Correct Typedef

[Netocrat]

Do you really think Lawrence is not aware of that?

I wouldn't have posted as I did if I hadn't thought so. No disrespect
intended.

I see no reason to respond seriously - a humorous response is different -
to a top-level post that you know to be a troll unless it holds something
interesting or it has misinformed responses requiring correction. Given
that neither of these two descriptions applied to some of the posts to
which Lawrence responded, and assuming that he reasoned the same way, I
judged that he didn't pick the trolling.

I've seen other regulars responding to obvious troll posts in a way
that indicates that they are unaware of the trolling. In regards his
ability to explain standard C Lawrence is more than a regular regular,
however I don't have enough information to judge whether the same applies
regarding his awareness of trolling.

In retrospect it was a rash and unnecessary post as I had already made my
point in other threads, and it was presumptuous to declare that Lawrence
was wasting his time. I hope I haven't offended. My intentions were
honest.

Interesting threads
often come from the most unlikely origins, and are often posted not for
the benefit of the original poster, but for the benefit of other
readers.

Granted, and some trolls are inventive and spark variety. But most trolls
are not and seek to irritate with repetitive FAQs and OT posts.

"The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." - Bertrand Russell

Point taken. And whether or not a troll is responded to is not as
important as how it is responded to.

Trolls come and go. The provoking of this meta-discussion could be
considered a victory for them.

That depends on whether we enjoy it or not doesn't it?

Usual practice is to respond topically or not at all.

Which is what I've been doing up until this aberration, and I'll stick
with it.

 

[Priya Mishra]

I wouldn't have posted as I did if I hadn't thought so. No disrespect
intended.

I see no reason to respond seriously - a humorous response is different -
to a top-level post that you know to be a troll unless it holds something
interesting or it has misinformed responses requiring correction. Given
that neither of these two descriptions applied to some of the posts to
which Lawrence responded, and assuming that he reasoned the same way, I
judged that he didn't pick the trolling.

I've seen other regulars responding to obvious troll posts in a way
that indicates that they are unaware of the trolling. In regards his
ability to explain standard C Lawrence is more than a regular regular,
however I don't have enough information to judge whether the same applies
regarding his awareness of trolling.

In retrospect it was a rash and unnecessary post as I had already made my
point in other threads, and it was presumptuous to declare that Lawrence
was wasting his time. I hope I haven't offended. My intentions were
honest.

A warm Thanks to all of you, who gave me such a nice inputs.
Yes as most of the members said i did not posted the correct code
I just posted the dummy one... Anway I resolved my issue.. It was some
stupidy what i was making in the code..... Well thanks to to all of you

BTW who is this NetoCrat .. seems to me soem CHUNK NORIS came to the
group
well to be precise... he has only one thing to do.... Write the lenghty
mails
and pin point to others....


priya

 

[Kenneth]

I see.

Kenneth

 

[Default User]

I see.

You see what? Please quote a relevant portion of the previous message.
To do so from Google, following the instructions that CB Falconer has
in his .sig:


"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson



Brian

 

[Netocrat]

.... but was unwise to make that judgement public, potentially
slandering an innocent poster.

I did not start it. Did I?

Right, you didn't. It was rash of me to do that.

1) there's been a recent spurt in troll-ish postings. My bet is: the
posters' do not intend to be trolls, rather it is a lack of information
that haunts them.

For some, perhaps. I don't doubt that a significant percentage of
posts are deliberate trolls.

<snip rest>

 

[Suman]

... but was unwise to make that judgement public, potentially
slandering an innocent poster.

Hm. Thank yourself, my counsel is on leave.

Right, you didn't. It was rash of me to do that.

Now, can we go out and play? Let's call this off, we all have a lot
of other interesting things to look forward to.

For some, perhaps. I don't doubt that a significant percentage of
posts are deliberate trolls.

We'll start a new thread on that, marked OT, some other time

<snip rest>

See you elsethread!
Suman.