Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #94683 > unrolled thread
| Started by | MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-10 15:51 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-10 15:11 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 183 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
C Programming Tutorial on Youtube MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 15:51 +0000
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-10 17:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-10-10 13:25 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 11:06 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-10 22:18 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-10 16:29 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 00:07 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-11 08:36 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 09:51 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-11 07:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 09:48 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 10:10 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 11:54 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-11 08:13 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-11 07:49 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-11 12:28 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-11 09:51 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-11 21:02 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-13 14:48 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-13 10:20 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-15 12:18 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-15 16:47 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-15 14:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 15:21 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-15 22:47 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 05:19 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 08:37 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 17:59 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 15:48 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 00:27 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-16 17:42 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-17 10:23 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:07 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 18:28 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-17 10:08 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:51 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-18 13:29 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-18 13:24 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-16 13:29 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 18:36 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 11:39 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 15:54 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-16 15:38 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 23:53 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 19:40 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-17 06:31 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:09 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-17 14:16 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 19:40 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-16 19:23 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 22:33 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-10-16 20:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:13 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-17 10:58 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:14 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-17 07:44 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-17 13:22 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:22 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-17 08:32 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 17:21 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-17 16:07 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 21:00 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:49 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-18 10:45 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-17 10:55 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:01 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-17 19:29 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-18 00:33 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-18 08:41 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-18 01:54 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-18 08:28 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 10:05 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-11 11:12 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 11:52 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 12:18 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-11 22:15 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 14:40 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-11 23:45 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 18:08 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 18:41 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 18:55 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-10-14 22:09 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 10:51 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-15 19:11 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 21:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-15 22:33 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 23:13 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 15:34 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 00:37 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-16 01:00 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-17 17:48 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-17 20:09 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 23:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 16:19 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 00:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-16 01:11 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 22:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 23:11 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-10-16 19:55 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-17 01:12 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-17 01:56 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-17 14:27 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 04:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 11:49 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 14:55 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 12:47 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-15 11:02 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 12:12 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-15 14:56 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-17 05:27 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-17 08:41 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-17 10:18 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-17 11:34 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-18 08:05 +1300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-17 12:39 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-17 22:46 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-18 14:06 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-18 12:18 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-20 15:09 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-20 14:29 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-10-23 13:15 +0000
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 16:17 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-07 11:21 -0800
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-18 13:59 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-18 14:32 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 06:57 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 10:25 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 13:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 16:44 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 16:53 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 18:37 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 18:50 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 19:41 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 20:18 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-12 12:56 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 21:04 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 14:18 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-12 15:12 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 01:49 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 09:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 02:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 10:35 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:23 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 18:49 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 10:52 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 12:06 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-12 19:41 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 01:59 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 10:34 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 13:08 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 05:22 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 13:29 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 18:57 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 19:26 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:27 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-15 15:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 16:45 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 16:51 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-13 12:04 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 13:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-13 14:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 20:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-13 22:00 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-10-12 08:14 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-12 05:28 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 13:30 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 13:59 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 08:47 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 05:29 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 08:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 18:29 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 06:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 17:54 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 18:09 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-12 13:46 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 18:54 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:46 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-10 18:01 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-10 15:11 -0700
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 11:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3fe337a1-54b8-4915-9c20-f1a3e1223d12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94930 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 12:36:25 PM UTC-5, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 16/10/16 18:29, James R. Kuyper wrote: >the worst insult that any of them used to describe me was > > "pedant", which I don't consider particularly insulting. > > I have always wondered whether, when intended as a pejorative, it should > be spelled 'peddant'. :-) > The Dread Umlaut strikes again! --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 15:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu0lse$uji$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94929 |
On 10/16/2016 1:29 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote: > On 16/10/16 03:47, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 10/15/2016 5:31 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > <snip> >>> I think that if you read more about the Committee's Rationale >>> document and >>> Defect Report resolutions, you'd quickly find something they said >>> that would >>> make you dismiss them as language lawyers, insane, or idiots. Have >>> you ever >>> bothered looking? >>> >> >> Oh, I have. And I hate to tell you, but I know a couple of the >> Committee members. > > I doubt that - primarily because of the way you characterize them below. > > The comp.std.c and comp.lang.c newsgroups have frequently been monitored > by members of the C committee, though I'm not sure whether any of them > are still doing so. It's not easy to tell - it's not like they're > required to add a line to their .sig identifying them as committee > members. However, the ones I'm pretty sure of include Doug Gwyn*, Nick > MacLaren*, Clive Feather*, Steve Clamage*, Peter Seebach* and Larry Jones*. > I don't know where I could find a comprehensive list of C committee > members, current and past. However, all of the following people were > either identified as the Submitter of a Defect Report numbered 400 or > higher, with Source==WG14, or as the Source of a Defect Report with > smaller numbers, with the Source field also containing XJ311; I believe > that, in both cases, this means they are all committee members. The > numbers following their names are the number of threads to which they > contributed at least one message, on comp.std.c and comp.lang.c, > respectively. These numbers are according to Google Groups, whose search > result must always be treated with a certain amount of skepticism. > > Michael S. Ball 2/3 * > Hans Boehm 5/41 > Stephen Clamage 238/253 * > Robert Paul Corbett 106/21 * > Paul Eggert 579/78 * > Jens Gustedt 51/140 * > Steve M. Hoxey 1/3 > Andrew Josey 4/4 > Derek M. Jones 43/8 * > David Keaton 0/1 > Sam Kendall 3/6 > Philipp Klaus Krause 8/86 * > Robbert Krebbers 10/0 * > Shao Miller 135/646 * > Walter J. Murray 87/68 > Joseph Myers 46/2 * > Otto R. Newman 0/1 > Rich Peterson 0/1 > David F. Prosser 39/24 > Robert Seacord 8/12 > Fred J. Tydeman 103/12 * > Neal Weidenhofer 0/6 > Freek Wiedijk 2/4 > > (Note on methodology: cross-posted messages were included in both > counts. I left out the middle name or middle initial when performing > searches. I otherwise made only a few changes from the names listed on > the defect reports: Steven Clamage => Stephen Clamage, Philip Klause > Krause => Philipp Krause, and Robert Krebbers => Robbert Krebbers). > > For every person whose name is marked above with an '*', I've posted at > least one message mentioning their name, or vice versa, in the same > newsgroup, according to Google Groups. In most cases, those were direct > responses to each other's messages. Most of the people on that list that > I never talked with predated my monitoring of those newsgroups. These > are claims that, unlike yours, can easily be confirmed just by searching > on Google Groups. > >> They laugh at ideas like you promote. They also consider you an idiot. > > I seriously doubt that; that's completely inconsistent with the tone of > my discussions with any of the Committee members mentioned above. > > In general, if I'm discussing an issue with someone, it's because we > have a difference of opinion about that issue. However, that doesn't > require that we're in complete disagreement about everything. Whenever > I've talked with C Committee members, the discussions were generally > polite and respectful - the least polite discussions I remember were > those with Doug Gwyn, but they were still far more polite than yours. > Unlike you, the worst insult that any of them used to describe me was > "pedant", which I don't consider particularly insulting. They usually > conceded most of the premises of my arguments (including many premises > you've rejected as ridiculous) even if they disagreed with my final > conclusion, and on many occasions, they would end up conceding my final > conclusion as well (even Doug has done that a few times). Sometimes I > would concede their argument, instead - those concessions form a part of > my current understanding of C, including many of the things I believe > that you consider most ridiculous. > All of this can be confirmed by anyone who's interested by searching > Google Groups. No, the C Standards committee people in general don't fool with public newsgroups. They've run into too many idiots like those here and don't care to waste their time. But they do correspond on private news servers, to which you have no access. And your list proves you have no idea who is or is not on the Committee. You don't have to be on the Committee to submit a defect. I admit, they need to be more polite due to their positions. I'm not in a position where I need to care about you or what you think - and quite frankly, I don't. I learned long ago people like you aren't worth it. Sorry, but that's the truth. When you decide you want to learn, I may be willing to change my mind. But I know you will never be there because you already think you know it all. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 15:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f157e853-87ea-4093-af08-a40c766d2e22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94936 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 3:54:16 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: ... > No, the C Standards committee people in general don't fool with public > newsgroups. ... True - but the people I listed did, and I know for a fact that many of them are or have been members of the Committee. > ... They've run into too many idiots like those here and don't > care to waste their time. But they do correspond on private news > servers, to which you have no access. > > And your list proves you have no idea who is or is not on the Committee. I have a very definite idea of who is on the Committee, it's just not a complete or perfectly accurate idea, which is nothing odd for real-world knowledge. Nothing requires committee members to identify themselves as such. I listed all of the ones that I could remember as having done so. I have not been able to locate a comprehensive list of the members. I added additional names from the best alternative source I could find. Do you know any particular case I was wrong about? I doubt that you'll bother identifying any, pretending it's beneath you to bother with such things - the reality being that you don't know, either. > You don't have to be on the Committee to submit a defect. I've been told the contrary by people I knew to be Committee members. Almost every DR lists either a Source, a Submittor, or a Submitter (they changed their opinion about the correct spelling between DR 176 and DR 200) that I'm certain is either the C committee, one of it's member committees, or one of the members of those committees. The main exceptions are other related standardization committees such as the Austin Group or WG21 (associated with POSIX and C++, respectively). There's a few exceptions, but if being a committee member is not a strict requirement of the process, there's awfully few exceptions. I'm assuming that if either the Source or the Submitt[eo]r is a group (such as BSI, DIN, NNI, WG14, INCITS J11, etc), then the other one might be a member of that group. This assumption might be false, but it's the best I can do. > I admit, they need to be more polite due to their positions. ... They weren't merely polite, most of them actively engaged in a discussion with me in which they agreed with many of the points I made, and in some cases even conceded the validity of my conclusions. > ... I'm not in > a position where I need to care about you or what you think - and quite > frankly, I don't. I learned long ago people like you aren't worth it. That's OK with me. It's just the nonsense you spew which I care about, not your opinion of me. > Sorry, but that's the truth. When you decide you want to learn, I may > be willing to change my mind. But I know you will never be there > because you already think you know it all. I don't know it all, but I do know a lot more of it than most programmers who aren't on the committee (and many who are), including you. I've frequently been wrong, and have often been convinced of that fact by others, and have corrected my beliefs accordingly. But to have any chance of achieving that result (and you're free not to care about doing so), you would have to actually address the issues I raise with valid counter-arguments, something you seem incapable of doing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 23:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nu10cc$18h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94943 |
On 16/10/16 23:38, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 3:54:16 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: <snip> >> Sorry, but that's the truth. When you decide you want to learn, I may >> be willing to change my mind. But I know you will never be there >> because you already think you know it all. > > I don't know it all, but I do know a lot more of it than most programmers who > aren't on the committee (and many who are), including you. I've frequently been > wrong, and have often been convinced of that fact by others, and have corrected > my beliefs accordingly. But to have any chance of achieving that result (and > you're free not to care about doing so), you would have to actually address the > issues I raise with valid counter-arguments, something you seem incapable of > doing. Point of order, James. I have a counter-example: <npqu42$r5s$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> in which Jerry Stuckle did address a C issue with a valid counter-argument. As far as I am aware, it's the only such example. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 19:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu135l$8hg$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94945 |
On 10/16/2016 6:53 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 16/10/16 23:38, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 3:54:16 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > > <snip> > >>> Sorry, but that's the truth. When you decide you want to learn, I may >>> be willing to change my mind. But I know you will never be there >>> because you already think you know it all. >> >> I don't know it all, but I do know a lot more of it than most >> programmers who >> aren't on the committee (and many who are), including you. I've >> frequently been >> wrong, and have often been convinced of that fact by others, and have >> corrected >> my beliefs accordingly. But to have any chance of achieving that >> result (and >> you're free not to care about doing so), you would have to actually >> address the >> issues I raise with valid counter-arguments, something you seem >> incapable of >> doing. > > Point of order, James. I have a counter-example: > > <npqu42$r5s$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> > > in which Jerry Stuckle did address a C issue with a valid > counter-argument. As far as I am aware, it's the only such example. > You don't read very well then, do you? But once again, no surprise. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 06:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nu1nm1$ff9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94947 |
On 17/10/16 00:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 10/16/2016 6:53 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 16/10/16 23:38, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 3:54:16 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >> >> <snip> >> >>>> Sorry, but that's the truth. When you decide you want to learn, I may >>>> be willing to change my mind. But I know you will never be there >>>> because you already think you know it all. >>> >>> I don't know it all, but I do know a lot more of it than most >>> programmers who >>> aren't on the committee (and many who are), including you. I've >>> frequently been >>> wrong, and have often been convinced of that fact by others, and have >>> corrected >>> my beliefs accordingly. But to have any chance of achieving that >>> result (and >>> you're free not to care about doing so), you would have to actually >>> address the >>> issues I raise with valid counter-arguments, something you seem >>> incapable of >>> doing. >> >> Point of order, James. I have a counter-example: >> >> <npqu42$r5s$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> >> >> in which Jerry Stuckle did address a C issue with a valid >> counter-argument. As far as I am aware, it's the only such example. >> > > You don't read very well then, do you? But once again, no surprise. If a further example existed, it would be reasonable for you to do the minimal research necessary for demonstrating its existence. Since you have not taken the opportunity to do so, we can reasonably conclude that there is no such example. You can blow all the "don't teach pigs to sing" smoke you like, but the fact remains that the people you so readily insult are people who have *made their case*, whereas you consistently refuse to make yours. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 09:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu2igp$5c5$3@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94957 |
On 10/17/2016 1:31 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 17/10/16 00:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 10/16/2016 6:53 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 16/10/16 23:38, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 3:54:16 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> Sorry, but that's the truth. When you decide you want to learn, I may >>>>> be willing to change my mind. But I know you will never be there >>>>> because you already think you know it all. >>>> >>>> I don't know it all, but I do know a lot more of it than most >>>> programmers who >>>> aren't on the committee (and many who are), including you. I've >>>> frequently been >>>> wrong, and have often been convinced of that fact by others, and have >>>> corrected >>>> my beliefs accordingly. But to have any chance of achieving that >>>> result (and >>>> you're free not to care about doing so), you would have to actually >>>> address the >>>> issues I raise with valid counter-arguments, something you seem >>>> incapable of >>>> doing. >>> >>> Point of order, James. I have a counter-example: >>> >>> <npqu42$r5s$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> >>> >>> in which Jerry Stuckle did address a C issue with a valid >>> counter-argument. As far as I am aware, it's the only such example. >>> >> >> You don't read very well then, do you? But once again, no surprise. > > If a further example existed, it would be reasonable for you to do the > minimal research necessary for demonstrating its existence. Since you > have not taken the opportunity to do so, we can reasonably conclude that > there is no such example. > > You can blow all the "don't teach pigs to sing" smoke you like, but the > fact remains that the people you so readily insult are people who have > *made their case*, whereas you consistently refuse to make yours. > No, I don't need to waste my time proving trolls like you to be wrong. You made the claim that was the only one I made. It's up to you to prove that claim. You're right - I don't teach pigs to sing. And you make unsubstantiated claims all the time. But that's what trolls do. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 14:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nu2iuk$7ha$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94972 |
On 17/10/16 14:09, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 10/17/2016 1:31 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 17/10/16 00:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 10/16/2016 6:53 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 16/10/16 23:38, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: <snip> >>>>> [...] But to have any chance of >>>>> achieving that result (and you're free not to care about >>>>> doing so), you would have to actually address the issues I >>>>> raise with valid counter-arguments, something you seem >>>>> incapable of doing. >>>> >>>> Point of order, James. I have a counter-example: >>>> >>>> <npqu42$r5s$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> >>>> >>>> in which Jerry Stuckle did address a C issue with a valid >>>> counter-argument. As far as I am aware, it's the only such >>>> example. >>>> <snip> > > No, I don't need to waste my time proving trolls like you to be > wrong. You made the claim that was the only one I made. No, I said it was the only example of your properly supporting an argument about C *that I was aware of*, and it was in response to James, who seemed to think there were *no* such examples. Do learn to read, there's a good chap. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 19:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu1349$8hg$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94943 |
On 10/16/2016 6:38 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 3:54:16 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > ... >> No, the C Standards committee people in general don't fool with public >> newsgroups. ... > > True - but the people I listed did, and I know for a fact that many of them are > or have been members of the Committee. > Did... have been... if... dog... rabbit... >> ... They've run into too many idiots like those here and don't >> care to waste their time. But they do correspond on private news >> servers, to which you have no access. >> >> And your list proves you have no idea who is or is not on the Committee. > > I have a very definite idea of who is on the Committee, it's just not a > complete or perfectly accurate idea, which is nothing odd for real-world > knowledge. Nothing requires committee members to identify themselves as such. I > listed all of the ones that I could remember as having done so. I have not been > able to locate a comprehensive list of the members. I added additional names > from the best alternative source I could find. Do you know any particular case > I was wrong about? I doubt that you'll bother identifying any, pretending it's > beneath you to bother with such things - the reality being that you don't know, > either. > You obviously don't, as your list shows. And no, I'm not going to expose the names of committee members without their approval. >> You don't have to be on the Committee to submit a defect. > > I've been told the contrary by people I knew to be Committee members. > I don't think you understand what you've been told. Scratch that. I KNOW you didn't understand what you were told. > Almost every DR lists either a Source, a Submittor, or a Submitter (they > changed their opinion about the correct spelling between DR 176 and DR 200) that I'm certain is either the C committee, one of it's member committees, or > one of the members of those committees. The main exceptions are other related > standardization committees such as the Austin Group or WG21 (associated with > POSIX and C++, respectively). There's a few exceptions, but if being a > committee member is not a strict requirement of the process, there's awfully > few exceptions. > You wouldn't know. > I'm assuming that if either the Source or the Submitt[eo]r is a group (such as > BSI, DIN, NNI, WG14, INCITS J11, etc), then the other one might be a member of > that group. This assumption might be false, but it's the best I can do. > Your assumption is wrong. Try FACTS next time. >> I admit, they need to be more polite due to their positions. ... > > They weren't merely polite, most of them actively engaged in a discussion with > me in which they agreed with many of the points I made, and in some cases even > conceded the validity of my conclusions. > You obviously weren't promoting some of the absurd ideas I've seen you give here. >> ... I'm not in >> a position where I need to care about you or what you think - and quite >> frankly, I don't. I learned long ago people like you aren't worth it. > > That's OK with me. It's just the nonsense you spew which I care about, not your > opinion of me. > The only nonsense is coming out of your system - not mine. >> Sorry, but that's the truth. When you decide you want to learn, I may >> be willing to change my mind. But I know you will never be there >> because you already think you know it all. > > I don't know it all, but I do know a lot more of it than most programmers who > aren't on the committee (and many who are), including you. I've frequently been > wrong, and have often been convinced of that fact by others, and have corrected > my beliefs accordingly. But to have any chance of achieving that result (and > you're free not to care about doing so), you would have to actually address the > issues I raise with valid counter-arguments, something you seem incapable of > doing. > No, you don't know it all. And you've repeatedly shown you know even less than you claim. But then that's how language lawyers are. And even when you do respond with valid counter-arguments, they just dismiss them. It would be easier to carry on an intelligent conversation with a monkey than it is with a language lawyer like you. And a lot less aggravating. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 19:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7060692e-307c-496d-ae8d-8c289e52e7cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94946 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 7:40:21 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 10/16/2016 6:38 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 3:54:16 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: ... ... > > able to locate a comprehensive list of the members. I added additional names > > from the best alternative source I could find. Do you know any particular case > > I was wrong about? I doubt that you'll bother identifying any, pretending it's > > beneath you to bother with such things - the reality being that you don't know, > > either. > > > > You obviously don't, as your list shows. And no, I'm not going to > expose the names of committee members without their approval. Why not? If you know their names, it had to be from a public source - a fool like you wouldn't have access to such information if it were being kept confidential. ... > > I'm assuming that if either the Source or the Submitt[eo]r is a group (such as > > BSI, DIN, NNI, WG14, INCITS J11, etc), then the other one might be a member of > > that group. This assumption might be false, but it's the best I can do. > > > > Your assumption is wrong. Try FACTS next time. I use facts when they're available, guesses when they aren't. That's just how life works - it doesn't always allow us to have all of the information we'd like to have (the next winning lottery number would be nice). I know that I've seen a web page listing the committee members (the US committee, not the ISO one). I saved the URL. The next time I looked at it was several years later, and the URL no longer worked - such is the internet. If that information was made publicly available back then, there's a good chance it's still publicly available somewhere, but I haven't been able to find it. It's also possible that they removed that information from public view due to increased concerns about security and privacy. > >> I admit, they need to be more polite due to their positions. ... > > > > They weren't merely polite, most of them actively engaged in a discussion with > > me in which they agreed with many of the points I made, and in some cases even > > conceded the validity of my conclusions. > > > > You obviously weren't promoting some of the absurd ideas I've seen you > give here. The ideas that I've presented that you have labeled absurd have included many ideas that I have presented in prior discussions with committee members; in some cases, they were the ones presenting those ideas to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 22:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu1d8l$onh$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94953 |
On 10/16/2016 10:23 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 7:40:21 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 10/16/2016 6:38 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 3:54:16 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > ... > ... >>> able to locate a comprehensive list of the members. I added additional names >>> from the best alternative source I could find. Do you know any particular case >>> I was wrong about? I doubt that you'll bother identifying any, pretending it's >>> beneath you to bother with such things - the reality being that you don't know, >>> either. >>> >> >> You obviously don't, as your list shows. And no, I'm not going to >> expose the names of committee members without their approval. > > Why not? If you know their names, it had to be from a public source - a fool like you wouldn't have access to such information if it were being kept confidential. > I don't drop names without permission. But I have more access to them than you think. And I know that pisses you off more than anything. > ... >>> I'm assuming that if either the Source or the Submitt[eo]r is a group (such as >>> BSI, DIN, NNI, WG14, INCITS J11, etc), then the other one might be a member of >>> that group. This assumption might be false, but it's the best I can do. >>> >> >> Your assumption is wrong. Try FACTS next time. > > I use facts when they're available, guesses when they aren't. That's just how life works - it doesn't always allow us to have all of the information we'd like to have (the next winning lottery number would be nice). I know that I've seen a web page listing the committee members (the US committee, not the ISO one). I saved the URL. The next time I looked at it was several years later, and the URL no longer worked - such is the internet. If that information was made publicly available back then, there's a good chance it's still publicly available somewhere, but I haven't been able to find it. It's also possible that they removed that information from public view due to increased concerns about security and privacy. > I use facts - period. That's how life works. >>>> I admit, they need to be more polite due to their positions. ... >>> >>> They weren't merely polite, most of them actively engaged in a discussion with >>> me in which they agreed with many of the points I made, and in some cases even >>> conceded the validity of my conclusions. >>> >> >> You obviously weren't promoting some of the absurd ideas I've seen you >> give here. > > The ideas that I've presented that you have labeled absurd have included many ideas that I have presented in prior discussions with committee members; in some cases, they were the ones presenting those ideas to me. > ROFLMAO! Now I know you're lying. No committee member would present ideas to YOU. They have GOOD C programmers to bounce ideas off. Chances are you've NEVER talked to one of the C Committee people. And this is just more hot air you're blowing out your arse - as usual. Maybe I should ask some of those people you claim you've talked to. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 20:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nu1fcc$tbv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94954 |
On 10/16/2016 7:33 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 10/16/2016 10:23 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 7:40:21 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 10/16/2016 6:38 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 3:54:16 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> ... >> ... >>>> able to locate a comprehensive list of the members. I added additional names >>>> from the best alternative source I could find. Do you know any particular case >>>> I was wrong about? I doubt that you'll bother identifying any, pretending it's >>>> beneath you to bother with such things - the reality being that you don't know, >>>> either. >>>> >>> >>> You obviously don't, as your list shows. And no, I'm not going to >>> expose the names of committee members without their approval. >> >> Why not? If you know their names, it had to be from a public source - a fool like you wouldn't have access to such information if it were being kept confidential. >> > > I don't drop names without permission. But I have more access to them > than you think. And I know that pisses you off more than anything. > >> ... >>>> I'm assuming that if either the Source or the Submitt[eo]r is a group (such as >>>> BSI, DIN, NNI, WG14, INCITS J11, etc), then the other one might be a member of >>>> that group. This assumption might be false, but it's the best I can do. >>>> >>> >>> Your assumption is wrong. Try FACTS next time. >> >> I use facts when they're available, guesses when they aren't. That's just how life works - it doesn't always allow us to have all of the information we'd like to have (the next winning lottery number would be nice). I know that I've seen a web page listing the committee members (the US committee, not the ISO one). I saved the URL. The next time I looked at it was several years later, and the URL no longer worked - such is the internet. If that information was made publicly available back then, there's a good chance it's still publicly available somewhere, but I haven't been able to find it. It's also possible that they removed that information from public view due to increased concerns about security and privacy. >> > > I use facts - period. That's how life works. > >>>>> I admit, they need to be more polite due to their positions. ... >>>> >>>> They weren't merely polite, most of them actively engaged in a discussion with >>>> me in which they agreed with many of the points I made, and in some cases even >>>> conceded the validity of my conclusions. >>>> >>> >>> You obviously weren't promoting some of the absurd ideas I've seen you >>> give here. >> >> The ideas that I've presented that you have labeled absurd have included many ideas that I have presented in prior discussions with committee members; in some cases, they were the ones presenting those ideas to me. >> > > ROFLMAO! Now I know you're lying. No committee member would present > ideas to YOU. They have GOOD C programmers to bounce ideas off. > > Chances are you've NEVER talked to one of the C Committee people. And > this is just more hot air you're blowing out your arse - as usual. > Maybe I should ask some of those people you claim you've talked to. > FWIW, I actually remember conversing a little bit with the likes of Hans, Herb, Paul E. McKenney, Doug Lea, Joseph Seigh, Peter Dimov, Alexander Terekhov and other really SMART people about the c++11 threading standard back in early 2007, wrt special focus on memory barriers and atomic operations. They are all really nice. https://www.decadent.org.uk/pipermail/cpp-threads/2007-January/001421.html https://www.decadent.org.uk/pipermail/cpp-threads/2007-January/thread.html#1421
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 09:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu2ion$6n9$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94955 |
On 10/16/2016 11:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 10/16/2016 7:33 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 10/16/2016 10:23 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 7:40:21 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 10/16/2016 6:38 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 3:54:16 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> ... >>> ... >>>>> able to locate a comprehensive list of the members. I added >>>>> additional names >>>>> from the best alternative source I could find. Do you know any >>>>> particular case >>>>> I was wrong about? I doubt that you'll bother identifying any, >>>>> pretending it's >>>>> beneath you to bother with such things - the reality being that you >>>>> don't know, >>>>> either. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You obviously don't, as your list shows. And no, I'm not going to >>>> expose the names of committee members without their approval. >>> >>> Why not? If you know their names, it had to be from a public source - >>> a fool like you wouldn't have access to such information if it were >>> being kept confidential. >>> >> >> I don't drop names without permission. But I have more access to them >> than you think. And I know that pisses you off more than anything. >> >>> ... >>>>> I'm assuming that if either the Source or the Submitt[eo]r is a >>>>> group (such as >>>>> BSI, DIN, NNI, WG14, INCITS J11, etc), then the other one might be >>>>> a member of >>>>> that group. This assumption might be false, but it's the best I can >>>>> do. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Your assumption is wrong. Try FACTS next time. >>> >>> I use facts when they're available, guesses when they aren't. That's >>> just how life works - it doesn't always allow us to have all of the >>> information we'd like to have (the next winning lottery number would >>> be nice). I know that I've seen a web page listing the committee >>> members (the US committee, not the ISO one). I saved the URL. The >>> next time I looked at it was several years later, and the URL no >>> longer worked - such is the internet. If that information was made >>> publicly available back then, there's a good chance it's still >>> publicly available somewhere, but I haven't been able to find it. >>> It's also possible that they removed that information from public >>> view due to increased concerns about security and privacy. >>> >> >> I use facts - period. That's how life works. >> >>>>>> I admit, they need to be more polite due to their positions. ... >>>>> >>>>> They weren't merely polite, most of them actively engaged in a >>>>> discussion with >>>>> me in which they agreed with many of the points I made, and in some >>>>> cases even >>>>> conceded the validity of my conclusions. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You obviously weren't promoting some of the absurd ideas I've seen you >>>> give here. >>> >>> The ideas that I've presented that you have labeled absurd have >>> included many ideas that I have presented in prior discussions with >>> committee members; in some cases, they were the ones presenting those >>> ideas to me. >>> >> >> ROFLMAO! Now I know you're lying. No committee member would present >> ideas to YOU. They have GOOD C programmers to bounce ideas off. >> >> Chances are you've NEVER talked to one of the C Committee people. And >> this is just more hot air you're blowing out your arse - as usual. >> Maybe I should ask some of those people you claim you've talked to. >> > > FWIW, I actually remember conversing a little bit with the likes of > Hans, Herb, Paul E. McKenney, Doug Lea, Joseph Seigh, Peter Dimov, > Alexander Terekhov and other really SMART people about the c++11 > threading standard back in early 2007, wrt special focus on memory > barriers and atomic operations. They are all really nice. > > https://www.decadent.org.uk/pipermail/cpp-threads/2007-January/001421.html > > https://www.decadent.org.uk/pipermail/cpp-threads/2007-January/thread.html#1421 > > > Yes, they are nice. And sometimes they post in public sites. But then they have to be nice for the position they are in. Plus I doubt you proposed some of the absurd ideas like some have in this newsgroup - and then tried to defend those ideas. But the trolls here are not my clients; they never will be my clients because I wouldn't accept a contract with them. And I learned a long time ago that trying to be nice to trolls just causes ulcers. It's not worth it. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 10:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu23qv$ijf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94954 |
On 17/10/16 04:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > I don't drop names without permission. Has IBM given you permission to drop their name so often? If their company lawyers ever read Usenet, I'm sure they would like to have a word with you about bringing their company name into disrepute.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 09:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu2iqe$6n9$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94962 |
On 10/17/2016 4:58 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 17/10/16 04:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> I don't drop names without permission. > > Has IBM given you permission to drop their name so often? If their > company lawyers ever read Usenet, I'm sure they would like to have a > word with you about bringing their company name into disrepute. > > > Fortunately, IBM lawyers are a lot smarter trolls like you. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 07:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu2dim$jda$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94954 |
On 10/16/2016 7:33 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 10/16/2016 10:23 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 7:40:21 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: ... >>> You obviously don't, as your list shows. And no, I'm not going to >>> expose the names of committee members without their approval. >> >> Why not? If you know their names, it had to be from a public source - a fool like you wouldn't have access to such information if it were being kept confidential. >> > > I don't drop names without permission. ... If there is a public source for the names of the C committee members, publication of that source would give you implied permission to use that information. > ... But I have more access to them > than you think. And I know that pisses you off more than anything. I'd have to believe it to be pissed off by it. >> I use facts when they're available, guesses when they aren't. That's just how life works - it doesn't always allow us to have all of the information we'd like to have (the next winning lottery number would be nice). I know that I've seen a web page listing the committee members (the US committee, not the ISO one). I saved the URL. The next time I looked at it was several years later, and the URL no longer worked - such is the internet. If that information was made publicly available back then, there's a good chance it's still publicly available somewhere, but I haven't been able to find it. It's also possible that they removed that information from public view due to increased concerns about security and privacy. >> > > I use facts - period. That's how life works. Odd - that's not what you did below. You made wild guesses that happen to be trivially proven wrong, without even bothering to check. ... >> The ideas that I've presented that you have labeled absurd have included many ideas that I have presented in prior discussions with committee members; in some cases, they were the ones presenting those ideas to me. >> > > ROFLMAO! Now I know you're lying. No committee member would present > ideas to YOU. They have GOOD C programmers to bounce ideas off. So your absolute commitment to facts, never allowing you to make guesses, did not prevent you from making that incorrect guess before checking the facts? It's trivial to use Google Groups to confirm that my claims are correct - but you didn't even bother trying. For the complete list of additional names I gave, I only claimed that I had sent at least one message mentioning their name, or that they had sent one message mentioning mine. To put together that list without spending an unreasonable amount of time on it, I didn't bother checking whether all of those messages were parts of actual conversations - but most of them were. I'm not expecting you to recognize as valid my claim that they agreed with me on most of the premises of my arguments - you're not capable of reading such text in a way that contradicts your preconceptions, regardless of what it actually says. However, that I actually had conversations with them is a simple matter of fact, trivial to check, and it is a fact that you didn't bother checking before spouting off. Embarrassing mistake on your part. You claim that my list of possible committee members is inaccurate, which it quite likely, given the way I constructed it. However, I'm quite certain about Larry Jones and Doug Gwyn, Nick MacLaren and Clive Feather, and reasonably sure about Steve Clamage and Peter Seebach. I just realized that the CF that Richard Heathfield mentioned might be Chuck Falconer, with whom I've also had many conversations. If every single name from the additional list I gave you were wrong, that would imply that being a committee member is not only not necessary for submitting a DR, but that it's actually prohibited for members to submit DRs, which would be absurd. Your use of the phrase "bounce ideas off" implies to me that you're thinking that the ideas I'm talking about are new ideas, ones that had not yet been incorporated into the standard. I very seldom make suggestions for changes to the standard, other than clarifications of issues that are unclear (in comp.std.c on 1999-03-23 I proposed standardizing noreturn - I was probably not the first person to do so). Most of the ideas I've talked about that you've found so absurd are standard concepts used by experts, including the Committee members, when understanding the meaning of the standard. When I got some of those ideas from committee members, they weren't "bouncing them off" me, they were explaining to me the correct interpretation of the standard, as they understood it, and trying to convince me that it was correct. > Chances are you've NEVER talked to one of the C Committee people. And > this is just more hot air you're blowing out your arse - as usual. > Maybe I should ask some of those people you claim you've talked to. Go ahead and ask if you wish, but it would be much simpler to use Google Groups to search for the messages I was referring to. It would be more accurate, too, because in some of those cases the only reason I'm certain those messages were posted is because I found them using Google Groups, not because I remembered them - which means some of those people are also unlikely to remember those messages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 13:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nu2fov$rcl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94965 |
On 17/10/16 12:44, James Kuyper wrote: <in reply to Jerry Stuckle> > > You claim that my list of possible committee members is inaccurate, > which it quite likely, given the way I constructed it. However, I'm > quite certain about Larry Jones and Doug Gwyn, Nick MacLaren and Clive > Feather, and reasonably sure about Steve Clamage and Peter Seebach. I > just realized that the CF that Richard Heathfield mentioned might be > Chuck Falconer, with whom I've also had many conversations. Uh, no. Chuck's heart was in the right place but I don't think he was ISO C Committee material. No, the CF was Clive Feather, with whom I too have had quite a few conversations. As for the other names you mention in the above paragraph, the only one I don't recognise is Steve Clamage. I have certainly had Usenet exchanges with Larry, Doug, and Peter. In fact, Peter was even a co-author (and technical editor) for "C Unleashed". There was also a guy called Chris Hills on the UK committee. He once suggested that I should join the committee myself, but I turned him down (although I can't recall whether I did so by declining or simply by declining to answer!). I would not have been an asset to the Committee, because I would have tried to block *everything*! On a lighter note, my sig block attests (and has done, for over 15 years) to the fact that I have had email exchanges with at least one other significant contributor to the C language. I have no doubt that at least some people reading this will recall the circumstance that led to the first such exchange. :-) On a more sombre note: according to an article by Charles Richmond in alt.folklore.computers on 25 Oct 2012, Chuck Falconer died on 4 June 2012, aged 80. Message ID: <k6c6db$tp4$1@dont-email.me> <snip> -- 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 | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 17:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87mvi2dif1.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #94966 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > There was also a guy called Chris Hills on the UK committee. Oh, small world. I once won a Kindle in an embedded C programming competition run by Chris...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 09:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu2jar$8rg$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94965 |
On 10/17/2016 7:44 AM, James Kuyper wrote: > On 10/16/2016 7:33 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 10/16/2016 10:23 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 7:40:21 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > ... >>>> You obviously don't, as your list shows. And no, I'm not going to >>>> expose the names of committee members without their approval. >>> >>> Why not? If you know their names, it had to be from a public source - a fool like you wouldn't have access to such information if it were being kept confidential. >>> >> >> I don't drop names without permission. ... > > If there is a public source for the names of the C committee members, > publication of that source would give you implied permission to use that > information. > Wrong answer. Only explicit permission from the source would give me that permission. Learn about copyright law (which you also seem to know nothing about). But then you were never able to find a public source, were you? >> ... But I have more access to them >> than you think. And I know that pisses you off more than anything. > > I'd have to believe it to be pissed off by it. > No, I know it pisses you off more than anything. Otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to prove yourself. >>> I use facts when they're available, guesses when they aren't. That's just how life works - it doesn't always allow us to have all of the information we'd like to have (the next winning lottery number would be nice). I know that I've seen a web page listing the committee members (the US committee, not the ISO one). I saved the URL. The next time I looked at it was several years later, and the URL no longer worked - such is the internet. If that information was made publicly available back then, there's a good chance it's still publicly available somewhere, but I haven't been able to find it. It's also possible that they removed that information from public view due to increased concerns about security and privacy. >>> >> >> I use facts - period. That's how life works. > > Odd - that's not what you did below. You made wild guesses that happen > to be trivially proven wrong, without even bothering to check. > ROFLMAO! > ... >>> The ideas that I've presented that you have labeled absurd have included many ideas that I have presented in prior discussions with committee members; in some cases, they were the ones presenting those ideas to me. >>> >> >> ROFLMAO! Now I know you're lying. No committee member would present >> ideas to YOU. They have GOOD C programmers to bounce ideas off. > > So your absolute commitment to facts, never allowing you to make > guesses, did not prevent you from making that incorrect guess before > checking the facts? It's trivial to use Google Groups to confirm that my > claims are correct - but you didn't even bother trying. > That was my opinion. But then I don't waste time trying to search for things which don't exist. Unlike you. > For the complete list of additional names I gave, I only claimed that I > had sent at least one message mentioning their name, or that they had > sent one message mentioning mine. To put together that list without > spending an unreasonable amount of time on it, I didn't bother checking > whether all of those messages were parts of actual conversations - but > most of them were. > Oh, you "sent at least one message". Gee, one time I sent a message to President Obama, too. And I got an answer! President Obama is my friend! ROFLMAO! > I'm not expecting you to recognize as valid my claim that they agreed > with me on most of the premises of my arguments - you're not capable of > reading such text in a way that contradicts your preconceptions, > regardless of what it actually says. However, that I actually had > conversations with them is a simple matter of fact, trivial to check, > and it is a fact that you didn't bother checking before spouting off. > Embarrassing mistake on your part. > What was your claim - that 2 + 2 equals 4? No, that was probably too hard for you, too. > You claim that my list of possible committee members is inaccurate, > which it quite likely, given the way I constructed it. However, I'm > quite certain about Larry Jones and Doug Gwyn, Nick MacLaren and Clive > Feather, and reasonably sure about Steve Clamage and Peter Seebach. I > just realized that the CF that Richard Heathfield mentioned might be > Chuck Falconer, with whom I've also had many conversations. > If every single name from the additional list I gave you were wrong, > that would imply that being a committee member is not only not necessary > for submitting a DR, but that it's actually prohibited for members to > submit DRs, which would be absurd. > Your list isn't even beginning to be accurate. And I never said every single name from the additional list was wrong - just that you have no clue. But you don't understand plain English very well, either, as you have repeatedly proven. > Your use of the phrase "bounce ideas off" implies to me that you're > thinking that the ideas I'm talking about are new ideas, ones that had > not yet been incorporated into the standard. I very seldom make > suggestions for changes to the standard, other than clarifications of > issues that are unclear (in comp.std.c on 1999-03-23 I proposed > standardizing noreturn - I was probably not the first person to do so). > You seldom make suggestions to changes to the standard which are realistic. > Most of the ideas I've talked about that you've found so absurd are > standard concepts used by experts, including the Committee members, when > understanding the meaning of the standard. When I got some of those > ideas from committee members, they weren't "bouncing them off" me, they > were explaining to me the correct interpretation of the standard, as > they understood it, and trying to convince me that it was correct. > ROFLMAO! The ideas you've talked about here are not the same ones you've discussed with the Committee members - if you ever did, which I doubt. >> Chances are you've NEVER talked to one of the C Committee people. And >> this is just more hot air you're blowing out your arse - as usual. >> Maybe I should ask some of those people you claim you've talked to. > > Go ahead and ask if you wish, but it would be much simpler to use Google > Groups to search for the messages I was referring to. It would be more > accurate, too, because in some of those cases the only reason I'm > certain those messages were posted is because I found them using Google > Groups, not because I remembered them - which means some of those people > are also unlikely to remember those messages. > ROFLMAO! You claim you've had all of those conversations with committee members, and don't even remember them? So I guess your big problem is senility. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 08:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a41d3796-181c-4b15-9b89-b42a201c753f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94976 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 9:23:59 AM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 10/17/2016 7:44 AM, James Kuyper wrote: ... > > If there is a public source for the names of the C committee members, > > publication of that source would give you implied permission to use that > > information. > > > > Wrong answer. Only explicit permission from the source would give me > that permission. Learn about copyright law (which you also seem to know > nothing about). I don't claim to have any special expertise in copyright law, but surely right- to-privacy law would be more relevant? I wouldn't expect a web page containing a list of the committee's members to be copyrighted - most of their other web pages that I've checked weren't. But even if it were, mentioning that one particular person is a committee member would be covered by the "fair use" exception. > But then you were never able to find a public source, were you? No, please try to read for comprehension. As I said before, I did find a public source. The URL for that source ceased working many years ago, and I've never found one since then, but did find one once. ... > That was my opinion. But then I don't waste time trying to search for > things which don't exist. Unlike you. I'll make it easy for you. While Larry Jones is not one of the people that I've had the most conversations with, he is the one I'm most certain was on the committee - he was the secretary of the committee, so I'll use him as an example. Here's a couple of links: the first is all four threads that Google is aware of that contain at least one message posted by Larry Jones to comp.lang.c which mentions my name: <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.c/kuyper$20AND$20authorname$3A%22Larry$20Jones%22%7Csort:relevance> This is all 13 threads that Google is aware of which contain at least one message posted by me to comp.lang.c mentioning Larry's Name: <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.c/authorname$3Akuyper$20%22Larry$20Jones%22%7Csort:relevance> Larry hasn't posted for quite a while, so many of those messages are me talking about him, rather than responding to him. However, the thread titled "int32_t", for example, is one in which I was directly responding to Larry. That same thread includes conversations between me and Doug Gwyn, and Clive Feather. If you're too afraid of being proven wrong to even click on those links, there's not much point in pretending that the reason is that you just can't be bothered. Keep in mind that anyone else reading this message can click those links too, and as soon as they do they'll know you were mistaken about me having no contact with any committee member. So you'll suffer the embarrassment of being publicly proven wrong whether or not you click. Change "comp.lang.c" to "comp.std.c", to get messages posted to that newsgroup. Change "Larry Jones" to any of the other names I gave to check them out, as well. Note: those links are manifestly safe - the full text of those links are visible, and if you're at all familiar with Google Groups you should be able to figure out precisely what they do - so don't claim to be worried that I might be pointing you at a malware link. ... > Oh, you "sent at least one message". Gee, one time I sent a message to > President Obama, too. And I got an answer! President Obama is my > friend! ROFLMAO! I was merely explaining to you precisely how I conducted my search. Many of the people on that list are people with whom I have exchanged much more than one message. But even a single message exchange would be sufficient to disprove your claim that I've never talked with any committee members. That's part of the problem with absolutes like "never" - they're so trivial to disprove. > > I'm not expecting you to recognize as valid my claim that they agreed > > with me on most of the premises of my arguments - you're not capable of > > reading such text in a way that contradicts your preconceptions, > > regardless of what it actually says. However, that I actually had > > conversations with them is a simple matter of fact, trivial to check, > > and it is a fact that you didn't bother checking before spouting off. > > Embarrassing mistake on your part. > > > > What was your claim - that 2 + 2 equals 4? No, that was probably too > hard for you, too. Surprise me - dare to respond to one of my arguments with a detailed identification of the points in the argument that you consider wrong, and not just an insult to my intelligence or a blanket rejection of the entire argument. I don't expect you to do so, you'll just give another excuse for not responding. However, in the unlikely case that you do provide such a counter-argument, I'm pretty sure I can identify messages I exchanged with C committee members implying agreement with at least one of those points. I wouldn't be surprised if you responded by saying that everything I said was wrong, which would make it trivial - I said a lot of things that are completely non-controversial - so I would not recommend taking that approach. ... > Your list isn't even beginning to be accurate. And I never said every > single name from the additional list was wrong You said that I've never talked with any member of the committee. That would require that every person on my list that was marked with an '*' was not a committee member. Since nearly half of those people were so marked, it's statistically unlikely that all of the marked ones would be non-committee members, unless the fraction of all those names which are committee members is very small. That's extremely implausible, given the way that I put together that list. It's far more plausible that you have no idea what you're talking about. > - just that you have no clue. ... Clues are precisely what I did have: the names of people who submitted defect reports. Those weren't proof, but they are clues. ... > You seldom make suggestions to changes to the standard which are realistic. True - but only because I seldom make suggestions for changes, period. > ROFLMAO! The ideas you've talked about here are not the same ones > you've discussed with the Committee members - if you ever did, which I > doubt. Check before making claims like that. > ROFLMAO! You claim you've had all of those conversations with committee > members, and don't even remember them? So I guess your big problem is > senility. I currently have saved 16,709 messages that I've posted to Usenet over the past few decades. Google's count is different, partly just because it's flakey, and partly due the fact that it has several thousand messages I didn't manage to save. I also estimate, based upon spot checks, that Google is missing several thousand of the messages that I did save. You think I should remember every single one of ~20K messages that span a couple of decades, and who they were in response to?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web