Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #18156

Re: Foreword

Show all headers | View raw

"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kataeh$qan$1@dont-email.me...
> On 12/18/2012 7:22 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
...

> My point is that this is a discussion of people
> who have a stake in the Forth reference document.

If you consider that if you exclude posts by me or in response to
me that there are ZERO responses to from everyone else here to Mr.
Knaggs' question for comments, where is the "discussion [by]
people who have a stake in the Forth reference document"?  There
is NO discussion by such people in this thread.  I.e., your point
is invalid.

> You don't seem to have any real
> interest in the document, so why bother
> with the discussion?

1) He asked for comments.  Gavino's posts are the only other
recent posts to respond too.  Are you saying I can respond to Gav
without you being troll-ish in response too ... ?

2) NOT ONE OF THE FORTH DEVOTEES HERE RESPONDED

You guys only responded in order to argue with me.  It's utterly
pathetic and pitiful.  What a bunch of losers.  It's "your" Forth
document.  Don't you care about it enough to comment?  Doesn't any
one of you care enough to write a decent foreword?  Ms. Rather
doesn't.  Mr. Knaggs doesn't.  Mr. Pelc doesn't.  They're some of
the oldest or most experienced Forth users here.  There weren't
even any simple "yea, I agree" or "nay, I don't like it" from the
rest of this group.  Besides me, there were zero comments from
this group on the foreword.  Sad, truly so.  When everyone here
says Forth is the greatest language ever, they fail to realize
that I consider abysmal responses like this as part of my
judgements about Forth.

> Many of your comments seem to be off the point
> and not adding anything.

Mr. Knaggs asked for comments.  What make you think you have
some right to judge my statements in response to his question?
You need to kill that sense of entitlement fast before it gets you
into real trouble with others in life.

Feel free to add a comment of substance, someday ... if you
ever actually have an opinion on the foreword(s).

> Mostly they seem to be argumentative.

How is presenting my perspective argumentative when comments
were explicitly asked for?  What am I arguing against ... ?

> But maybe that is just me, but I'm pretty sure your response to
> Elizabeth's request that you propose an alternative paragraph
> was a bit out of line.

In what way?

I presented what I thought about her inappropriate comments in
exacting and brutally honest detail.  Too harsh?  Maybe, she
should consider being more tactful too.  She has no right to
demand anything of me.  It's extremely rude.  That goes for Mr.
Knaggs asking for me to write a foreword too!  He asked for
comments.  I generously obliged.  If he didn't genuinely want real
comments, he never should've asked.


Rod Pemberton

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

RfC: Foreword "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-12-17 19:40 +0000
  Re: Foreword "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-17 17:40 -0500
    Re: Foreword "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-12-17 21:55 -1000
      Re: Foreword "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-18 19:22 -0500
        Re: Foreword Peter Knaggs <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-12-19 10:03 +0000
          Re: Foreword "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-21 02:39 -0500
          Re: Foreword "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-12-20 22:16 -1000
        Re: Foreword rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-12-19 16:09 -0500
          Re: Foreword "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-21 02:20 -0500
        Re: Foreword "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-12-23 00:43 +1100
          Re: Foreword "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-12-22 16:44 +0100
            Re: Foreword "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-12-27 19:54 +1100
              Re: Foreword Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-27 05:36 -0800
                Re: Foreword Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-27 05:40 -0800
          Re: Foreword Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-12-22 10:07 -0600
  Re: RfC: Foreword "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-12-18 08:27 +0100
    Re: RfC: Foreword Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2012-12-17 22:24 -1000
      Re: RfC: Foreword "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-12-18 20:38 +0100
        Re: RfC: Foreword "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-12-18 09:54 -1000
          Re: RfC: Foreword "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-12-18 22:00 +0100
            Re: RfC: Foreword "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-12-18 11:21 -1000
              Re: RfC: Foreword "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-12-20 07:56 +0100
                Re: RfC: Foreword Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-12-20 03:38 -0600
                Re: RfC: Foreword "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-21 02:20 -0500
                Re: RfC: Foreword Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-12-21 04:02 -0600
          Re: RfC: Foreword "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-18 19:24 -0500
            Re: RfC: Foreword Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-18 22:46 -0800
              Re: RfC: Foreword "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-21 02:21 -0500
                Re: RfC: Foreword Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-21 15:24 -0800

csiph-web