Re: In the matter of Herb Schildt
- From: spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:42:09 -0500 (CDT)
On Oct 6, 7:17 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2009-10-05, Francis Glassborow <francis.glassbo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
1) the moderator is himself being attacked. When I was an editor of a
periodical for programmers I had one absolute rule that anyone writing a
letter criticising me would have it published. That way I could never be
accused of using my position to siffle criticism of me.
This is certainly a component of my evaluation; I have no interest in
dealing with the predictable cries of "censorship!" that would ensue.
2) I suspect that the moderator has been offering the poster enough rope
to hang himself. I think the paragraph you quote more than demonstrates
that he is unwilling to behave in a civilised fashion and if (as he
claims) he is currently a teacher then his employers need to ask
themselves some serious questions about their employment policy.
This issue first arose for me more than twenty years ago when I was at
Princeton University. Some people who'd been bested by me in online
debate complained to my manager at SIGUCCS in 1987, and when she
returned to campus, she asked me in to her office to discuss the
matter.
I explained the situation to her satisfaction. Furthermore, Princeton
had a policy that employees' personal opinions were theirs by right,
and a year later I attended demonstrations against the (apartheid)
South African ambassador on my lunch hour and on campus.
I remained in Princeton's employ until 1992 and then left for greener
pastures.
The sort of people that threaten other people's employment, even in a
futile way as here, are people terrified by their own incompetence and
over-specialization (what Adorno called the secret contour of their
weakness) so as to think they'll terrify people who are confident
enough to speak truth to power.
Forever applying for their own job in uncaring companies for managers
who make a game and a joke out of employment, these people are quite
ready to try to threaten the employment of others because they're so
terrified of unemployment.
They are also the sort of people so inarticulate that they have to
make dirty words out of a person's family name to make their case.
Actually, I haven't even looked at his posts, for the most part, in
weeks. I only unkillfiled him once briefly to explain why I wasn't posting
on his blog.
I think he has had enough rope and should be forced to go away and play
with himself. :-)
As long as one could reasonably conclude that his posts are part of an
attempt to assert or support an opinion about the quality of a C programmming
text, or the quality of a review of a C programming text, I'm probably
going to keep approving them. I don't see any obvious reason for people
not to killfile him at this point, as he seems bound and determined to
ensure that the largest possible number of people are aware that a number
of experienced C programmers and writers in the field think that Schildt's
books are crap.
I'm afraid that what's being exposed is the low quality and dishonesty
of the stream of consciousness document that you posted, which made
reference to non-existent errors and listed only a few. I would
certainly hesitate to employ you, Peter Seebach, with your track
record of attacking people for no good reason except your own vanity.
You're trouble, Peter Seebach, because you don't have the ability to
describe and generalize over ideas: instead, you find people to blame.
I've seen your kind destroy morale and productivity in companies in a
heartbeat.
Adults, Peter Seebach, don't try to win arguments with dirty mouths
and by insulting families. They don't make disorganized lists of
errors in fishing expeditions in order to strike out at people. I
don't think you were qualified to serve on the C99 standardization
project in the slightest, and I think you knew it. I think that's why
you targeted Schildt. In your crazy world, destroying him would make
you a C expert.
Since I happen to agree with that, I'm inclined to encourage this behavior.--
Honestly, our correspondent's rants have done more to harm public opinion
of Schildt's writing than I could have even with a genuine and concerted
effort, but since it seems to be essentially a fair cop, I guess I can
live. ("Herbert Schildt: Recommended by frothing-mad Usenet cooks for
over a year!")
-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
--
comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@xxxxxxxxxxxx -- you must
have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: clcm@xxxxxxxxxxxx -- you must
have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
.
- References:
- Re: In the matter of Herb Schildt
- From: Andrew C. Suttles
- Re: In the matter of Herb Schildt
- From: Francis Glassborow
- Re: In the matter of Herb Schildt
- From: Seebs
- Re: In the matter of Herb Schildt
- Prev by Date: Re: why we require void func( void ** ) ?
- Next by Date: Re: In the matter of Herb Schildt
- Previous by thread: Re: In the matter of Herb Schildt
- Next by thread: Re: In the matter of Herb Schildt
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
