Re: C: The Complete Meta-Nonsense

On Nov 2, 10:39 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2009-11-02,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It wasn't a justified ban.

I don't think I buy it.  You have a mysterious tendency to rant about
things without understanding them, pick fights, and end up becoming

....or understanding them at greater depth, perhaps. But yes, I like
fighting.

unpopular.

wikipedia and the new crop of convenience store clerks who'd appointed
themselves editors, and as you know I don't eat shit.

Just spew it.

Your page isn't citable according to standards of citeability and
common decency, since it itself is based on no source except your own
fantasies and prejudices.

The opinions of a qualified expert in the field are sufficient to qualify
something as justifying a claim.

Who is the qualified expert at "C: The Complete Nonsense?" You admit
you were a kid when you wrote it.

You could have at least have had it peer
reviewed and you did not. It is not an adequate source merely because
a bunch of half-literate convenience store clerks at Wikipedia say it
is.

That may well be.

But it sure is suspcious that, now that they've said it is, you're suddenly
hugely obsessed with this particular page, despite having had several other
sources for similar opinions and observations presented to you.

Excuse me, where were those source presented? Give yourself some
credit. "C: the Complete Nonsense" is the single stop source for anti-
Schildt bullshit, and I know of no independent source of criticism of
Schildt.


Lots of noise, but you miss the key point:  If you use all-caps names
for headers, they're likely to not work on some fairly common systems.
This is arguably a bug of those systems,

Or a bug of systems where it's not the case.  Just about anything can
be argued.



but had been Herb I would have mentioned this issue.

Which would be a lot of hassle to go to when there is simply no need to
ever write the names in anything but the canonical form.  No problem, no
hassle, everything works.

The computer science or programming teacher is not, whatever his
students might claim, required to teach sub-academic mechanics. The
student is in part responsible for figuring out lab assignments.

That's a bullshit excuse.  The job of a writer is to cover the material
clearly and correctly.  Especially, I might add, in a book claiming to
be "The Complete Reference".

Your point had not to do with substance but with mechanics.

It turns out that mechanics are part of the substance of using computers
effectively.

That's untrue. The mechanics can be the work of low-level
functionaries.

His
omission of your hobby-horse justified you pointing this out on Amazon
or in a review in a computer journal. It did not justify what you did.

Because putting something up on your personal web page is WAY more serious
than publishing a review in a computer journal, right?

Wrong. You had no independent reviewer as did I in my published
articles in .Net Programmer's Journal and "Build Your Own .Net
Language and Compiler, nor as Herb had at McGraw-Hill. A reasonably
competent editor would have rejected your copy: that's why McGraw Hill
shitcanned it. It was a disorganized mass of trivia and opinion
masquerading as fact.

You pussies pick your fights carefully and still lose. I note you
don't comment on the C version of the infix2Polish grammar-based
conversion, because when you can't make cheap shots you don't fire,
yet I want your opinion because you're good coders all the same.


OK, point taken. We must not generalize from too small a data set.

:)

Therefore I look forward to your withdrawing the Vicious Little
Tirade.

Ahh, but it's not generalized from too small a data set; it's cherry-picked
from a much larger data set.  That's different.

Where is the big data set? I've asked this repeatedly.


In pointing these errors out, I hope to teach you perspective

You'd have to have some.

No, you are not qualified to publish documents of this nature.

Actually, I sort of am.

No, you're sort of not.

Please replace it by an apology

I refer you to the Defendant's response in Arkell v. Pressdram.

and get on with your life.

For reading Usenet, I normally use an irony meter that's certified to
be able to survive the EMP from a 50 megaton bomb, but you just slagged
it anyway.

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Review of Michaels Reviews
    ... of your elucidations of the text do not invalidate the review in its ... there is a difference between understanding that some ... soothe those believers in each religion more exciteable. ... As I see it, much spirituality is very old, ...
    (talk.religion.bahai)
  • Re: Why are there so many unsolved problems in physics?
    ... Paul Stowe wrote: ... wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we ... understanding the overall integrated interplay and system. ... so you just wish to vent your opinions without challenge? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Why are there so many unsolved problems in physics?
    ... understanding the overall integrated interplay and system. ... apparent incompatibility resolves you need something fundamental that ... so you just wish to vent your opinions without challenge? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Christmas Carol - I Rather Enjoyed That (SPOILERS)
    ... Sorry, as you're apparently hard of thinking, let me give you a clue: ... The Guardian`s review ... `A Christmas Carol riffs magnificently and faithfully on the beauty and simplicity of its source material. ... Now, obviously, if you don`t like something then other people`s opinions are just that...other people`s opinions. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... > problem and consider each and every possibility where the evidence ... You are entitled to your opinions about wading and swimming and whatnot ... gone through review and published in *reputable and ... that I'm somehow hydrophobic is both ignorant and unfounded. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)