Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #90795 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-22 17:29 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-07-23 12:35 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 219 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
GCC vs Clang The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> - 2016-07-22 17:29 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2016-07-22 20:17 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 21:09 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 12:22 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 23:20 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 14:56 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-22 15:27 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 00:59 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-23 20:33 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:18 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 12:54 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 13:48 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-23 22:54 +0200
Killfiles: Learn how they work. They are your friend! (Was: GCC vs Clang) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-07-23 21:14 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:10 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-25 05:20 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 15:43 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-25 07:09 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 22:08 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:21 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 14:38 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 09:30 -0500
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 15:41 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 16:33 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 07:46 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 11:02 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:25 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2016-07-22 20:42 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 23:09 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 10:50 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-23 19:53 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:50 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 11:07 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 17:16 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 07:27 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 08:29 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-27 12:29 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:44 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 22:18 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 14:43 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-23 00:02 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-09 17:20 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 10:34 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-10 02:18 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-08-10 15:31 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:31 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 15:14 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 16:57 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 17:24 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 15:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 16:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 16:31 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 17:06 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-26 07:52 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 08:20 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:23 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 07:17 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 00:56 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 15:17 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-27 09:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-27 10:04 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-27 20:42 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 20:29 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 12:08 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-31 14:43 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:32 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 13:23 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 17:13 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 07:10 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-26 17:19 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 08:28 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 00:53 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-26 02:04 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 08:41 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 17:37 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 12:07 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-25 22:57 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-26 14:08 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 15:18 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-27 22:01 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-28 09:56 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-27 12:38 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:38 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 20:54 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:16 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 23:55 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-28 07:20 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 19:35 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-31 14:47 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 19:35 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-09 17:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang eva galois <eva.galois@yandex.ru> - 2016-08-09 21:15 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 10:42 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-10 12:52 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-10 06:59 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 16:52 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 11:22 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-10 11:31 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 14:01 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-10 07:12 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 17:09 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 09:40 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-10 09:55 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 22:51 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 09:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 17:52 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 11:49 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 20:28 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 13:06 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2016-08-10 18:14 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-10 21:53 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 10:35 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 11:00 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 09:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 18:54 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 12:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 20:42 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 19:53 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 12:41 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 20:21 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 13:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 21:46 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 20:49 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 13:57 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 23:10 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 09:07 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 10:50 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 13:47 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-14 16:29 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 23:00 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 14:04 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 14:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 15:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-14 18:13 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-15 00:14 -0700
Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-08-15 08:04 +0000
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 01:15 -0700
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-17 16:50 +0200
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-08-15 07:27 -0600
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-15 15:00 +0100
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-15 10:29 -0400
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 10:22 -0500
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-15 17:46 +0200
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-15 17:41 +0100
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-15 09:47 -0700
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-08-15 11:11 -0600
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-15 13:28 -0400
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:05 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 11:52 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-08-15 18:00 +0000
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:34 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:48 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:56 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:10 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:18 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 08:44 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 09:38 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-17 08:24 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-08-17 17:44 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-15 17:25 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:09 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:16 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:28 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 10:50 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:30 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 14:16 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 07:28 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-08-14 18:05 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-14 20:18 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 11:54 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:05 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 21:16 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:37 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 20:59 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 13:48 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 13:58 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:53 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-14 11:34 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 14:07 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-14 12:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 14:03 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-15 09:48 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 11:46 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:45 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:06 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-11 15:16 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:02 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 22:20 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 16:58 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 17:05 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-11 23:24 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 22:58 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 16:08 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 00:21 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 17:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 12:23 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 11:43 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-13 08:37 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 13:58 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-11 16:28 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-12 01:12 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-12 20:15 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 12:29 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-12 12:45 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-12 04:30 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 08:09 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 14:49 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-12 05:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 15:03 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 08:22 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-12 09:14 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 10:23 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-12 11:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-12 05:19 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 10:53 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 09:55 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:35 -0700
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 15:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" |
| Message-ID | <noshui$s83$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92290 |
On 15/08/16 14:27, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > In the academic environment where I spent my career, there is absolutely > no negative connotation to the term "vendor". Everyone who sells > anything to the university is a vendor. My impression is that the > corporate world is the same. It is, and has been for a great many years. -- 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 | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 10:29 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" |
| Message-ID | <nosjl5$2qn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92290 |
On 08/15/2016 09:27 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > In the academic environment where I spent my career, there is absolutely > no negative connotation to the term "vendor". Everyone who sells > anything to the university is a vendor. My impression is that the > corporate world is the same. Everyone who sells anything to our company is referred to as a vendor. My wife's job actually involves spending her employer's money, so she's constantly dealing with vendors. There's absolutely no negative connotation to the word in either of those contexts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 10:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" |
| Message-ID | <mstorkamp-42A6CD.10220615082016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #92293 |
In article <nosjl5$2qn$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: > On 08/15/2016 09:27 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > In the academic environment where I spent my career, there is absolutely > > no negative connotation to the term "vendor". Everyone who sells > > anything to the university is a vendor. My impression is that the > > corporate world is the same. > > Everyone who sells anything to our company is referred to as a vendor. > My wife's job actually involves spending her employer's money, so she's > constantly dealing with vendors. There's absolutely no negative > connotation to the word in either of those contexts. I do most of the purchasing at work, and everybody a buy from is a vendor from our ISO required approved vendor list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 17:46 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" |
| Message-ID | <noso45$ks0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92293 |
Le 15/08/2016 à 16:29, James Kuyper a écrit : > On 08/15/2016 09:27 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> In the academic environment where I spent my career, there is absolutely >> no negative connotation to the term "vendor". Everyone who sells >> anything to the university is a vendor. My impression is that the >> corporate world is the same. > > Everyone who sells anything to our company is referred to as a vendor. > My wife's job actually involves spending her employer's money, so she's > constantly dealing with vendors. There's absolutely no negative > connotation to the word in either of those contexts. > Of course. But then... if I post here that I consider compilers to be on topic, heathfield says that I am a compiler vendor, then, my opinion is biased because I have that opinion BECAUSE I want to (in the future) plug in my compiler, etc. This happens yesterday, and it has been happening since 15 years at least. If I present my work here and ask for input I am shamelessly promoting my compiler because I am a "vendor" as I was selling anything: my compiler is free for downloading and I can't know if you use it for commercial purposes or not even if I say that you shouldn't in my web page. It is this continuos bullying that makes this qualification difficult to accept. From people that have NEVER contributed anything, not a single piece of code for the community.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 17:41 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" |
| Message-ID | <nosrbl$2ae$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92296 |
On 15/08/16 16:46, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 15/08/2016 à 16:29, James Kuyper a écrit : >> On 08/15/2016 09:27 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >>> In the academic environment where I spent my career, there is absolutely >>> no negative connotation to the term "vendor". Everyone who sells >>> anything to the university is a vendor. My impression is that the >>> corporate world is the same. >> >> Everyone who sells anything to our company is referred to as a vendor. >> My wife's job actually involves spending her employer's money, so she's >> constantly dealing with vendors. There's absolutely no negative >> connotation to the word in either of those contexts. >> > > Of course. Good. > But then... if I post here that I consider compilers to be on topic, > heathfield says that I am a compiler vendor, then, my opinion is biased > because I have that opinion BECAUSE I want to (in the future) plug in my > compiler, etc. I'm pointing out the vested interest, that's all. That doesn't prevent you from having an opinion. It doesn't even prevent you from expressing that opinion. > This happens yesterday, and it has been happening since 15 years at least. It's nothing personal. If Walter Banks were to post an opinion that discussions of particular compilers ought to be topical here, I would point out that /he/ has a vested interest, too. If the gcc team were to post such an opinion, I'd point out their vested interest, too. > If I present my work here and ask for input I am shamelessly promoting > my compiler because I am a "vendor" as I was selling anything: my > compiler is free for downloading and I can't know if you use it for > commercial purposes or not even if I say that you shouldn't in my web page. If you present a C problem and ask for help with it, you're in the same position as everyone else, except that, because of your compiler background, it's likely to be an interesting problem and therefore will draw a certain amount of interest. But if you're talking about extensions to C, the proper place for that would be comp.compilers.lcc. > It is this continuos bullying that makes this qualification difficult to > accept. From people that have NEVER contributed anything, not a single > piece of code for the community. Nobody likes to be criticised. Not you, not me, not anyone. That's why, if someone criticises my behaviour, I have (at least) two choices: (1) I can carefully consider what they have said and, if I think it necessary, change my behaviour; or, if I think that what they have said is not a valid criticism, I can explain why, calmly and *rationally*; OR (2) I can call them a bully and keep on behaving how I damn well please. For myself, I prefer (1). Which do you prefer? -- 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 | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 09:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" |
| Message-ID | <9db2d826-f4b1-4921-a888-d5eb9676764f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92296 |
On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 11:46:21 AM UTC-4, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 15/08/2016 à 16:29, James Kuyper a écrit : > > On 08/15/2016 09:27 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > >> In the academic environment where I spent my career, there is absolutely > >> no negative connotation to the term "vendor". Everyone who sells > >> anything to the university is a vendor. My impression is that the > >> corporate world is the same. > > > > Everyone who sells anything to our company is referred to as a vendor. > > My wife's job actually involves spending her employer's money, so she's > > constantly dealing with vendors. There's absolutely no negative > > connotation to the word in either of those contexts. > > > > Of course. > > But then... if I post here that I consider compilers to be on topic, > heathfield says that I am a compiler vendor, then, my opinion is biased > because I have that opinion BECAUSE I want to (in the future) plug in my > compiler, etc. That doesn't denigrate you in any way, because everyone has biases. Being a compiler vendor just influences what kind of biases you have. The term "vendor" is no more denigrating that the word "compiler", both of which play a role in determining which kinds of biases you're likely to have. Being a compiler user would justify us in expecting you to have different biases, and being a computer vendor would justify expecting a third set of biases. That fact in no way turns "compiler vendor", "compiler user" or "computer vendor" into negative terms. > This happens yesterday, and it has been happening since 15 years at least. > If I present my work here and ask for input I am shamelessly promoting Have you felt any shame about it? If not, "shameless" is perfectly accurate. > my compiler because I am a "vendor" as I was selling anything: my > compiler is free for downloading and I can't know if you use it for > commercial purposes or not even if I say that you shouldn't in my web page. It doesn't matter whether you've ever convinced anybody to pay you the money they would owe you if they decided to use your compiler for commercial purposes. The only thing that matters is that you, for whatever reason that seems sufficient for you, want your compiler to be used. It doesn't matter whether that reason is profit, or a desire to help humanity, or a desire to distribute malware (I'm NOT suggesting that lcc-win32 inserts malware - I'm just listing different possible motivations, for the purpose of pointing out that the particular motivation that actually applies does NOT matter). What does matter is that your desire to see other people use your compiler biases you toward wanting to believe that it is appropriate to promote it here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 11:11 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" |
| Message-ID | <1bwpji3qkv.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #92301 |
jameskuyper@verizon.net writes: > On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 11:46:21 AM UTC-4, jacobnavia wrote: > >> This happens yesterday, and it has been happening since 15 years at least. >> If I present my work here and ask for input I am shamelessly promoting > > Have you felt any shame about it? If not, "shameless" is perfectly accurate. Well, this does get into subtle implications in English -- while you are describing the dictionary definition of the word, my experience is that when someone is accused of being "shameless", there's an implication that it's something they ought to be ashamed of. So, while I have noticed it being pointed out that Jacob has a bias (and of course he does; as you stated but I snipped because it isn't what I wanted to respond to, *everyone* has biases), I haven't noticed him being accused of being shameless (of course, since I'm not the target, I'm not as likely to have noticed it).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 13:28 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" |
| Message-ID | <99242247-5fbf-a2a8-c8d4-804dc1cd8000@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #92304 |
On 08/15/2016 01:11 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > jameskuyper@verizon.net writes: >> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 11:46:21 AM UTC-4, jacobnavia wrote: >> >>> This happens yesterday, and it has been happening since 15 years at least. >>> If I present my work here and ask for input I am shamelessly promoting >> >> Have you felt any shame about it? If not, "shameless" is perfectly accurate. > > Well, this does get into subtle implications in English -- while you are > describing the dictionary definition of the word, my experience is that > when someone is accused of being "shameless", there's an implication > that it's something they ought to be ashamed of. Yes, and as a rule, if someone is correctly described as "shameless", it's precisely because he disagrees that it's something to be ashamed about. > So, while I have noticed it being pointed out that Jacob has a bias (and > of course he does; as you stated but I snipped because it isn't what I > wanted to respond to, *everyone* has biases), I haven't noticed him > being accused of being shameless (of course, since I'm not the target, > I'm not as likely to have noticed it). He's promoted his compiler here, which at least some people (most notably Richard Heathfield) think he shouldn't be doing. Those people presumably think he should be ashamed of having done it. People promoting religion, atheism, compilers, answer books, jobs, Google Adsense, computer hardware, and italian politics have all posted here in just the last few months. I even remember someone trying to sell shoes here a few years ago. I think they shouldn't, and I think they should be ashamed of having done so, but I don't expect them to be ashamed, and I don't see any way to stop them, so I don't let myself get very worked up about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 10:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" |
| Message-ID | <46d981ff-475c-4f61-b414-c27455adcf21@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92296 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 17:46:21 UTC+2 użytkownik jacobnavia napisał: > Le 15/08/2016 à 16:29, James Kuyper a écrit : > > On 08/15/2016 09:27 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > >> In the academic environment where I spent my career, there is absolutely > >> no negative connotation to the term "vendor". Everyone who sells > >> anything to the university is a vendor. My impression is that the > >> corporate world is the same. > > > > Everyone who sells anything to our company is referred to as a vendor. > > My wife's job actually involves spending her employer's money, so she's > > constantly dealing with vendors. There's absolutely no negative > > connotation to the word in either of those contexts. > > > > Of course. > > But then... if I post here that I consider compilers to be on topic, > heathfield says that I am a compiler vendor, then, my opinion is biased > because I have that opinion BECAUSE I want to (in the future) plug in my > compiler, etc. > > This happens yesterday, and it has been happening since 15 years at least. > > If I present my work here and ask for input I am shamelessly promoting > my compiler because I am a "vendor" as I was selling anything: my > compiler is free for downloading and I can't know if you use it for > commercial purposes or not even if I say that you shouldn't in my web page. > > It is this continuos bullying that makes this qualification difficult to > accept. From people that have NEVER contributed anything, not a single > piece of code for the community. i would suggest you not to go into that bulshit, our zomboids thompson and heathfield make, at all.. the most boring bulshit of the world is happily eleborathed by them.. their only goal is to make zomboids from all people multiplicating this zomboid trash (counted in megabytes of text i think) instead of discussing something that is real 'cyber' you know what i mean
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 11:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: GCC vs Clang (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") |
| Message-ID | <lneg5poofh.fsf_-_@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92290 |
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
[snip]
I see that a certain troll has changed the subject header of this
discussion, presumably in an attempt to harass me.
As a personal favor to me, I request that if you're going to post a
followup, please change the subject back. (Or, better yet, don't
post a followup at all.) Don't help the troll.
--
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 | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 18:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") |
| Message-ID | <not00m$tnb$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #92308 |
In article <lneg5poofh.fsf_-_@kst-u.example.com>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: >[snip] > >I see that a certain troll has changed the subject header of this >discussion, presumably in an attempt to harass me. > >As a personal favor to me, I request that if you're going to post a >followup, please change the subject back. (Or, better yet, don't >post a followup at all.) Don't help the troll. What a baby. What are you, 8? -- When someone tells me he/she is a Christian I check to see if I'm still in posession of my wallet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 11:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") |
| Message-ID | <d6fb246d-5087-4db2-badd-daa8481ae568@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92310 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 20:01:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Kenny McCormack napisał: > In article <lneg5poofh.fsf_-_@kst-u.example.com>, > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > >Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: > >[snip] > > > >I see that a certain troll has changed the subject header of this > >discussion, presumably in an attempt to harass me. > > > >As a personal favor to me, I request that if you're going to post a > >followup, please change the subject back. (Or, better yet, don't > >post a followup at all.) Don't help the troll. > > What a baby. What are you, 8? > KEITH IS SMALL BULKY CHEATER "HE TROLLS" POINTS FINGER OF ZOMBOID KEITH - WHERE IN REALITY MORE INTELIGGNT PEOPLE TRY TO AVOID THIS INSULT OF MENTAL INFERIORS, AND OUR KEITH MORE FITS TO GENERAL BULKY VIEW OF THE TROLL (INCLUDING THOSE INSULTS HE MAKE)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 11:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") |
| Message-ID | <4e95ec4e-cad8-4792-be6d-535216ba9fba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92313 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 20:35:08 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 20:01:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Kenny McCormack napisał: > > In article <lneg5poofh.fsf_-_@kst-u.example.com>, > > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > > >Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: > > >[snip] > > > > > >I see that a certain troll has changed the subject header of this > > >discussion, presumably in an attempt to harass me. > > > > > >As a personal favor to me, I request that if you're going to post a > > >followup, please change the subject back. (Or, better yet, don't > > >post a followup at all.) Don't help the troll. > > > > What a baby. What are you, 8? > > > KEITH IS SMALL BULKY CHEATER > "HE TROLLS" POINTS FINGER OF ZOMBOID KEITH - WHERE IN REALITY MORE INTELIGGNT PEOPLE TRY TO AVOID THIS INSULT OF MENTAL INFERIORS, AND > OUR KEITH MORE FITS TO GENERAL BULKY VIEW OF THE TROLL (INCLUDING THOSE INSULTS HE MAKE) NOTE THAT SHOWING KEITH CHEATS MAKES ME DISGUSTING AND THAT IS NOY SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE OR DO - BUT KEITH MAKES A FIELD OF DISGUST AND THIS IS IMO NOT BAD TO GET BIG WELL ESTABLISHED PRIMITIVE WHO TRY TO STUPIDLY POSITON HIMSELF OVER THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE INTELIGENT THAN HIM AND WHO CALLS THEM TROLLS (ULTRA PRIMITIVE NAMING WHICH IS COHERENT TO KEITH MIND ) AND SO ON - THIS IS KEITH WHO MAKE THAT CRAP, WE WITH KENNY (DONT KNOW THIS FELLOW BUT HE MUST ALSO SEE THE IMAGINEBLE KEITH SUPERBOS OVER TROLLS DISGUST WORK) SORRY FOR THAT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 11:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") |
| Message-ID | <6ca174dd-ee3f-41df-b23c-1c083b8ffce4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92314 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 20:48:53 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 20:35:08 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 20:01:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Kenny McCormack napisał: > > > In article <lneg5poofh.fsf_-_@kst-u.example.com>, > > > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > > > >Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: > > > >[snip] > > > > > > > >I see that a certain troll has changed the subject header of this > > > >discussion, presumably in an attempt to harass me. > > > > > > > >As a personal favor to me, I request that if you're going to post a > > > >followup, please change the subject back. (Or, better yet, don't > > > >post a followup at all.) Don't help the troll. > > > > > > What a baby. What are you, 8? > > > > > KEITH IS SMALL BULKY CHEATER > > "HE TROLLS" POINTS FINGER OF ZOMBOID KEITH - WHERE IN REALITY MORE INTELIGGNT PEOPLE TRY TO AVOID THIS INSULT OF MENTAL INFERIORS, AND > > OUR KEITH MORE FITS TO GENERAL BULKY VIEW OF THE TROLL (INCLUDING THOSE INSULTS HE MAKE) > > NOTE THAT SHOWING KEITH CHEATS MAKES ME DISGUSTING AND THAT IS NOY SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE OR DO - BUT KEITH MAKES A FIELD OF DISGUST AND THIS IS IMO NOT BAD TO GET BIG WELL ESTABLISHED PRIMITIVE WHO TRY TO STUPIDLY POSITON HIMSELF OVER THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE INTELIGENT THAN HIM AND WHO CALLS THEM TROLLS (ULTRA PRIMITIVE NAMING WHICH IS COHERENT TO KEITH MIND ) AND SO ON - THIS IS KEITH WHO MAKE THAT CRAP, WE WITH KENNY (DONT KNOW THIS FELLOW BUT HE MUST ALSO SEE THE IMAGINEBLE KEITH SUPERBOS OVER TROLLS DISGUST WORK) SORRY FOR THAT SORRY FOR CAPSLOCK, TODAY WRITING WITH FULLCASE IS UNUSUAL BUT IN OLDSHOOL DAYS THIS WAS PLEASANT - IT WOULD BE NOT TOTALLY BAD TO MAYBE BACK IN THE TIME TO THOSE OLD STYLISTIC - IT LOOKS WEIRD, I KNOW (THIS WAS INCIDENTAL AS I USE SOME CHAT WHEN CAPS LOOKS MUCH BETTER AND FORGOT TO TOURN IT OFF) BUT WHEN ACCUSTOMED IT COULD BE OK
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 12:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") |
| Message-ID | <4ae093e3-733f-4b1d-b445-954e20c98fb3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92315 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 20:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 20:48:53 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 20:35:08 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 20:01:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Kenny McCormack napisał: > > > > In article <lneg5poofh.fsf_-_@kst-u.example.com>, > > > > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > > > > >Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: > > > > >[snip] > > > > > > > > > >I see that a certain troll has changed the subject header of this > > > > >discussion, presumably in an attempt to harass me. > > > > > > > > > >As a personal favor to me, I request that if you're going to post a > > > > >followup, please change the subject back. (Or, better yet, don't > > > > >post a followup at all.) Don't help the troll. > > > > > > > > What a baby. What are you, 8? > > > > > > > KEITH IS SMALL BULKY CHEATER > > > "HE TROLLS" POINTS FINGER OF ZOMBOID KEITH - WHERE IN REALITY MORE INTELIGGNT PEOPLE TRY TO AVOID THIS INSULT OF MENTAL INFERIORS, AND > > > OUR KEITH MORE FITS TO GENERAL BULKY VIEW OF THE TROLL (INCLUDING THOSE INSULTS HE MAKE) > > > > NOTE THAT SHOWING KEITH CHEATS MAKES ME DISGUSTING AND THAT IS NOY SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE OR DO - BUT KEITH MAKES A FIELD OF DISGUST AND THIS IS IMO NOT BAD TO GET BIG WELL ESTABLISHED PRIMITIVE WHO TRY TO STUPIDLY POSITON HIMSELF OVER THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE INTELIGENT THAN HIM AND WHO CALLS THEM TROLLS (ULTRA PRIMITIVE NAMING WHICH IS COHERENT TO KEITH MIND ) AND SO ON - THIS IS KEITH WHO MAKE THAT CRAP, WE WITH KENNY (DONT KNOW THIS FELLOW BUT HE MUST ALSO SEE THE IMAGINEBLE KEITH SUPERBOS OVER TROLLS DISGUST WORK) SORRY FOR THAT > > SORRY FOR CAPSLOCK, TODAY WRITING WITH FULLCASE IS UNUSUAL BUT IN OLDSHOOL DAYS THIS WAS PLEASANT - IT WOULD BE NOT TOTALLY BAD TO MAYBE BACK IN THE TIME TO THOSE OLD STYLISTIC - IT LOOKS WEIRD, I KNOW (THIS WAS INCIDENTAL AS I USE SOME CHAT WHEN CAPS LOOKS MUCH BETTER AND FORGOT TO TOURN IT OFF) BUT WHEN ACCUSTOMED IT COULD BE OK
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 12:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") |
| Message-ID | <b79320d1-dd04-4314-a6af-fb420e1e26eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92315 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 20:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 20:48:53 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 20:35:08 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 20:01:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Kenny McCormack napisał: > > > > In article <lneg5poofh.fsf_-_@kst-u.example.com>, > > > > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > > > > >Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: > > > > >[snip] > > > > > > > > > >I see that a certain troll has changed the subject header of this > > > > >discussion, presumably in an attempt to harass me. > > > > > > > > > >As a personal favor to me, I request that if you're going to post a > > > > >followup, please change the subject back. (Or, better yet, don't > > > > >post a followup at all.) Don't help the troll. > > > > > > > > What a baby. What are you, 8? > > > > > > > KEITH IS SMALL BULKY CHEATER > > > "HE TROLLS" POINTS FINGER OF ZOMBOID KEITH - WHERE IN REALITY MORE INTELIGGNT PEOPLE TRY TO AVOID THIS INSULT OF MENTAL INFERIORS, AND > > > OUR KEITH MORE FITS TO GENERAL BULKY VIEW OF THE TROLL (INCLUDING THOSE INSULTS HE MAKE) > > > > NOTE THAT SHOWING KEITH CHEATS MAKES ME DISGUSTING AND THAT IS NOY SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE OR DO - BUT KEITH MAKES A FIELD OF DISGUST AND THIS IS IMO NOT BAD TO GET BIG WELL ESTABLISHED PRIMITIVE WHO TRY TO STUPIDLY POSITON HIMSELF OVER THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE INTELIGENT THAN HIM AND WHO CALLS THEM TROLLS (ULTRA PRIMITIVE NAMING WHICH IS COHERENT TO KEITH MIND ) AND SO ON - THIS IS KEITH WHO MAKE THAT CRAP, WE WITH KENNY (DONT KNOW THIS FELLOW BUT HE MUST ALSO SEE THE IMAGINEBLE KEITH SUPERBOS OVER TROLLS DISGUST WORK) SORRY FOR THAT > > SORRY FOR CAPSLOCK, TODAY WRITING WITH FULLCASE IS UNUSUAL BUT IN OLDSHOOL DAYS THIS WAS PLEASANT - IT WOULD BE NOT TOTALLY BAD TO MAYBE BACK IN THE TIME TO THOSE OLD STYLISTIC - IT LOOKS WEIRD, I KNOW (THIS WAS INCIDENTAL AS I USE SOME CHAT WHEN CAPS LOOKS MUCH BETTER AND FORGOT TO TOURN IT OFF) BUT WHEN ACCUSTOMED IT COULD BE OK AS TO THEME OF THIS ZOMBOID COMMANDO maybe i add that imo the core of it are reheketedebeheb (with some satelites maybe but slighter) but where all three rh and db and kt propagate bulshit insanely only kt insults so heavili, so rh and db has only bulshit activities where kt not only bulshit but also this troll insulting (two activities) whivh makes him worse db and rh was troll insulting too, but far less, where supertrollin keith is doin it regulary (i post it for clearness)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mark.bluemel@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 08:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") |
| Message-ID | <dec38e14-78d9-42e0-94ff-4cd1449a5621@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92318 |
On Monday, 15 August 2016 20:18:59 UTC+1, fir wrote: [gibberish] Google Groups kindly offered to translate the post, but failed due to fir's unique linguistic constructs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 09:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lny43yng0u.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92279 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 11:13:41 PM UTC+1, James R. Kuyper wrote:
[...]
>> Jacob, I've asked this several times before, but you've never answered.
>> Do you consider "vendor" to be an insult? If so, why? I don't consider
>> it to be an insult, and am at a loss to come up with a plausible reason
>> why someone might so consider it.
>>
> There are words like "hawker" and "pedlar" in English which refer
> to someone of low social status who supports himself by selling
> goods. They are demeaning and sometimes extended to more established
> businessmen. "Vendor" isn't one of those words, but Jacob is French,
> it might be similar to French word of similar connotations.
Malcolm, why don't you let jacob speak for himself? The question is
whether *jacob* considers "vendor" to be an insult. Neither your
opinion nor mine is relevant.
--
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 | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 08:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <57b41eeb.309203@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #92279 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 11:13:41 PM UTC+1, James R. Kuyper wrote: > > Jacob, I've asked this several times before, but you've never answered. > > Do you consider "vendor" to be an insult? If so, why? I don't consider > > it to be an insult, and am at a loss to come up with a plausible reason > > why someone might so consider it. > > > There are words like "hawker" and "pedlar" in English which refer > to someone of low social status who supports himself by selling > goods. They are demeaning and sometimes extended to more established > businessmen. "Vendor" isn't one of those words, but Jacob is French, > it might be similar to French word of similar connotations. It isn't. "Vendeur" is the ordinary word for "vendor" in French. jacob could've been insulted by words like "colporteur" or "mercier", but nobody has applied those to him. "Vendor" is neutral, and getting riled about it betrays a dishonesty of purpose. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 17:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87twej5rj7.fsf@news.bourguet.org> |
| In reply to | #92368 |
raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 11:13:41 PM UTC+1, James R. Kuyper wrote: > >> > Jacob, I've asked this several times before, but you've never answered. >> > Do you consider "vendor" to be an insult? If so, why? I don't consider >> > it to be an insult, and am at a loss to come up with a plausible reason >> > why someone might so consider it. >> > >> There are words like "hawker" and "pedlar" in English which refer >> to someone of low social status who supports himself by selling >> goods. They are demeaning and sometimes extended to more established >> businessmen. "Vendor" isn't one of those words, but Jacob is French, >> it might be similar to French word of similar connotations. > > It isn't. "Vendeur" is the ordinary word for "vendor" in French. If my observation of English is not too bad, usage of French's _vendeur_ includes cases where in English I'd use _salesman_ (for instance _used car salesman_ and _vendeur de voitures d'occasion_). And usage of English's _vendor_ includes contexts, including the current one, where in French I'd use _fournisseur_ (for which a dictionnary would probably give _provider_; I'm not aware of big differences in meaning between _fournisseur_ and _provider_). > "Vendor" is neutral, and getting riled about it betrays a dishonesty of > purpose. "Vendeur" can be neutral, but in this context using it instead of "fournisseur" would give the impression that he is a pushy salesman ready to give misleading information, something that the English word does not give to me. Yours, -- Jean-Marc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web