«

Antoninus Twink <> writes:

> On 7 Mar 2008 at 14:25, Richard wrote:
>> Your need to jump to RHs defence surprises me. There is no need.
>
> It doesn't surprise me. Santosh's only function in this group is to
> groom the fleas of Heathfield the alpha male.

That's as may be, but he seems to have got a bit wrapped in this one for
some reason. And the bottom line of this thread is abundantly clear to
anyone who read as far as RHs polite reply where he pretty much agreed
with each and every point I had made.

Richard wrote:

> santosh <> writes:
>
>> Richard wrote:
>>
>>> santosh <> writes:
>>>
>>>> Richard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> santosh <> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard wrote:
>>>>>>> santosh <> writes:
>>>>>>>> Robbie Hatley wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Richard" <devr_@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Richard Heathfield <> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have
>>>>>>>>>> > values. Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're
>>>>>>>>>> > false, and 1 if they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0
>>>>>>>>>> > if x is less than 30, and 1 otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It won't actually.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't for
>>>>>>>>> you, then your compiler is broken and you should get a better
>>>>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30
>>>>>>>> and zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm
>>>>>>>> sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake.
>>>>>>> There is no evil intent in my correction. Why you feel the need
>>>>>>> to confirm his "mistake" is very strange.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because he did not spot RJH's error and therefore, could not
>>>>>> understand your correction.
>>>>>
>>>>> So therefore, maybe he should post nothing? Did that cross your
>>>>> mind?
>>>>
>>>> He misread RJH's statement and that is what I brought to his
>>>> notice. What he said to you about your compiler is beside the point
>>>> and did not strike me as being important enough to comment on.
>>>
>>> Are you joking? It was the WHOLE crux of things. He informed me that
>>> if my compiler did not agree with RH then I needed a new one.
>>>
>>> What is it with you and apologising for other peoples mistakes?
>>
>> Er no. It was the crux of anything as far as I was concerned. If it
>> was important enough to you, *you* should have replied promptly to
>> him, instead of correcting third-party replies.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about. The ONLY correction I made
> was the original assertion from RH.
>
>>
>>>>> he waffled on about my broken compiler and its as clear as day he
>>>>> never tried the code with his wonderful,all singing, all dancing
>>>>> compiler.
>>>>
>>>> OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's mistake. Compiling
>>>> OP's
>>>
>>> Yes it was. RHs whole reply was based on explaining the OPs code.
>>
>> But compiling OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's typo.
>
> Err, I know. So what? it was not ME who mentioned compilers.
>
>>
>>>> code (which would require some completion to make it compilable)
>>>> would do nothing towards spotting (or not spotting) RJH's typo.
>>>
>>> I commented on RHs English response not the code. It was not me who
>>> brought compilers into it-
>>
>> Neither was it me. So it begs the point - why are you making a big
>> fuss over *my* reply instead of answering directly to Robbie Hatley,
>> perhaps along the lines of:
>
> It was not a "big fuss". I pointed out you did not need to point out
> RH's error was a genuine error. What other types are there?

It's incredible that you have taken offence over just two extra words,
which I am sure you would not have done if the subject of those words
had been someone other than RJH.

> This is getting silly.

"Indeed"

> The bottom line is this : if you want to correct someone do it
> properly without the smart arse stuff. And "you" doesn't mean "you
> Santosh".

I'm glad to see that you have finally brought up your grievance with
Robbie Hatley's comments to you, to his notice, albeit through a reply
to me.

> If someone makes a mistake it doesn't need Tonto to come riding into
> town explaining that it was "an honest mistake".

Again, I crave your forgiveness for being stupid enough to post
something about RJH without getting your gracious approval.

> And if you do try to be a smart arse about basic logic expressions
> then don't start telling people their development tools are broken
> when you do not have a clue and have not verified it under your OWN
> tools.

I'm glad to see that you have finally brought up your grievance with
Robbie Hatley's comments to you, to his notice, albeit through a reply
to me.

> Simple really.
>
> I am at a loss as to why you keep promoting thise thread.

Believe me, the feeling is mutual.

santosh <> writes:

> Richard wrote:
>
>> santosh <> writes:
>>
>>> Richard wrote:
>>>
>>>> santosh <> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Richard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> santosh <> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard wrote:
>>>>>>>> santosh <> writes:
>>>>>>>>> Robbie Hatley wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Richard" <devr_@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Heathfield <> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> > x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have
>>>>>>>>>>> > values. Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're
>>>>>>>>>>> > false, and 1 if they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0
>>>>>>>>>>> > if x is less than 30, and 1 otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It won't actually.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't for
>>>>>>>>>> you, then your compiler is broken and you should get a better
>>>>>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30
>>>>>>>>> and zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm
>>>>>>>>> sure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake.
>>>>>>>> There is no evil intent in my correction. Why you feel the need
>>>>>>>> to confirm his "mistake" is very strange.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because he did not spot RJH's error and therefore, could not
>>>>>>> understand your correction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So therefore, maybe he should post nothing? Did that cross your
>>>>>> mind?
>>>>>
>>>>> He misread RJH's statement and that is what I brought to his
>>>>> notice. What he said to you about your compiler is beside the point
>>>>> and did not strike me as being important enough to comment on.
>>>>
>>>> Are you joking? It was the WHOLE crux of things. He informed me that
>>>> if my compiler did not agree with RH then I needed a new one.
>>>>
>>>> What is it with you and apologising for other peoples mistakes?
>>>
>>> Er no. It was the crux of anything as far as I was concerned. If it
>>> was important enough to you, *you* should have replied promptly to
>>> him, instead of correcting third-party replies.
>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about. The ONLY correction I made
>> was the original assertion from RH.
>>
>>>
>>>>>> he waffled on about my broken compiler and its as clear as day he
>>>>>> never tried the code with his wonderful,all singing, all dancing
>>>>>> compiler.
>>>>>
>>>>> OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's mistake. Compiling
>>>>> OP's
>>>>
>>>> Yes it was. RHs whole reply was based on explaining the OPs code.
>>>
>>> But compiling OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's typo.
>>
>> Err, I know. So what? it was not ME who mentioned compilers.
>>
>>>
>>>>> code (which would require some completion to make it compilable)
>>>>> would do nothing towards spotting (or not spotting) RJH's typo.
>>>>
>>>> I commented on RHs English response not the code. It was not me who
>>>> brought compilers into it-
>>>
>>> Neither was it me. So it begs the point - why are you making a big
>>> fuss over *my* reply instead of answering directly to Robbie Hatley,
>>> perhaps along the lines of:
>>
>> It was not a "big fuss". I pointed out you did not need to point out
>> RH's error was a genuine error. What other types are there?
>
> It's incredible that you have taken offence over just two extra words,
> which I am sure you would not have done if the subject of those words
> had been someone other than RJH.

Did you not notice that I had no issue with RH? What is wrong with you?
he made a mistake. I pointed it out. I explained in a later post why I
pointed it out as I did. Robbie came flying in telling me my compiler
was broken for some reason because HE DID NOT REA OR UNDERSTAND what RH
said. How this is MY issue I am not sure.

>
>> This is getting silly.
>
> "Indeed"

Funny!

>
>> The bottom line is this : if you want to correct someone do it
>> properly without the smart arse stuff. And "you" doesn't mean "you
>> Santosh".
>
> I'm glad to see that you have finally brought up your grievance with
> Robbie Hatley's comments to you, to his notice, albeit through a reply
> to me.

I dont give a monkeys unclue whether you are happy or not to be
honest. I dont have a clue why you are pursuing this. A thread is a
thread for a reason. One doesn't have to respond to each and every post.

>
>> If someone makes a mistake it doesn't need Tonto to come riding into
>> town explaining that it was "an honest mistake".
>
> Again, I crave your forgiveness for being stupid enough to post
> something about RJH without getting your gracious approval.

Huh? You don't need my approval. I never said you did. Same as RH never
needed you explaining he had made a mistake. I know he had made a
mistake. He knows he made a mistake. A "genuine" mistake no
less. ..... All you had to do to HELP rather than be a toady was to say
to Robbie "actually you wrong. Richard spotted a mistake in RHs
explanation". We dont need you rubbing up against RHs leg and telling us
in details how RH made a "genuine reversal" or whatever slippery terms
you used.

>
>> And if you do try to be a smart arse about basic logic expressions
>> then don't start telling people their development tools are broken
>> when you do not have a clue and have not verified it under your OWN
>> tools.
>
> I'm glad to see that you have finally brought up your grievance with
> Robbie Hatley's comments to you, to his notice, albeit through a reply
> to me.

What are you talking about?

>
>> Simple really.
>>
>> I am at a loss as to why you keep promoting thise thread.
>
> Believe me, the feeling is mutual.

Yet it is you who keeps harping on. I am merely trying to respond with
some kind of meaning to your nonsensical rants.

Richard <devr_@gmail.com> wrote:
> santosh <> writes:
>
>> Richard wrote:
>>> santosh <> writes:
>>>> Robbie Hatley wrote:
>>>>> "Richard" <devr_@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Heathfield <> writes:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>> > x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have
>>>>>> > values. Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're false,
>>>>>> > and 1 if they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if x is less
>>>>>> > than 30, and 1 otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It won't actually.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't for you,
>>>>> then your compiler is broken and you should get a better one.
>>>>
>>>> The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and
>>>> zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.
>>>
>>> Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. There is
>>> no evil intent in my correction. Why you feel the need to confirm his
>>> "mistake" is very strange.
>>
>> Because he did not spot RJH's error and therefore, could not understand
>> your correction.
>
> So therefore, maybe he should post nothing? Did that cross your mind? he
> waffled on about my broken compiler and its as clear as day he never
> tried the code with his wonderful,all singing, all dancing compiler.

That's the risk you take when you post such a terse answer -- people
don't know whether you're confused or just being coy. Expanding your
answer just a tad, say to something like:

It won't actually, it's the other way around.

would have saved a whole flurry of messages and some hard feelings.

-Larry Jones

They say winning isn't everything, and I've decided
to take their word for it. -- Calvin

On 7 Mar 2008 at 13:44, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Richard said:
>> But of course, giving credence and credit to other posters is
>> becoming a rarer and rarer thing these days with posters like CBF
>> riding in on their chargers at a moments notice.
>
> Again, I am struggling to disagree with you here, and failing.

Wow, CBF has really been cut loose. Clique status lost and no mistake.

<typical Heathfield cant and hypocrisy snipped>

Richard wrote:

> santosh <> writes:
>
>> Richard wrote:
>>
>>> santosh <> writes:
>>>
>>>> Richard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> santosh <> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> santosh <> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Richard wrote:
>>>>>>>>> santosh <> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> Robbie Hatley wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Richard" <devr_@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Heathfield <> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> > x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>> > have values. Relational expressions have the value 0 if
>>>>>>>>>>>> > they're false, and 1 if they're true. So x < 30 will
>>>>>>>>>>>> > evaluate to 0 if x is less than 30, and 1 otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It won't actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> for you, then your compiler is broken and you should get a
>>>>>>>>>>> better one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30
>>>>>>>>>> and zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm
>>>>>>>>>> sure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake.
>>>>>>>>> There is no evil intent in my correction. Why you feel the
>>>>>>>>> need to confirm his "mistake" is very strange.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because he did not spot RJH's error and therefore, could not
>>>>>>>> understand your correction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So therefore, maybe he should post nothing? Did that cross your
>>>>>>> mind?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He misread RJH's statement and that is what I brought to his
>>>>>> notice. What he said to you about your compiler is beside the
>>>>>> point and did not strike me as being important enough to comment
>>>>>> on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you joking? It was the WHOLE crux of things. He informed me
>>>>> that if my compiler did not agree with RH then I needed a new one.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it with you and apologising for other peoples mistakes?
>>>>
>>>> Er no. It was the crux of anything as far as I was concerned. If it
>>>> was important enough to you, *you* should have replied promptly to
>>>> him, instead of correcting third-party replies.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what you are talking about. The ONLY correction I
>>> made was the original assertion from RH.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> he waffled on about my broken compiler and its as clear as day
>>>>>>> he never tried the code with his wonderful,all singing, all
>>>>>>> dancing compiler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's mistake. Compiling
>>>>>> OP's
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it was. RHs whole reply was based on explaining the OPs code.
>>>>
>>>> But compiling OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's typo.
>>>
>>> Err, I know. So what? it was not ME who mentioned compilers.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> code (which would require some completion to make it compilable)
>>>>>> would do nothing towards spotting (or not spotting) RJH's typo.
>>>>>
>>>>> I commented on RHs English response not the code. It was not me
>>>>> who brought compilers into it-
>>>>
>>>> Neither was it me. So it begs the point - why are you making a big
>>>> fuss over *my* reply instead of answering directly to Robbie
>>>> Hatley, perhaps along the lines of:
>>>
>>> It was not a "big fuss". I pointed out you did not need to point out
>>> RH's error was a genuine error. What other types are there?
>>
>> It's incredible that you have taken offence over just two extra
>> words, which I am sure you would not have done if the subject of
>> those words had been someone other than RJH.
>
> Did you not notice that I had no issue with RH? What is wrong with
> you? he made a mistake. I pointed it out. I explained in a later post
> why I pointed it out as I did. Robbie came flying in telling me my
> compiler was broken for some reason because HE DID NOT REA OR
> UNDERSTAND what RH said. How this is MY issue I am not sure.

In your haste to respond you did not read carefully what I wrote above.
Do read it again.

>>> This is getting silly.
>>
>> "Indeed"
>
> Funny!
>
>>
>>> The bottom line is this : if you want to correct someone do it
>>> properly without the smart arse stuff. And "you" doesn't mean "you
>>> Santosh".
>>
>> I'm glad to see that you have finally brought up your grievance with
>> Robbie Hatley's comments to you, to his notice, albeit through a
>> reply to me.
>
> I dont give a monkeys unclue whether you are happy or not to be
> honest. I dont have a clue why you are pursuing this. A thread is a
> thread for a reason. One doesn't have to respond to each and every
> post.

I will respond as long as you keep insisting that I "defended" RJH or
was "rubbing up against RHs leg" or point out what I should and should
not be writing.

>>> If someone makes a mistake it doesn't need Tonto to come riding into
>>> town explaining that it was "an honest mistake".
>>
>> Again, I crave your forgiveness for being stupid enough to post
>> something about RJH without getting your gracious approval.
>
> Huh? You don't need my approval. I never said you did.

Then why are you *insistant* that I should not have added those three
words "mistake I'm sure" to my reply to Robbie Hatley?

Why do you keep insisting on what I should or should not have said to
Robbie Hatley?

Why does it offend _you_ when I relply to X about Y? Your name was not
even mentioned in my post to Robbie Hatley.

> Same as RH
> never needed you explaining he had made a mistake.

No but Robbie did, which was the purpose of my post to him.

How much longer are you going to take to get this fact?

> I know he had made a
> mistake. He knows he made a mistake. A "genuine" mistake no
> less. ..... All you had to do to HELP rather than be a toady was to
> say to Robbie "actually you wrong. Richard spotted a mistake in RHs
> explanation".

Which is what I did for goodness sake. Go and reread the whole subthread
once more. For your reexamination I quote the relevant bit below:

>>>>
The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and zero
otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.
<<<<

Now from what I gather from your replies to me, you object to the last
phrase: "by mistake I'm sure". You assert that I should not have said
that. Have I got it right?

Well too bad, but as I said before, I am going to say what I want to
say, without considering whether it might upset you or Antoninus or
Kenny and your collective obsession with RJH.

> We dont need you rubbing up against RHs leg and telling
> us in details how RH made a "genuine reversal" or whatever slippery
> terms you used.

If this is your interpretation of what I was doing from my few words
above, then God help you guys.

>>> And if you do try to be a smart arse about basic logic expressions
>>> then don't start telling people their development tools are broken
>>> when you do not have a clue and have not verified it under your OWN
>>> tools.
>>
>> I'm glad to see that you have finally brought up your grievance with
>> Robbie Hatley's comments to you, to his notice, albeit through a
>> reply to me.
>
> What are you talking about?
>
>>
>>> Simple really.
>>>
>>> I am at a loss as to why you keep promoting thise thread.
>>
>> Believe me, the feeling is mutual.
>
> Yet it is you who keeps harping on. I am merely trying to respond with
> some kind of meaning to your nonsensical rants.

Excuse me but you were the one who replied to my post to Robbie
questioning my choice of words.

If you could just have read what I wrote to Robbie (and have re-quoted
above) without your preconceptions about what I was trying to do, then
we might never have needed to waste so many posts over a trivial issue
of wording in a reply to a trivial misreading of a correction to a
trivial mistake.

santosh <> writes:

> Richard wrote:
>
>> santosh <> writes:
>>
>>> Richard wrote:
>>>
>>>> santosh <> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Richard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> santosh <> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> santosh <> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Richard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> santosh <> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> Robbie Hatley wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Richard" <devr_@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Heathfield <> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > have values. Relational expressions have the value 0 if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > they're false, and 1 if they're true. So x < 30 will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > evaluate to 0 if x is less than 30, and 1 otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It won't actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> for you, then your compiler is broken and you should get a
>>>>>>>>>>>> better one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30
>>>>>>>>>>> and zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> sure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake.
>>>>>>>>>> There is no evil intent in my correction. Why you feel the
>>>>>>>>>> need to confirm his "mistake" is very strange.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because he did not spot RJH's error and therefore, could not
>>>>>>>>> understand your correction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So therefore, maybe he should post nothing? Did that cross your
>>>>>>>> mind?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He misread RJH's statement and that is what I brought to his
>>>>>>> notice. What he said to you about your compiler is beside the
>>>>>>> point and did not strike me as being important enough to comment
>>>>>>> on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you joking? It was the WHOLE crux of things. He informed me
>>>>>> that if my compiler did not agree with RH then I needed a new one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is it with you and apologising for other peoples mistakes?
>>>>>
>>>>> Er no. It was the crux of anything as far as I was concerned. If it
>>>>> was important enough to you, *you* should have replied promptly to
>>>>> him, instead of correcting third-party replies.
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea what you are talking about. The ONLY correction I
>>>> made was the original assertion from RH.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> he waffled on about my broken compiler and its as clear as day
>>>>>>>> he never tried the code with his wonderful,all singing, all
>>>>>>>> dancing compiler.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's mistake. Compiling
>>>>>>> OP's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes it was. RHs whole reply was based on explaining the OPs code.
>>>>>
>>>>> But compiling OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's typo.
>>>>
>>>> Err, I know. So what? it was not ME who mentioned compilers.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> code (which would require some completion to make it compilable)
>>>>>>> would do nothing towards spotting (or not spotting) RJH's typo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I commented on RHs English response not the code. It was not me
>>>>>> who brought compilers into it-
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither was it me. So it begs the point - why are you making a big
>>>>> fuss over *my* reply instead of answering directly to Robbie
>>>>> Hatley, perhaps along the lines of:
>>>>
>>>> It was not a "big fuss". I pointed out you did not need to point out
>>>> RH's error was a genuine error. What other types are there?
>>>
>>> It's incredible that you have taken offence over just two extra
>>> words, which I am sure you would not have done if the subject of
>>> those words had been someone other than RJH.
>>
>> Did you not notice that I had no issue with RH? What is wrong with
>> you? he made a mistake. I pointed it out. I explained in a later post
>> why I pointed it out as I did. Robbie came flying in telling me my
>> compiler was broken for some reason because HE DID NOT REA OR
>> UNDERSTAND what RH said. How this is MY issue I am not sure.
>
> In your haste to respond you did not read carefully what I wrote above.
> Do read it again.

Santosh, you're rapidly becoming a bore in your attempts to make your
bones. Heathfield is big enough and ugly enough to take care of
himself. As, I am sure, is Robbie.

I'm not reading any more of your word games. Enough.

Antoninus Twink <> writes:

> On 7 Mar 2008 at 13:44, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Richard said:
>>> But of course, giving credence and credit to other posters is
>>> becoming a rarer and rarer thing these days with posters like CBF
>>> riding in on their chargers at a moments notice.
>>
>> Again, I am struggling to disagree with you here, and failing.
>
> Wow, CBF has really been cut loose. Clique status lost and no mistake.
>
> <typical Heathfield cant and hypocrisy snipped>

I always felt he was treated more like the grumpy old
farm dog. Ultimately useless, but nice to pet occasionally.

On 7 Mar 2008 at 17:05, santosh wrote:
> I will respond as long as you keep insisting that I "defended" RJH or
> was "rubbing up against RHs leg" or point out what I should and should
> not be writing.

Give it up, Santosh - the craven submissiveness and fawning admiration
that constitutes your relationship with RJH is obvious to everyone.

> Well too bad, but as I said before, I am going to say what I want to
> say, without considering whether it might upset you or Antoninus or
> Kenny and your collective obsession with RJH.

Gimme a break - you're the only one here with a dribbling, fetishistic
obsession with Heathfield. He can do no wrong in your eyes.

writes:

> Richard <devr_@gmail.com> wrote:
>> santosh <> writes:
>>
>>> Richard wrote:
>>>> santosh <> writes:
>>>>> Robbie Hatley wrote:
>>>>>> "Richard" <devr_@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Richard Heathfield <> writes:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>>> > x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have
>>>>>>> > values. Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're false,
>>>>>>> > and 1 if they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if x is less
>>>>>>> > than 30, and 1 otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It won't actually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't for you,
>>>>>> then your compiler is broken and you should get a better one.
>>>>>
>>>>> The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and
>>>>> zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.
>>>>
>>>> Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. There is
>>>> no evil intent in my correction. Why you feel the need to confirm his
>>>> "mistake" is very strange.
>>>
>>> Because he did not spot RJH's error and therefore, could not understand
>>> your correction.
>>
>> So therefore, maybe he should post nothing? Did that cross your mind? he
>> waffled on about my broken compiler and its as clear as day he never
>> tried the code with his wonderful,all singing, all dancing compiler.
>
> That's the risk you take when you post such a terse answer -- people
> don't know whether you're confused or just being coy. Expanding your
> answer just a tad, say to something like:
>
> It won't actually, it's the other way around.
>
> would have saved a whole flurry of messages and some hard feelings.

Not really. Santosh and the others got it. I explained in another post
why I didn't do that. But point taken, even though I don't necessarily agree.