Re: Correct Typedef
- From: Netocrat <netocrat@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:26:50 +1000
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:56:25 -0700, Mark F. Haigh wrote:
> Netocrat wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:32:48 +0100, Lawrence Kirby wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:44:11 -0700, Suman wrote:
>> >
>> >
> <snip>
>
>> >> #include <stdio.h>
>> >
>> > You might as well drop this because nothing in the code needs it.
>>
>> You are one of the more knowledgeable experts of this group and your
>> resources are wasted on responding to trolls, which it pains me to say
>> is what you have been doing for the last five posts.
>>
> Do you really think Lawrence is not aware of that?
I wouldn't have posted as I did if I hadn't thought so. No disrespect
intended.
I see no reason to respond seriously - a humorous response is different -
to a top-level post that you know to be a troll unless it holds something
interesting or it has misinformed responses requiring correction. Given
that neither of these two descriptions applied to some of the posts to
which Lawrence responded, and assuming that he reasoned the same way, I
judged that he didn't pick the trolling.
I've seen other regulars responding to obvious troll posts in a way
that indicates that they are unaware of the trolling. In regards his
ability to explain standard C Lawrence is more than a regular regular,
however I don't have enough information to judge whether the same applies
regarding his awareness of trolling.
In retrospect it was a rash and unnecessary post as I had already made my
point in other threads, and it was presumptuous to declare that Lawrence
was wasting his time. I hope I haven't offended. My intentions were
honest.
> Interesting threads
> often come from the most unlikely origins, and are often posted not for
> the benefit of the original poster, but for the benefit of other
> readers.
Granted, and some trolls are inventive and spark variety. But most trolls
are not and seek to irritate with repetitive FAQs and OT posts.
> "The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." - Bertrand Russell
Point taken. And whether or not a troll is responded to is not as
important as how it is responded to.
>> For those who still haven't clued on, in this thread to date the only
>> genuine posters have been myself, Lawrence Kirby, David Resnick (you
>> would have been better advised taking Kenny McCormack's advice) and
>> Suman.
>>
>> The troll posted and has since been merrily responding to itself under
>> the names: Priya Mishra, Yohji, noblesantosh@xxxxxxxxx, Ken, Seven Kast
>> USA, vsnadagouda@xxxxxxxxx, Neeraj Gupta and Mehta Shailendrakumar.
>
> Trolls come and go. The provoking of this meta-discussion could be
> considered a victory for them.
That depends on whether we enjoy it or not doesn't it?
> Usual practice is to respond topically or not at all.
Which is what I've been doing up until this aberration, and I'll stick
with it.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Correct Typedef
- From: Priya Mishra
- Re: Correct Typedef
- References:
- Correct Typedef
- From: Priya Mishra
- Re: Correct Typedef
- From: Suman
- Re: Correct Typedef
- From: Lawrence Kirby
- Re: Correct Typedef
- From: Netocrat
- Re: Correct Typedef
- From: Mark F. Haigh
- Correct Typedef
- Prev by Date: Re: fractions and floating point
- Next by Date: Re: Need some explanation
- Previous by thread: Re: Correct Typedef
- Next by thread: Re: Correct Typedef
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|