Re: iostream error.

Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Keith Thompson wrote:
Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Ian Collins wrote:

Look agian.
My comments where
"No he shouldn't, the correct file is <iostream>"
and the setting of a follow-up to c.l.c++
So I had already corrected the bogus advice and directed the thread
to
the appropriate place.

That explains it. You are an idiot who does not understand how usenet
works.
Martin, you accused Ian Collins of offering bogus advice. In fact,
he
*corrected* the bogus advice that someone else had offered, and you
have not acknowledged your own error. Whatever else Ian may have
done, I suggest that there's more than enough blame to go around here.

Thank you, Keith. My erro was in supposing that Ian Collins, in
calling my post "superfluous" was somehow involved in the same thread.
His (which he only quoted in this latest message) was a parallel post.
It did not appear as anything to which I responded or as a parent of
anything to which I responded. He gave no reason for asserting that
my response was "superfluous". The text he quoted above appears in no
post to which I responded, or in any parent of such a post. There is
no particular reason for me to acknowledge any error than assuming
that he had any clue about how usenet works. His completely rude and
unwarranted assertion that my post was "superfluous" with no
indication of why shows him to be an ignorant boor. There is no
reason for me to chase down his parallel posting to determine why he
decided to belittle mine.

In a post that was a direct followup to a post by Ian Collins, you wrote:

| It is not superfluous for me to note that your 'advice' was not only
| off-topic but *wrong*. For God's sake, if you want to post
| off-topic answers, at least be close to being right.

It's reasonable to assume that you were addressing Ian directly,
particularly since the person who actually did offer the bogus advice
was neither mentioned nor quoted in your followup. Usenet posts by
their nature are directed to everyone who reads them, but usually a
second-person pronoun refers to the author of the immediate parent
post, unless someone else is specifically indicated.

If the words "you" and "your" were not intended to refer to Ian,
that's understandable, but it wasn't at all clear from the context.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@xxxxxxx <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: iostream error.
    ... Keith Thompson wrote: ... you accused Ian Collins of offering bogus advice. ... He gave no reason for asserting that my response was "superfluous". ... There is no particular reason for me to acknowledge any error than assuming that he had any clue about how usenet works. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: iostream error.
    ... Keith Thompson wrote: ... you accused Ian Collins of offering bogus advice. ... an unnecessarily rude response form Martin to another response of mine ...
    (comp.lang.c)