Undelivered mail

[MAILER%ALASKA.BITNET at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU]

Subject:  Re: Why he won't use ANSI C

[Non-Deliverable:  User does not exist or has never logged on]

Reply-To: Info-C at BRL.ARPA

Received: From UWAVM(MAILER) by ALASKA with Jnet id 7246
          for SXJVK at ALASKA; Sat, 12 Mar 88 01:25 AST
Received: by UWAVM (Mailer X1.25) id 4947; Sat, 12 Mar 88 02:19:35 PST
Date:         Thu, 10 Mar 88 19:00:03 GMT
Reply-To:     Info-C at BRL.ARPA
Sender:       Info-C List <INFO-C at NDSUVM1>
From:         Chris Torek <chris at mimsy.uucp>
Subject:      Re: Why he won't use ANSI C
Comments: To: info-c at brl-smoke.arpa
To:           Vic Kapella <SXJVK at ALASKA>

In article <933 at micomvax.UUCP> ray at micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
>To a certain extent I agree with the sentiments expressed above
[a `thank you' to Doug Gwyn that I deleted]
>by Richard even though (if anyone cares) I sometimes vent my frustration
>at some of Doug's idiosyncratic responses.

Venting frustration in netnews is something many will do (yes, I too),
though it is usually counterproductive.  Since it happens, readers of
this group (and other groups) should watch for it and try not to let it
affect them.

>If you hold yourself up as an authority, as Doug does, you must be very
>careful to maintain your credibility.

Here I will argue philosophy (another counterproductive effort :-) ).
I say one cannot `hold oneself up as an authority'.  There are two
kinds of Authority.  One boils down to `power'; in the Usenet
dementiarchy [*], at least, and to a fair extent in the ARPA-land
info-c mailing list, this meaning does not apply.  The other is, in
essence, `knowledge'; the only true Authority in this sense is that
which is demonstrated.  Hence it is his readers who (sensibly) regard
Doug Gwyn as an Authority on the latest doings of the ANSI X3J11
committee.  Thus it is (at least in part) up to those readers to
separate Gwyn-opinion from committee-fact.

----
[*] `Rule by madness'.  (I made it up.)


>What does it matter if *I* spout off, who am I, but Doug has positioned
>himself such that his readers should be able to rely on the veracity of his
>remarks.  He should thus be careful what he says and how he says it.

Perhaps so; but it *does* matter if you, or indeed anyone, `spouts off'.
As you yourself put it:
>... in my mind it denegrates the "quality" of [one's]
>postings and [one's] credibility as an authority.

>Earlier gurus of 4 or 5 years ago ... would
>rarely resort to sarcasm and downright dismissal of others views!

(I think your memory has mellowed the situation somewhat.)

>[Mind you, Chris Torek seems to be getting a little crotchetty in his
>old age these days! (:-)].

I am not!  Why you young whippersnapper, I will have you know . . . .
:-)  (Besides, I am only 24, and even among full mortals that is rarely
considered old, to say nothing of Halfelven.)

Seriously, though, anyone can rant, and most of us do; while as
authors we should try to minimise this, as readers we should also
expect it, and do our best to ignore it.

>If anyone wants to follow up this posting, please choose an appropriate news
>group.

I could not think of any better place (except perhaps /dev/null, but
then that was why I put in the Summary header above.).
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:    chris at mimsy.umd.edu    Path:    uunet!mimsy!chris