K
Keith Thompson
Mabden said:
Because ERT is a known troll. What I mean by that is that he
frequently posts things that seem carefully crafted to provoke long
and pointless arguments, often including blatant or subtle falsehoods;
I don't claim to understand his motivation. If you don't believe me,
you can go to groups.google.com and study his posting history.
The easiest thing to do would be to ignore him, but much of what he
writes could be plausible to an inexperienced reader, so we have to
follow him around and clean up his messes.
CBFalconer's response, even if you don't happen to like it, can't
reasonably be considered "trolling". His statement that "an object is
fully defined in the standard" is entirely correct, and his suggestion
to PLONK this thread is good advice (which I'm admittedly not quite
following).
In this particular case, ERT questioned the knowledge and training of
the authors of the standards documents. His accusation is almost
certainly untrue (and has been specifically refuted elsethread). But
you reserve your anger for someone who responds to him.
I've redirected followups to /dev/null; anyone who insists on
responding will have to unfix the headers.