Re: Problem with hdparam

[I've snipped lots of same ol' same ol' (from both of us!), and instead
I've focussed on any new points that have arisen - and one of them rather
surprised me (see below).]

Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

You'll have a much better chance at gaining the moral high ground if
you stop calling people "asses". If you perceive that other people's
behaviour is unacceptable, is that a reason to indulge in the same
behaviour? (And no, I make no claims to perfection in this regard!)

Perhaps. Perhaps he was standing in for someone else that I actually
irritated with. I will retract that.

That's commendable.

<snip>

I also think you owe me an apology for implying that I would killfile
you or anyone else merely for disagreeing with me on this matter. I
won't hold my breath on that.

No need to hold your breath. I didn't think I'd implied that you would do
that, *but* it seems that I wrote in such a way that someone I regard as
reasonable (i.e. you!) inferred it, and that was not my intent, so I
unreservedly apologise for writing in so careless a manner as to cause you
offence.

<snip>

Further, it's not my goal to please the Great Richard Heathfield with
entertaining posts.

I don't think the Great Richard Heathfield reads clc. Let me unpack that.
I'm just a programmer, that's all. I post here because I enjoy helping
people learn about C and because I enjoy discussing C with other people
who know the language. Yes, okay, I was involved in writing a book on C.
Big deal. Even Schildt writes books on C (for certain values of "C"). I
still think that my biggest contribution to that project was in picking
some fabulous co-authors; my own chapters contained far too many errors
for me to feel terribly proud of them. The apparent perception amongst
some people here about me is misguided. Fine, so I know C quite well - but
there are plenty of people here who know a lot more about C than I do. I
won't name names because I'm sure you already know them, but I can easily
count a dozen such people amongst the regular contributors to this group,
and I wouldn't bet against there being considerably more than that. This
perception, such as it is, of "the Great Richard Heathfield" is probably
based more on my writing *style* than on anything else, and it is not a
perception that I myself share or enjoy.


The point is, you still seem to think that he was at least partially
justified in netcopping me, about netcopping. If you don't think he
was, then why defend him?

Those who netcop are in no position to complain when they are netcopped! If
you think netcopping is wrong, why do it? If you think it's okay, what are
you complaining about?

, but he does have a point, and he was expressing that point.

Really, what point is that?

Read it again if you've forgotten.

The only thing I got from him is that he thinks I'm a waste of
bandwidth and a nuisance. So, you think he has a point?

Yes, although I do think it was badly phrased.

<snip>

As far as these specific messages, I probably average about one a
week.

Would you like me to count them for you?

If you'd like. According to Google (not the most reliable source) I see
about six from the start of March. If your numbers differ, then I'll
accept that they are probably more correct. I don't doubt there are
some periods where I've posted more.

To eliminate this sub-conversation from the figures, I asked GG (as you
say, not the most reliable source) to show me all your articles from March
this year. There were 38, which can be analysed as follows:

Discussions about trolls/spammers/idiots/killfiles: 19
Netcopping: 3
Navia: 1
Technical (non-C): 8
Technical (C): 7

Now, I find this analysis to be rather interesting, because it shows that
your netcopping makes up far *less* a proportion of your articles than I
thought. So I definitely owe you an apology for that, which I am glad to
offer now. I was also surprised to see that almost 20% of your articles
are actually to do with C. I didn't realise the figure was that high.

Now, the bit about percentages. What IS the proper Richard
Heathfield approved level of other posts before I can post a TPA?

Don't you think that's needlessly confrontational? I simply suggested
that you give some thought to this. If you want a fight, go fight
someone else.

Why is it your place to say anything about it at all?

Why is it *your* place to ask why it's my place to say anything? Welcome to
Usenet, where people say stuff, whether or not it's their place to say it.

You seem to have
some number in mind. At least Mr. Harter seems to believe that they
shouldn't be posted at all. That is a position I can respect and
discuss. This nonsense of, "well, that's about all you post" is so
vague as to be meaningless.

Not only that, but it's incorrect!

Hence I challenge you to come with a number
that would satisfy you.

Well, wouldn't it be great if nobody had to post any netcopping articles at
all? Unfortunately, the top-posters will always be with us, and either we
let it go completely or we occasionally nag people - c'est la vie.

The benchmark I try to stick to (and, from the analysis in my previous
article, it does seem that I mostly succeed) is to post more about C than
about non-C. After all, this is supposed to be a C group.

<snip>

Now, let's go back to what really chaps me. YOU are one of the
biggest wasters of bandwidth here. Let's talk percentages. What
percentage of your posts are pointless arguments with Jacob Navia?
And what do those translate into for total bytes posted each day?

Let's find out, shall we? I'll try to summarise my last hundred posts
by dividing them into three groups: "waste of bandwidth" stuff (such
as this discussion, and also including techie stuff if it is not
specifically C-related), techie stuff (ONLY C-related), and replies
of any kind at all to Jacob Navia. I don't have ready access to the
byte sizes of articles, but I do have access to line counts, so I'll
use those instead.

I chose 100 because it was large enough to be a decent sample without
being so large as to be troublesome to collate. Working back from
today (not including this article, obviously), it takes us back about
six days, to 6 April.

Posts Lines Lines/Post % of all lines
Non-C articles 21 556 26.5- 11.77+
Technical responses 74 3903 52.7+ 82.69+
Jacob Navia 5 261 52.2 5.53-

82% (or even 74%, depending on how you look at it) doesn't seem so
bad to me.

So - you asked me to come up with the figures, and I've obliged. Now
it's your turn.

Sample error, I'd say, considering there's only five responses to
Navia.

Well, I think 100 is a perfectly adequate sample size. If you want to pick
a larger sample and do the numbers yourself, that's up to you, but what
*I* think the figures show is that this perception of a high
"Navia-bashing" level is mistaken, just as my perception of your TPA-ing
level was mistaken.

If you picked a sample range with one those argumentative
threads, the numbers would look at lot different.

Yes, if you go looking for data that support your conclusions and ignore
data that don't, you will end up reinforcing your belief. I didn't draw a
line below a long Navia exchange and say "aha, let's be sneaky and analyse
everything after that point". I just picked a number out of the air that
would be doable without too much effort. I didn't cherry-pick the data.
The data are what they are.

Now, if you've been
making an effort of late to avoid answering him (rather than Jacob just
not posting much) then I commend your efforts.

I try to stick to C. Recently, Jacob Navia hasn't posted very much about C.

The point is, you've got your thing you like to "waste" bandwidth on.

Yes. It's called C.

I have mine.

So I have discovered - and it wasn't what I thought it would be.
Unfortunately, however, it wasn't C, either.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Santa Bill McReynolds
    ... others to cite cite cite. ... some are links to TONS of articles and discussions. ... know if you'd researched any of MY previous posts, ... I guess that's ALLOWED (to change one's mind, ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • _The_Most_Discussed_Articles_ in News.Software.Readers.
    ... Oops, I almost forgot to metion that NR.TXT is maintained my my newsreader, ... it sorts articles using my special scoring system, ... SINNER, E Gates-OF-Hell.COM ... My posts are always omitted. ...
    (news.software.readers)
  • Re: Testosterone is anabolic or not?
    ... Dont become cocky just because there is an article on Meso written by you. ... Actually, there a few of my articles there, but that's not relevant. ... Pete, if I didn't think you had something to offer, I would probably ... you had to say on these subjects, I might not read your posts at all. ...
    (misc.fitness.weights)
  • Re: "And the Quran is the Mein Kampf of thi
    ... >> If I wanted to read articles from people disguising personal hatreds ... >> of Islam behind long rants about the Koran I can read endless posts ... Your 'tracking islam no. x' et al. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Statistics for week ending 20070507
    ... Analysis of posts to Rec.Crafts.Metalworking ... Average 420 articles per day, 0.97 MB per day, 2,416 bytes per article ... Total number of posters: 497, average 14,319 bytes per poster ... Top 10 User Agents by number of posts ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)