«

Most of "Paul"'s postings here are followups.

If everyone stopped replying to him, he just might stop posting.

Or maybe he wouldn't, but that problem is easily solved by the use
of a killfile.

How likely is it that the *next* followup will be the one that
makes him change his mind, hmm?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Op 09-Jan-11 11:07, Keith Thompson schreef:
> Most of "Paul"'s postings here are followups.
>
> If everyone stopped replying to him, he just might stop posting.
>
> Or maybe he wouldn't, but that problem is easily solved by the use
> of a killfile.
>
> How likely is it that the *next* followup will be the one that
> makes him change his mind, hmm?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised that otherwise intelligent people keep
arguing with him, while it is obvious from his first few postings that
will lead to nowhere.

On 1/9/2011 6:10 AM, Paavo Helde wrote:

>> Frankly I'm a bit surprised that otherwise intelligent people keep
>> arguing with him, while it is obvious from his first few postings that
>> will lead to nowhere.
>
> I'm sure they enjoyed it. It was a nice opportunity to demonstrate ones'
> own invincible logic... and to re-demonstrate it - and again and again!
>

http://xkcd.com/386

On Jan 9, 10:07*am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:

> How likely is it that the *next* followup will be the one that
> makes him change his mind, hmm?

Well said.

Here's what I try to do: whenever I see someone like Paul trolling on
the internet, I try and go out and use that energy I might otherwise
have spent arguing pointlessly, to do something nice for someone else,
preferably away from my computer -- donate to a worthy cause, make a
loved one a cup of tea, do the ironing... it doesn't matter. But it
might turn internet trolling into a net force for good in the
universe.

There, that's my hippy twaddle for the day.

On Jan 9, 9:24*am, red floyd <no.spam.h...@its.invalid> wrote:
> On 1/9/2011 6:10 AM, Paavo Helde wrote:
>
> >> Frankly I'm a bit surprised that otherwise intelligent people keep
> >> arguing with him, while it is obvious from his first few postings that
> >> will lead to nowhere.
>
> > I'm sure they enjoyed it. It was a nice opportunity to demonstrate ones'
> > own invincible logic... and to re-demonstrate it - and again and again!
>
> http://xkcd.com/386

Too true, too true.

On Jan 9, 4:10*pm, Paavo Helde <myfirstn...@osa.pri.ee> wrote:
> Dombo <do...@disposable.invalid> wrote in news:4d299005$0$30705$5fc3050
> @news.tiscali.nl:
>
> > Op 09-Jan-11 11:07, Keith Thompson schreef:
> >> Most of "Paul"'s postings here are followups.
>
> >> If everyone stopped replying to him, he just might stop posting.
>
> >> Or maybe he wouldn't, but that problem is easily solved by the use
> >> of a killfile.
>
> >> How likely is it that the *next* followup will be the one that
> >> makes him change his mind, hmm?
>
> > Frankly I'm a bit surprised that otherwise intelligent people keep
> > arguing with him, while it is obvious from his first few postings that
> > will lead to nowhere.
>
> I'm sure they enjoyed it. It was a nice opportunity to demonstrate ones'
> own invincible logic... and to re-demonstrate it - and again and again!

Was fun to read at first how everybody were classified totally
incorrect, confused and stupid. Sadly the subject was too simple and
so it was getting repetitive and boring quick.

> I think Paul hoped that some people are fool enough to support him. He
> was much nicer to the responders who showed even minor understanding to
> his ideas. Maybe he was hoping to tear the group into parties all
> fighting each other.

Maybe. Usually they pick something more dim for such purpose.
Something about threads, exceptions, character encodings, signedness,
programming patterns, garbage collection or the like.

On Jan 10, 5:28*pm, Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 4:10*pm, Paavo Helde <myfirstn...@osa.pri.ee> wrote:
> > I think Paul hoped that some people are fool enough to support him. He
> > was much nicer to the responders who showed even minor understanding to
> > his ideas. Maybe he was hoping to tear the group into parties all
> > fighting each other.
>
> Maybe. Usually they pick something more dim for such purpose.
> Something about threads, exceptions, character encodings, signedness,
> programming patterns, garbage collection or the like.

Dunno. I think I was Paul recently in a thread on comp.lang.c
recently, being unkind to apparently renowned experts in an argument
over the appropriate definition of "to define a type". Unlike Paul at
least, I could see the other side's case. (I simply disagreed.) Remind
me never to do that again.

On 09-Jan-11 11:07, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> Most of "Paul"'s postings here are followups.
>
> >> If everyone stopped replying to him, he just might
> >> stop posting.
>
> >> Or maybe he wouldn't, but that problem is easily
> >> solved by the use of a killfile.
>
> >> How likely is it that the *next* followup will
> >> be the one that makes him change his mind, hmm?

Dombo wrote:
> > Frankly I'm a bit surprised that otherwise intelligent
> > people keep arguing with him, while it is obvious
> > from his first few postings that
> > will lead to nowhere.

Paavo Helde wrote:
> I'm sure they enjoyed it. It was a nice opportunity to demonstrate
> ones' own invincible logic... and to re-demonstrate it - and
> again and again!

Once I had a discussion with the famous Mr. Newcomer in
microsoft.public.vc.mfc where we came to the topic of OCD (obsessive-
compulsive disorder). I hold the believe that the percentage of
programmers that suffer from OCD is increased with regard to the mean
percentage. I think that programming requires a high degree of
strictness in order to get the computer to do what he wants him to do
(in contrast to a conversation with a human being, where one can be a
lot more imprecise).

When I see Paul's postings I get the feeling that he is quite
emotionally involved while at the same time he is open to arguments.
This looks very much like OCD to me (although I am by no means a
psychologist), and this would explain why he persists in arguing.

Regards,
Stuart

On 11 Jan., Joshua Maurice wrote:
> Dunno. I think I was Paul recently in a thread on comp.lang.c
> recently, being unkind to apparently renowned experts in an argument
> over the appropriate definition of "to define a type". Unlike Paul at
> least, I could see the other side's case. (I simply disagreed.) Remind
> me never to do that again.

Gosh, we may even end up establishing a new proverb in this newsgroup:
Don't you Paul me!

Regards,
Stuart

"Stuart Redmann" <> wrote in message
news:376e9651-a650-453e-862b-...
> On 09-Jan-11 11:07, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> >> Most of "Paul"'s postings here are followups.
>>
>> >> If everyone stopped replying to him, he just might
>> >> stop posting.
>>
>> >> Or maybe he wouldn't, but that problem is easily
>> >> solved by the use of a killfile.
>>
>> >> How likely is it that the *next* followup will
>> >> be the one that makes him change his mind, hmm?
>
> Dombo wrote:
>> > Frankly I'm a bit surprised that otherwise intelligent
>> > people keep arguing with him, while it is obvious
>> > from his first few postings that
>> > will lead to nowhere.
>
> Paavo Helde wrote:
>> I'm sure they enjoyed it. It was a nice opportunity to demonstrate
>> ones' own invincible logic... and to re-demonstrate it - and
>> again and again!
>
> Once I had a discussion with the famous Mr. Newcomer in
> microsoft.public.vc.mfc where we came to the topic of OCD (obsessive-
> compulsive disorder). I hold the believe that the percentage of
> programmers that suffer from OCD is increased with regard to the mean
> percentage. I think that programming requires a high degree of
> strictness in order to get the computer to do what he wants him to do
> (in contrast to a conversation with a human being, where one can be a
> lot more imprecise).
>
> When I see Paul's postings I get the feeling that he is quite
> emotionally involved while at the same time he is open to arguments.
> This looks very much like OCD to me (although I am by no means a
> psychologist), and this would explain why he persists in arguing.
>
> Regards,
> Stuart
>
WRONG!