Re: "Portable" C compilers?
- From: jameskuyper <jameskuyper@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
luser-ex-troll wrote:
On Mar 20, 9:26 am, gaze...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kenny McCormack)....
wrote:
....I would like a clarification from one of the regs or semi-regs (in which
category I place you, Jim K.) as to whether or not Chuck is still a reg.
It's becoming apparent that in the contraxion of "regular" to "reg" it
becomes overloaded with a sense of "regulator" which in the context of
usenet becomes associated with the sense of "moderator" issuing in
overtones of power and the inherent corruptibility of its seekers.
If a regular is only required to provide a sense of regularity, then,
um, they're not so bad.
The people who use the term "reg" on this newsgroup do not consider it
to apply to themselves. This also applies to most of the people who
use the term "regular", and to every person who uses "regular" to mean
anything other than "someone who posts to this newsgroup regularly".
The existence and membership of that group is therefore determined
entirely by people who consider themselves non-members. Therefore,
you'll have to ask those non-members what those terms means to them,
and in particular you'll have to ask them whether CBFalconer has lost
his membership. However, I don't believe that the term "regulator" has
any direct role to play in the etymology or connotations of the term
"reg".
There have been bizarrely paranoid claims that the "regulars" have
some weird moderator-like power to prevent people from posting
whatever they want to this newsgroup, the people who believe in the
existence of that power seem to resent bitterly the abuse of that
power. I've seen no evidence that anyone has ever been prevented from
posting anything here; quite the contrary, so I find the resentment
very difficult to understand. If there were in fact a clique with the
motives and powers that some of the users of the term ascribe to
"regulars", the people who use that term would be completely unable to
post any messages here.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Portable" C compilers?
- From: Han from China
- Re: "Portable" C compilers?
- From: JosephKK
- Re: "Portable" C compilers?
- From: Kenny McCormack
- Re: "Portable" C compilers?
- References:
- "Portable" C compilers?
- From: Albert
- Re: "Portable" C compilers?
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: "Portable" C compilers?
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: "Portable" C compilers?
- From: James Kuyper
- Re: "Portable" C compilers?
- From: Kenny McCormack
- Re: "Portable" C compilers?
- From: luser-ex-troll
- "Portable" C compilers?
- Prev by Date: Re: receiving pointer through function parameter similar to argv
- Next by Date: Re: receiving pointer through function parameter similar to argv
- Previous by thread: Re: "Portable" C compilers?
- Next by thread: Re: "Portable" C compilers?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|