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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #70889 > unrolled thread

Preparation for what's coming

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

Contents

  Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 08:34 -0700
    Re: Preparation for what's coming jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-09-18 19:40 +0200
      Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 10:52 -0700
        Re: Preparation for what's coming "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-18 12:48 -0700
      Re: Preparation for what's coming Steven Hystad <steven.hystad@lunarinfrastructure.net> - 2015-09-22 19:22 -0600
    Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 13:09 -0700
      Re: Preparation for what's coming "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-19 13:13 -0700
        Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 13:48 -0700
          Re: Preparation for what's coming "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-19 14:19 -0700
            Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 14:50 -0700
              Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 14:56 -0700
              Re: Preparation for what's coming jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-09-20 00:11 +0200
                Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 15:24 -0700
                Re: Preparation for what's coming fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 00:37 -0700
                  Re: Preparation for what's coming fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 00:44 -0700
                Re: Preparation for what's coming "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-20 22:26 -0700
                  Re: Preparation for what's coming Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-21 08:31 -0700
                    Re: Preparation for what's coming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-22 10:38 +0200
                      Re: Preparation for what's coming gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-22 08:44 +0000
                        Re: Preparation for what's coming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-22 10:59 +0200
                        Re: Preparation for what's coming fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 02:50 -0700
                          Re: Preparation for what's coming fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 03:09 -0700
                      Re: Preparation for what's coming Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-22 07:51 -0700
                      Re: Preparation for what's coming "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 20:34 +0100
                        Re: Preparation for what's coming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-23 10:17 +0200
                          Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 01:45 -0700
                          Re: Preparation for what's coming Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-23 08:50 -0700
                            Re: Preparation for what's coming fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 11:10 -0700
                            Re: Preparation for what's coming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-24 16:11 +0200
                              Re: Preparation for what's coming fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 08:17 -0700
                              Re: Preparation for what's coming James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-24 12:17 -0400
                                Re: Preparation for what's coming fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 10:52 -0700
                      Re: Preparation for what's coming BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 16:39 -0600
                        Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 16:01 -0700
                          Re: Preparation for what's coming Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 11:08 +1200
                            Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 16:30 -0700
                            Re: Preparation for what's coming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-23 10:38 +0200
                              Re: Preparation for what's coming Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 21:32 +1200
                                Re: Preparation for what's coming Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-23 03:04 -0700
                                Re: Preparation for what's coming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-23 13:10 +0200
                  Re: Preparation for what's coming fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 11:55 -0700
              Re: Preparation for what's coming "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-19 15:27 -0700
                Re: Preparation for what's coming Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-20 01:02 +0200
                  Re: Preparation for what's coming "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-19 17:13 -0700
                    Re: Preparation for what's coming Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-20 02:28 +0200
                      Re: Preparation for what's coming Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-19 18:26 -0700
            Re: Preparation for what's coming "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-19 17:19 -0700
        Re: Preparation for what's coming Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-19 16:28 -0700
          Re: Preparation for what's coming "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-19 17:23 -0700
            Re: Preparation for what's coming Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-19 18:26 -0700
              Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 20:25 -0700
                Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 20:38 -0700
                  Re: Preparation for what's coming Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 15:57 +1200
                  Re: Preparation for what's coming jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-09-21 10:46 +0200
    Re: Preparation for what's coming Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2015-09-20 23:37 +0000
    Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 13:04 -0700
    Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 13:19 -0700
      Re: Preparation for what's coming fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 14:12 -0700
        Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 14:22 -0700
          Re: Preparation for what's coming Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-22 00:37 +0200
            Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 15:41 -0700
              Re: Preparation for what's coming Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-22 00:54 +0200
                Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 16:03 -0700
      Re: Preparation for what's coming Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-22 03:09 -0700
        Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 03:49 -0700
          Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:12 -0700
          Re: Preparation for what's coming Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-22 04:14 -0700
            Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:45 -0700
              Re: Preparation for what's coming Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-23 12:24 -0700
                Re: Preparation for what's coming fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 13:16 -0700
                Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 11:25 -0700
          Re: Preparation for what's coming "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-22 12:44 -0700
    Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 06:21 -0700
    Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 07:55 -0700
      Re: Preparation for what's coming Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-06 09:09 -0700
        Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 09:14 -0700
          Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 09:16 -0700
          Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 21:26 -0700
            Re: Preparation for what's coming "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-10-10 23:45 -0700
              Re: Preparation for what's coming Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-11 00:31 -0700
              Re: Preparation for what's coming Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-10-11 13:36 +0200
            Re: Preparation for what's coming Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-11 21:35 +1300
            Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 06:10 -0700
              Re: Preparation for what's coming Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-10-11 15:38 +0200
                Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 07:59 -0700
        Re: Preparation for what's coming glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-06 21:05 +0000
          Re: Preparation for what's coming Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-07 00:59 -0700
          Re: Preparation for what's coming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-07 11:43 +0200
          VW (Re: Preparation for what's coming) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-10-07 13:33 +0000
            Re: VW (Re: Preparation for what's coming) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-08 01:04 +0000
      Re: Preparation for what's coming Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-07 08:32 +1300
        Re: Preparation for what's coming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 12:46 -0700

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

#71080

W dniu wtorek, 22 września 2015 10:45:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Kenny McCormack napisał:
> In article <mtr3u2$tbv$1@dont-email.me>,
> David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> >On 21/09/15 17:31, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> writes:
> >> [...]
> >>> That's my two cents on the idea of Satan. 
> >> 
> >> Chris, if you continue helping Rick to disrupt this newsgroup,
> >> you just might join him in my killfile.
> >> 
> >
> >I don't know much about the newsreader you use, Keith, but surely it has
> >a simple way to ignore a thread?  On Thunderbird, the hot-key "K" kills
> >a thread - and I am sure there are similarly easy methods on most
> >newsreaders.  So when there is a thread like this that you don't like
> >(and I fully appreciate that position), just kill it - then it will not
> >matter to you if there are hundreds of posts in it.
> 
> Dave, you really don't understand Keith's role here, do you?
> 
>     http://flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/admin.htm
> 
> -- 
> 
>     "This ain't my first time at the rodeo"
> 
> is a line from the movie, Mommie Dearest, said by Joan Crawford at a board meeting.

as you see both KT and DB fo not find the joke they are playin in - KT imagined himself as a director of CLC, where DB is
imaginable aspirant to the "supervisory board" 

the trouble is this comitee of them is weak one (not sure btw who also belong to that comitee.. i recently asked  opponents of alternative-wing to unite, this mentioned comitee could be half of them,- the third part would be barbaric shortcomers, which seem to be even worse than board part - its like a society in a pill)

(a bit joking)

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

#71084

W dniu wtorek, 22 września 2015 11:50:33 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał:
> W dniu wtorek, 22 września 2015 10:45:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Kenny McCormack napisał:
> > In article <mtr3u2$tbv$1@dont-email.me>,
> > David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> > >On 21/09/15 17:31, Keith Thompson wrote:
> > >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> writes:
> > >> [...]
> > >>> That's my two cents on the idea of Satan. 
> > >> 
> > >> Chris, if you continue helping Rick to disrupt this newsgroup,
> > >> you just might join him in my killfile.
> > >> 
> > >
> > >I don't know much about the newsreader you use, Keith, but surely it has
> > >a simple way to ignore a thread?  On Thunderbird, the hot-key "K" kills
> > >a thread - and I am sure there are similarly easy methods on most
> > >newsreaders.  So when there is a thread like this that you don't like
> > >(and I fully appreciate that position), just kill it - then it will not
> > >matter to you if there are hundreds of posts in it.
> > 
> > Dave, you really don't understand Keith's role here, do you?
> > 
> >     http://flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/admin.htm
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> >     "This ain't my first time at the rodeo"
> > 
> > is a line from the movie, Mommie Dearest, said by Joan Crawford at a board meeting.
> 
> as you see both KT and DB fo not find the joke they are playin in - KT imagined himself as a director of CLC, where DB is
> imaginable aspirant to the "supervisory board" 
> 
> the trouble is this comitee of them is weak one (not sure btw who also belong to that comitee.. i recently asked  opponents of alternative-wing to unite, this mentioned comitee could be half of them,- the third part would be barbaric shortcomers, which seem to be even worse than board part - its like a society in a pill)
> 
> (a bit joking)

a bit joking as this is a bit depressing vision (like a people are depressing).. though sadly it partially fits.. thats why the people should improve and focus more on fresh binary matter

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

#71097

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 21/09/15 17:31, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> writes:
>> [...]
>>> That's my two cents on the idea of Satan. 
>> 
>> Chris, if you continue helping Rick to disrupt this newsgroup,
>> you just might join him in my killfile.
>
> I don't know much about the newsreader you use, Keith, but surely it has
> a simple way to ignore a thread?

Yes, it does.

This stuff isn't just on one thread.  Rick repeatedly posts his
off-topic stuff throughout this newsgroup, sometimes by itself,
sometimes as an addendum to an otherwise topical article, and
sometimes in new threads.  And others reply to his posts and
effectively encourage him to post more.

-- 
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]

#71111

"David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in message 
news:mtr3u2$tbv$1@dont-email.me...
> On 21/09/15 17:31, Keith Thompson wrote:

...

>> Chris, if you continue helping Rick to disrupt this newsgroup,
>> you just might join him in my killfile.
>>
>
> I don't know much about the newsreader you use, Keith, but surely it 
> has
> a simple way to ignore a thread?  On Thunderbird, the hot-key "K" 
> kills
> a thread - and I am sure there are similarly easy methods on most
> newsreaders.  So when there is a thread like this that you don't like
> (and I fully appreciate that position), just kill it - then it will 
> not
> matter to you if there are hundreds of posts in it.

I thought that might be a good idea as, although I have killfiled Rick, 
I keep seeing replies to his provoking. However, although I *can* do 
what you say and eliminate that thread from being seen I still get told 
that there are messages waiting in comp.lang.c and when I open it find 
none because the unread ones are more of that nonsense thread.

Like many others here I wish people would stop responding to Rick. His 
posts are a long long way off topic.

There was a time when people here were very anti off-topic posts. What 
happened?

> This is why I don't see any problem with a few off-topic threads - it 
> is
> very different from off-topic content in technical threads (though
> Thunderbird at least can kill sub-threads too).  As long as this stuff
> is in its own thread here, I can't see any reason to complain about 
> what
> is basically light entertainment amongst a group of friends - or work
> colleagues chatting around the coffee machine.

I cannot agree (sorry!). Rick's mails are agressive promotion of his own 
view and, frankly, are cranky. Someone promoting his views like that in 
an office environment would be spoken to and told to desist.

If people here want to discuss such things are there not newsgroups - 
other coffee machines - that they can go to?

James

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

#71129

On 22/09/15 21:34, James Harris wrote:
> "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in message
> news:mtr3u2$tbv$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 21/09/15 17:31, Keith Thompson wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> Chris, if you continue helping Rick to disrupt this newsgroup,
>>> you just might join him in my killfile.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know much about the newsreader you use, Keith, but surely it has
>> a simple way to ignore a thread?  On Thunderbird, the hot-key "K" kills
>> a thread - and I am sure there are similarly easy methods on most
>> newsreaders.  So when there is a thread like this that you don't like
>> (and I fully appreciate that position), just kill it - then it will not
>> matter to you if there are hundreds of posts in it.
> 
> I thought that might be a good idea as, although I have killfiled Rick,
> I keep seeing replies to his provoking. However, although I *can* do
> what you say and eliminate that thread from being seen I still get told
> that there are messages waiting in comp.lang.c and when I open it find
> none because the unread ones are more of that nonsense thread.

I can see that the solution is not perfect, but surely it reduces
matters to a mere minor irritation - at least as long the off-topic
stuff is on a separate thread, and people regularly post on-topic things
to other threads.

> 
> Like many others here I wish people would stop responding to Rick. His
> posts are a long long way off topic.
> 
> There was a time when people here were very anti off-topic posts. What
> happened?

Times change - people come and go, and have different attitudes.  If you
want to be part of the group, you can either accept that, ask people to
change, or get annoyed and frustrated.  Some people /do/ listen to
advice or requests to change their posting behaviour, or at least let it
influence them.  But this group is not owned or run by anyone, not even
those who have lived here for the past 20 years or so.

To my mind, the best to aim for is a balanced compromise - and I
recommend that off-topic posts live in their own threads.  (They can be
marked OT, but usually it is entirely obvious and no marking is needed.)
 No amount of complaining, begging, demanding, plonking, or moaning is
going to stop the off-topic posts - and this group will never return to
a strictly C only discussion group (we can't even agree on what is
on-topic, and where compilers, libraries, C derivative languages, etc.,
fit in).  Every post asking people to stop making off-topic posts or
responses is in itself a contribution to the supposed problem.

Personally, I do not see a certain degree of off-topic discussions as a
problem - I see it as a good thing.  Rehashes of the same nonsense from
the same people is unproductive and mostly uninteresting, but some
"chatter" or exchange of opinions, ideas, experience and knowledge is
the basis of what makes us humans, and not just C code generating
machines.  I appreciate that some others here disagree, and certainly
any given off-topic thread is only going to appeal to a small proportion
of people - but the same applies to on-topic threads.  Keeping
discussions neatly in threads is the way to keep it controlled.

> 
>> This is why I don't see any problem with a few off-topic threads - it is
>> very different from off-topic content in technical threads (though
>> Thunderbird at least can kill sub-threads too).  As long as this stuff
>> is in its own thread here, I can't see any reason to complain about what
>> is basically light entertainment amongst a group of friends - or work
>> colleagues chatting around the coffee machine.
> 
> I cannot agree (sorry!). Rick's mails are agressive promotion of his own
> view and, frankly, are cranky. Someone promoting his views like that in
> an office environment would be spoken to and told to desist.

Well, Rick's posts are at the extreme end of the spectrum.  He comes and
goes - perhaps when the world doesn't end in the next couple of days,
he'll calm down for a while.  I am not adverse to an occasional
religious discussion here, though I agree that Rick goes way too far
(and I have been involved in some threads with Rick).  I would actually
prefer a wider range of off-topic conversations (not more in number - a
few off-topic threads are good, IMHO, but many would be bad).  There are
other things of interest in the world than C, religion, and the pros and
cons of off-topic posts.

> 
> If people here want to discuss such things are there not newsgroups -
> other coffee machines - that they can go to?
> 

The advantage of this coffee machine, at least as I see it, is that most
people here are reasonably rational, intelligent, and educated.  An
off-topic discussion here is amongst roughly like-minded people.  There
/are/ groups where religious arguments or posts like Ricks are on-topic,
but they are typically dominated by people who would make Rick look like
Richard Dawkins - it would be impossible to have any discussion there.


It is a dilemma - and one that is unlikely ever to be solved in a free,
open and democratic newsgroup.  The best we can do is find a way to live
with the discussions that go on here without feeling annoyed or
frustrated - ignoring threads is, I think, a key technique there.

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

#71131

David Brown wrote:
> Well, Rick's posts are at the extreme end of
> the spectrum. He comes and goes - perhaps
> when the world doesn't end in the next couple
> of days, he'll calm down for a while.

The world will not end, but what will be ushered
in will be an unprecedented 12+ months of evil
resulting in war, death, and the destruction of nearly
everybody.

The only way out of what's coming is to turn to
Jesus Christ, repent, ask forgiveness, and be saved
in eternity, though you will still have to go through
all that is coming, meaning you will likely be killed
for your faith, or die due to circumstances. Either
way this time ahead is the Year of Vengeance of
the Lord, and the evil spirits are released from
their prison for judgement. Almost no flesh will
survive.

Biblical Advice:

Don't take the mark under any circumstances. All
who do are eternally damned. If you come to
believe, be loving and generous with your provisions.
Don't hoard. Pray continually. Ask God's Holy Spirit
to guide you, and protect you. And teach others
those things He first taught you. There is mention
of "hidden manna" in Revelation. I believe God
will do much to make His people go through less
during this time. But many will be martyred.

I wish I could've taught more of you. I can only
pray that after the rapture you all remove me from
your killfiles and go back and re-read what I wrote.
It will help you during the time ahead.

I love you. Each of you. I hope to see you all in Heaven.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

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

#71149

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[big snip]  
> It is a dilemma - and one that is unlikely ever to be solved in a free,
> open and democratic newsgroup.  The best we can do is find a way to live
> with the discussions that go on here without feeling annoyed or
> frustrated - ignoring threads is, I think, a key technique there.

I'm also concerned about the affect on newcomers.  Admittedly there
aren't many of them these days, but we do occasionally have new
posters showing up -- and there are likely even more people who
read without posting.

Ideally, this newsgroup should be a forum for discussing the
C programming language and a welcoming environment for new C
programmers with questions.  And mostly it is -- but a new user
showing up here lately would see a forum dominated by off-topic
postings (and, yes, people arguing about off-topic postings).
How much time do you expect new users to spend tuning their killfiles
(after likely having to learn what a killfile is) to make comp.lang.c
look like the C forum it's supposed to be?

There are a nearly unlimited number of forums where people can argue
about religion, or DNA manipulation, or politics, or whatever they
want to talk about.  There are very few places where people can
discuss the C programming language.

In my opinion, the best we can do is to *stop replying* to
off-topic posts.  We can't entirely stop them in an unmoderated
newsgroup, and we can't get everyone who posts here to cooperate,
but we can reduce their effect.  Marking off-topic threads as "OT"
is in my opinion not enough; if it's off-topic, just don't post it.
(Yes, I'm replying to an off-topic post myself.  I'm *hoping* to
help reduce the volume -- and by long-standing Usenet convention,
discussions about topicality are considered topical.)

We can do better.

-- 
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]

#71155

W dniu środa, 23 września 2015 17:50:31 UTC+2 użytkownik Keith Thompson napisał:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> [big snip]  
> > It is a dilemma - and one that is unlikely ever to be solved in a free,
> > open and democratic newsgroup.  The best we can do is find a way to live
> > with the discussions that go on here without feeling annoyed or
> > frustrated - ignoring threads is, I think, a key technique there.
> 
> I'm also concerned about the affect on newcomers.  Admittedly there
> aren't many of them these days, but we do occasionally have new
> posters showing up -- and there are likely even more people who
> read without posting.
> 
> Ideally, this newsgroup should be a forum for discussing the
> C programming language and a welcoming environment for new C
> programmers with questions.  And mostly it is -- but a new user
> showing up here lately would see a forum dominated by off-topic
> postings (and, yes, people arguing about off-topic postings).
> How much time do you expect new users to spend tuning their killfiles
> (after likely having to learn what a killfile is) to make comp.lang.c
> look like the C forum it's supposed to be?
> 
> There are a nearly unlimited number of forums where people can argue
> about religion, or DNA manipulation, or politics, or whatever they
> want to talk about.  There are very few places where people can
> discuss the C programming language.
> 
> In my opinion, the best we can do is to *stop replying* to
> off-topic posts.  We can't entirely stop them in an unmoderated
> newsgroup, and we can't get everyone who posts here to cooperate,
> but we can reduce their effect.  Marking off-topic threads as "OT"
> is in my opinion not enough; if it's off-topic, just don't post it.
> (Yes, I'm replying to an off-topic post myself.  I'm *hoping* to
> help reduce the volume -- and by long-standing Usenet convention,
> discussions about topicality are considered topical.)
> 
> We can do better.
> 
> -- 
> 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"

in my (firish) eye this is not only "offtopic matter vs ontopic matter" here,

this is in reality more about

weak offtopic matter vs good oftoppic matter vs weak ontopic metter vs good ontopic matter

 In my personal opinion the more attention should be put in the "good ontopic matter"

[Rhodhin oftoppic matter is BTW 
somewhat good (refreshing), imo, ]

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

#71168

On 23/09/15 17:50, Keith Thompson wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> [big snip]  
>> It is a dilemma - and one that is unlikely ever to be solved in a free,
>> open and democratic newsgroup.  The best we can do is find a way to live
>> with the discussions that go on here without feeling annoyed or
>> frustrated - ignoring threads is, I think, a key technique there.
> 
> I'm also concerned about the affect on newcomers.  Admittedly there
> aren't many of them these days, but we do occasionally have new
> posters showing up -- and there are likely even more people who
> read without posting.

If we were swamped by off-topic threads, then I would agree.  But I
don't see that - at least not yet!

> 
> Ideally, this newsgroup should be a forum for discussing the
> C programming language and a welcoming environment for new C
> programmers with questions.  And mostly it is -- but a new user
> showing up here lately would see a forum dominated by off-topic
> postings (and, yes, people arguing about off-topic postings).

I believe a newcomer would see mostly threads about C (off-topic threads
are very much the minority) - and have little interest in most of the
on-topic threads, because they are too detailed to appeal to the normal
C programmer (if there is such a thing).

c.l.c. has a reputation for being dominated by "language lawyers".  For
example, someone asking about C in an embedded system would be
encouraged to post to comp.arch.embedded for practical, understandable
help.  It is only if there is a disagreement about the standards or
other details that people suggest going to c.l.c. for an "official
ruling" on the matter.

This makes c.l.c. (and knowledgeable regulars, such as yourself) an
invaluable resource - and it is why wannabe-experts like me can learn a
lot here.  But it is not a welcoming environment of new C programmers -
and it is not the off-topic posts that cause that.

> How much time do you expect new users to spend tuning their killfiles
> (after likely having to learn what a killfile is) to make comp.lang.c
> look like the C forum it's supposed to be?

I expect most people will do as I do - use a fast gui newsreader, and
quickly skip the posts or threads that are not of interest,
killing/ignoring threads or just marking them as read.  Alternatively,
the user will use google groups, and click directly on the threads that
are of interest - never bothering with the others.

> 
> There are a nearly unlimited number of forums where people can argue
> about religion, or DNA manipulation, or politics, or whatever they
> want to talk about.  There are very few places where people can
> discuss the C programming language.

Yes, but in most of these places one would not want to get involved in
such discussions.  They are typically filled with unpleasant people -
killfiling a few posters is not a problem, but when 90% of posts are by
people you would want to killfile, it gets pointless.

An example would be sci.electronics.design, where electronics threads
are in the minority and discussions of politics and other topics
dominate.  But while some of these discussions can be briefly
interesting, they all very quickly degenerate into a Calvin and Hobbes
style, even amongst posters who sometimes write interesting things (it
is the old, retired or semi-retired electronics engineers who are behind
much of the off-topic posting there).


It is perhaps beside the point, but we have a couple of interesting
threads about C (also touching on Ada and C++) in comp.arch.embedded at
the moment.

> 
> In my opinion, the best we can do is to *stop replying* to
> off-topic posts.  We can't entirely stop them in an unmoderated
> newsgroup, and we can't get everyone who posts here to cooperate,
> but we can reduce their effect.  Marking off-topic threads as "OT"
> is in my opinion not enough; if it's off-topic, just don't post it.
> (Yes, I'm replying to an off-topic post myself.  I'm *hoping* to
> help reduce the volume -- and by long-standing Usenet convention,
> discussions about topicality are considered topical.)
> 
> We can do better.
> 

I understand your opinion, though I believe you are fighting a somewhat
losing battle.  If we see a higher ratio of off-topic posts, especially
if they are mixed in topical threads, then I will agree more.

Perhaps the best way to regain the group is to post more C related
threads?  Instead of merely waiting for a technical question to be
asked, and then joining in to help, perhaps regulars could start threads
more often?  Make posts like "Why I like C11", or "Tips for compile-time
error detection".

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

#71171

W dniu czwartek, 24 września 2015 16:12:08 UTC+2 użytkownik David Brown napisał:
> On 23/09/15 17:50, Keith Thompson wrote:
> > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> > [big snip]  
> >> It is a dilemma - and one that is unlikely ever to be solved in a free,
> >> open and democratic newsgroup.  The best we can do is find a way to live
> >> with the discussions that go on here without feeling annoyed or
> >> frustrated - ignoring threads is, I think, a key technique there.
> > 
> > I'm also concerned about the affect on newcomers.  Admittedly there
> > aren't many of them these days, but we do occasionally have new
> > posters showing up -- and there are likely even more people who
> > read without posting.
> 
> If we were swamped by off-topic threads, then I would agree.  But I
> don't see that - at least not yet!
> 
> > 
> > Ideally, this newsgroup should be a forum for discussing the
> > C programming language and a welcoming environment for new C
> > programmers with questions.  And mostly it is -- but a new user
> > showing up here lately would see a forum dominated by off-topic
> > postings (and, yes, people arguing about off-topic postings).
> 
> I believe a newcomer would see mostly threads about C (off-topic threads
> are very much the minority) - and have little interest in most of the
> on-topic threads, because they are too detailed to appeal to the normal
> C programmer (if there is such a thing).
> 
> c.l.c. has a reputation for being dominated by "language lawyers".  For
> example, someone asking about C in an embedded system would be
> encouraged to post to comp.arch.embedded for practical, understandable
> help.  It is only if there is a disagreement about the standards or
> other details that people suggest going to c.l.c. for an "official
> ruling" on the matter.
> 
> This makes c.l.c. (and knowledgeable regulars, such as yourself) an
> invaluable resource 

(The camera slides back to reporter with a microphone, talking to viewport in lowered but excited voice :

"we are lurking in the centre of empire side, of comp.lng.c The imaginable director of regulars corporation is listening to 
wannabie-to be in decision board.. please let me be quiet as a culuary business goes on.. let us back there"  )

> - and it is why wannabe-experts like me can learn a
> lot here.  But it is not a welcoming environment of new C programmers -
> and it is not the off-topic posts that cause that.
> 
> > How much time do you expect new users to spend tuning their killfiles
> > (after likely having to learn what a killfile is) to make comp.lang.c
> > look like the C forum it's supposed to be?
> 
> I expect most people will do as I do - use a fast gui newsreader, and
> quickly skip the posts or threads that are not of interest,
> killing/ignoring threads or just marking them as read.  Alternatively,
> the user will use google groups, and click directly on the threads that
> are of interest - never bothering with the others.
> 
> > 
> > There are a nearly unlimited number of forums where people can argue
> > about religion, or DNA manipulation, or politics, or whatever they
> > want to talk about.  There are very few places where people can
> > discuss the C programming language.
> 
> Yes, but in most of these places one would not want to get involved in
> such discussions.  They are typically filled with unpleasant people -
> killfiling a few posters is not a problem, but when 90% of posts are by
> people you would want to killfile, it gets pointless.
> 
> An example would be sci.electronics.design, where electronics threads
> are in the minority and discussions of politics and other topics
> dominate.  But while some of these discussions can be briefly
> interesting, they all very quickly degenerate into a Calvin and Hobbes
> style, even amongst posters who sometimes write interesting things (it
> is the old, retired or semi-retired electronics engineers who are behind
> much of the off-topic posting there).
> 
> 
> It is perhaps beside the point, but we have a couple of interesting
> threads about C (also touching on Ada and C++) in comp.arch.embedded at
> the moment.
> 
> > 
> > In my opinion, the best we can do is to *stop replying* to
> > off-topic posts.  We can't entirely stop them in an unmoderated
> > newsgroup, and we can't get everyone who posts here to cooperate,
> > but we can reduce their effect.  Marking off-topic threads as "OT"
> > is in my opinion not enough; if it's off-topic, just don't post it.
> > (Yes, I'm replying to an off-topic post myself.  I'm *hoping* to
> > help reduce the volume -- and by long-standing Usenet convention,
> > discussions about topicality are considered topical.)
> > 
> > We can do better.
> > 
> 
> I understand your opinion, though I believe you are fighting a somewhat
> losing battle.  If we see a higher ratio of off-topic posts, especially
> if they are mixed in topical threads, then I will agree more.
> 
> Perhaps the best way to regain the group is to post more C related
> threads?  Instead of merely waiting for a technical question to be
> asked, and then joining in to help, perhaps regulars could start threads
> more often?  Make posts like "Why I like C11", or "Tips for compile-time
> error detection".

Meanwhile in rebelion hangars, Fir is thinking if to wash his starfighter.. woookie come-on.. get off this windowpane, have youi seen the bigger blaster?

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

#71174

On 09/24/2015 10:11 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 23/09/15 17:50, Keith Thompson wrote:
...
>> I'm also concerned about the affect on newcomers.  Admittedly there
>> aren't many of them these days, but we do occasionally have new
>> posters showing up -- and there are likely even more people who
>> read without posting.
> 
> If we were swamped by off-topic threads, then I would agree.  But I
> don't see that - at least not yet!

It's not so much off-topic threads that bother me, though Rick's
evangelism is definitely off-topic here.
I'd say that roughly 80 to 90% of the messages posted to this newsgroup
are either posted by, or in response to, people whose conversations I
don't want to listen to, with a tendency to talk off-topic being only
one of the reasons that make me feel that way; rude behavior and an
inability to discuss things rationally are tow other such reasons.
Thunderbird's filters allow me to only eliminate about half of those
messages. Responses from people like Chris to messages posted by people
like Rick are the other half, and I do see this newsgroup as being
swamped by them. I have no right to insist that other people stop
talking with people like Rick, so I've not bothered complaining about
it, but I really would appreciate it if they would.

...
> Perhaps the best way to regain the group is to post more C related
> threads?  Instead of merely waiting for a technical question to be
> asked, and then joining in to help, perhaps regulars could start threads
> more often?  Make posts like "Why I like C11", or "Tips for compile-time
> error detection".

I don't have too many questions about C; I post here mainly to provide
answers to those who do. I've learned some things I didn't know by
comparing my answers to other people's answers, but they have almost
exclusively been things that I would never have thought to ask about.
-- 
James Kuyper

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

#71180

W dniu czwartek, 24 września 2015 18:17:43 UTC+2 użytkownik James Kuyper napisał:
> On 09/24/2015 10:11 AM, David Brown wrote:
> > On 23/09/15 17:50, Keith Thompson wrote:
> ...
> >> I'm also concerned about the affect on newcomers.  Admittedly there
> >> aren't many of them these days, but we do occasionally have new
> >> posters showing up -- and there are likely even more people who
> >> read without posting.
> > 
> > If we were swamped by off-topic threads, then I would agree.  But I
> > don't see that - at least not yet!
> 
> It's not so much off-topic threads that bother me, though Rick's
> evangelism is definitely off-topic here.
> I'd say that roughly 80 to 90% of the messages posted to this newsgroup
> are either posted by, or in response to, people whose conversations I
> don't want to listen to, with a tendency to talk off-topic being only
> one of the reasons that make me feel that way; rude behavior and an
> inability to discuss things rationally are tow other such reasons.
> Thunderbird's filters allow me to only eliminate about half of those
> messages. Responses from people like Chris to messages posted by people
> like Rick are the other half, and I do see this newsgroup as being
> swamped by them. I have no right to insist that other people stop
> talking with people like Rick, so I've not bothered complaining about
> it, but I really would appreciate it if they would.
> 
> ...
> > Perhaps the best way to regain the group is to post more C related
> > threads?  Instead of merely waiting for a technical question to be
> > asked, and then joining in to help, perhaps regulars could start threads
> > more often?  Make posts like "Why I like C11", or "Tips for compile-time
> > error detection".
> 
> I don't have too many questions about C; I post here mainly to provide
> answers to those who do. I've learned some things I didn't know by
> comparing my answers to other people's answers, but they have almost
> exclusively been things that I would never have thought to ask about.

I could wrote
"one should really reconsider what he wants, there is always a plenty of options" - but i 
get scary changed my mind and put it in parenthesis

Its like "I always (?) need something better, something better, and something better and.." but this is more 'postunational' than 'factual', (and im scarry becouse i see if there is always way to do better it scary to realize i do it wrong (even if abstracting of the things
how realy wrong i do things, and how weak people do that.. those are separate three conditions to consider

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

#71116

On 09/22/2015 02:38 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 21/09/15 17:31, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> writes:
>> [...]
>>> That's my two cents on the idea of Satan.
>>
>> Chris, if you continue helping Rick to disrupt this newsgroup,
>> you just might join him in my killfile.
>>
>
> I don't know much about the newsreader you use, Keith, but surely it has
> a simple way to ignore a thread?  On Thunderbird, the hot-key "K" kills
> a thread - and I am sure there are similarly easy methods on most
> newsreaders.  So when there is a thread like this that you don't like
> (and I fully appreciate that position), just kill it - then it will not
> matter to you if there are hundreds of posts in it.
>
> This is why I don't see any problem with a few off-topic threads - it is
> very different from off-topic content in technical threads (though
> Thunderbird at least can kill sub-threads too).  As long as this stuff
> is in its own thread here, I can't see any reason to complain about what
> is basically light entertainment amongst a group of friends - or work
> colleagues chatting around the coffee machine.
>
> If your newsreader does not have the ability to conveniently mark a
> thread as ignored, hidden or killed, then I can understand your
> frustration and irritation much better.

Thanks, David.  I for one had not noticed the "Ignore Subthread Shift+K" 
option.  Now if I can just remember it...

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

#71120

Here are some more historical figures who came up with the 2015 to 2016 date range including Jonathan Edwards:

     https://wwe.youtube.com/watch?v=qEd7tutCyNw

Isaac Newton also calculated Sep.23.2015:

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfCZVusptyI

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

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

#71122

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> Here are some more historical figures who came up with the 2015 to 2016 date range including Jonathan Edwards:
>
>       https://wwe.youtube.com/watch?v=qEd7tutCyNw
>
> Isaac Newton also calculated Sep.23.2015:
>
>       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfCZVusptyI

Looks like he made a mistake...

 > date
Wednesday, September 23, 2015 11:07:56 AM NZST

-- 
Ian Collins

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

#71124

Ian Collins wrote:
> Looks like [Sir Isaac Newton] made a mistake...

Yup:

    F = m<strike>a</strike>b

All these years. :-)

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

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

#71130

On 23/09/15 01:08, Ian Collins wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> Here are some more historical figures who came up with the 2015 to
>> 2016 date range including Jonathan Edwards:
>>
>>       https://wwe.youtube.com/watch?v=qEd7tutCyNw
>>
>> Isaac Newton also calculated Sep.23.2015:
>>
>>       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfCZVusptyI
> 
> Looks like he made a mistake...
> 

Well, he was mad.  Newton did some fantastic work in his early days (in
maths, optics, mechanics, gravity, etc.).  But probably as a result of
too much mercury vapour in his chemistry experiments, he went gradually
madder and madder - and nastier and nastier.  He spent a good deal more
of his life trying to turn lead into gold and create potions of
immortality than he did figuring out the laws of motion, and he put more
effort into making sure he was credited for inventing calculus than he
put into co-inventing it in the first place.

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

#71134

David Brown wrote:
> On 23/09/15 01:08, Ian Collins wrote:
>> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> Here are some more historical figures who came up with the 2015 to
>>> 2016 date range including Jonathan Edwards:
>>>
>>>        https://wwe.youtube.com/watch?v=qEd7tutCyNw
>>>
>>> Isaac Newton also calculated Sep.23.2015:
>>>
>>>        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfCZVusptyI
>>
>> Looks like he made a mistake...
>>
>
> Well, he was mad.  Newton did some fantastic work in his early days (in
> maths, optics, mechanics, gravity, etc.).  But probably as a result of
> too much mercury vapour in his chemistry experiments, he went gradually
> madder and madder - and nastier and nastier.  He spent a good deal more
> of his life trying to turn lead into gold and create potions of
> immortality than he did figuring out the laws of motion, and he put more
> effort into making sure he was credited for inventing calculus than he
> put into co-inventing it in the first place.

He also spent way too much time denigrating that true hero of the 
enlightenment, Robert Hooke.

-- 
Ian Collins

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

#71137

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 10:32:16 AM UTC+1, Ian Collins wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>
> He also spent way too much time denigrating that true hero of the 
> enlightenment, Robert Hooke.
> 
"Distance squared surely, Sir Isaac?"

Quote attributed to Hooke, I don't know how well attested.

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

#71139

On 23/09/15 11:32, Ian Collins wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>> On 23/09/15 01:08, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>> Here are some more historical figures who came up with the 2015 to
>>>> 2016 date range including Jonathan Edwards:
>>>>
>>>>        https://wwe.youtube.com/watch?v=qEd7tutCyNw
>>>>
>>>> Isaac Newton also calculated Sep.23.2015:
>>>>
>>>>        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfCZVusptyI
>>>
>>> Looks like he made a mistake...
>>>
>>
>> Well, he was mad.  Newton did some fantastic work in his early days (in
>> maths, optics, mechanics, gravity, etc.).  But probably as a result of
>> too much mercury vapour in his chemistry experiments, he went gradually
>> madder and madder - and nastier and nastier.  He spent a good deal more
>> of his life trying to turn lead into gold and create potions of
>> immortality than he did figuring out the laws of motion, and he put more
>> effort into making sure he was credited for inventing calculus than he
>> put into co-inventing it in the first place.
> 
> He also spent way too much time denigrating that true hero of the
> enlightenment, Robert Hooke.
> 

He also spend enormous effort re-writing the history of calculus to
remove Leibniz and place himself as the sole inventor.  When hearing of
Leibniz' death, after a rigged Royal Society committee had declared
Leibniz' work to be plagiarism of Newton's invention, Newton apparently
said "I take great delight in having broken Leibniz' heart".

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

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

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

csiph-web