jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane) (11/16/90)
I can't take it anymore. I think we should create a new group, `comp.lang.jim-giles-versus-dan-bernstein'. Is this a good idea?
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (11/17/90)
In article <4013@osc.COM> jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane) writes: > I can't take it anymore. I think we should create a new group, > `comp.lang.jim-giles-versus-dan-bernstein'. Is this a good idea? Nah, because then we'll need jim-giles-versus-herman-rubin, and so on. Occasionally even a peter-da-silva-versus-someone, I hasten to admit... though I haven't gotten carried away the way some folks here do in many many months. How about a comp.lang.flame? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) (11/17/90)
From article <4013@osc.COM>, by jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane): > I can't take it anymore. I think we should create a new group, > `comp.lang.jim-giles-versus-dan-bernstein'. Is this a good idea? It would be empty (unless Dan likes talking to himself). I have given up. He will accuse me of evading the issues, but I no longer care. It is impossible to argue with someone that _never_ sticks to the technical issues. The recent rampage of invective (and not just against me) is enough to demonstrate that the proper use of a Dan Bernstein message is to throw it to /dev/null. Interestingly, in a recent article, he has insisted that only technical content should be allowed on the thread. Since he is always the first to leave technical content for invective, the request is a hollow one. In fact, I am now of the opinion that _all_ comp.lang.misc discussions should stick strictly to technical issues. The only way to maintain that position seems to be to ignore Dan Bernstein. This is the last direct mention of the man I will ever make. J. Giles
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (11/20/90)
No technical content. In article <6164@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: > It is impossible to argue with someone that _never_ sticks to the > technical issues. I resent the implication, as would anyone who has tried to contribute something to the network. > Interestingly, in a recent article, he has insisted that only technical > content should be allowed on the thread. The thought might cross your mind that *you* have failed to stick to technical issues. The thought might cross your mind that I am sick of how you repeatedly pervert the issues at hand. The thought might cross your mind that your perversions depend heavily on the way that you can misparaphrase and misquote previous articles, and that in a technical thread, perhaps such paraphrases would stick out as personal attacks. The thought might even cross your mind that I am trying to improve the quality of this group. > Since he is always the first > to leave technical content for invective, the request is a hollow one. I resent that statement. I also hope that you will participate in the Technical threads without violating their spirit. ---Dan
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) (11/21/90)
In article <6164@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: > This is the last >direct mention of the man I will ever make. Jim Giles finally discovers a natural use for pointers and aliassing! [:-)] -- Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK. anw@maths.nott.ac.uk