Richard Heathfield's personal threads.

[Malcolm McLean]

We've had quite a few threads recently with RH's name in the title.

I strongly suspect that these are in fact originated by the same person who
wishes to encourage discussion of RH's ideas. In so far as the posts discuss
RH's writings on C this is maybe a legitimate use of the ng. However I would
remind people that there is no obligation to contribute, nor indeed on
Richard Heathfield to respond.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Malcolm McLean said:

We've had quite a few threads recently with RH's name in the title.

I regret this.

I strongly suspect that these are in fact originated by the same person
who wishes to encourage discussion of RH's ideas.

s/discussion/ridicule/ - in other words, I think that they are originated
by someone whose "knowledge" of C programming is weak, but that the
originator does not realise this, and that he just assumes that any
disparities between my writings and his understanding of the language are
due to my lack of knowledge rather than his. This is certainly in keeping
with the profile of the acllcc++ guy who threatened to break my nose
because he didn't understand something or other about strings.

In so far as the posts
discuss RH's writings on C this is maybe a legitimate use of the ng.
However I would remind people that there is no obligation to contribute,
nor indeed on Richard Heathfield to respond.

Mostly I don't, unless someone politely asks me a direct question (in which
case I may well decide to answer it, although not necessarily), or unless
the thread has been going on for so long that the focus has drifted onto
other things.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Malcolm McLean said:


I regret this.


s/discussion/ridicule/ - in other words, I think that they are originated
by someone whose "knowledge" of C programming is weak, but that the
originator does not realise this, and that he just assumes that any
disparities between my writings and his understanding of the language are
due to my lack of knowledge rather than his. This is certainly in keeping
with the profile of the acllcc++ guy who threatened to break my nose
because he didn't understand something or other about strings.

First reaction: F*ckin' Laurence Olivier...

Second reaction: Or, maybe I (Dickie H) am just a screwup who hasn't
quite realized it yet.

 

[Richard]

First reaction: F*ckin' Laurence Olivier...

Second reaction: Or, maybe I (Dickie H) am just a screwup who hasn't
quite realized it yet.

No. No. There is an agenda to "ridicule his writings". Tin Foil Hat shop
is now open for business.

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

Act now.

 

[Default User]

We've had quite a few threads recently with RH's name in the title.

They've been fairly useless threads, in my opinion. I think I'm going
to filter ones with "Heathfield" in the subject line.




Brian

 

[Malcolm McLean]

They've been fairly useless threads, in my opinion. I think I'm going
to filter ones with "Heathfield" in the subject line.

I found the thread on "bug / gross inefficiency" quite useful. My initial
reaction was "yes, this code could be made a lot faster, however it almost
certainly doesn't matter". In fact that wasn't the case, the "efficient"
replacement actually executed slower. Which is worth knowing. For the
problem itself runtime didn't matter, but some of us might have to optimise
a string-handling routine at some point.

However, as I said, I suspect that the further threads are rather clever
Heathfield-baits, technically known as "trolls". Whilst some people might
enjoy these, they do have a way of taking over the group.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

They've been fairly useless threads, in my opinion. I think I'm going
to filter ones with "Heathfield" in the subject line.

Right. And also in the "From" line.

 

[Tor Rustad]

We've had quite a few threads recently with RH's name in the title.

I strongly suspect that these are in fact originated by the same person
who wishes to encourage discussion of RH's ideas. In so far as the posts
discuss RH's writings on C this is maybe a legitimate use of the ng.
However I would remind people that there is no obligation to contribute,
nor indeed on Richard Heathfield to respond.

What is your C question?

 

[Antoninus Twink]

We've had quite a few threads recently with RH's name in the title.

I strongly suspect that these are in fact originated by the same person who
wishes to encourage discussion of RH's ideas. In so far as the posts discuss
RH's writings on C this is maybe a legitimate use of the ng. However I would
remind people that there is no obligation to contribute, nor indeed on
Richard Heathfield to respond.

I believe Richard Heath Field and his adoring fan-boys may have
delusions of grandeur.

He has a website with a large amount of code and text about C, and
advertises it in the signature of every post. It isn't surprising that a
number of different people here look at this site and then make
comments.

Some of the code can clearly be improved, though he is very sensitive
about this, and rather like a hedge hog curls up and sticks out the
spikes at the first suggestion that his output might be less than
perfect.

I haven't read through any of his writings on C, but it wouldn't
surprise me if they exhibited the familiar arrogant tone, interspersed
with some distortions and inaccuracies.

Richard HeathField is clearly a strong force bearing down on this group,
and he seems to successfully channel various acolytes into his long-term
campaign of attrition against Jacob Navia. I don't think it's bad if now
and then there are some threads that help bring him down a peg or two.

 

[Martin Ambuhl]

Antoninus Twink wrote:
to respond.

I believe Richard Heath Field and his adoring fan-boys may have
delusions of grandeur.

That sentence alone, and you can substitute any name you want for
Richard Heathfield's, marks you as someone without anything constructive
to say. Therefore, I have bothered neither to read or quote any of what
you wrote after that. You have already warned me (thank you) that you
are an idiot.

 

[Malcolm McLean]

Are you also sophia.agnes ?

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Are you also sophia.agnes ?

No.

 

[antondeck]

Heathfield brings out feelings of dislike, frustration and anger in
me. He is pompous, opinionated, self-righteous, self-satisfied,
haughty, rude and arrogant.

He has a pathological animosity for Navia which clouds his judgment
and this obsession of his taints the group. He has been using sock
puppets to attack Navia recently though this backfired when his "plan
for Jacob" was received badly.

He might know a lot about the minutiae of the C89 Standard, but it's
obvious that he knows jack-shit about programming in the real world.
He wants this group to be completely academic and theoretical with no
place at all for practical problems people might want to solve in real
life. Everything more sophisticated than "void main or int main" gets
shot down as off-topic.

There are quite a few anally-retentive posters in this group, but it's
fair to say that Heathfield is the ringleader, and there's no denying
he does "infuriatingly smug" with style. From time to time people try
to propose a de-Heathfieldization of the group, but they always get
drowned out and shot down in flames.

Probably this group will just become ever more introspective and self-
obsessed and become ever more of an irrelevance to real-world C
programmers as the years go by.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Antoninus Twink said:

I believe Richard Heath Field and his adoring fan-boys may have
delusions of grandeur.

I can't help what you believe.

He has a website with a large amount of code and text about C,

Actually not all that much. Indeed, I wish I had time to do more. I've
published a lot more in paper form than you'll find on my Web site.

and advertises it in the signature of every post.

Yes, that's what sig blocks are for.

It isn't surprising that a
number of different people here look at this site and then make
comments.

Indeed. It's funny how they all seem to share particular typographical
idiosyncrasies, isn't it? Of course, that's just coincidence, Paul, isn't
it? (Oh, sorry - did I call you Paul? Sorry about that. I mistook you for
someone else there. My nose, by the way, remains unbroken. (For those to
whom this revelation seems uncharacteristically bizarre even for me, check
the alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ archives to find out what I mean.))

Some of the code can clearly be improved, though he is very sensitive
about this, and rather like a hedge hog curls up and sticks out the
spikes at the first suggestion that his output might be less than
perfect.

On the contrary, I have many well-informed comp.lang.c regular contributors
to thank for many constructive suggestions that have improved my code base
immensely. Even your meta-criticism is broken.

Richard HeathField is clearly a strong force bearing down on this group,

I'm just a programmer. If you perceive me to be a strong force, well,
that's your privilege, but there are people here who know C far better
than I do. As far as I'm concerned, they are far stronger forces, and
rightly so.

and he seems to successfully channel various acolytes into his long-term
campaign of attrition against Jacob Navia.

There is no such campaign. If I am waging a campaign of attrition at all,
it is not against Jacob Navia but against idiocy, thoughtlessness, and the
abuse of Usenet by self-serving spammers. If you /interpret/ that as a
campaign against Jacob Navia, I can't help that.

I don't think it's bad if now
and then there are some threads that help bring him down a peg or two.

But I'm not *up* a peg or two. If you prefer to imagine otherwise, again,
that's your privilege, but consider this: you started a thread
specifically designed to bring me down a peg or two (not, as I mentioned,
that I'm up a peg or two), "Bug/Gross InEfficiency in HeathField's
fgetline program" - which (a) revealed no bug; (b) suggested a replacement
that was actually /less/ efficient; (c) failed to establish that there was
a *gross* inefficiency in the first place (and indeed evidence was
provided to the contrary); (d) revealed that you appear to have
considerable difficulty with appropriate and inappropriate capitalisation.
If it is ever necessary to bring me down a peg or two, then I sincerely
hope it will be done, but it will take someone with a full set of marbles.
It *may* be that you qualify, but you have so far failed to demonstrate
this.

 

[Ben Pfaff]

Heathfield brings out feelings of dislike, frustration and anger in
me. He is pompous, opinionated, self-righteous, self-satisfied,
haughty, rude and arrogant.

I disagree with your characterizations (except for the
"opinionated" part). Richard Heathfield is a valuable
contributor to this newsgroup. What have you contributed to it?

 

[Richard Heathfield]

(e-mail address removed) said:

Heathfield brings out feelings of dislike, frustration and anger in
me.

That's what killfiles are for.

He has a pathological animosity for Navia
Wrong.

which clouds his judgment and this obsession of his taints the group.
Wrong.

He has been using sock puppets to attack Navia recently
Wrong.

though this backfired when his "plan for Jacob" was received badly.

Not my plan, pal.

You know, we're only two paragraphs into your article, and one was nothing
but opinion and insults, and the other contained four incorrect claims.
You really need to work harder if you want to be taken seriously. Like,
getting your facts right and stuff like that.

<more nonsense snipped>

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Indeed. It's funny how they all seem to share particular typographical
idiosyncrasies, isn't it? Of course, that's just coincidence, Paul, isn't
it? (Oh, sorry - did I call you Paul? Sorry about that. I mistook you for
someone else there. My nose, by the way, remains unbroken. (For those to
whom this revelation seems uncharacteristically bizarre even for me, check
the alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ archives to find out what I mean.))

It's really amazing that you keep trotting out this baseless slur which
is nothing but mud-slinging. It does smack of paranoia if you believe
that someone who threatened violence 5 years ago should disappear, then
suddenly reappear - this time not threatening violence at all.

It also seems to come from the arrogance mentioned - is it so hard to
believe that more than one person could independently, in different
times and places, form a more-negative-than-positive opinion of you?

Many contributors to this group (Old Wolf, Tor Rustad and Default User
to name but three) use pseudonyms, and this is common practise across
the Usenet.

There is no such campaign. If I am waging a campaign of attrition at all,
it is not against Jacob Navia but against idiocy, thoughtlessness, and the
abuse of Usenet by self-serving spammers. If you /interpret/ that as a
campaign against Jacob Navia, I can't help that.

I see... of course, accusing Jacob of idiocy, thoughtlessness, and being
a self-serving spammer whoe abuses Usenet is not part of any campaign.

But I'm not *up* a peg or two. If you prefer to imagine otherwise, again,
that's your privilege, but consider this: you started a thread
specifically designed to bring me down a peg or two (not, as I mentioned,
that I'm up a peg or two), "Bug/Gross InEfficiency in HeathField's
fgetline program" - which (a) revealed no bug; (b) suggested a replacement
that was actually /less/ efficient; (c) failed to establish that there was
a *gross* inefficiency in the first place (and indeed evidence was
provided to the contrary);

It was an alogrithmic inefficiency - an obscure 2-pass algorithm instead
of a single line of idiomatic code.

(d) revealed that you appear to have considerable difficulty with
appropriate and inappropriate capitalisation.

Well, you always refer to "Jacob Navia", even though his own preferred
capitalization is "jacob navia". I personally think phonetic
capitalization is good.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

I believe Richard Heath Field and his adoring fan-boys may have
delusions of grandeur.

He has a website with a large amount of code and text about C,
and advertises it in the signature of every post. It isn't
surprising that a number of different people here look at this
site and then make comments.

Some of the code can clearly be improved, though he is very
sensitive about this, and rather like a hedge hog curls up and
sticks out the spikes at the first suggestion that his output
might be less than perfect.

Well, I waited a bit and actually read one more of your posts. It
didn't change my mind, and so you have achieved access to my PLONK
file. Congratulations.

 

[CBFalconer]

Heathfield brings out feelings of dislike, frustration and anger in
me. He is pompous, opinionated, self-righteous, self-satisfied,
haughty, rude and arrogant.

He has a pathological animosity for Navia which clouds his judgment
and this obsession of his taints the group. He has been using sock
puppets to attack Navia recently though this backfired when his
"plan for Jacob" was received badly.

Congratulations. You are considered equal to Antoninus Twink in my
PLONK file. Bye.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:25:33 -0800, in comp.lang.c ,

He has a pathological animosity for Navia which clouds his judgment

You have that backwards. RJH almost never responds to Navia's posts.

He has been using sock puppets to attack Navia

This is an outright lie, or else you've bought the lies peddled by
others.
..

He might know a lot about the minutiae of the C89 Standard, but it's
obvious that he knows jack-shit about programming in the real world.

You're Jacob Navia / Kenny McKormack / Karl Malbrain and I claim my
five pounds.

*plonk*
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan