In article <jm7kh3hrtlpei60onfmcdtt9pio1ql8du9@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
....
>We've been over this. Chuck's signature is modified outside his
>control. Obviously he could swap newsfeeds, or post with no sig - but
>who are we do dicate his choice of newsfeed, or to demand he be
>sigless. Plenty of us have sigs, and some of us occasionally use
>lengthy ones. At least Chuck's isn't a 2000-line diatribe.

It's really very simple. People in glass houses should not throw
stones, EVEN IF it is not their fault that their house is made of glass.

In this case, the combination of Chuck's every other posting being a
bash on sigs and/or other form-not-substance topics, while himself having a
ridiculous sig, is just too good to pass up.

CBFalconer said:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Keith Thompson said:
>>> rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
>>>> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Please snip signatures.
>>> [...]
>>>> ...not something _you_ should be telling him.
>>>
>>> Why not? Sure, Chuck's signature is too long, and it happens to
>>> have an embedded "-- "; that has no bearing on whether signatures
>>> should be snipped when posting followups.
>>
>> It's called "hypocrisy", Keith. Chuck is telling people to observe
>> netiquette conventions, even though his signature block violates
>> those same conventions.
>
> No it doesn't. It leaves here with a perfectly compliant
> signature.

I go by what I see in the newsgroup. That's all I *can* go by. And
according to what I see here, your sig block is twice the recommended
maximum number of lines. But see below.


> What the various systems do in the process of passing
> it on (and sometimes delaying it for a week) has nothing whatsoever
> to do with my sig.

I am responsible for the articles I post here, and you are responsible for
yours. If my news service habitually hacked my articles to add
advertisements, I'd find a different news service.

> You know this and are just troublemaking.

No, Chuck, I'm not, and you ought to know me better than that. I don't give
two hoots about how long your sig is, since it doesn't affect me one bit
(I'm on broadband nowadays). What I do give two hoots about is the
contrast between your demands that other people should observe netiquette
conventions and your own special pleading that netiquette conventions do
not apply to you. It's hypocritical. If you cannot, for whatever reason,
enforce the conventions of netiquette on your own articles, then you are
in no position to demand such enforcement from others.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
4719503F.D90418D1@yahoo.com...
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Peter Pichler <usenet@pichler.co.uk> writes:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>
>>> It may not be his fault. Have you actually read his sig?
>>
>> Um, have you read the endless discussions about his sig?
>
> As to the suggestions on changing news-servers, there are
> ancilliary reasons here for not doing so, involving my personal
> convenience and record keeping. I may decide differently later,
> but that is really my affair.

This is really the response to your question on a different thread:

> Why do people keep using these obsolete formats, when there exists
> an ISO standard for the operation (close to the Japanese format)?

Because there are ancillary reasons everywhere for not changing local use:
personal habits, convenience, record keeping, local consistency... Even if
people were to agree that a change might bring improvements, they want to
keep it their affair when and how to change, or even to change at all. Just
think of the metric system for a perfect example.

--
Chqrlie.

In article <sNidnWs8a4s3JYHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
....
>No, Chuck, I'm not, and you ought to know me better than that. I don't give
>two hoots about how long your sig is, since it doesn't affect me one bit
>(I'm on broadband nowadays). What I do give two hoots about is the
>contrast between your demands that other people should observe netiquette
>conventions and your own special pleading that netiquette conventions do
>not apply to you. It's hypocritical. If you cannot, for whatever reason,
>enforce the conventions of netiquette on your own articles, then you are
>in no position to demand such enforcement from others.

Exactly. Well put.

(Wow, will wonders never cease?)

Note, BTW, that there are those (not me) who are not bothered by hypocrisy.
I.e., if you truly are doing the Lord's work (whether you be a wayward
Usenet poster or a wayward Senator from Idaho), that fact is not reduced
by the fact that you are unable to heal thyself. I.e., you are still
doing the Lord's work.

Obviously, sensible people don't buy this sh*t, but Republicans
generally do.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:51:49 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:

>CBFalconer said:
>
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>> It's called "hypocrisy",
>>
>> No it doesn't. It leaves here with a perfectly compliant
>> signature.
>
>I go by what I see in the newsgroup. That's all I *can* go by.

Lets say all posts from RJH got mangled by some malicious server, so
that everyone reading in say Southeastern US and Myanmar saw a comment
postpended linking Jesus and Budda in a sexual act, or even (heavens
forfend) a 30-line advert for that news server, would that be _your_
fault? Would _you_ personally have to do something about it?

>> What the various systems do in the process of passing
>> it on (and sometimes delaying it for a week) has nothing whatsoever
>> to do with my sig.
>
>I am responsible for the articles I post here, and you are responsible for
>yours.

To the extent you have any control. Don't pretend you don't
understand the point.

>If my news service habitually hacked my articles to add
>advertisements, I'd find a different news service.

Perhaps you would, perhaps you wouldn't. Would you break a 12-month
contract? What if it was tied to a deal for cheap webhosting? What if
your ISP blocked port 119 except for this particular service?

>> You know this and are just troublemaking.
>
>No, Chuck, I'm not, and you ought to know me better than that.

Your comment above that it is hyprocisy can be seen as nothing other
than trouble-making. What other purpose did it serve?

>What I do give two hoots about is the
>contrast between your demands that other people should observe netiquette
>conventions and your own special pleading that netiquette conventions do
>not apply to you. It's hypocritical. If you cannot, for whatever reason,
>enforce the conventions of netiquette on your own articles, then you are
>in no position to demand such enforcement from others.

Strawman (to quote yourself). That argument is worthy only of the
Daily Mail.

I've no doubt for example that many of us speed and take office
stationery home. Both are failures to abide by rules of society. Does
that mean we are ineligible from asking others not to burgle or
assault us, or from sitting on a jury?
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

Mark McIntyre wrote:

<snip>

> I've no doubt for example that many of us speed and take office
> stationery home. Both are failures to abide by rules of society. Does
> that mean we are ineligible from asking others not to burgle or
> assault us, or from sitting on a jury?

Not ineligible but hypocritic to do so.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 03:38:06 +0530, in comp.lang.c , santosh
<santosh.k83@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I've no doubt for example that many of us speed and take office
>> stationery home. Both are failures to abide by rules of society. Does
>> that mean we are ineligible from asking others not to burgle or
>> assault us, or from sitting on a jury?
>
>Not ineligible but hypocritic to do so.

By that brush we are all hypocrites and the word has no meaning, for
who amongst us can claim _never_ to have broken a rule?

Personally, I reserve pejorative words for where they're deserved,
rather than where priggishness might put them.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> No, Chuck, I'm not, and you ought to know me better than that. I
> don't give two hoots about how long your sig is, since it doesn't
> affect me one bit (I'm on broadband nowadays). What I do give two
> hoots about is the contrast between your demands that other people
> should observe netiquette conventions and your own special
> pleading that netiquette conventions do not apply to you. It's
> hypocritical. If you cannot, for whatever reason, enforce the
> conventions of netiquette on your own articles, then you are in no
> position to demand such enforcement from others.

So, according to your lights, if we write a letter to the editor
(of some journal, newspaper, etc.) and the editor edits that before
publication (without checking with the author) we are still
responsible for that altered content? Isn't this a reasonable
interpretation?

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com