cdecl keyword and flames

[Ray Dunn]

In article <7752 at brl-smoke.ARPA> Gwyn at BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>
>I apologize for not including technical content in this posting,
>but I've said all that I thought needed saying about "cdecl".
>This posting is simply a response to what I think was an unjustified
>personal attack.  If Dunn wants to follow up in alt.flame, that does
>seem appropriate.
>

Hmm.  Doug (or should that be Gwyn (:-)) not resisting the temptation to try
to get "the last word" in once again, if only in this newsgroup!

I thank him for his permission to follow-up in alt.flame even though, sigh,
that is exactly what was suggested in the posting he is ranting about, so if
this article is inappropriate, then so is the above, and vice versa, and I
crave the indulgence of those of you who have still not pressed 'n' by now.


It is tempting to afterburn into alt.flame, but why bother to continue a
dialogue with someone:

who is responsible for initially setting the whole tone of what had up to
that point been a reasonable discussion, by dismissing the subject with a
sarcastic one-liner (not the first time, btw, remember, amongst others, "Why
are you guys wasting so much effort on a non-problem?"),

who then later complains his "technical points" are not rebutted (in non
response, incidentally to an article that complained *he* had not responded
to the points made!),

who thinks the discussion should be closed when all that *he* "thought
needed saying" is said,

who thinks subsequent criticism is an "unjustified personal attack", (are
his sharp tongued humourless parries "justified personal attacks", I wonder,
like that above, and his previous ones on the subject),

who, when queried on a misreading of words typical of the cause of much of
the contention in the news-group, Scrabbles (c) on about "sophomoric word
games", while at the same time makes accusations that there was an attempt
to "impugn [his] psychological functioning" (I couldn't even *begin* to
guess how to do *that* Doug (:-))!!

Wow!  Perhaps he should publish the "Gwyn Rules Of Debate" (GROD), with
particular attention to the double standard definition of what is allowed on
one side but not on the other, so we know how (not) to offend him!

In the interim, I suggest we read his postings, often but not always
rational, often but not always informative, but that under *no*
circumstances should we dain to disagree with him, lest, God help us,
instead of just keeping out of discussions he obviously feels are beneath
him, he wont resist the temptation once again, and, psychological
functioning unimpugned, will let loose another GROD tirade.

I hope we can finish this on at least one point of agreement, as he so aptly
stated, the onlooker will come to his own conclusion on the "defensibility
of the respective positions".
-- 
Ray Dunn.                      |   UUCP: ..!{philabs, mnetor}!micomvax!ray
Philips Electronics Ltd.       |   TEL : (514) 744-8200   Ext: 2347
600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd   |   FAX : (514) 744-6455
St Laurent. Quebec.  H4M 2S9   |   TLX : 05-824090