Re: A note on computing thugs and coding bums

On Jan 8, 10:40 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
spinoza1111 said:

The key fact about the Schildt campaign (a campaign of criticism
directed at Herbert Schildt, author of The Complete C++ Reference
based on such "mistakes" as telling students that negative numbers are
[mostly] stored twos complement) is that it focused on Herb as a
person not to be trusted.

No, the key criticism of Schildt's books is that they contain many
technical errors.

Several good-faith negative reviews were Amazon-posted in May 2004
about my own book, "Build Your Own .Net Language and Compiler";

You'd be silly to treat them seriously, just as you'd be silly to treat any
positive Amazon reviews seriously, for reasons I have already explained in
a recent thread.

However, at this time, I'm not worth mounting a deliberate campaign
with a key syntactical change: the shift from the focus on the product
to the focus on the person, and this is the shift that I objected to
in Herb's case. This isn't being conducted on Amazon because I take
steps when it occurs.

There Is No Campaign. Good books get good crits. Bad books get bad crits.
Schildt writes lots of bad books. Therefore Schildt gets lots of bad
crits.

It is occuring here in my case as well as that of Herb.

It isn't occurring *at all*.

But, because it's so very unusual for people on electronic networks to
be even physically capable of expressing other than negative emotions

Rubbish. Just because *you* don't get to see such expression, that doesn't
mean it doesn't happen. And in fact I know that it does.

I am being assaulted

Rubbish.

for speaking this truth:

You wouldn't know truth if it bit you.

that it would be
possible to discuss Herb's errors in a specific book, such as the
omission of virtual base classes, without once using syntax of the
form "don't trust Herb" or "Herb is incompetent".

And indeed this has been done. Francis Glassborow has done it, and many
others have done it. But you don't get to dictate what other people say.
Some people are indeed able and willing to crit Schildt books patiently,
objectively, and dispassionately. Some people are less patient, especially
after they've uncovered a great many errors that *demonstrate* his
incompetence.

This is being done, I believe, by Richard Heathfield here as the
editor of an inferior and little-regarded book, C Unleashed, to
promote his sales in an inappropriately commercial misuse of usenet.

If you claim that a book is inferior to the Schildt books with which you
are comparing it, you ought to explain why you think it's inferior. If you
claim that a book is little-regarded, you ought to explain why it got a
much better review at ACCU than the Schildt books with which you are
comparing it.

But somehow I feel that you're not going to do this. Whenever you are asked
to back up an assertion with facts, you seem to reply with half a dozen
more assertions, none of which are backed up with facts.

<usual sociology rant snipped>

Richard, you're being trolled. I think it is pretty obvious. I don't
think he believes one word of what he is saying. He's just pushing
hot buttons to see if he can get responses. Of course, he might
really be that thick, but I doubt it.

IMO-YMMV.
.