I have been meaning to respond the the tail end of some of the garbage that
appeard here a couple of weeks ago, but ... well... some of have to earn a
living.

In article <1993Aug2.194044.23482@ed8200.ped.pto.ford.com> parrott@ed8200.ped.pto.ford.com (Dennis Parrott) writes:
>Ronald F. Guilmette (rfg@netcom.com) wrote:
>: In article <26167@alice.att.com> peju@alice.att.com (Peter Juhl) writes:
>: >What does all this have to do with comp.lang.c++ or comp.std.c++?
>: >Precious little, I fear: there has been a tendency to make loud
>: >proclamations...
>:
>: (Hummm... I guess he's got his virtual fantasy headphones turned all of the
>: way up.  All I heard was the fan in the back of my workstation. :-)
>
>i believe that Peter is actually more correct about what goes on here in
>comp.lang.c++ than you might wish to admit. (just an observation on my part.
>no flames needed.)

You are entitled to your opinion.  (As they say, opinions are like assholes...
everybody has one.)

>: >... contradicting what most other people regards as fact...
>:
>: Or, more precisely, what Peter Juhl (aka the ultimate a final arbiter of
>: fact) has decided, is God's Truth.
>:
>: >without any other support than a boundless enthusiasm.  So could we
>: >please get more facts, less enthusiasm?
>:
>: Whatdaya mean we kimosabe???
>
>Peter made an observation and did not seem to appoint himself as God's Final
>Arbiter of Truth, Justice and the C++ Way. Why did you accuse of that?

Do you have a problem with the English language or what?

This fellow started ranting and raving (out of a clear blue sky, and for no
apparent reason) that something that *I* had said "contradicted what most
other people regard as fact".  How did he determine what most other people
regard as fact?  Do you think he took a poll of all 5 billion of the world's
inhabitants?  Or is it just possible that he had a point of view, found one
other (misinformed) person who agreed with that (incorrect) view, and then
decided unilaterally that his opinion must have been "what most other people
regard as fact"?

>BTW - i took his use of "we" to be of the "royal we" variety.

Yes.  And that's exactly what bother's the shit out of me.  It is quite
condescending to say to any group of adults something along the lines of
"Can we all play nicely now?"  If Mr. Juhl really wants to be able to
come off as hollier-than-tho, he ought to find some parish that wants him,
rather than imposing his saintly presence upon readers of this newsgroup.

>His request seems
>to be (to my ears) one that would be of great overall benefit. Being one
>who has practiced the programming arts for ~15 years in various languages on
>many different systems, I certainly appreciate somebody saying "Hey, C++ can't
>fix every problem, so quit pretending it does and lets (rationally) discuss
>what the language can and - as importantly - CANNOT do."

Apparently, you DO have a problem with understanding the King's English.
Either that, or you've decided to butt into the middle of a thread that
you never even saw the beiginning of.

This thread started out what I said that templates were little more than
glorified macros.  Rather than apologetically saying that "Yes, C++ has
some problems." (as you have suggested he did) Mr.Juhl basically said that
I was just plain wrong, and that C++ was perfect as it was.  (Oh yes...
And he then proceeded to attack me personally, for no apparent reason.)

>I know that I would
>(and anyone else in my position) would get much more from the discussions that
>take place IF there were less of opinionated,

OK.  How about this... "The world may be a little bit round.  Then again, it
may have a touch of flattness to it also."  (There now.  Is that bland and
non-committal enough for you?  Am I "politically correct" yet?)

>"I'm a wizard, take it from me"

This is exactly the tack which Mr. Juhl seems to have taken in discussing
this technical issue.  (Actually, his approach was a bit more subtle.  As
shown by the quote above, he really seems to have been saying "Take it
from the majority of expert opinions.... And I'll be glad to tell you what
that is!  I have consulted my office mate, and he agrees with we, so we
are obviously right.")

>(and take it they often do!) kind of responses. It is possible to have heated
>discourse and genuine disagreement without resorting to "hate speech".

I agree.  And that is precisely why Mr. Juhl's personal attacks upon me (in
such a forum as this) were (and are) so reprehensible.

>A little patience, explanation, kindness to our fellow humans, reasoned and
>reasonable discussion does not seem like a difficult thing to ask. I thought
>that was what Peter was asking for.

Peter Juhl made a condescending plea for peace and harmony, phrased in such
a way that it was all too apparent that what he was REALLY asking for was
for everyone (including me) to just shutup and agree with his "expert"
opinions, regardless of whether those opinions had any basis in fact or
not.

I'm sorry, but I'm not ready for "peace on any terms".  I'm going to
continue to state the facts (to the extent that I have been able to
determine them) both here and elsewhere, regardless of whether or not
reality meets with Peter Juhl's approval.

>... I don't mind reading a little sermon now and then...

Then go find a church.  This newsgroup is supposed to be dedicated to the
purpose of carrying on technical discussions of the C++ language... It is
not here as a pulpit from which random sinners may tell other people how
to behave (as Mr. Juhl has attempted to do).

>BTW - who elected you to be the Holy Scourge of the C++ Newsgroups? Hmmm...

I am the unelected Holy Scourge of the C++ Newsgroups.  But then again,
up until the time this all came up, I wans't trying to tell people what
they ought to do, how they ought to act, what they ought to say, or that
they should just shutup and agree with me (as Peter Juhl has).

I'm still trying to avoid being judgmental, but when this guy attacked me
(and my consulting business) personally... well... that's where I draw
the line.

--

-- Ronald F. Guilmette ------------------------------------------------------
------ domain address: rfg@netcom.com ---------------------------------------
------ uucp address: ...!uunet!netcom.com!rfg -------------------------------

In <rfgCB4A9r.Ix6@netcom.com> <1993Aug2.194044.23482@ed8200.ped.pto.ford.com>
rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) write:

>
> [quite a lot]
>

It has never been claimed that C++ is perfect.

After all, you would be foolish to claim that any programming
language was perfect; perfection on earth is reserved for the Pope.

--- peter (peju@research.att.com)

!!! FORGERY ALERT !!! FORGERY ALERT !!! FORGERY ALERT !!! FORGERY ALERT !!!

>>>>> Someone claiming to be Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg@netcom.com> wrote:

Not RFG> I have been meaning to respond the the tail end of some of
Not RFG> the garbage that appeard here a couple of weeks ago, but
Not RFG> ... well... some of have to earn a living.

Article <rfgCBrz6o.F85@netcom.com> was NOT posted by RFG, but was a
evil-minded forgery, probably made by a jealous competitor or by one
of the other people who habitually attack Ron on Usenet for no
apparent reason.  We have a suspect in the last group.

[ Scandinavian "Protect Ron" Week ]

Ronald F. Guilmette (rfg@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <26167@alice.att.com> peju@alice.att.com (Peter Juhl) writes:
: >

..lots of intervening good stuff deleted...

: >What does all this have to do with comp.lang.c++ or comp.std.c++?
: >Precious little, I fear: there has been a tendency to make loud
: >proclamations...
:
: (Hummm... I guess he's got his virtual fantasy headphones turned all of the
: way up.  All I heard was the fan in the back of my workstation. :-)
:
: Hey!  We all apologize.  We'll try to keep the noise down so that you can
: sleep.  Alright?

i believe that Peter is actually more correct about what goes on here in
comp.lang.c++ than you might wish to admit. (just an observation on my part.
no flames needed.)

:
: >... contradicting what most other people regards as fact...
:
: Or, more precisely, what Peter Juhl (aka the ultimate a final arbiter of
: fact) has decided, is God's Truth.
:
: >without any other support than a boundless enthusiasm.  So could we
: >please get more facts, less enthusiasm?
:
: Whatdaya mean we kimosabe???

Peter made an observation and did not seem to appoint himself as God's Final
Arbiter of Truth, Justice and the C++ Way. Why did you accuse of that?

BTW - i took his use of "we" to be of the "royal we" variety. His request seems
to be (to my ears) one that would be of great overall benefit. Being one
who has practiced the programming arts for ~15 years in various languages on
many different systems, I certainly appreciate somebody saying "Hey, C++ can't
fix every problem, so quit pretending it does and lets (rationally) discuss
what the language can and - as importantly - CANNOT do."

The reason I began reading (and very occasionally writing in) this conference
is to get a wide variety of inputs on how to use C++ in different situations.
As a "newbie" to C++, I don't have a lot to say to others on "how to..." but
I do know one thing -- there are a lot of folks who hang out in this conference
and others that offer up some very wild and crazy opinions. I know that I would
(and anyone else in my position) would get much more from the discussions that
take place IF there were less of opinionated, "I'm a wizard, take it from me"
(and take it they often do!) kind of responses. It is possible to have heated
discourse and genuine disagreement without resorting to "hate speech".

A little patience, explanation, kindness to our fellow humans, reasoned and
reasonable discussion does not seem like a difficult thing to ask. I thought
that was what Peter was asking for. It is certainly what I'd like to see...

:
: Listen Peter, I'm sure we all appreciate the fact that you've taken time
: out from your busy schedule to give us this little irrelevant sermon
: about Einstein and all, but if you want us all to deal in the facts,
: wouldn't it be a good idea if you tried to set an example yourself?
:
: Look... Try it one step at a time.  First get a clue.  Then later on
: you may stumble upon a fact.  Now I know that you may have trouble
: recognizing it AS a fact, but if you're lucky it will bite you in the
: ass.  Of course, you still may not recognize it as a fact, but we'll
: cross that bridge when we come to it.
:
: (By the way... Did somebody elect this guy Pope of the C++ newsgroups
: while I wasn't looking?  If so, I'd like to ask for a recount.)
:
: --
:
: -- Ronald F. Guilmette ------------------------------------------------------
: ------ domain address: rfg@netcom.com ---------------------------------------
: ------ uucp address: ...!uunet!netcom.com!rfg -------------------------------

sometimes on the way to learn one thing, you learn another. that's called
"serendipity". I don't mind reading a little sermon now and then, sometimes
you learn something. I know I learned a little something today.

BTW - who elected you to be the Holy Scourge of the C++ Newsgroups? Hmmm...

Dennis Parrott
parrott@pt0503.ped.pto.ford.com (as well as @ed8200.ped.pto.ford.com)

rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:

|Folks, this is what's called a personal attack.  For those of you who may
|not already be familiar with this approach to technical discussions, allow
|me just to note that these kinds of personalized attacks are usually the
|last resort of those who've realized that they fail to have the facts to
|support their opinions.  First rule of retoric:  If the facts don't support
|your position, impune the integrity, character, intelligence, or ancestory
|of whomever you are disagreeing with.

and in another post he writes:

|(Hummm... I guess he's got his virtual fantasy headphones turned all of the
|way up.  All I heard was the fan in the back of my workstation. :-)

|Hey!  We all apologize.  We'll try to keep the noise down so that you can
|sleep.  Alright?

|>... contradicting what most other people regards as fact...

|Or, more precisely, what Peter Juhl (aka the ultimate a final arbiter of
|fact) has decided, is God's Truth.

|>without any other support than a boundless enthusiasm.  So could we
|>please get more facts, less enthusiasm?

|Whatdaya mean we kimosabe???

|Listen Peter, I'm sure we all appreciate the fact that you've taken time
|out from your busy schedule to give us this little irrelevant sermon
|about Einstein and all, but if you want us all to deal in the facts,
|wouldn't it be a good idea if you tried to set an example yourself?

|Look... Try it one step at a time.  First get a clue.  Then later on
|you may stumble upon a fact.  Now I know that you may have trouble
|recognizing it AS a fact, but if you're lucky it will bite you in the
|ass.  Of course, you still may not recognize it as a fact, but we'll
|cross that bridge when we come to it.

|(By the way... Did somebody elect this guy Pope of the C++ newsgroups
|while I wasn't looking?  If so, I'd like to ask for a recount.)


What was this about personal attacks again ?

--- peter (peju@research.att.com)

Ronald F. Guilmette (rfg@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <26167@alice.att.com> peju@alice.att.com (Peter Juhl) writes:
  [nice sermon deleted]
: >without any other support than a boundless enthusiasm.  So could we
: >please get more facts, less enthusiasm?

[incomprehensible flames deleted]
: (By the way... Did somebody elect this guy Pope of the C++ newsgroups
: while I wasn't looking?  If so, I'd like to ask for a recount.)

 And all this time I thought Paul J Lucas was the Pope.


--
|< Dan Naas dan@oea.hobby.nl >|
+---------------------------------+

I recently read "Cranks, Quarks, and the Cosmos," by Jeremy Bernstein.
One of the chapters deals with the subject:  "How Can We Be Sure
That Albert Einstein Was Not a Crank?"

One of the things that made it possible for people to accept Einstein's
theory was that it built on commonly accepted principles and was produced
using commonly accepted inference rules in its development. He most
importantly offered some specific tests to disprove his theory.

A typical crank theory does not have any correspondence to other parts
of science, it never explains what everybody has overlooked, and the
people proposing the theory get annoyed if somebody points out flaws.
However, they do not get discouraged: they come back the next day with a
new theory; the process never converges.

It is up to the person who advances a new theory to produce some
criteria for falsification of the theory (a theory can never be proved
right, only wrong). Produce the facts that lead to the formation of the
theory and the line of reasoning that was applied in order to produce a
(hopefully) coherent theory.

What does all this have to do with comp.lang.c++ or comp.std.c++?
Precious little, I fear: there has been a tendency to make loud
proclamations, contradicting what most other people regards as fact,
without any other support than a boundless enthusiasm.  So could we
please get more facts, less enthusiasm?

--- peter (peju@research.att.com)

In article <26167@alice.att.com> peju@alice.att.com (Peter Juhl) writes:
>
>I recently read "Cranks, Quarks, and the Cosmos," by Jeremy Bernstein.
>One of the chapters deals with the subject:  "How Can We Be Sure
>That Albert Einstein Was Not a Crank?"
>
>One of the things that made it possible for people to accept Einstein's
>theory was that it built on commonly accepted principles and was produced
>using commonly accepted inference rules in its development. He most
>importantly offered some specific tests to disprove his theory.
>
>A typical crank theory does not have any correspondence to other parts
>of science, it never explains what everybody has overlooked, and the
>people proposing the theory get annoyed if somebody points out flaws.
>However, they do not get discouraged: they come back the next day with a
>new theory; the process never converges.
>
>It is up to the person who advances a new theory to produce some
>criteria for falsification of the theory (a theory can never be proved
>right, only wrong). Produce the facts that lead to the formation of the
>theory and the line of reasoning that was applied in order to produce a
>(hopefully) coherent theory.
>
>What does all this have to do with comp.lang.c++ or comp.std.c++?
>Precious little, I fear: there has been a tendency to make loud
>proclamations...

(Hummm... I guess he's got his virtual fantasy headphones turned all of the
way up.  All I heard was the fan in the back of my workstation. :-)

Hey!  We all apologize.  We'll try to keep the noise down so that you can
sleep.  Alright?

>... contradicting what most other people regards as fact...

Or, more precisely, what Peter Juhl (aka the ultimate a final arbiter of
fact) has decided, is God's Truth.

>without any other support than a boundless enthusiasm.  So could we
>please get more facts, less enthusiasm?

Whatdaya mean we kimosabe???

Listen Peter, I'm sure we all appreciate the fact that you've taken time
out from your busy schedule to give us this little irrelevant sermon
about Einstein and all, but if you want us all to deal in the facts,
wouldn't it be a good idea if you tried to set an example yourself?

Look... Try it one step at a time.  First get a clue.  Then later on
you may stumble upon a fact.  Now I know that you may have trouble
recognizing it AS a fact, but if you're lucky it will bite you in the
ass.  Of course, you still may not recognize it as a fact, but we'll
cross that bridge when we come to it.

(By the way... Did somebody elect this guy Pope of the C++ newsgroups
while I wasn't looking?  If so, I'd like to ask for a recount.)

--

-- Ronald F. Guilmette ------------------------------------------------------
------ domain address: rfg@netcom.com ---------------------------------------
------ uucp address: ...!uunet!netcom.com!rfg -------------------------------