Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:09:43 -0600, spinoza1111 wrote
(in article
<8c423351-ab6a-4526-875b-5da31a476a06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

Good, you do that. And stay away if you plan on bullying people here.

A rational person might determine that when you try to tell people what
to do, it is you that is doing the bullying.

This is complete nonsense.

No it is not.  You told him to "stay away", as if you somehow have such
authority.  Perhaps since you were in his killfile this made you feel
like you had "told him off" without him ever seeing it.  

Yeah, stay away, since you're a stalker and a cyberbully with nothing
to contribute here.

So you do want to be the bully after all. As expected.

Is your boss a bully? Or does money talk?

Relevance?

He tells you what to do. Of course, you do so. You're easily bought.

He does? And if he did, what would that have to with you wanting (and
failing) to be a bully on Usenet?

The bully, whose prototype is indeed Hitler

False.  They were around long before Hitler, and I think you need a
better dictionary.

I think you're aliterate, for the prototype or ideal can of course
come after the actuality. Hint: crack a book other than a dictionary,
such as a Marxist critique of Platonism.

I think "dictator" would be a far better word than "bully", but you not
seeing the distinction isn't surprising.

[reams of nilgewater snipped]

We all recall your foolish attempt to add your private word to
wikipedia, and we all recall that on my request, your vandalism was
erased.

Actually, it wasn't my word, and I don't use wikipedia, seeing how I
think it's all bull*** having "facts" decided by a popularity contest.
Worse, is when people point at a wikipedia entry to back up a claim, as
if it is automatically authoritative... but I digress.

If 'nilgewater' did get recorded somewhere, the jargon file would make
more sense.

I /think/ it was cbf that came up with 'nilgewater' to describe your
drivel, but can't be bothered to look it up atm.

Not once, to my recollection and to my knowledge, did you in 2003
contribute anything positive to the discussion.

Apparently you forget all the efforts (which admittedly appear to have
failed) to teach you something about your horrifically bad code you
posted, and your mistaken (proven by benchmark data) beliefs about what
"magic" the optimizer would do for you (demonstrated to be false) to
save what can only be described is childishly naive logic, to which you
imagined a C compiler would save you from yourself.

You didn't even participate in these efforts, jejune as they were, and
focused as they were not on "benchmarks" but on petty stylistic
prejudices and the resentment of a literate style in programming, the
only style possible for creating large systems as opposed to snippets.

Completely false. Not only did I participate in them, but I posted both
a test harness (compilable) here, along with results on several
different platform configs, and others joined in using it as well. How
soon you forget, when you want to...

You discovered them, and as a bully, you pounced on their target
because you have psychological problems and a shaky sense of self.

You're no better as an armchair shrink than you are as a programmer.

Instead, you stalked me, and your observations on programming seemed
to me deliberately jejune so as to avoid the risk of being found wrong.

False.  The discussion focused for far too long on trying to show you,
through code examples, analysis of your own code which was posted here,
and through benchmarking examples and results (on multiple compilers,
hardware architectures and operating systems) of exactly why your
assumptions were incorrect.  When faced with such, you did you
nilgewater routine, which is often indistinguishable from the
"postmodernism generator" in an attempt to use persiflage as cover for
incompetent code decisions.

Again, you never participated in any such discussion.

Wrong. If you are going to just lie, despite evidence to the contrary,
why bother?

Such
"discussion" as existed focused on the problems I knew would occur in
my use of C for I'd abandoned it years ago as a child's language, and
that discussion was conducted by Programmer Dude and Richard
Heathfield with reasonable courtesy in the first part of 2003.

A large number of people participated in those discussions, and the
more you switched your positions back and forth, lied about what had
been said previously (eery how that coincides with what you are doing
right now), etc., the uglier it got. The theory was advanced at the
time that you switched positions with yourself over the course of
threads just to troll and annoy people.

You then entered the discussion, and plagiarized it, and mis-
represented it, for as a person who fears weakness in himself,
probably as the result of military post-traumatic stress, it enraged
you to see someone simultaneously admit where he'd erred AND insist on
a literate programming style, and a writing style about programming
which links programming to broader concerns. You saw in me a freedom
and flexibility which, I believe, has been beaten out of you.

You are so entertaining when you lie, then think you can make it more
credible by making up more gibberish and psychobabble to cover it up.

You created hundreds of texts, each an actionable cause of libel,
without a single constructive or original thought.

Action away.

You based your
campaign on some assertions and a Web page created by Programmer Dude
which in turn addressed mostly unprovable and undecidable issues of
programming style, which were neither verifiable nor falsifiable.

Incorrect.

No, you based your campaign on some assertions and a Web page created
by Programmer Dude

No, I did not. I based my comments upon your code on the code that you
posted here. If you didn't want people laughing at it, you shouldn't
have posted laughable code. Simple.

which in turn addressed mostly unprovable and
undecidable issues of programming style, which were neither verifiable
nor falsifiable.

Not only were they verified, they were proven on multiple operating
systems, compilers and CPU architectures. You chose to ignore all that
and pretend like it was about style, and you even decided that
Heathfield was working for some CIA-like entity in England as I recall.


Where'd I'd been mistaken, I admitted the mistake,

You did not. You still haven't, and likely never will, and so what?
You're just here to stir the pot again, cut/paste some more text from
the postmodernism generator every day, and pretend like you're going to
sue people for pointing out your silliness.

I'd taken the risk, as I take here, in being wrong, as people did in
the old "structured walkthrough" (which has been pretty much
eliminated by corporate bullying), to verify my opinions about the
superiority of OO, and here, I am concerned about Pike's code. You
entered strictly to "tell me what to do", which was mostly, get
fucked.

If you wish to persist with exercising your right to "selective memory
disorder", go ahead, but the archives show different.  Little about OO
versus whatever will provide cover for "gee, this guy is just too
stupid to figure out how and when to hoist a loop invariant".  

As I explained at the time, since optimizing compilers hoist loop
invariants, that's in general not a good idea from the standpoint of
readable code, since each "work" variable represents a deficiency from
the standpoint of clarity.

And as was /proven/ at the time, none of the compilers in general use
at the time (or now), as verified by multiple people, on multiple
systems, did the magic that you /thought/ they did. None. Not only
that, writing code that makes the author look stupid does not add to
"clarity", unless stupidity is the object you wish to clarify.

Indeed, you, as a person incapable of
original thought, use a big word for a subhuman and automatable
operation in order to impress your moron friends.

What "big word" would that be?

It was pointed out to me correctly, but not by you, that the
termination condition in the c for is, in an old-fashioned and clumsy
way, evaluated each time control passes to the top of the for loop.

It's not clumsy, or old-fashioned. It's highly useful, when people
aren't too ignorant of its use (perhaps you are the aliterate one, or
even a brief foray into K&R would have enlightened you) to understand
it.

As
someone who used C heavily at Princeton for a variety of tasks until I
realized that C was completely inadequate to my growing need for
ontology (object orientation),

You probably also used toilet paper heavily at Princeton. You have
quite obviously not "used C" nearly enough to have actually learned
even its most rudimentary features.

I was fully aware of those semantics in
1990; indeed, those semantics, which are in themselves wildly
inefficient, and which in themselves give the lie to Kernighan's being
truly a first rate scientist, as does his essay in Beautiful Code,
were part of my reason for abandoning C.

Like anyone reading your drivel will /ever/ believe that you are
a) an accurate judge of Kernighan's abilities
b) a "first rate scientist" of any kind
c) capable of even determining what C is efficient or inefficient at

When in 2003 I returned to C to analyze the relative performance of OO
Visual Basic and raw C, share the results, and give and receive
CONSTRUCTIVE criticism here, I'd been using a by value for termination
condition for the most part for several years in a language then and
now vastly superior to C.

So? You are going to use the "I've slept since then" defense to cover
up you refusing to admit the truth then, or now?

My error as regards the semantics of C was precisely what I'd come to
learn, but instead of being merely corrected in a collegial spirit, I
was harassed and hounded by the relatively amateur bullies Programmer
Dude and Richard Heathfield, who are probably afraid of the outside
world and compensate here by feeling like experts. However, they made
useful comments.

No, that's not what happened. You refused to admit it. In fact, it's
quite clear that you still do, since you want to blame it on C, as some
sort of archaic mistake.

You then entered as the exchange was dying down and WITHOUT MAKING ANY
CONTRIBUTIONS, you plagiarized their work solely to harass and bully,
and in violation of Federal law concerning cyberstalking and
harassment.

Laughable.

Here, I've keyed in Brian's code and struggled to adapt it to C+
+ .Net, which as a modern development platform only painfully supports
"strings" of 8-bit bytes

I find that hard to believe, but I do not use "C++ .Net", perhaps
someone else can confirm or deny.

(as theorised by Pike, as late as 1998, as
the only "strings" worth a white man's time, I suppose).

You're now going to guess about someone else's conclusions and hint at
racism? There is no depth you won't go to in order to misdirect folks.
I've written
and am debugging a parallel version to C sharp to, I anticipate, show
that there is little or no performance penalty FOR BEING MINIMALLY
CORRECT, and you, sir, are wasting my time.

You are studying the performance penalties of being minimally correct?
Tragically, you are uniquely positioned for such an undertaking.

You have manifested zero interest in programming in these threads.

Quite the contrary. I am extremely interested in it. If you can't see
that, perhaps it is because you don't know enough about the topic to
recognize those that are interested in it.

In
your case, and to a lesser extent in the cases of Heathfield and the
Dude, your hatred makes you clinically anhedonic, which I suppose I
will have to translate for you as incapable of feeling other than
negative emotions,

Far from it, not that it should matter to you.

especially your rage, which, again, I believe is
the result of military post-traumatic stress, and which needs to be
brought, as I said in 2004, to the attention of your local police
department...especially given the murder festival that was Amerikkka
in 2007, with multiple mass killings committed by anger mismanagement
cases.

Military post-traumatic stress? I think you need to put new batteries
in your crystal ball. You're hilariously off-base here.

Note: what you mischaracterize as rage, is actually me laughing at you.



This type of "telling people what to do" is bullying and stalking, and
this time around I'm not going to put up with that *** from you or
anyone else.

No, telling people what to do is saying things like "stay away".  This
time around, will you also be a hypocrite, or was that the last example
of it for a while?

Stay away from me.

Perhaps you are unaware that this an electronic forum, and proximity
issues don't really apply.

Stop posting replies to my posts,

There you go, bullying people again.

jerk, Other
people have pointed out that the stylistic and technical debates were
irresolvable,

The stylistic ones, I'll grant you. The technical ones were resolved,
and quite convincingly, you just refuse to admit it. You're free to
stop lying about it, which should help you achieve your goal of not
being argued with.

and they asked you and me in 2004 to cease exchanging
posts. In the interests of the community, I did so, but you never
listened and now, three years on, you have automatically restarted an
exchange.

Actually that's not the case. I pointed out that you were back, and
then you launched a salvo of lies at me. But don't let reality get in
the way of your ranting, it's never stopped you before.

Because you did not conform to the request made by others, I no longer
shall heed that request, and I shall reply, either at length or in
brief,

Have you /ever/ been brief?

to each one of your hatred-filled posts, thereby creating a
larger and larger deposition for the attorneys in a libel suit that
you're asking for.

*cackle*


--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw





.

Quantcast