Re: [OT] Re: what's the best hash function?

"Joe Estock" <jestock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dgQlf.609953$_o.26934@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Mabden wrote:
> [snip irrelevant stuff to my reply]
> >>If enough of the original post were left in your reply then I would
be
> >>inclined to agree, however I had nothing but the text I replied to
and
> >>misinterpreted your reply. Yet another classic example of why you
should
> >>quote enough text from the previous post so that someone looking at
> >>the thread for the very first time has enough information to
understand
> >>your reply. For all I know you could have been the OP replying to
your
> >>original thread.

It is my habit to be terse on fact and long on sarcasm that has labeled
me a troll on this newsgroup, to some. I tend to only argue points of
esoterica, while poking fun at newbies and those that make it their duty
to answer the unwashed masses. Your indignant response has become a
tiresomely customary adjunct to my posts. However, I'm sure you meant
only to improve the content of the newsgroup, as do I. ;-)

> >
> > It really wouldn't help. The subject says it all, but here it is, in
all
> > its 2-word glory:
> > ======================
> > is this?
> >
> [snip 14 lines of code for hash function]
> >
> > ======================
> >
> > Now, does that really need to have been included. I think not.
>
> I agree that it did not need to be included, however you could have at
> least included some context such as [snip useless function] so that
> others who do not have access to the original thread can better
> understand why you replied as you did.

Ah. Yeah. I get a lot of that "in retrospect you did nothing wrong."
Unfortunately, I'm still killfiled a lot. I'm sure you can see for
yourself how one might begin to feel somewhat "misunderstood".

> > I await your apology with anticip...
> [snip gratuitous waste of newlines]
> > ation

That was pure comedy. I cannot be responsible for your lack of a sense
of humor. >:-(
Go and see Rocky Horror Picture Show.


> None needed since I said nothing that demands an apology. I was simply
> pointing out that if you had quoted (or at least noted that you
trimmed)
> the original post that I would not have replied as I did.

But then you admitted that the original post contained no content. So
you just commented to scold me. Am I not, human? Am I not a man with
pride? How can it be that you owe no apology? Is it up to me to fill you
in on all previous posts, so that you don't insult me?

> You don't read the last message in a thread without
> first reading the original post and
> neither do I.

You don't know Jack about what I do, or how I do it. All you know is I
posted a reply to a post about what is the best hash function by
implying that one needs to pick it for themselves - there is no best
hash function just as there is no "best" color. Nothing I said was
incorrect or offensive.

What have you contributed to the discussion?

--
Mabden



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Black-drop - is it real?
    ... Still amazed at what I can see with the scope, ... no idea why) is the one showing the trees. ... I believ that I can see it in the picture I mentioned in the original post. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: The Middle Ground.
    ... Are we reading the same newsgroup? ... for posterity as a monument to airheads everywhere". ... I notice you did not put up your original post, which, on reflection, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Middle Ground.
    ... Are we reading the same newsgroup? ... USENET quoting customs as a monument to airheads everywhere". ... I notice you did not put up your original post, which, on reflection, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is i = i++; bad style?
    ... Richard Bos wrote: ... snip ... ... What an original post! ... No point searching Google or the C FAQ to ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Cast IDataAdapter
    ... Bud James via DotNetMonster.com wrote: ... > my original post didn't include a no parameter contructor but this should ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.windowsforms)