Re: Programmer's unpaid overtime.

From: Corey Murtagh (emonk_at_slingshot.no.uce)
Date: 12/04/03 

Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:12:49 +1300

Edward G. Nilges wrote:

> Corey Murtagh <emonk@slingshot.no.uce> wrote in message news:<1070362515.900282@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net>...
>
>>Edward G. Nilges wrote:
>>
>>
>>>ruse@webmail.co.za (goose) wrote in message news:<ff82ae1b.0312010407.348a1e0c@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>spinoza1111@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) wrote in message news:<f5dda427.0311281902.1d683965@posting.google.com>...
>>>>
>>>><snipped>
>>>>
>>>>>This is a lie. You've discussed the C language in this ng as the C
>>>>>language
>>>>
>>>>what else would you refer to "the C language" as ?
>>>>meatballs ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and you've promoted your outdated use of it.
>>>>
>>>>there is no outdated use of it. you cannot possibly
>>>>live in todays world without using a C application
>>>>a couple of times a day.
>>>
>>>
>>>...or being subjected to bugs which are the result of clowns using
>>>C...
>>>
>>>
>>>>can you say the same for any other language ?
>>>>
>>>><snipped>
>>>>
>>>>>But because incompetent programmers delight in pointing out other
>>>>>programmer's errors, several of Heathfield's buttboys capered and
>>>>>gibbered about my "incompetence" for weeks afterward.
>>>>
>>>>the errors of yours that I had seen where serious misunderstandings,
>>>>nothing trivial. they showed a very high level of incompetence.
>>>
>>>You saw them second hand, and before you saw them, I'd probably
>>>already admitted them.
>>
>>And that affects what exactly? The fact is they were there, and from
>>what little I've seen they were errors that no 'professional' C
>>programmer would ever have produced. They prove only that you produced
>>some very nasty, bug-ridden, unworking code. That in itself speaks
>>volumes about your programming ability.
>
>
> I really wonder about this fixation with "programming ability", and, I
> think it is due to a syndrome named by C. Wright Mills, in White
> Collar.
>
> It is that white collar people know, in their heart, that their
> "abilities" matter far less than their position in the firm, and
> abstract, economic forces that they don't control.
>
> Psychologically compensating for this loss of personhood, they tend,
> in Mills' and my own observation, to make mountains out of molehills
> to the secret, and not so secret, amusement of the CEO class and the
> gliterati.
>
> For example, in a book on Dilbert by Norman Solomon and published by
> South End Press, Solomon shows how the underlying message of that
> oh-so-contrarian 'toon is a scarifying contempt for people so unlucky,
> so stupid, and so terminally in-duh-vidual as to not have Scott Adam's
> net income.
>
> The engineer Wally prides himself on his tech skills: but the 'toon
> makes him a figure of fun.
>
> The material reason for this should be clear to any working engineer.
>
> In engineering, apart from professional standards set by bodies with
> legal authority (which are still pretty much absent in programming),
> the "quality" and "quantity" of your work (especially in "software
> engineering") is, and has to be by the organization of the firm,
> narrated by others within undisclosed frameworks, mostly set by time
> factors.
>
> No real and final certification of "competence" is available because
> "competence" within the larger organization especially is unable to
> affect, by design, the final result: the magnitude of the financial
> effects is such that no one person can hold the company hostage to
> EITHER his limitations OR (especially) with regards to his
> skill...because the basically adversarial relationship of employer and
> employee forces the genius into a confrontation with management over
> "his" work product.
>
> Therefore this overconcern with transferring one's OWN fears about
> one's OWN competence to some target of opportunity.
>
>
>
>>In short, you screwed up and tried to cover. Believe it or not, it's
>>the screwup that displays your ignorance, regardless of how much you try
>>to cover and backfill.
>
> I hear, here, an inner voice that belongs, probably, to you, or your
> father who set expectations that can never be verified in what Adorno
> called the "administered" world. I suggest you DEAL with this inner
> voice by taking an Outward Bound class.

If you're hearing voices, perhaps it's not me who needs help.

Why don't you stop trying to psychoanalyze someone you've never actually
met. For the record, I have a full professional assessment of my pscyh
problems. You've not even come close to a single one. As a
pscyhiatrist you are, quite frankly, crap.

> I expressed my respect for Richard Heathfield in May 2002 after a
> cursory examination of his C book. After his extended trolling and
> discourtesy, I simply won't read anything he's written. Also,
> information on C is uselss to me. I don't use it because it's an
> outdated language.

You keep claiming that, and it keeps being untrue. C is still a viable
language, get over it.

And no, C is not my language of choice.

>>Once again, if you think it's actionable, by all means take action. We
>>wait with baited breath.
>
> Having considered legal action, I now realize that precisely due to
> people like Richard and their disinformation and discourtesy, any
> claim made by these clowns, in a ng which is drenched in clowns
> because of their behavior, will not affect my credibility in the
> slightest. In fact, in circles of people with taste and
> discrimination, these flames will be a mark of honor, for the same
> reason Spinoza proves, in The Ethics, that the disrespect a man of
> intelligence receives is an accolade to like-minded souls.

Ah, so you're backing down. Right. I think that adequately proves the
point I was trying to make... that if you had any real grounds you would
have acted.

Now apologize to Richard et. al. for the libellous remarks you have
made, including but not limited to the claims you rescinded in the quote
above, as well as claims made as part of the above quote.

> Public newsgroups are jokes, probably due to the emplacement of paid
> agents, paid to bully posters who display any self-respect, and
> self-deprecating humor, and any solidarity with their fellow man.

FFS eddie, you are doing a damn good job of painting a picture of
yourself as being highly paraniod, if not outright delusional.

>>Not to mention that you have no actual grounds, as you are well aware.
>>Quit posturing and lying eddie.
>
> My name isn't "eddie". It's Edward G. Nilges.

As I've stated several times in the past, I will call you 'eddie' as
long as you act like a precocious, anti-social child. Period. Grow up
and you might earn your name back.

> Get a clue. Programming "skill" is constituted in computer science,
> not "mastery" of a specific language. And real "skill" would find a
> way to write large programs without memory leaks and bugs the first
> time.

If you post source code, along with claims about said source, and said
source turns out to be full of serious bugs... how can that not reflect
badly on your knowledge of the principles behind it?

Furthermore, you claim to have been /very/ familiar with the language.
I for one question this claim, since there is no evidence of it in the
code I have seen.

And of course let's not forget the fact that the methods used in the
code in question throw serious doubts on your vaunted computer science
knowledge. Your code was /abysmally/ broken. In fact it appeared to be
a horribly failed attempt to make C look bad by intentionally screwing
up the program.

>>Excuse me, but I'm well in the middle class, as defined by the economics
>>of my country. I've been programming for quite some time now. Your
>>statement above, like many others in this post, is both false and
>>insulting. Withdraw it.
>
> The typical set of claims:
>
> (1) I know everything there is to know about dem computers 'cause ah
> know C
> (2) I am always right about everything that's important
> (3) Ah am a man of few words who don't put up with no fancy talk (or,
> in the UK: I'm a plain man that's wot I am and I don't need any City
> toff coming down hear, to East Lower Tooting, with his furled
> umbrella)

Your clear implication that I have either a) claimed any of the above or
b) /will/ claim any of the above is truly offensive. I demand a
retraction. Failure to do so will demonstrate effectively that you are
a completely anti-social git.

Of course I also believe that you've already demonstrated that, so I
won't be holding my breath.

Let's just hope that some prospective employer of yours reads this stuff
some day. It'd almost guarantee you were never employed again.
Arrogance, anti-social behavior, paranoia and the other terrible traits
you demonstrate here are not exactly appealing.

Hey, let's just forward the whole mess on to your current employer and
see what they think. Care to provide some details eddie? Let's get an
opinion, shall we? 

-- 
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"