Re: C++: Pointer to a string in a class
From: Paul Lutus (nospam_at_nosite.zzz)
Date: 10/11/04
- Previous message: Thad Smith: "Re: calloc's, call by ref and function returning in C"
- In reply to: Willem: "Re: C++: Pointer to a string in a class"
- Next in thread: Willem: "Re: C++: Pointer to a string in a class"
- Reply: Willem: "Re: C++: Pointer to a string in a class"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:26:43 -0700
Willem wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> ) I think it was clear that you wanted to make a point about the stupidity
> of ) "sever administrators", a point that may have merit, but it doesn't
> ) disagree with anything I posted, therefore "I disagree" seemed to have
> no ) object. I said so.
>
> Your statement that admins disallow crossposting to save resources implies
> that you believe that disallowing crossposting saves resources.
> My second statement directly counters that, therefore 'I disagree' is
> completely correct.
No. Your remark was not relevant to the original assertion. Morons function
perfectly well in their functional domain (otherwise all governments would
collapse overnight), and even morons recognize resource waste.
>
> ) Not at all. I said that administrators may feel very strongly that
> resources ) should not be wasted. You replied that they are morons. Those
> are separate ) issues with no overlap.
>
> I also replied that disallowing crossposting does nothing to decrease the
> wasting of resources.
This is false. It does. That leaves the aimlessness of "I disagree", to
which I replied.
> See above.
>
> ) No, the point was valid, and a digression from the main point. It
> doesn't ) address the original topic. Its only purpose is to clarify your
> meaning. ) Nothing is added or subtracted from the original topic. I just
> though you ) might want to know this is not correct grammar.
>
> Exactly. Nothing is added to the original topic. In other words, all you
> did was make a statement about my use of the word 'amount'. The agressive
> tone of the statement makes me believe that it is an attack, instead of a
> simple letting-me-know.
There was not the slightest bit of aggressiveness. The tone was tutorial,
not adversarial. And I acknowledge it had nothing whatever to do with the
topic.
-- Paul Lutus http://www.arachnoid.com
- Previous message: Thad Smith: "Re: calloc's, call by ref and function returning in C"
- In reply to: Willem: "Re: C++: Pointer to a string in a class"
- Next in thread: Willem: "Re: C++: Pointer to a string in a class"
- Reply: Willem: "Re: C++: Pointer to a string in a class"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
