Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Re: C99 is not a failure

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: C99 is not a failure

 
 
Antoninus Twink
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-30-2010
On 30 Jan 2010 at 0:20, Christopher Bazley wrote:
> Antoninus Twink <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Is it something about the British that makes them such bare-faced
>> liars? I like to think that dishonest Americans at least feel some
>> shame about their lies.

>
> As a Briton, I find that generalisation offensive. But presumably it
> was supposed to be.


No, it wasn't meant to be offensive.

I pity you, that the good reputation of your countrymen for honesty is
dragged through the mud by the likes of Heathfield and Blair. Similarly
I expect you pity us that the reputation of all Americans for
intelligence and reasoned thought is undermined by George W Bush's
moronic stupidity.

No offense either way, AFAICS.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Phil Bradby
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-30-2010
Christopher Bazley wrote:
> In message <4b6371ba$0$14130$(E-Mail Removed)>
> Sjouke Burry <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Antoninus Twink wrote:
>>> On 29 Jan 2010 at 23:05, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 29/01/2010 19:26, jacob navia wrote:
>>>>> Tim Streater a écrit :
>>>>>> What lies do you think Blair has uttered?
>>>>> Weapons of mass destruction anyone? Where are they? Wasn't that
>>>>> the reason for the war as announced by blair/bush???
>>>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Yes, indeed.
>>>
>>> As I see it, there are two lies of monumental significance that Blair
>>> has refused to back down from.
>>>
>>> 1. He knew that there were no WMD, but he fabricated a dossier to
>>> claim that there were. A lie.

>
>> Now I have a very big problem:
>> what did The Saddam regime use to gas the Kourds with? What did Ali
>> Cyancali use to gas them? According to you they never had the means,
>> and they did not do it??? Explain please.....

>
> This is way off topic, but some people would describe those munitions as
> battlefield weapons rather than weapons of mass destruction. (In the
> first world war nobody called poison gas 'WMD'.)
>
> Also, the fact the Baath regime had chemical weapons in the past doesn't
> necessarily mean that they had them immediately before the second gulf
> war.


I cannot believe anyone is still defending that scuzzbucket. Who cares if
the guy had WMD, the fact that he was sponsoring Al'Quaida was reason
enough to whack him. Would Iraq be a democracy today if we hadn't gone in
there, I don't think so.

PB
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rui Maciel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-30-2010
Phil Bradby wrote:

> I cannot believe anyone is still defending that scuzzbucket. Who cares if
> the guy had WMD, the fact that he was sponsoring Al'Quaida was reason
> enough to whack him. Would Iraq be a democracy today if we hadn't gone in
> there, I don't think so.



That would be a reasonable rationale. Too bad it isn't true.

"Saddam had no links to al-Qaeda"

In:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...d-no-links-to-
alqaeda/2006/09/09/1157222383981.html

«THERE is no evidence of formal links between former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda
leaders before the invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, a long-awaited declassified US Senate
report has revealed.»


Please inform yourself.


Rui Maciel
 
Reply With Quote
 
William Hughes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-30-2010
On Jan 30, 10:34*am, Phil Bradby <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Christopher Bazley wrote:
> > In message <4b6371ba$0$14130$(E-Mail Removed)>
> > * * * * * Sjouke Burry <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >> Antoninus Twink wrote:
> >>> On 29 Jan 2010 at 23:05, Tim Streater wrote:
> >>>> On 29/01/2010 19:26, jacob navia wrote:
> >>>>> Tim Streater a crit :
> >>>>>> What lies do you think Blair has uttered?
> >>>>> Weapons of mass destruction anyone? *Where are they? *Wasn't that
> >>>>> the reason for the war as announced by blair/bush???
> >>>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Yes, indeed.

>
> >>> As I see it, there are two lies of monumental significance that Blair
> >>> has refused to back down from.

>
> >>> 1. He knew that there were no WMD, but he fabricated a dossier to
> >>> claim that there were. A lie.

>
> >> Now I have a very big problem:
> >> what did The Saddam regime use to gas the Kourds with? What did Ali
> >> Cyancali use to gas them? According to you they never had the means,
> >> and they did not do it??? Explain please.....

>
> > This is way off topic, but some people would describe those munitions as
> > battlefield weapons rather than weapons of mass destruction. (In the
> > first world war nobody called poison gas 'WMD'.)

>
> > Also, the fact the Baath regime had chemical weapons in the past doesn't
> > necessarily mean that they had them immediately before the second gulf
> > war.

>
> I cannot believe anyone is still defending that scuzzbucket. Who cares if
> the guy had WMD, the fact that he was sponsoring Al'Quaida was reason
> enough to whack him.


Not only that, he supported C90 over C99 and was
against adding threading and overloading to the
language!!!!! [1]

- William Hughes

[1] [Work it out yourself, (hint: 5)]

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
C99 is not a failure (continued) jacob navia C Programming 18 02-14-2010 12:13 PM
Success Or Failure: There Is No Such Thing As Failure bs866806@163.com C Programming 0 01-06-2008 11:41 AM
Difference between "library parts" of C99 and "language parts" of C99 albert.neu@gmail.com C Programming 3 03-31-2007 08:14 PM
C99 struct initialization (C99/gcc) jilerner@yahoo.com C Programming 3 02-20-2006 04:41 AM
[JAVA] [EVALUATION] - The Java Failure (Sorry: The Java(tm) Failure) Ilias Lazaridis Java 0 02-01-2005 10:32 AM



Advertisments