Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   C++ (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f39-c.html)
-   -   ridicuously unreasonable (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t744065-ridicuously-unreasonable.html)

Paul 02-23-2011 04:11 PM

ridicuously unreasonable
 
He raises an argument about C++ syntax , I provide evidence from the C++
standard, he doesnt accpet it.
He raises an argument about Java,
I provide evidence from the offical Java documentation at java.sun.com, he
doesnt accept it.


The lengths some people in this newsgroup will go to confusicate the
technicalities of C+ is totally ridiculous. 90% of them are so ridiculously
unreasonable it is impossible to have any reasonable debate.

Why? because they do not want to get to the truth, they are afraid that they
will find they are wrong.
Plain and simple as that.
They are not only idiots, but they are arseholes, they are cowards and they
are confused, wrong and lack the brains to have a reasonable argument.

Who really gives a toss what these morons think.
Anyone who replies to this post with a negative comment directed at my
person will be deemed one of the above described idiots.

****in idiots like leigh who think all programs have segmented memory model
and such. This newsgroup has just become ridiculously full of idiots who
*think* they know it all.






Paul 02-23-2011 04:26 PM

Re: ridicuously unreasonable
 

"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message
news:z--dnRVz5J1yrvjQnZ2dnUVZ8madnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 23/02/2011 16:11, Paul wrote:
>> He raises an argument about C++ syntax , I provide evidence from the C++
>> standard, he doesnt accpet it.
>> He raises an argument about Java,
>> I provide evidence from the offical Java documentation at java.sun.com,
>> he doesnt accept it.
>>
>>
>> The lengths some people in this newsgroup will go to confusicate the
>> technicalities of C+ is totally ridiculous. 90% of them are so
>> ridiculously unreasonable it is impossible to have any reasonable debate.
>>
>> Why? because they do not want to get to the truth, they are afraid that
>> they will find they are wrong.
>> Plain and simple as that.
>> They are not only idiots, but they are arseholes, they are cowards and
>> they are confused, wrong and lack the brains to have a reasonable
>> argument.
>>
>> Who really gives a toss what these morons think.
>> Anyone who replies to this post with a negative comment directed at my
>> person will be deemed one of the above described idiots.
>>
>> ****in idiots like leigh who think all programs have segmented memory
>> model and such. This newsgroup has just become ridiculously full of
>> idiots who *think* they know it all.

>
> Again you tell untruths; I never said "all programs have segmented memory
> model"; a "text segment" does not require a segmented memory model; "text
> segment" is a computer science term which relates to compiled (or
> assembled) programs:
>
> "In computing, a code segment, also known as a text segment or simply as
> text, is a phrase used to refer to a portion of memory or of an object
> file that contains executable instructions."
>
> Also:
>
> int x;
>
> 'x' is an object; 'x' is an uninitialized object.
>
> 'x' is a region of storage; 'x' is an uninitialized region of storage.
>
> HTH.
>
> /Leigh
>

Speed read over his **** , realise its another pointless argument with a
completely unreasonable idiot and plonk it
Got better things to do.


Saeed Amrollahi 02-23-2011 04:29 PM

Re: ridicuously unreasonable
 
On Feb 23, 7:11*pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> He raises an argument about C++ syntax , I provide evidence from the C++
> standard, he doesnt accpet it.
> He raises an argument about Java,
> I provide evidence from the offical Java documentation at java.sun.com, he
> doesnt accept it.
>
> The lengths some people in this newsgroup will go to confusicate the
> technicalities of C+ is totally ridiculous. 90% of them are so ridiculously
> unreasonable it is impossible to have any reasonable debate.
>
> Why? because they do not want to get to the truth, they are afraid that they
> will find they are wrong.
> Plain and simple as that.
> They are not only idiots, but they are arseholes, they are cowards and they
> are confused, wrong and lack the brains to have a reasonable argument.
>
> Who really gives a toss what these morons think.
> Anyone who replies to this post with a negative comment directed at my
> person will be deemed one of the above described idiots.
>
> ****in idiots like leigh who think all programs have segmented memory model
> and such. This newsgroup has just become ridiculously full of idiots who
> *think* they know it all.


Hi

I don't like such literature and bad words. Actually I hate that.
I don't know what's the matter with you and what's your
problem with Leigh or other guys. I just know it is
an open discussion group which Google provided for C++
programmer. In such groups we have to raise the tolerance threshold.

-- Saeed Amrollahi

Jens Thoms Toerring 02-23-2011 06:13 PM

Newsgroups
 
Saeed Amrollahi <amrollahi.saeed@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... I just know it is
> an open discussion group which Google provided for C++
> programmer.


Sorry, but Google does not "provide" newsgroups, they just
gave an (extremely bad) interface for using newsgroups.
Usenet (that's where the discussions actually exist on)
existed long before Google was founded and even long be-
fore the WWW as people are used to it now started and
depend on a lot of hosts (news servers) exchanging and
storing messages.

> In such groups we have to raise the tolerance threshold.


Or, if you don't use Google sorry excuse for an interface
but a real newsreader, you simply "killfile" the obvious
idiots and then don't have see the nonsense they're spou-
ting anymore;-) A reasonably administrated news server
will also delete most of the spam.

Regards, Jens
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ jt@toerring.de
\__________________________ http://toerring.de

Paul 02-24-2011 05:42 AM

Re: ridicuously unreasonable
 

"Saeed Amrollahi" <amrollahi.saeed@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:147c3c44-7212-4885-939d-9577cad8f47d@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 23, 7:11 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> He raises an argument about C++ syntax , I provide evidence from the C++
> standard, he doesnt accpet it.
> He raises an argument about Java,
> I provide evidence from the offical Java documentation at java.sun.com, he
> doesnt accept it.
>
> The lengths some people in this newsgroup will go to confusicate the
> technicalities of C+ is totally ridiculous. 90% of them are so
> ridiculously
> unreasonable it is impossible to have any reasonable debate.
>
> Why? because they do not want to get to the truth, they are afraid that
> they
> will find they are wrong.
> Plain and simple as that.
> They are not only idiots, but they are arseholes, they are cowards and
> they
> are confused, wrong and lack the brains to have a reasonable argument.
>
> Who really gives a toss what these morons think.
> Anyone who replies to this post with a negative comment directed at my
> person will be deemed one of the above described idiots.
>
> ****in idiots like leigh who think all programs have segmented memory
> model
> and such. This newsgroup has just become ridiculously full of idiots who
> *think* they know it all.


--Hi

--I don't like such literature and bad words. Actually I hate that.
--I don't know what's the matter with you and what's your
--problem with Leigh or other guys. I just know it is
--an open discussion group which Google provided for C++
--programmer. In such groups we have to raise the tolerance threshold.

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi I am sorry if I have offeneded you , I often don't like 'bad words'
either. Sometimes it is necessary and it is definately a intrinsic part of
the modern english language.

But its meaning can often be misinterpreted , check this out perhaps it will
change your opinion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOp9GxDkxI0


TY for reading
Paul.


James Kanze 02-24-2011 08:29 AM

Re: ridicuously unreasonable
 
On Feb 23, 4:29 pm, Saeed Amrollahi <amrollahi.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just know it is
> an open discussion group which Google provided for C++
> programmer.


Newgroups (and this grou) were around long before Google.
Google hasn't provided anything here, except a web interface for
those behind a firewall that blocks NNTP.

--
James Kanze

Krice 02-24-2011 11:41 AM

Re: ridicuously unreasonable
 
On 23 helmi, 18:29, Saeed Amrollahi <amrollahi.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know what's the matter with you and what's your
> problem with Leigh or other guys.


'Paul' and 'Leigh Johnston' are bots.

Joshua Maurice 02-24-2011 01:34 PM

Re: ridicuously unreasonable
 
On Feb 24, 3:41*am, Krice <pau...@mbnet.fi> wrote:
> On 23 helmi, 18:29, Saeed Amrollahi <amrollahi.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't know what's the matter with you and what's your
> > problem with Leigh or other guys.

>
> 'Paul' and 'Leigh Johnston' are bots.


Bots? No. Trolls? Paul yes; Leigh not really no. Paul and Leigh are
passing the Turing test, Leigh especially, and I'm pretty sure we
haven't made such strong AI yet.

Krice 02-24-2011 05:40 PM

Re: ridicuously unreasonable
 
On 24 helmi, 15:34, Joshua Maurice <joshuamaur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul and Leigh are passing the Turing test, Leigh especially, and
> I'm pretty sure we haven't made such strong AI yet.


You might be another bot trying to convince that they are not
bots. Clever. Whoever made these bots should be doing something
worthwhile, like a next major roguelike.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:45 PM.

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