Re: A note on computing thugs and coding bums

On Jan 11, 1:08 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
spinoza1111 said:

<snip>

Almost every review mentions that he's a good writer,

Right. There are many good writers. Being a good writer is a nice-to-have
for a C tutorial writer, but it is not sufficient of itself. A detailed
knowledge of C is also a requirement.

I don't think you have that "detailed knowledge of C" and I believe
Herb has it, because knowing C isn't knowing a standard, it's knowing
both standard and non-standard implementations. C is a praxis.


<snip>

You "post links". Well, the Vandals' article on Herb in wikipedia
shows that on the Internet, anyone can "post links" elsethread to ruin
another person strictly by innuendo,

Nevertheless, both Clive Feather and Peter Seebach (each of whom either is
or was a member of the ISO C committee, and each of whom is well-respected
by other C experts) have provided detailed critiques of Schildt books,
demonstrating not by innuendo but by analysis that those books are deeply

You are in the innuendo business, not they, because instead of
discussing issues here you continually refer to issues by name and not
by description. This is because you get easily confused and flustered
in online technical exchanges (as when you confused && and || in our
test last week) and it diminishes the false authority which you seek
to project to actually discuss C.

flawed - the intent not being to "ruin another person" but to inform
people who wish to obtain a good C book precisely why Schildt's books do
not fall into that category.

<much raving snipped>

I'm not "raving". A complex sentence isn't "raving". I can write and
you cannot.

[Snip] "computing thugs" & "coding bums" subjective drivel, none of
[which I
recognise in many USENET programmers and I have been here since 1995.

Richard Heathfield is a computing thug because he is misusing this
site for commercial gain.

That is not true for several reasons:

(a) it's a newsgroup, not a Web site;

Master of Terminology strikes again

(b) I'm not misusing it (or even using it) for commercial gain;

I believe you are. I believe you started using it in 1999 to trash
Schildt and present a false theory of C which ignores practice because
you wished to promote a book you could not even write, but had to
edit.


(c) even if I were which I'm not, and even if it were which it isn't,
misusing a Web site for commercial gain is certainly opprobrious but you
have not demonstrated why it implies that those who do so are computing
thugs.

If you cannot make that connection, you are indeed a thug, because to
the thug, everything is of interest only as an opportunity for his
personal gratification. You come here to ruin people and you are a
thug.



Randy Howard is a coding bum who doesn't
contribute much more than abuse and conventional wisdom.

He actually contributes quite a lot to this newsgroup. As for conventional
wisdom, I'd rather read articles containing conventional wisdom than those
containing unconventional stupidity.


I'm sure you would. I'm sure you have a direct financial interest in
code with gnomic identifiers written to show off the author's
knowledge and not to solve a problem. This probably gives you
opportunities as a "consultant".


Both are
thugs also because they vandalize threads with opinions about
personalities.

If that argument is valid, then you are a thug, because you vandalise
threads with opinions about personalities. And where does that get us?
Nowhere.

As you know, I have responded to your crap since the start of the year
in such a way that you compulsively and obsessively reply, not with
code examples as I have, but repetitious and almost canned answers to
save time, and you don't care that this creates threads in which the
original contribution is lost, and you certainly don't care when
people enter and draw false conclusions. Your INTENT is to vandalise
and fill the newgroup with a data smog of replies.

I've been working offline on continued research: you prefer to sit and
emit boring and tedious garbage because your intent is to trash and to
vandalize.



--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A note on computing thugs and coding bums
    ... for a C tutorial writer, but it is not sufficient of itself. ... demonstrating not by innuendo but by analysis that those books are deeply ... If that argument is valid, then you are a thug, because you vandalise ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: SF writers vs. Fantasy
    ... The problem I so often have with clever futuristic projections is the ... editor has decided that since the books sell like hotcakes, ... rabid series fans have a lot of staying power. ... John Arbuthnot, Scottish writer, physician. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Thoughts on the Foundation series...
    ... ~"brain eater" discussions here in this forum, ... deliberate parodies -- the games a writer plays with his text ... everything is just done for the money, and on the other hand they ... books, but the motivation to fuse the Foundation books with the Robot ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: The Prince by Machiavelli
    ... I did say is the only USAn writer who is first rate. ... I got one of his books from the library. ... but then I am an Indian. ... One usually thinks of these as children's literature, ...
    (rec.arts.books)
  • Re: One More Chapter for Your Perusal
    ... have you read the Flashman books by George MacDonald ... asked for criticism and now I'm rejecting it. ... I recently read a collection of short stories by Ian Rankin (a successful genre writer) and in his introduction he mentioned paring down one of his stories from its original novella length. ... It is my experience as a reader than good writers write tightly. ...
    (alt.usage.english)