The Six Periods of the Creation

[Antoninus Twink]

As usual, we are expected to believe that these technical geniuses with
vast programming experience are incapable of configuring their
newsreaders to kill follow-ups.

Ah, life in the land of the fake killfilers...

I've already kf'd two of the heads (keeping an open mind as to how
many hydras there are behind the door) and Kenny is sailing very close
to joining them

You seem to have made the mistake of believing that anyone gives a damn
who's in your (claimed) killfile.

The louder a person shouts about having killfiled someone, the less
likely it is that they actually have. Protesting too much is one of the
hallmarks of a fake killfiler.

I agree with Han - about the only person who might really have killfiled
the "trolls" is Eric Sossman, because he never says a word about it.

After all, although I'm sure I'm going to get the "clique"
tar-and-feather brush waved at me very soon anyway; I'd like to make
absolutely sure I've done nothing to justify it.

If you have no respect for what those who resist the dominance of the
Clique say, why do you care whether or not they accuse you of anything?

In my experience, I think for the most part those of us who take a broad
interpretation of "topicality" just say it as we see it.

 

[Nick]

Since we're already holding a conversation on this (utterly off-topic,
so easily killed by those who don't want to see me reposting your
comments), I throw a question at you. It doesn't apply in this tread,
because it's rubbish anyway, but - as I said - this was once of three in
one day.

You seem to be implying that this thread is "more" off-topic than
others, because it was, originally, about some religious nonsense.

Well, a couple of comments:
1) The fact is that the regs get more worked up about things that
are very marginally off-topic (such as happening to use a word that
appears in C++ [or worse, God forbid!, C#] documentation), than
they do about things (such as this thread) that are clearly OT.
2) Given what has been shown already about the religious nature of
the CLC regs, this thread is, in fact, not all that OT.

You've been doing this cut-and-paste job (at least, I assume it's cut
and paste, I can't see why else you've been making the same grammatical
error) for I don't know how long (mainly because Google's group search

The typo is (obviously) intentional.

is utterly hosed). What good is it doing. Firstly, it's clearly not
making the regulars any more flexible - indeed, it's just giving them
something else to get focussed on. And it's actually utterly no good
for the poor sods who do wander in and ask the wrong question. Surely
you'd be better answering the off-topic questions, or keeping quiet (and
saving the biting satire for when someone has been shown politely where
to go). After all, if you put yourself in the shoes of someone who did
come here and ask about accept() or whatever, what on earth would you
make of your canned response?

I am certain that you know the answers to all these questions, and that
you are, in the great CLC tradition, feigning ignorance for rhetorical
effect.

Careful. The "shut up - we tell you he's a troll" bit was starting to
sway the balance in your direction. This one - where you start to
accuse me of being part of the great conspiracy - is swinging it a long
way back the other way.

In any case, if you view the thing from the perspective of someone who
wants to understand, you *will* understand.

So you're not going to tell me what good you expect to come from this.
Fair enough, but I'll draw my own conclusions - and they might be "none
at all".