Why have a chip on your shoulder when answering a question?

Pages: 12
BHX Specter wrote:
My point is that some veteran members have said using the code tags was part of the guidelines which shows that even veteran members haven't read them.

Perhaps you could point out where several veteran members have said this? Is your tendency to inject made up facts into your arguments in order to deflect attention from your erroneous reasoning rearing its ugly head again?

Btw, do you happen to recall what happens when you create a thread in the beginner's section these days?
http://s27.postimg.org/5jeuv8c83/new_post.png
cire wrote:
Perhaps you could point out where several veteran members have said this?

No, I consider two of them friends and I'm not going to throw them or the others under the bus just to save my credibility, whatever I have.
cire wrote:
Is your tendency to inject made up facts into your arguments in order to deflect attention from your erroneous reasoning rearing its ugly head again?

No, you are thinking of vladfrommoscow or whatever he is going by now. When I'm wrong or am in error I admit it. Being wrong is no big deal.
cire wrote:
Btw, do you happen to recall what happens when you create a thread in the beginner's section these days?

Yes, but as far as beginners are concerned that is just a sample and not saying code tags are required. After all, in some editors like Geany, if you start a new file for C++ (or other file format) you get this as the default (doesn't mean the programmer has to use it):
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
/*
 * untitled.cxx
 * 
 * Copyright 2014 Clayton Weaver <equinox@ClayLaptop>
 * 
 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
 * Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston,
 * MA 02110-1301, USA.
 * 
 * 
 */


#include <iostream>

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
	
	return 0;
}


If we expect users to use the code tags when posting code, then should we expect users to use the quote tags when quoting?

As for rude answers to questions, we do have very specific guidelines for that and if users (new or veteran) are being rude then it should be taken serious and dealt with.
Last edited on
Perhaps you could point out where several veteran members have said this?
BHX Specter wrote:
No, I consider two of them friends and I'm not going to throw them or the others under the bus just to save my credibility, whatever I have.

Fixed.



cire wrote:
Is your tendency to inject made up facts into your arguments in order to deflect attention from your erroneous reasoning rearing its ugly head again?
BHX Specter wrote:
No, you are thinking of vladfrommoscow or whatever he is going by now. When I'm wrong or am in error I admit it. Being wrong is no big deal.

Translation: "Yes."



BHX Specter wrote:
Yes, but as far as beginners are concerned that is just a sample and not saying code tags are required.

One may be stupid and rude at the same time. One doesn't preclude the other. This has nothing to do with the OP or anything anyone (save you) has brought up.



BHX Specter wrote:
If we expect users to use the code tags when posting code, then should we expect users to use the quote tags when quoting?

This has nothing to do with the OP or anything anyone (save you) has brought up. If you wish to discuss other topics, please make your own thread.
Last edited on
@cire
After the time I've been here I figured you would have realized that all I deal in is facts. I may be an asshole at times, but throwing them under the bus just to prove I'm right is even below me. If none of this has to do with the OP, then why are you so hell bent on finding out what veteran members said using the code tags was part of the site's guidelines? Insisting on the names of the users (which would be easy to search for yourself) has nothing to do with the OP.

I do find it extremely interesting though that you set there and chastise me and other members for not contributing anything to the site as well as derailing threads, but then turn around and make posts that just push the discussion more into the ditch. Seems a bit hypocritical.
After the time I've been here I figured you would have realized that all I deal in is facts.

That's amusing.


Insisting on the names of the users (which would be easy to search for yourself) has nothing to do with the OP.

I did search. Thus the post.


I do find it extremely interesting though that you set sit there and chastise me and other members for not contributing anything to the site as well as derailing threads, but then turn around and make posts that just push the discussion more into the ditch. Seems a bit hypocritical.

This thread was in the ditch from the OP. There was nowhere to push it. And yes, occasionally I find it necessary to let off a little steam at people who make shit up. That doesn't make me hypocritical, it makes me human.
cire wrote:
And yes, occasionally I find it necessary to let off a little steam at people who make shit up.

I could see where it would be annoying, but I'm not making shit up. I've found a thread from 2011 where they called using code tags guidelines and one from 2012 where some veteran members said it and even said they were going to talk to Twicker about adding it to the guidelines in the beginner forums sticky thread (which I took part in).
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.
Pages: 12