gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (04/25/88)
In article <994@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes: >In article <7682@brl-smoke.ARPA> (Doug Gwyn) writes: >>Point 4: My home computer uses a scheme exactly as I have described; ... >> Don't accuse me of lack of experience! >Tch. Tch. Doug. Now we are in fantasy land. This is a fine example of >going off at half cock, as in the recent "goto's" fiasco. How did I "go off at half cock" in the "goto's fiasco"? All I recall doing is supporting Henry's right to his opinion about excessive use of goto, which I think is technically sound, while mildly criticizing his lack of tact in flaming the company publicly. (It certainly wasn't clear to either of us that the original opinion was not intended to represent the way that programming was generally done in that company; we inferred quite the contrary.) Any blowing out of proportion was done by those on the other side of the issue. (I even stated that I use gotos myself when it's appropriate, but not otherwise.) >I will pay a handsome reward to the first person who can point out any >accusation of lack of *experience* in my posting. Quoting from <982@micomvax> by Ray Dunn: If I could be so bold, from the documentary evidence of the exchange on this subject, at the time of Doug's initial one line sarcastic dismissal of cdecl he either did *NOT* understand its full ramifications, or he still does not understand its usefulness or the power hybrid language programming can provide. ... Yup, he doesn't understand. I take this as a clear statement that I don't understand hybrid language programming, which as I strongly implied I have considerable experience with. Granted that experience and understanding are not totally equivalent, perhaps I should have said "Don't accuse me of lack of understanding!" I didn't realize we were going to try to play sophomoric word games instead of discussing the issue. Because of this technicality I guess I don't qualify for the "handsome reward". I explained what is wrong with the "cdecl" approach to this issue, but Dunn chooses not to counter the technical argument and instead tries to impugn my psychological functioning (see <994@micomvax>). If I were an onlooker I know what conclusion I would draw from this concerning the defensibility of the respective positions. I apologize for not including technical content in this posting, but I've said all that I thought needed saying about "cdecl". This posting is simply a response to what I think was an unjustified personal attack. If Dunn wants to follow up in alt.flame, that does seem appropriate.
ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) (05/03/88)
In article <7752@brl-smoke.ARPA> Gwyn@BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: > >I apologize for not including technical content in this posting, >but I've said all that I thought needed saying about "cdecl". >This posting is simply a response to what I think was an unjustified >personal attack. If Dunn wants to follow up in alt.flame, that does >seem appropriate. > Hmm. Doug (or should that be Gwyn (:-)) not resisting the temptation to try to get "the last word" in once again, if only in this newsgroup! I thank him for his permission to follow-up in alt.flame even though, sigh, that is exactly what was suggested in the posting he is ranting about, so if this article is inappropriate, then so is the above, and vice versa, and I crave the indulgence of those of you who have still not pressed 'n' by now. It is tempting to afterburn into alt.flame, but why bother to continue a dialogue with someone: who is responsible for initially setting the whole tone of what had up to that point been a reasonable discussion, by dismissing the subject with a sarcastic one-liner (not the first time, btw, remember, amongst others, "Why are you guys wasting so much effort on a non-problem?"), who then later complains his "technical points" are not rebutted (in non response, incidentally to an article that complained *he* had not responded to the points made!), who thinks the discussion should be closed when all that *he* "thought needed saying" is said, who thinks subsequent criticism is an "unjustified personal attack", (are his sharp tongued humourless parries "justified personal attacks", I wonder, like that above, and his previous ones on the subject), who, when queried on a misreading of words typical of the cause of much of the contention in the news-group, Scrabbles (c) on about "sophomoric word games", while at the same time makes accusations that there was an attempt to "impugn [his] psychological functioning" (I couldn't even *begin* to guess how to do *that* Doug (:-))!! Wow! Perhaps he should publish the "Gwyn Rules Of Debate" (GROD), with particular attention to the double standard definition of what is allowed on one side but not on the other, so we know how (not) to offend him! In the interim, I suggest we read his postings, often but not always rational, often but not always informative, but that under *no* circumstances should we dain to disagree with him, lest, God help us, instead of just keeping out of discussions he obviously feels are beneath him, he wont resist the temptation once again, and, psychological functioning unimpugned, will let loose another GROD tirade. I hope we can finish this on at least one point of agreement, as he so aptly stated, the onlooker will come to his own conclusion on the "defensibility of the respective positions". -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!{philabs, mnetor}!micomvax!ray Philips Electronics Ltd. | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext: 2347 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455 St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (05/04/88)
This bit of homely philosphy from Dale Carnegie, not directed at any individual, but at the entire Usenet community. Admittedly, I could benefit from it myself. Let your opponent save face even if he's beaten to the ground. If you're right and handle it gracefully, he'll come around sooner if you don't gloat. And if you just happen to be wrong, you will save yourself a lot of embrrassment in the long run too. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi