Re: A lurker's take on C.L.C pedantry
- From: jaiprabhu <jaiprabhu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:06:14 -0700
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
[snip]
But do you agree with endless flamewars about topicality? Do you agree with ten
responses to a posting which is not /far/ off topic which do nothing to answer
the question, but only redirect it somewhere else?
Do you agree with double standards about what is topical? See, we are regulars.
You a lurker, perhaps long-time lurker. Me, long-time c.l.c. regular. Whee,
let's have a nother topicality debate.
And when we're done, let's go piss on someone for asking about fork and execve!
Is that how it's supposed to work?
If C.L.C *pedantic* regs do not point out what is and what is not
valid/legal C, as defined by the standard, then the person who's still
learning does not have the correct understanding of what C exactly IS,
what it offers, what are it's features etc.
If your only answer to a question is to point out that it's off topic (and not
actually answer it) and someone else has already done that, then maybe it's
better to refrain. One off-topic note is enough; better yet if it contains a
partial answer.
In this newsgroup there are those who have little actual clue about C, but are
prolific at yelling ``off topic''.
Can't say I disagree. I guess one way would be for people who believe
that something is off-topic to simply point out that they believe a
query to be off-topic and then completely refrain from making any
comment in that thread at all. regs can then rely on the judgment of the
person asking the question to take whatever advice he/she is offered.
Another problem with not imposing this restriction is that very soon
something that were only slightly off-topic would be considered
de-reguir for discussion and then something else and and then
something else too and so on.
You have just naively invoked a well-known rhetorical fallacy known as a
``slippery slope argument''. Please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
(See? Now we are having an off-topic discussion about rhetoric, not about C.)
*All* slippery-slope arguments are not inherently fallacious.
Also, from the very same article that you cite:
"While the logic in a slippery slope argument is invalid, its conclusion
may still be true."
2. Inspires confidence in me that the person redirecting me really
must know his topic so well as to confidently determine what is
off-topic.
Really? Do you think that for instance CBFalconer can connect two brain cells
together? Not from where I'm standing.
The biggest ``off topic'' yellers have the smallest clue.
The only thing that inspires confidence is when the person answering the
question has some kind of technical clue. He not only knows that the discussion
belongs in another newsgroup, but knows the answer too. Because he knows the
answer, the redirection is probably good too.
I have absolutely no intention of commenting of CBFalconer's
capabilities. I would say that you should leave it to the posters to
determine whether or not someone's input seems informed or not. I feel I
can reliably determine that and any reasonably intelligent person with
some history of spending time on the newsgroup would probably be able to
make that determination too.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A lurker's take on C.L.C pedantry
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: A lurker's take on C.L.C pedantry
- References:
- A lurker's take on C.L.C pedantry
- From: jaiprabhu
- Re: A lurker's take on C.L.C pedantry
- From: Kaz Kylheku
- A lurker's take on C.L.C pedantry
- Prev by Date: Re: Null-terminated strings: the final analysis.
- Next by Date: Re: for loop problem
- Previous by thread: Re: A lurker's take on C.L.C pedantry
- Next by thread: Re: A lurker's take on C.L.C pedantry
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
