Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C++ > 2 much noise recently

Reply
Thread Tools

2 much noise recently

 
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-19-2011

"Peter Remmers" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4d84293c$0$7652$(E-Mail Removed)-online.net...
> Am 19.03.2011 00:43, schrieb Leigh Johnston:
>> On 18/03/2011 23:26, James Kanze wrote:
>>> And it's not "that person", but "those people". There are at
>>> least two candidates. (Also, both can be right on some
>>> particular minor point. Which doesn't change the global
>>> picture.)
>>>

>>
>> You are probably referring to me as I have been very active in this
>> newsgroup recently trying to correct Paul The Troll and I have also
>> disagreed with you causing you to label me a troll; assuming that is the
>> case you can just **** off. *You* are the troll; a well read troll but
>> a troll nevertheless.

>
> You are no better than Paul when it comes to having a technical
> conversation. You are aggressively trying to get your point through and
> start calling names as soon as your arguments cease to have an effect. You
> act childish in repeating the same mantra over and over again.
>
> The only difference to Paul is that technically you are right most of the
> time.


LOL

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter Remmers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-19-2011
Am 19.03.2011 05:23, schrieb Paul:
>
> "Peter Remmers"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4d84293c$0$7652$(E-Mail Removed)-online.net...
>> Am 19.03.2011 00:43, schrieb Leigh Johnston:
>>> On 18/03/2011 23:26, James Kanze wrote:
>>>> And it's not "that person", but "those people". There are at
>>>> least two candidates. (Also, both can be right on some
>>>> particular minor point. Which doesn't change the global
>>>> picture.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are probably referring to me as I have been very active in this
>>> newsgroup recently trying to correct Paul The Troll and I have also
>>> disagreed with you causing you to label me a troll; assuming that is the
>>> case you can just **** off. *You* are the troll; a well read troll but
>>> a troll nevertheless.

>>
>> You are no better than Paul when it comes to having a technical
>> conversation. You are aggressively trying to get your point through and
>> start calling names as soon as your arguments cease to have an effect. You
>> act childish in repeating the same mantra over and over again.
>>
>> The only difference to Paul is that technically you are right most of the
>> time.

>
> LOL
>


Don't laugh. I hereby assert that to those still talking to you it is a
a sport/challenge/entertainment/duty to try and squeeze at least a
little truth out of you.

To me it was entertaining reading your wretched farce. But it does get
tiring at some point.

Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-19-2011
itaj sherman <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

[Kruger-Dunning effect]

> However, I think this case is a troll (someone who does this
> conscientiously and delibarately to force people into prolong
> conversations). I tried before to grant him the benefit of the doubt,
> but at some point I got convinced. Whenever the conversaion does reach
> a logical deadend for him, he either ignores that post or turns to
> verbal violence (which I think might be the ultimate goal for trolls)
> - but clearly he is able to distiguish these cases.


Actually he's not even a very good troll. He works too hard.
A good troll can post one message and incite the existing users to go
into a long discussion about a small contended point, and then only
feed the discussion with snippets when it's starting to boild down.
If every other post is from the troll, he's just not very good at
trolling.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter Remmers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-19-2011
Am 19.03.2011 12:56, schrieb Leigh Johnston:
> On 19/03/2011 03:55, Peter Remmers wrote:
>> Am 19.03.2011 00:43, schrieb Leigh Johnston:
>>> On 18/03/2011 23:26, James Kanze wrote:
>>>> And it's not "that person", but "those people". There are at
>>>> least two candidates. (Also, both can be right on some
>>>> particular minor point. Which doesn't change the global
>>>> picture.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are probably referring to me as I have been very active in this
>>> newsgroup recently trying to correct Paul The Troll and I have also
>>> disagreed with you causing you to label me a troll; assuming that is the
>>> case you can just **** off. *You* are the troll; a well read troll but
>>> a troll nevertheless.

>>
>> You are no better than Paul when it comes to having a technical
>> conversation. You are aggressively trying to get your point through and
>> start calling names as soon as your arguments cease to have an effect.
>> You act childish in repeating the same mantra over and over again.

>
> Kanze labelled me a troll as I disagreed with him; that is "calling
> names"; he has done this on more than one occasion. Childish? Mantra?


With mantra I referred to this:

<quote>
In C++ a member function is a member of a class not a member of an
object. Classes only exist during compilation; after compilation
functions (member or otherwise) only exist as machine code in the text
segment. In C++ an object is simply a region of storage.
</quote>

Which you annoyingly pasted into almost every reply to Paul.

And I referred to your constant chanting that std::size_t is used in the
standard library, so this must be proof enough that unsigned is to be
preferred.

> Unsigned integral types can of course be used to represent
> non-negative values; there is evidence to support this position; a
> position which I am simply defending.

Actually, I too am in the pro-unsigned camp, but what's disturbing is
that you just paste your standard texts at every opportunity, thinking
that repeating then often enough will make your argument stronger or
something. Don't tell me that's not childish.

And apropos... Your useless ping-pong with Paul - "You are an idiot" -
"No, *you* are the idiot" - "No, it is *you* who is the idiot" - "No,
you".... ad nauseam, is as childish as it can get, and far from
constructive.


> /Leigh


Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Í÷ Tiib
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-19-2011
On Mar 19, 1:56*pm, Leigh Johnston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 19/03/2011 03:55, Peter Remmers wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Am 19.03.2011 00:43, schrieb Leigh Johnston:
> >> On 18/03/2011 23:26, James Kanze wrote:
> >>> And it's not "that person", but "those people". There are at
> >>> least two candidates. (Also, both can be right on some
> >>> particular minor point. Which doesn't change the global
> >>> picture.)

>
> >> You are probably referring to me as I have been very active in this
> >> newsgroup recently trying to correct Paul The Troll and I have also
> >> disagreed with you causing you to label me a troll; assuming that is the
> >> case you can just **** off. *You* are the troll; a well read troll but
> >> a troll nevertheless.

>
> > You are no better than Paul when it comes to having a technical
> > conversation. You are aggressively trying to get your point through and
> > start calling names as soon as your arguments cease to have an effect.
> > You act childish in repeating the same mantra over and over again.

>
> Kanze labelled me a troll as I disagreed with him; that is "calling
> names"; he has done this on more than one occasion. *Childish? *Mantra?
> * Unsigned integral types can of course be used to represent
> non-negative values; there is evidence to support this position; a
> position which I am simply defending.


Yes, unsigned types can be used (and are used in C and in C++ standard
libraries) to represent positive values. Also char arrays can be used
(but are not used in C and in C++ standard libraries) to represent
positive values. So what? Is it now good reason to flood newsgroup
with posts stating it?

What i think Alf was exactly worried about was such flooding with
worthless posts. CLC++ community now looks like group of lunatics
arguing in 100 posts threads about things like "what is function",
"what is class", "what is array", "what is pointer", "what is int",
"what is unsigned", "what is object" and "who is even more idiot and
troll".

Long argument often with with foul language ... whoever wins it is
retarded anyway.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ebenezer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-19-2011
On Mar 17, 6:10*pm, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach
(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness
>
> "
> Fractal wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of
> resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is
> incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's
> worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.
>
> Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as
> every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder,
> full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, that requires just
> as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a
> fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the
> Mandelbrot set in finite time.
>
> If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the
> Internet - in mailing lists, newsgroups, or website forums - your best bet is to
> say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time.
> "
>


I'm not liking the swearing in these threads. It
becomes abusive pretty quickly. Perhaps I should
review other options besides Google groups.

Brian Wood
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

 
Reply With Quote
 
Stuart Golodetz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-19-2011
On 19/03/2011 15:08, Ebenezer wrote:
<snip>
> I'm not liking the swearing in these threads. It
> becomes abusive pretty quickly. Perhaps I should
> review other options besides Google groups.
>
> Brian Wood
> Ebenezer Enterprises
> http://webEbenezer.net


+1
 
Reply With Quote
 
James Kanze
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-20-2011
On Mar 19, 3:08 pm, Ebenezer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 6:10 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach


[...]
> I'm not liking the swearing in these threads.


Independently of what I like, telling someone to **** off is
hardly a conclusive technical argument.

With regards to swearing, I rather like my mother's point of
view: it shows a remarkable lack of vocabulary. I'd perhaps
nuance her statement with regards to context, but in the context
of a technical discussion, I think it pretty much applies.
Swearing is the last resort, when you don't have any valid
arguments to present. Swearing is, in fact, an admission that
you are wrong, but that you're not man enough to admit it.

--
James Kanze
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
 
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
ISO noise vs. long exposure noise Cynicor Digital Photography 5 08-27-2005 06:14 PM
Non-noise words are incorrectly recognised as noise words. Peter Str°iman ASP .Net 1 08-23-2005 01:26 PM
Noise about noise... Stacey Digital Photography 3 02-18-2005 05:57 AM
Noise Ninja custom noise print- worth the effort for stacked photo?? Jason Sommers Digital Photography 4 01-19-2005 06:54 AM
Canon 1Ds Mark II - Noise? What noise? Brian C. Baird Digital Photography 9 09-21-2004 09:54 PM



Advertisments