Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 'C' Standards
Message-ID: <6463@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 25-Sep-87 06:44:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6463
Posted: Fri Sep 25 06:44:44 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Sep-87 19:13:49 EDT
References: <166@qetzal.UUCP> <157@hobbes.UUCP> <875@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 27

In article <2514@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>If you are unable to keep a civil tongue in your head, I suggest in
>the strongest terms that you have yourself replaced as a spokesperson
>in this forum for ANSI and X3J11.

I don't know where "the man from Xanth" got the idea that I'm a
spokesperson for ANSI and X3J11 -- I've included disclaimers many
times.  I think this is indicative of the level of care he takes
when reading these articles.

Dolan, despite admitting that he is only slightly acquainted with C
and doesn't regularly use it, seems to feel qualified to declare
what the language "should" be like, discounting the reality of the
conflicting requirements that X3J11 has to take into account when
designing a standard for a living language.  He didn't bother to
send suggestions to X3J11, where they might have done some good,
but simply complains in this newsgroup that X3J11 isn't catering
to his tunnel vision.  This is the academic at his worst.

I received the most amazing mail from this fellow, full of
condescension and (when I failed to be impressed by his
"credentials") quite insulting -- so much so that he has the honor
of being the second person whose mail I automatically delete upon
reception.

This posting, unlike most of mine, has no appreciable technical
content -- because the flame to which I'm responding had none.