On 7 February 2018 at 17:25, Peter T. Breuer <ptb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Also sprach Jonathan Wakely:" >> >> On 7 February 2018 at 16:34, Peter T. Breuer wrote: >> > I'll repeat the paragraph from my summary this morning. >> >> Please don't, your sophistry is still off-topic. Repeating it doesn't > > Kindly explain why explaining is off-topic in your opinion. > >> make it any less so. > > Sophistry \Soph"ist*ry\, n. [OE. sophistrie, OF. sophisterie.] > The art or process of reasoning; logic. [Obs.] [1913 Webster] > > Correct. I am exact, which is the minimum anyone can be. I prefer this from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistry Thus sophist (which comes from Greek sophist?s, meaning "wise man" or "expert") earned a negative connotation as "a captious or fallacious reasoner." Sophistry is reasoning that seems plausible on a superficial level but is actually unsound, or reasoning that is used to deceive. > >> The insight you finally gave me credit for wasn't even mine > > It is. Kindly point to somebody who says it before you? https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2018-02/msg00019.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2018-02/msg00020.html You may claim it wasn't precise enough for you, but that's your problem for being an idiot. Nobody here is under any obligation to provide you with a formal education in the C standard. You were given the answers, and several clues how to interpret the standard if you cared to. You chose to ignore or misinterpret them, because they didn't suit you. Call that exactness if you wish, I call it arrogance and pissiness.
