On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:23:41 -0500, Madhusudan Singh
<spammers-go-here@yahoo.com> wrote in comp.lang.c:

Cross-posting to more than one group but leaving some out of the
followups setting is just plain rude. I would say you've worn out
your welcome in comp.lang.c.

[snip platform specific code]

Well, rude one, your post is off topic in comp.lang.c. There are no
pipes in C, nor any of the other functions you mentioned in the part I
snipped. There is no such thing as ADA or FORTRAN in C either.

Kindly keep your Linux specific questions out of comp.lang.c in the
future, at least until you learn some manners, jerk.

*plonk*

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

Jack Klein wrote:

No, it isn't. It's common sense. (It is, however, courteous to point out in
the body of the article that followups have been set.)

In this case, I have not set followups. I'm uncomfortable with that
decision, though.

I disagree. I think he just screwed up by asking an off-topic question.
People do, you know.

<snip>

Bad hair day, Jack? :-)

--
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 06:22:10 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
<dontmail@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in comp.lang.c:

It may be appropriate to set followups in a reply, it is not
appropriate to do so in a post. See if you can figure out why.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

Jack Klein wrote:

Please educate me, because I just don't see it. It seems to me that it makes
perfect sense, if you *must* cross-post, to set followups right at the
outset, in the very first article.


--
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 at 07:44 GMT, Richard Heathfield wrote:
And only in the first post; if people reply using follow-ups, the
thread can splinter into a different thread in each newsgroup.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfaj.freeshell.org
================================================== =================
My code (if any) in this post is copyright 2004, Chris F.A. Johnson
and may be copied under the terms of the GNU General Public License

Madhusudan Singh <spammers-go-here@yahoo.com> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:
But why did you write to comp.lang.c in the first place? You knew your
question was off-topic, otherwise you wouldn't have set follow-ups. Did
you want to anger people here on purpose?

I think Jack Klein was right on this one. Rude, but right. Posting a
question on comp.lang.c just to get answers *on a different newsgroup*
is quite strange. It is as if you wanted to state "this question is
off-topic, I know, but I'll ask it here anyway, because I just don't
care!".

--
/-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"Parthenogenetic procreation in humans will result in the founding of a new
religion."
- John Nordberg

Joona I Palaste wrote:

Unclarified and unwarranted assumption. Do *you* know that the OP was
certain about the off-topic nature of his question in CLC? I would give a
newcomer the benefit of doubt here and assume that he/she didn't know the
off-topical nature of their query in CLC (because they don't regularly
subscribe to it), and since they don't regularly subscribe to CLC, but do
read COLM regularly, sets follow-ups to COLM. Did you avoid being rational
on purpose?

No. That's an unwarranted assumption you and Jack seem to have made about
OP without any factual background. From my POV, it makes perfect sense for
me to set follow-ups to a group that I regularly follow, while
cross-posting to several where I expect relevant and useful answers (I
might be wrong with my choice of groups though). It's easy to start
frothing at the mouth before thinking about something. Jack's reply was
unnecessarily rude. I don't mind curt redirections to off-topic questions,
but gratuituous rudeness like that from a regular towards a newcomer
doesn't show CLC in a good light. I much prefer what Christopher does with
his standard re-directs referring people to the faq and Ben's suggestions
for off-topic questions.

If you want to see some consistent inconsistency, see how the right hon'ble
Marcia Hon has been dealt with so far.

To OP:
Jack's response was unfortunate, and as you can see, not many regulars agree
with the tone, but they agree with part of it: Your question is not
topical in CLC as we discuss only the C language as described by the
ANSI/ISO standards. If you plan to subscribe regularly to CLC, you might
want to remove Jack from your killfile. To topical questions, he posts
erudite, correct answers and is a knowledgeable and respected contributor
here.
Before posting further questions, please do take the time to go through the
fine FAQ:
http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html

-nrk.

--
Remove devnull for email

Madhusudan Singh <spammers-go-here@yahoo.com> writes:

Madhusudan Singh, I suspect Jack Klein was just having a bad day.

You did make a couple of mistakes. Pipes (as you now know) are not
part of standard C, and are therefore off-topic in comp.lang.c (though
asking whether pipes are topical would be perfectly topical). And
cross-posting an initial article (not a followup) to two newsgroups
and setting followups to just one of them is a bit odd; I think Jack
overreacted to that. If your original article were topical to both
newsgroups, it wouldn't make much sense to redirect followups away
from comp.lang.c; if it weren't, it wouldn't make much sense to
crosspost in the first place. And if you're going to redirect
followups, you should probably mention it in the body of your post, so
readers know where the discussion is going. Redirecting followups
makes sense later in a discussion if the topic has drifted; it's
seldom the right thing to do on an initial post.

comp.lang.c fights a continuous battle to remain focused on its topic.
It's a high-volume newsgroup with a name that suggests to some
(incorrectly) that it's the place to ask any question about C
programming. We're in constant danger of being overwhelmed with
system-specific questions that we're really not qualified to answer.
(Yeah, I'm probably overstating the case a bit.) We're usually
reasonably polite about letting people know that this isn't the right
place for their questions, but we are imperfect.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 07:44:09 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
<dontmail@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in comp.lang.c:

If the question is topical and proper here, the replies are as well.

Who is the OP to decide that readers of this group are entitled to
read his question, and perhaps to make a humble attempt at answering
it, but do not deserve the privilege of seeing the replies?

If a poster who reads this group only replies to such a question and
doesn't see the followup shenanigans, he will never see his own post
appear, let alone any followup or rebuttal to that post.

I see this as not much different from several other cases...

Multiple postings of the same messages to several related groups and
asking for email replies are usually offenses committed by newbies who
do not know any better.

Setting followups to the poster's email address, or using it to trim
off groups that were in the post itself indicates deliberate intent,
not newbie ignorance.

I can't be the only person who checks the back traffic looking for my
own posts, to see if there are any replies, rebuttals, or corrections
that I need to address. Had I replied without spotting the followup
trickery, I would not have ever seen my reply here, nor any responses
to it.

It just so happens that I was composing a polite redirection message
to a Linux newsgroup when I realized my newsreader was set to post to
a Linux group, one that I don't read.

I can well understand trimming on a reply, for example when someone
cross posts a C++ question to both comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++. I
would have no problem with someone in comp.lang.c++ posting a reply to
that group only, and trimming comp.lang.c from the followup.

But what right has the OP to decide that he can hijack another group's
replies?

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

Jack Klein wrote:

The question was about pipes. I imagine the question is topical in c.o.l.m -
and it was quite obvious from the tone of the original question that the OP
thought pipes were topical here in comp.lang.c too. The fact that he was
incorrect is neither here nor there for the moment. The point is that he
imagined that the question was topical in both groups.

Now, if we take as read that the OP believed the question to be topical in
both groups, what should he do about replies? Which is better? To have a
thread split across two groups, and getting more and more off-topic for
both? Or for the OP to set a simple followup to /one/ of the groups -
presumably the one the OP reads more often - so that those people from the
second group (in this case, clc) who wish to pursue the discussion can do
so easily by subscribing to colm, and those who don't, needn't bother.

Frankly, I think the latter is better. Your mileage obviously varies.

If you want to see the replies, you need only check out the group to which
followups are set. If you don't wish to subscribe to the group just for one
thread, you can always use Google Groups.

Indeed. C'est la vie.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:41:25 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
<dontmail@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in comp.lang.c:


My final remark on this topic:

The OP has decided that his question belongs in comp.lang.c, but that
anyone who replies here will not see their replies in comp.lang.c.
That is presumptuous and rude.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

In article <4qhv209sih1jqtlv19tl03ssvskair0rqo@4ax.com>,
Jack Klein <jackklein@spamcop.net> wrote:
My one and only comment on this. Never post to clc; read it only for the
entertainment value. It *is* entertaining - watching people who clearly
don't work for a living (and more power to them - I can only envy their
lives of leisure) beating up on newbies (see below for further
explanation).

I can't for the life of me think of a question for clc that isn't either
off-topic or covered in a FAQ. That is, the two main ways that we beat up
on newbies are:
1) Tell them their post is OT (*).
or 2) Tell them that they should have read the FAQ(s), including any
other commonly available documention.

So, the point is, standard C is very well documented (bravo to the
standards writers!). So, it follows that anything that isn't covered in
the standards documents must be OT.

(*) Note that OT includes, but is not limited to, OS specific and
algorithm-oriented. Both of these are considered OT in clc.

P.S. Don't bother denying my assertions. You know they're all true.

Kenny McCormack <gazelle@yin.interaccess.com> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:
You must be somehow missing the dozens of perfectly on-topic questions
about C programming that come here every week. I sometimes answer a few,
hopefully correctly, even. Most, but not all, of these could have been
solved by reading the FAQ, but you see me rarely, if ever, telling
newbies to just read the FAQ and shut up until they have done so.
Perhaps Dan Pop does it, but not me, and not many other regulars
either.
Lately this group seems to have turned into a war between us regulars
and a couple (make that a decent-sized *pair*) of newbies who want to
make this a newsgroup not about the C language, but about everything
connected to anything connected to a C compiler published by Microsoft,
GNU, or any other vendor. ${DEITY} knows, perhaps they think asking
questions about Windows Wordpad is OK, as long as they're writing C
code in it, and even *that* C code can consist 99% of Windows API
calls.
(Nothing wrong with Windows API calls per se - but asking questions
specific to it is off-topic here.)
(Or may be: example:
"Is the WIN32_DoFancyThing(hWnd *lpsziptrFooBar) function ISO C?" -
perfectly on-topic.
"I'm doing the following:
void *ptr = NULL;
WIN32_SystemAllocateMemory(ptr, 1000);
printf("%p\n", ptr);
but the printf() still shows ptr as NULL. What's wrong?" - perfectly
on-topic.
"What IO command designation do I need to pass to WIN32_DoIO() to
make the parallel port sign 'Lucy in the sky with diamonds'?" -
completely off-topic, as it's a question specific to the Windows
API.)

--
/-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/

In article <4qhv209sih1jqtlv19tl03ssvskair0rqo@4ax.com>,
Jack Klein <jackklein@spamcop.net> wrote:
:On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:41:25 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
:<dontmail@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in comp.lang.c:
:
:
:> Frankly, I think the latter is better. Your mileage obviously varies.
:
:My final remark on this topic:
:
:The OP has decided that his question belongs in comp.lang.c, but that
:anyone who replies here will not see their replies in comp.lang.c.
:That is presumptuous and rude.

FWIW, the news.admin net-abuse-faq has this to say about crossposts:

****
* 2.3) What about cross-posting?
*
* [Description contrasting cross-posting and multi-posting deleted]
*
* So, cross-posting is better than multi-posting. It's still very
* often a bad idea, and if you get carried away it'll still get
* cancelled (see 3.2, "What is the Breidbart Index (BI)?") This is
* often called Excessive Cross-Posting, or ECP. Some folks still call
* it "velveeta" because they like cutesy names.
*
* If you *must* cross-post, set the followups to a single appropriate
* group by adding a header line like:
*
* Followup-to: group.name.here
****

Now I don't happen to agree with that advice in all (many?, most?)
cases, but flaming someone for following published advice about
netiquette strikes me as rather harsh.

--
Bob Nichols AT interaccess.com I am "rnichols"

Robert Nichols wrote:

Indeed. I think that there are times when being angry with someone on Usenet
/is/ appropriate, but that this wasn't one of those times. In my opinion
(FWIW!) Jack owes the OP an apology.

--
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

Jack Klein <jackklein@spamcop.net> wrote:

Not if you warn that you've done this, it isn't. In fact, under some
circumstances (question is likely to get good answers from several
groups, but the follow-up discussion is likely to be interesting only to
one) it's the best solution.
Of course, in this case it was off-topic in c.l.c to begin with and Mr.
Singh did _not_ warn us of the follow-up, but that doesn't warrant your
blanket statement.

Richard

Jack Klein wrote:
I have to disagree. I consider he did exactly the right thing, in
not starting OT threads on other newsgroups, yet having answers
vetted in a group having knowledge of the subject. In fact, I
wish all cross-posters would emulate Mr Singh.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

Jack Klein wrote:
If you had not altered the distribution of your reply, this whole
thread would not exist. I think that would have been a preferred
outcome.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:25:54 GMT, Jack Klein <jackklein@spamcop.net>
wrote:

It's pretty odd from the other end, too. There are "orphan" messages
in comp.unix programmer, which is apparently the group in which the OP
has chosen to post his replies, even though none of the messages he
replies to have come from there. Regardless of what the usenet
guidelines suggest, it seems to me that distributing pieces of a
conversation among different groups is not conducive to good
communication.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net