Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   C Programming (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f42-c-programming.html)
-   -   Interesting new development "in the matter of" Schildt (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t724456-interesting-new-development-in-the-matter-of-schildt.html)

spinoza1111 05-31-2010 03:15 AM

Interesting new development "in the matter of" Schildt
 
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html

Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
now says he feels it was not appropriate.

My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
the anti-Schildt cause.

I have sent a private email to Neumann, requesting a retraction "of
the retraction" based on the fact that while he sent me a private
email saying it would be published in 26.06 because of its length, he
did not make any negative comments as to whether it was appropriate. I
said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.

This issue is not going away.

Colonel Harlan Sanders 05-31-2010 01:10 PM

Re: Interesting new development "in the matter of" Schildt
 
On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:15:31 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:

>http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html
>
>Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
>now says he feels it was not appropriate.


Ha, ha.


>My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
>the anti-Schildt cause.


>I have sent a private email to Neumann, requesting a retraction "of
>the retraction" based on the fact that while he sent me a private
>email saying it would be published in 26.06 because of its length, he
>did not make any negative comments as to whether it was appropriate. I
>said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
>shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.
>
>This issue is not going away.


Yes, you'll harass his mother, try to get his publisher to repudiate
him, call him a faggot and digital Maoist, anonymously vandalize his
page in Wikipedia. One thing you won't do is get published in Risks
again.

spinoza1111 05-31-2010 02:46 PM

Re: Interesting new development "in the matter of" Schildt
 
On May 31, 9:10*pm, Colonel Harlan Sanders <Har...@kfc.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:15:31 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
>
> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html

>
> >Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
> >now says he feels it was not appropriate.

>
> Ha, ha.


Knew you'd love it, given your emotional age, Bubba. Hope it made your
day. Pity, of course, that I was the one to publish the fact here.
Rather stole your thunder, I shouldn't wonder.
>
> >My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
> >the anti-Schildt cause.
> >I have sent a private email to Neumann, requesting a retraction "of
> >the retraction" based on the fact that while he sent me a private
> >email saying it would be published in 26.06 because of its length, he
> >did not make any negative comments as to whether it was appropriate. I
> >said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
> >shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.

>
> >This issue is not going away.

>
> Yes, you'll harass his mother, try to get his publisher to repudiate
> him, call him a faggot and digital Maoist, anonymously vandalize his
> page in Wikipedia. One thing you won't do is get published in Risks
> again.


I wouldn't do any of those things, and you know it.

Peter Seebach linked to his Mom on his blog, and I discovered that she
wants to deprive minority kids of schooling so that middle class kids
can get out of survey classes. I did not submit any comments to her
public site. Instead, I found what I consider to be an explanation of
Peter's bizarre lack of actual educational qualifications.

I don't think Peter Neumann will ever stoop to your level, in which
the only response is, in actuality, "**** you, faggot", or metrical
verse.

I might consider him unwittingly complicit as was Zhou En-Lai in a
phenomenon of which he may be unaware; in my experience, computer
science people agree with Thatcher and think there's no such thing as
society.

I don't anonymously vandalize jack **** on wikipedia, and you know
this, faggot. Instead I sign my posts "Edward G. Nilges". When I sock
puppeted I did so on the recommendation of a wikipedia editor who was
vandalizing me. In actuality, many respected wikipedia editors appear
to use sock puppets, because deviance is the norm, jerk face.

I do not know and do not much care whether I appear in Risks again. I
will probably submit replies for moderation. I have requested a phone
conversation with Peter to clear up this new issue, since I think he's
not aware that to publish his retraction appears to me to be deeply
offensive, very discourteous, and extremely cowardly.

Tim Streater 05-31-2010 02:54 PM

Re: Interesting new development "in the matter of" Schildt
 
In article
<73ffe6fb-1ef0-4b80-aff1-bf2727c54d28@s1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:

> in my experience, computer science people agree with Thatcher
> and think there's no such thing as society.


Except that she didn't say that.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

Tim Streater 05-31-2010 04:11 PM

Re: Interesting new development "in the matter of" Schildt
 
In article <4c03dbfe.587396687@text.giganews.com>,
cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:

> On Mon, 31 May 2010 15:54:00 +0100, Tim Streater
> <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><73ffe6fb-1ef0-4b80-aff1-bf2727c54d28@s1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> in my experience, computer science people agree with Thatcher
> >> and think there's no such thing as society.

> >
> >Except that she didn't say that.

>
> There are two separate verb phrases there. Computer science
> people agreeing with Thatcher and computer science people
> thinking there's no such thing as society are separate claims.


She said "There's no such thing as Society, there's only communities of
interest". Which is actually what you find, when you look around.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

spinoza1111 05-31-2010 05:15 PM

Re: Interesting new development "in the matter of" Schildt
 
On Jun 1, 12:11*am, Tim Streater <timstrea...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> In article <4c03dbfe.587396...@text.giganews.com>,
> *c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 31 May 2010 15:54:00 +0100, Tim Streater
> > <timstrea...@waitrose.com> wrote:

>
> > >In article
> > ><73ffe6fb-1ef0-4b80-aff1-bf2727c54...@s1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > >spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > >> in my experience, computer science people agree with Thatcher
> > >> and think there's no such thing as society.

>
> > >Except that she didn't say that.

>
> > There are two separate verb phrases there. *Computer science
> > people agreeing with Thatcher and computer science people
> > thinking there's no such thing as society are separate claims. *

>
> She said "There's no such thing as Society, there's only communities of
> interest". Which is actually what you find, when you look around.
>
> --
> Tim
>
> "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
> nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" *-- *Bill of Rights 1689


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher

"They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no
such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there
are families. And no government can do anything except through people,
and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after
ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got
the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations."

Which was completely bonkers. There is such a thing as society. The
Greater London Council organized the Marathon of 1983 which I
completed. It was real...until Thatcher destroyed it. Also, we're
supposed to love our neighbor as ourselves, not after we're finished
eating.

However, computer nerds love this kind of ****, in my experience. It
justifies their lack of social skills when young, and utter lack of
decency later.



Nick Keighley 06-01-2010 02:59 PM

Re: Interesting new development "in the matter of" Schildt
 
On 31 May, 04:15, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html
>
> Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
> now says he feels it was not appropriate.


thanks for the excellent news!!

Even you must have thought your derranged rant was an odd thing to
post on RISKS. I was considering ceasing to read RISKS simply based on
this mistake.

> My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
> the anti-Schildt cause.


or people opposed to ranting lunacy... (BTW I wasn't one of them)


> I have sent a private email to Neumann, requesting a retraction "of
> the retraction" based on the fact that while he sent me a private
> email saying it would be published in 26.06 because of its length,


it *was* very long

> he
> did not make any negative comments as to whether it was appropriate. I
> said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
> shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.


well take the shibboleth word out and you *might* have a smidgeion of
a point. I don't agree that you have a point, but the general
principle that private individulas might suffer from bad things on the
internet is fine. You do realise you are doing Schildt no favours by
constantly banging on about this?


> This issue is not going away.


pity poor schildt.


iC and iC++ 06-01-2010 06:12 PM

Re: Interesting new development "in the matter of" Schildt
 
On May 30, 11:15*pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html
>
> Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
> now says he feels it was not appropriate.
>
> My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
> the anti-Schildt cause.
>
> I have sent a private email to Neumann, requesting a retraction "of
> the retraction" based on the fact that while he sent me a private
> email saying it would be published in 26.06 because of its length, he
> did not make any negative comments as to whether it was appropriate. I
> said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
> shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.
>
> This issue is not going away.


Who is Schildt? What is Shibboleths?

Seebs 06-01-2010 09:59 PM

Re: Interesting new development "in the matter of" Schildt
 
On 2010-05-31, Colonel Harlan Sanders <Harlan@kfc.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:15:31 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
><spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html


>>Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
>>now says he feels it was not appropriate.


> Ha, ha.


I don't see anything particularly funny here. Amusing, perhaps.

>>My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
>>the anti-Schildt cause.


Nilges, habitually spamming people and threatening to bombard them with
emailed demands, assumes other people do the same.

I don't really care either way about Schildt, though, so the fact that it
would never even have crossed my mind to complain about that post is probably
irrelevant. It struck me as, perhaps tenuously, related to a real risk
that users of computers face. It was also an excellent illustration of
the problems inherent in accepting reputation claims from an internet source.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Seebs 06-01-2010 10:02 PM

Re: Interesting new development "in the matter of" Schildt
 
On 2010-06-01, iC and iC++ <mahdert@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who is Schildt?


Schildt is a writer who has written a great number of books on C; those I
have examined have been of poor quality, both in terms of egregious mistakes
and in terms of significant omissions.

> What is Shibboleths?


There was a point in the distant past where there existed people who might
want to infiltrate another tribe's territory. Their languages were different
enough that the infiltrators could not pronounce certain phonemes correctly,
not having grown up with them, and asking someone to say "shibboleth" (well,
the word we now transliterate that way) was a reliable way to detect such
infiltrators.

The term is now generally used to refer to an arbitrary test for community
membership. Nilges often asserts that Schildt's errors are merely violations
of shibboleths, rather than genuine errors. However, a quick spin through
a compiler shows that this is incorrect, and Schildt's errors really are
serious errors in both his code and his explanations of C.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.