson and many people in this group attack lcc-win since at
> lest 15 years. There is no point in answering them.

I quoted your own words.  It was not an attack, and I have no idea how
you reached the conclusion that it was.

-- 
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]

#73784

On 25/10/2015 19:14, Keith Thompson wrote:
> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>> Le 24/10/2015 22:08, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>>>> Le 24/10/2015 06:02, Cal Dershowitz a écrit :
>>>>> Is there a (free) C version now for windows 7, so that there can be
>>>>> something to upgrade from?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you can download lcc-win from
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
>>>
>>> Quoting from that page:
>>>
>>>       This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob
>>>       Navia. It's free for non-commercial use, if you use it
>>>       professionally you have to have to buy a licence
>>>
>>
>> Keith Thompson and many people in this group attack lcc-win since at
>> lest 15 years. There is no point in answering them.
>
> I quoted your own words.  It was not an attack, and I have no idea how
> you reached the conclusion that it was.

The attack was that you felt obliged to post about it. Anyone who clicks 
on the link can find out for themselves.

It wasn't anyway clear that the poster wanted a free C compiler; more 
like a C compiler that comes in a free version that could later upgraded.

-- 
Bartc

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

#73785

On 25/10/15 19:35, Bartc wrote:
> On 25/10/2015 19:14, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>>> Le 24/10/2015 22:08, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>>>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>>>>> Le 24/10/2015 06:02, Cal Dershowitz a écrit :
>>>>>> Is there a (free) C version now for windows 7, so that there can be
>>>>>> something to upgrade from?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you can download lcc-win from
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
>>>>
>>>> Quoting from that page:
>>>>
>>>>       This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob
>>>>       Navia. It's free for non-commercial use, if you use it
>>>>       professionally you have to have to buy a licence
>>>>
>>>
>>> Keith Thompson and many people in this group attack lcc-win since at
>>> lest 15 years. There is no point in answering them.
>>
>> I quoted your own words.  It was not an attack, and I have no idea how
>> you reached the conclusion that it was.
>
> The attack was that you felt obliged to post about it.

That's an untenable claim. If it were true, any correction or 
clarification that anyone posts on any subject could be considered an 
attack.

> Anyone who clicks
> on the link can find out for themselves.

True enough. Or they could simply read Keith's reply and find out that 
way. If you are correct that to make clear the position about 
lcc-win32's status constitutes an attack, and given that the lcc-win32 
Web site does indeed make this clear (unlike Jacob Navia's upthread 
article), presumably you think that whoever wrote the lcc-win32 Web site 
is attacking lcc-win32. Which is daft, right?

> It wasn't anyway clear that the poster wanted a free C compiler;

If you re-read the OP in context, you will see that he is asking whether 
Microsoft supplies a free version of Clang for Windows 7. So not only 
did the OP want a free C compiler, but he specifically wanted a free C 
compiler *from Microsoft*, so Jacob Navia's reply didn't even answer the 
question.

> more
> like a C compiler that comes in a free version that could later upgraded.

What is a "free version that could later upgraded" [sic] if not a free C 
compiler? Do you think that a free version that could later be upgraded 
is not free?

-- 
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]

#73786

On 10/25/2015 4:10 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> [...]
> That's an untenable claim. If it were true, any correction or
> clarification that anyone posts on any subject could be considered an
> attack.

     ... and usually is.

-- 
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM

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

#73790

On 25/10/15 20:29, Eric Sosman wrote:
> On 10/25/2015 4:10 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> [...]
>> That's an untenable claim. If it were true, any correction or
>> clarification that anyone posts on any subject could be considered an
>> attack.
>
>      ... and usually is.

I hope and trust that you're joking. When you post corrections to my 
articles, I consider it a favour, not an attack. Am I being naive?

-- 
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]

#73791

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

> On 25/10/15 20:29, Eric Sosman wrote:
>> On 10/25/2015 4:10 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> That's an untenable claim. If it were true, any correction or
>>> clarification that anyone posts on any subject could be considered an
>>> attack.
>>
>>      ... and usually is.
>
> I hope and trust that you're joking. When you post corrections to my
> articles, I consider it a favour, not an attack. Am I being naive?

I assume he meant "by Jacob"

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

#73793

On 25/10/15 20:55, Gareth Owen wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>
>> On 25/10/15 20:29, Eric Sosman wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2015 4:10 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> That's an untenable claim. If it were true, any correction or
>>>> clarification that anyone posts on any subject could be considered an
>>>> attack.
>>>
>>>       ... and usually is.
>>
>> I hope and trust that you're joking. When you post corrections to my
>> articles, I consider it a favour, not an attack. Am I being naive?
>
> I assume he meant "by Jacob"


Oh, you could be right. I hope not. It would be better for such 
discussions not to focus on individuals, if possible.

-- 
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]

#73797

On 10/25/2015 4:51 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 25/10/15 20:29, Eric Sosman wrote:
>> On 10/25/2015 4:10 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> That's an untenable claim. If it were true, any correction or
>>> clarification that anyone posts on any subject could be considered an
>>> attack.
>>
>>      ... and usually is.
>
> I hope and trust that you're joking. When you post corrections to my
> articles, I consider it a favour, not an attack. Am I being naive?

     Why must you ALWAYS twist EVERYTHING?  Where do YOU get off, trying
to accuse ME of making attacks?  "Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I
swear to God I will see you in court."

-- 
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM

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

#73804

On 25/10/15 21:24, Eric Sosman wrote:
> On 10/25/2015 4:51 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 25/10/15 20:29, Eric Sosman wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2015 4:10 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> That's an untenable claim. If it were true, any correction or
>>>> clarification that anyone posts on any subject could be considered an
>>>> attack.
>>>
>>>      ... and usually is.
>>
>> I hope and trust that you're joking. When you post corrections to my
>> articles, I consider it a favour, not an attack. Am I being naive?
>
>      Why must you ALWAYS twist EVERYTHING?  Where do YOU get off, trying
> to accuse ME of making attacks?  "Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I
> swear to God I will see you in court."

:-)

[Update on the original thread from which you are quoting: almost six 
years on, he still hasn't initiated proceedings.]

-- 
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]

#73808

On 10/25/2015 5:53 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 25/10/15 21:24, Eric Sosman wrote:
>> On 10/25/2015 4:51 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 25/10/15 20:29, Eric Sosman wrote:
>>>> On 10/25/2015 4:10 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> That's an untenable claim. If it were true, any correction or
>>>>> clarification that anyone posts on any subject could be considered an
>>>>> attack.
>>>>
>>>>      ... and usually is.
>>>
>>> I hope and trust that you're joking. When you post corrections to my
>>> articles, I consider it a favour, not an attack. Am I being naive?
>>
>>      Why must you ALWAYS twist EVERYTHING?  Where do YOU get off, trying
>> to accuse ME of making attacks?  "Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I
>> swear to God I will see you in court."
>
> :-)
>
> [Update on the original thread from which you are quoting: almost six
> years on, he still hasn't initiated proceedings.]

     Update on the update: He's extremely unlikely to initiate them
now, as he's busy with other matters at the moment.

http://www.legacy.com/Obituaries.asp?Page=LifeStory&PersonId=168577612

I don't rejoice at his demise, but I confess I'm glad he's gone silent.

-- 
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web