Richard said:
I was openly rude to one person. Maybe two. The rest was an
arguement/discussion. It is common for cliques to form and support
each other against someone they see as "new" : this can be a good
thing. It can, also, be a thing harbouring on censorship of the worst
order and frightens many newbies away. I dont remember being "rude" to
anyone bar Abel or whoever it was for telling me to check the
copyright of anything I google up - "anal" was the word I used.
That must have been in a different thread. In this one you have said
"ffs" to Vladimir which at least where I come from is being rude to
someone because of what it is an abbreviation for. I would hardly say
that calling someone a "self appointed mafioC" polite either. Nor is
saying, "Now you are advising on etiquette? You really are quite the
complete poster." in response to Vladimir's saying there was no need to
be rude exacly polite. Then saying to him, "I hope to hell you are not a
professional programmer with reasoning like this." could certainly be
considered insulting as well as rude, especially as Vladimir was
politely trying to present a reasoned counter argument to your claims.
Saying, "My whole issue with "the usual suspects" who are now in my
killfile or I'm in theirs ... It is still my contention they are full of
it." is, in my opinion, being rude to the bulk of the people who have
disagreed with you in this thread, including well respected members of
this group.
Similarly, referring to "...just some nosey arses..." is being rude to
at least a few people.
Then you have also said, "And the fact that you resort to a killfile
because I stand up to self important blowhards like yourself..." in
response to CBFalconer is definitely being rude specifically about him
and generally to a number of us.
So I would say you have been rude and insulting to me and a significant
number of other regulars here, not always directly but in sweeping
comments about a lot of us.
All these quote are from *this* thread and looked up in Google, so
anyone including you can easily check their veracity.
> This
would be the same guy who posted about 4 posts each of them
castigating someone for something with regard to their posting styles.
Lets see:
1) dont post links without checking the copyright. Whatever.
2) "I never use a debugger as it shows lack of
design". Whatever.
3) Dont reply to people who use abbreviations. Whatever.
I don't recall anyone ever stating that last, given your demonstrated
ability to misremember can you provide a message ID for that?
As for the "forgotten more about" : yeah. That normally crops up in
backslapping cliques.
With a "clique" that includes members of the relevant standards bodies,
authors of well regarded books, authors of major implementations of the
standard C library and others of high pedigree I think that here there
is a certain justification for such comments.
It is also a "clique" that Vladimir seems to have managed to join in
fairly short order, since I think he has only been posting here for a
couple of months. So it is hardly an exclusive "clique". Admittedly he
is prepared to accept this group for what it is instead of insisting
that the majority of us already here are wrong about what this group is.
I dont wish to argue. I just dont wish to be dictated to on who I help
and who I request help from especially when that request meets with
success.
No one is stopping, or even attempting to stop, you from helping anyone
you want. All we want you to do is accept what is and is not topical
here, redirect non-topical discussions you take part in to else where,
use reasonable English (which apart from being rude to people you are),
and accept that the rest of us have a right to request people not to
hold off topic discussions and to follow normal Usenet conventions which
where established before this group was even created.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Web site -
http://home.flash-gordon.me.uk/
comp.lang.c posting guidlines and intro -
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Intro_to_clc
