DJ Bernstein's str library

[Jordan Abel]

It is rather amazing, isn't it. The people who plonked me
evidently believe I was telling the group as a whole that I don't
care for any of the conventions of Usenet, rather than just
telling one person who'd insulted me and posted a non-sequitor
where to get off.

People are going to be pissed off at me for quoting this, but I feel
I have a duty to do so in light of the fact that [I believe] this
was a genuine misunderstanding.

 

[Flash Gordon]

Poldie wrote:

It is rather amazing, isn't it. The people who plonked me evidently
believe I was telling the group as a whole that I don't care for any of
the conventions of Usenet, rather than just telling one person who'd
insulted me and posted a non-sequitor
where to get off.

I said to complain at Google for making you look like a fool, I did not
say you are one (I've checked in Google). The fact that you already knew
how to post (based on what you say further down) makes it even more a
case of Google making you look like a fool. You then snipped it back to:

|> Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
|> sees your post
|
|etc etc
|
|Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.

Which reads as you saying that you don't care about whether other people
know what you are respond to. It was in response to that you received
your first plonk.

If you object to the way I phased it or think I insulted you then you
should say that rather than saying that you don't care about whether
people can tell when you are replying to.

I've read and posted to Usenet for years now and usually quote and trim
posts I reply to, I don't top-post etc - I just lapsed because I wasn't
thinking about it too much and I was using Google rather than
Thunderbird.

So complain at Google for providing a broken interface instead of at
people for calling you on bad posting style.

I used to laugh at the `campaign for grumpiness where grumpiness is
due` sig-files but now it's being directed at me it's not so funny...!

It is not `campaign for grumpiness where grumpiness is due` it is an
attempt to educate people in how to make their posts legible.

Apologies to anyone I genuinely offended!

I'm not so easily offended.

 

[Dave Vandervies]

But you and some others ignore the possibility that the posting to
which it was an answer never did arrive at the newsserver you are using.
Or where it arrives later, possibly after you have read the response.

There are other possibilities where a context-less reply is unreadable.
For instance when you read the original the day before and in the
plethora of threads you are following you have no idea what it is a
response to.

....especially since a lot of nothing-quoted replies are actually
commenting on something other than the articles referred to in the
References header.
Yeah, my newsswerver has the article you[1] followed-up to. I've even
gone back to re-read that article (which I shouldn't have to do, because,
well, I can't if my newsswerver has been swerving far enough to miss it).
That hasn't helped me figure out what you're talking about. I could
go back and read all 200[2] articles in the thread, but if it's not
important enough to you[3] that you make your article comprehensible
(by providing context, or writing in some reasonable approximation to
standard English, or whatever), why should it be important enough to me
to try to decrypt it?


dave

[1] Generic 'you', not referring to anybody in this thread (at least not yet).
[2] Quite small, compared to a lot of interesting threads.
[3] Another generic 'you', often but not always the same one as in [1].

 

[Ben Pfaff]

It is not `campaign for grumpiness where grumpiness is due` it is an
attempt to educate people in how to make their posts legible.

The "campaign for grumpiness where grumpiness is due" was
probably before your time in comp.lang.c, so you may not
recognize the reference. I was a supporter. These days, I care
less about such things.

 

[Default User]

Jordan Abel wrote:

Regardless, the damage is done. I counted at least 3-4 people who
plonked him, when in this case I think he really didn't deserve it.

He absolutely deserved it.

In any case, he seems to have learned his lesson about the quoting,
but the people who plonked him seemed to do so more due to his
reaction at being called on it than for the action itself, perhaps
assuming wrongly that he wouldn't have complained unless he intended
to continue his behavior in the future.

It's my experience that if someone is a jackass when you nicely ask
them to stop something annoying, that person will continue to be a
jackass about other things.



Brian

 

[Default User]

"Your post is wrong and you are an asshole for posting it" is not
"instruction" by any stretch of the imagination

This is a lie. Neither I nor anyone else posted anything like this.

Repeat after me: hyphen hyphen space newline.

What about it? My .sig has that. I choose to make my name part of the
regular post, because my moniker is somewhat distinct from it.

 

[Jordan Abel]

This is a lie. Neither I nor anyone else posted anything like this.

He took offense, and my point was that it was [apparently] the
reason for his reaction. Whether it was intended that was is
immaterial.

What about it? My .sig has that. I choose to make my name part of
the regular post, because my moniker is somewhat distinct from it.

You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your name
in it - and in any case, why not put it in a proper sig? It's not
like people won't be able to see it. I'm not normally so pedantic,
but calling you out on that was intended to make a point.

 

[Michael Wojcik]

And that is why the References: header was invented.

Nonsense. The References header was introduced to permit threading
readers. It has no effect on the issue Flash raised: not everyone
will have seen the message that is being referred to.

This is a basic fact of Usenet, and it is amazing that so many
people who have used Usenet for any significant length of time still
do not understand it.

yes, it's irritating. so is reading people complaining about it.

Not nearly as irritating as reading people who fail to understand
why it's a problem.

 

[Dave Vandervies]

You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your name
in it -

Oh? What do you call this, then?
--------

 

[Jordan Abel]

You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your name
in it -

Oh? What do you call this, then? [snipped]
Sure looks like a .sig to me.

A "pseudo-sig" written to fit the particular post. It wasn't
attached to his other posts.

 

[Keith Thompson]

It is rather amazing, isn't it. The people who plonked me evidently
believe I was telling the group as a whole that I don't care for any of
the conventions of Usenet, rather than just telling one person who'd
insulted me and posted a non-sequitor
where to get off.

That was indeed the impression I got; I'm glad to see that wasn't your
intent.

One more thing: please don't snip attributions. The quoted text
starting with "Regardless, the damage is done" was written by Jordan
Abel, but I couldn't tell that from your followup. I know Google
provides proper attribution lines if you jump through their hoops.

 

[Default User]

This is a lie. Neither I nor anyone else posted anything like this.

He took offense, and my point was that it was [apparently] the
reason for his reaction. Whether it was intended that was is
immaterial.

This is sheer bullshit. He may have taken offense, but none was offered
and nothing in the original posts could have been taken by a reasonable
person to be anything like what you said we posted.

You lied, pure and simple, and owe us an apology.

You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your name
in it - and in any case, why not put it in a proper sig?

Another lie.



Brian

 

[Default User]

You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your
name in it -

Oh? What do you call this, then? [snipped]
Sure looks like a .sig to me.

A "pseudo-sig" written to fit the particular post. It wasn't
attached to his other posts.

A real .sig, that I choose to manually delete when I don't think it
necessary. It's none of your business how often it's displayed, and a
pathetic attempt to deflect attention away from your outrageous
behavior.

You're wrong. You've lied. You are not worth listening to.

This *plonk* is for YOU.





Brian

 

[Dave Vandervies]

You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your name
in it -

Oh? What do you call this, then? [snipped]
Sure looks like a .sig to me.

A "pseudo-sig" written to fit the particular post. It wasn't
attached to his other posts.

So signing off with his name is The Wrong Thing because it should be in
his .sig, because he doesn't normally have a .sig.
And this would somehow be different if he normally posted with a
nonempty .sig?

I'm obviously too thick to follow your reasoning; you'll have to spell
it out for me. Feel free to use small words.


dave
(and random content-related comments go here, not in the .sig)

 

[Keith Thompson]

This is a lie. Neither I nor anyone else posted anything like this.

He took offense, and my point was that it was [apparently] the
reason for his reaction. Whether it was intended that was is
immaterial.

By putting the words

Your post is wrong and you are an asshole for posting it

in quotation marks, you implied that it was a quotation, i.e., that
someone else had written those exact words. I'm reasonably sure that
nobody did. Perhaps it wasn't your intent to imply that it was an
actual quotation.

I'm not aware of anything anyone said for which "Your post is wrong
and you are an asshole for posting it" would be an appropriate
paraphrase. Following the direct chain of parent articles, I see
nothing resembling the kind of insult you allege.

Jordan, I suggest you carefully re-read the thread, particularly the
direct chain of parent articles upthread from this one, and consider
whether you've misstated something.

 

[Jordan Abel]

You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your
name in it -

Oh? What do you call this, then? [snipped]
Sure looks like a .sig to me.

A "pseudo-sig" written to fit the particular post. It wasn't
attached to his other posts.

A real .sig, that I choose to manually delete when I don't think it
necessary. It's none of your business how often it's displayed, and a
pathetic attempt to deflect attention away from your outrageous
behavior.

You're wrong. You've lied. You are not worth listening to.

This *plonk* is for YOU.

Way to not give me a chance to answer your accusations. I saw at
least one message without it attached, and its content did happen to
be related to the present discussion [and didn't seem like the type
of thing someone would have for their general-use .sig], so i guess
i jumped to a conclusion. That is the ONLY thing i did. Calling me a
liar and *plonk*ing without offering me so much as a chance to
answer that accusation was uncalled for.

Reviewing the original thread, the original response to "Poldie" by
"Flash Gordon" was not as hostile as i [mis]remembered. However,
some of the responses immediately afterwards, both to him and to
myself, and the attitude prevailing as various people took up sides
[as exemplified by the hair trigger on your *plonk* button after
Peter Davies complained that this argument was off-topic] did reach
the level of hostility i was referring to.

You still haven't explained why your name, which is for all intents
and purposes part of your sig, is above the line.

Incidentally, i'd like to take this opportunity to reply to a post
that i missed the first time around.

in quotation marks, you implied that it was a quotation, i.e.,
that someone else had written those exact words. I'm reasonably
sure that nobody did. Perhaps it wasn't your intent to imply that
it was an actual quotation.

The only mark which is reasonably widely-understood to signify an
exact quote on usenet is >, not ". [that's not quite true -
generally you can use any left-margin mark and it'll be understood
to mean that unless stated otherwise]. On a C language newsgroup of
all places it should be known that "" can mean something other than
a quote of something someone says.

I'm not aware of anything anyone said for which "Your post is
wrong and you are an asshole for posting it" would be an
appropriate paraphrase. Following the direct chain of parent
articles, I see nothing resembling the kind of insult you allege.

It's not a matter of what was said - it's the attitude behind it.
"Default User" was fairly quick to resort to [implied] profanity in
the ensuing argument, even if he didn't say it directly to the
original offender

Or are you going to tell me that

Bull.

doesn't mean "bullshit"?

 

[Mark McIntyre]

I can hit meta-p to fetch previous article,

provided its available on your news server. This is far from always
the case on my provider.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your name
in it

Yes he does. Your newsreader must be broken if you're not seeing it.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your name
in it -

Oh? What do you call this, then? [snipped]
Sure looks like a .sig to me.

A "pseudo-sig" written to fit the particular post. It wasn't
attached to his other posts.

First you claim he has no sig at all. Then you complain that he
changed it.
Like many people here, Brian changes his .sig from time to time. Since
when was that a crime?

 

[Mark McIntyre]

There is something inherently trollish about shouting "plonk!" as if
anyone cares.

Jordan, you started off making some quite useful postings here.
However you're rapidly becoming persona non grata due to your
attitude. Perhaps you might want to reconsider the wisdom of attacking
the regulars and gurus in a group?

Also, if you want to get technical about usenet etiquette, how about
putting a proper dash before your sig? it's "-- \n".

He has one. Your newsreader is broken.