Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.development > #8747 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-11 19:11 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-11-01 09:07 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 142 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.os.development
C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-11 19:11 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 05:10 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 04:41 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 02:37 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 07:20 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 18:37 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 21:03 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 13:49 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 06:27 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 19:02 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 15:10 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 20:30 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 20:07 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 22:29 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-20 18:48 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 20:04 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-30 20:32 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 13:51 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-27 17:35 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 17:09 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-16 14:30 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 21:40 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-18 07:34 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-18 08:37 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 23:35 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-19 12:52 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 13:09 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-19 21:46 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:15 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-21 21:48 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 15:16 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-22 23:02 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-01-23 17:04 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 15:27 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-02-29 09:26 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 19:02 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 20:48 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-09 22:29 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:41 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-29 09:00 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-09 22:29 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:36 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-29 09:01 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 10:13 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-04-10 19:33 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-04-15 16:27 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 08:10 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-03 20:14 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 09:17 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 08:44 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-29 12:05 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 12:28 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-06-01 19:22 +0200
OT: Obama in the UK (was: C parser ramblings, language design, etc) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 08:46 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK (was: C parser ramblings, language design, etc) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-26 23:58 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK (was: C parser ramblings, language design, etc) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 00:08 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 06:40 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 05:25 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 17:45 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 18:25 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 23:44 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-03 16:56 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 09:23 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-04 17:22 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 11:47 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-06 19:34 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 12:51 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-07 19:20 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 01:46 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-07 21:43 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 09:36 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-08 15:34 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 11:25 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-10 17:32 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-10 18:25 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 00:06 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-07 21:32 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 07:41 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-06-02 16:21 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 14:59 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-05-20 21:13 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-05-20 21:17 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 08:04 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-05-21 11:16 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:11 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-20 22:51 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 07:29 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 08:33 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-06-02 16:21 -0400
UK pronunciation was, [Re: OT: Obama in the UK, was C lang parser ramblings] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-06-11 14:34 -0400
Re: UK pronunciation was, [Re: OT: Obama in the UK, was C lang parser ramblings] James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 18:28 +0100
Re: UK pronunciation was, [Re: OT: Obama in the UK, was C lang parser ramblings] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfrze.cam> - 2016-07-25 21:54 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 18:21 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfrze.cam> - 2016-07-25 21:54 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 10:02 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfrze.cam> - 2016-07-26 07:56 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:26 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-03 20:14 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 09:25 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:11 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 07:59 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 00:01 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 09:28 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 05:42 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 17:16 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 18:05 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 09:29 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 09:42 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-03 20:14 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 14:34 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 11:27 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-06-01 19:22 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 16:34 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 12:10 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-06-01 19:22 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-25 18:29 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-26 11:47 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 17:08 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-28 11:54 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 11:47 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 10:13 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-25 18:29 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 17:15 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-27 17:31 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 11:07 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-19 22:28 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 15:04 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-25 17:48 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 17:16 +0000
Re: cows and bulls game, was [Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc] "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-27 21:19 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-30 20:32 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 15:13 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-05 21:56 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 13:56 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-21 19:46 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 15:38 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 07:10 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "s_dubrovich@yahoo.com" <s_dubrovich@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-01 09:07 -0800
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 14:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160116143010.700a4366@_> |
| In reply to | #9098 |
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 17:09:48 +0000 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/12/2015 22:35, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 08:51:24 -0500, James Harris > > <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 01/10/2015 01:32, Rod Pemberton wrote: > I've snipped your entire paragraph talking about a language that has > an expletive in its name. If possible, it would be great if you could > omit further reference to that language. Your choice, of course, but > some people, including me, still find such words offensive and it's > not something I would type or discuss, and is a word I try to avoid > reading. Since you watch Star Trek, I'd suspect you watched Red Dwarf too. :) Didn't you? Admit it. Red Dwarf had "smeg." And, your British TV shows use "bloody" - basically like the F-word here - without censoring it. You don't find "bloody" offensive, do you? Well, I'm surprised. It's not used in an expletive context. "Innit?" So, why "omit further reference to that language," if it's just the use of the expletive which offends you and not the language? ... Some use "BF" instead for just that reason. Besides,I thought we had discussed that programming language more than a few times in the past without any objection by you to either the name or the actual language. Perhaps, this was on c.l.m? It's novel in it's simplicity. It seems you hate the language now too ... Personally, I'm opposed to all censorship. I prefer to be respectful to the actual name of the programming language. [heavily truncated] > >>> Technically, I *could* walk the AST, but that is slows everything > >>> down. I was attempting to do this without doing so, i.e., single > >>> pass of AST to assembly, no walking or backtracking of ASTs > >>> whether as a binary tree or linked-list. > >> > >> If you can walk any sort of tree at this point then I have to > >> suggest it would be better to use a normal parse mechanism. With > >> the exception of a backtracking parser, parsing is one of the > >> faster phases of a compiler so you may be ill advised to try to > >> save time with your contextless approach. > > > > .... > > > >> It may be a bit like trying to analyse a chess > >> position based purely on the current board without forming a game > >> tree: great and revolutionary if you could make it work but > >> probably impractical, impossible to program, and more work in the > >> long run. > > > > Why do you see this as any different from analyzing a chess game > > from the starting positions? i.e., no move history or game tree, > > unless artificially constructed for initial piece placement ... > > I see them as similar. Both (traditionally) need a tree to be > constructed. I was saying that parsing without constructing a tree > seems to me similar to trying to analyse a chess position without > constructing a tree. There may be a way to do both without using a > tree but no one has discovered it yet and it's likely to be much > easier in both cases just to follow the traditional process; you may > be making life harder for yourself in the long run by trying to avoid > what you call a grammar-based parse. An abstract syntax tree is constructed. It's just that a set of grammar rules wasn't used to construct it. I.e., the ordering of language elements, or recursive nature as you call it, isn't information which is being checked for by logic and/or being recorded in the tree, stack, etc. Hence, pairing/matching issues of while with do or not, etc. I will attempt to get back your three other posts later. Currently, I can't stop laughing at one mine in the Smaller C thread ... :-) I will have wait to see how you responded, i.e., if you took it jokingly or angrily or seriously. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 21:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7ed8d$s47$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9102 |
On 16/01/2016 19:30, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 17:09:48 +0000 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 27/12/2015 22:35, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 08:51:24 -0500, James Harris >>> <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 01/10/2015 01:32, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >> I've snipped your entire paragraph talking about a language that has >> an expletive in its name. If possible, it would be great if you could >> omit further reference to that language. Your choice, of course, but >> some people, including me, still find such words offensive and it's >> not something I would type or discuss, and is a word I try to avoid >> reading. > > Since you watch Star Trek, I'd suspect you watched Red Dwarf too. :) > Didn't you? Admit it. Red Dwarf had "smeg." LOL, yes, I did find the first few series of Red Dwarf funny - very funny in some cases. I don't think of smeg is a swearword. It's just short for smegma, AIUI deliberately unpleasant but not swearing. Have you ever seen the UK comedy show Porridge? It is set in a prison and uses pseudo-swearwords naff and nerk. I don't mind those either as they were just made up and meaningless. I see smeg as a word invented for a similar purpose. > And, your British TV > shows use "bloody" - basically like the F-word here - without > censoring it. You don't find "bloody" offensive, do you? Yes, "bloody" is a word I would only use to describe something that is characterised by blood such as a conflict or a wound. I don't like to hear it used as a curse and try to avoid TV or radio shows containing it but even it is not as bad as the F word or the C word or the N word (IMO). I know at the end of the day that these are just words but we grow up with certain exposures and there are some words that are or were deliberately used in order to be offensive or that, perhaps, refer to something which is perfectly normal such as sex or a vulva or a black person in deliberately coarse terms. That coarseness, for me, rules them out. Speaking of different sensibilities, I remember some American friends taking exception to the phrase which I believe is sometimes abbreviated SOB. Do Americans find that offensive? If so, why? When referring to a female dog would an American see the term "bitch" as offensive - or is it that maligning someone's mother is the offensive part? > Well, I'm surprised. It's not used in an expletive context. "Innit?" > So, why "omit further reference to that language," if it's just the > use of the expletive which offends you and not the language? ... > Some use "BF" instead for just that reason. Yes, I've seen that. It's still a reminder, though, and one tends to 'hear' the word in one's mind while reading the abbreviation. > Besides,I thought we had discussed that programming language more than > a few times in the past without any objection by you to either the name > or the actual language. Perhaps, this was on c.l.m? It's novel in it's > simplicity. It seems you hate the language now too ... Not with me. I've always avoided any discussion about it with anyone and I know nothing about it. > Personally, I'm opposed to all censorship. I prefer to be respectful > to the actual name of the programming language. Sure. Censorship is one person deciding what another can see or hear. This is not about that. It's not up to one of us what someone else wants to talk about. But as a courtesy we can avoid things that we know others do not like. For example, we might avoid the N word because we know it has been used in offensive ways and that offence still resonates. ... > I will attempt to get back your three other posts later. > Currently, I can't stop laughing at one mine in the Smaller C > thread ... :-) I will have wait to see how you responded, i.e., > if you took it jokingly or angrily or seriously. It's sometimes hard to tell with you. I think you have said you are sometimes between joking and serious whether there is a smiley or not. I am intrigued, though, as to which one you mean...! James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 07:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160118073444.77d34ec7@_> |
| In reply to | #9104 |
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 21:40:54 +0000 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16/01/2016 19:30, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 17:09:48 +0000 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 27/12/2015 22:35, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 08:51:24 -0500, James Harris > >>> <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 01/10/2015 01:32, Rod Pemberton wrote: [OT] > Yes, "bloody" is a word I would only use to describe something that > is characterised by blood such as a conflict or a wound. I don't like > to hear it used as a curse and try to avoid TV or radio shows > containing it but even it is not as bad as the F word or the C word > or the N word (IMO). Well, ISTM, you seem more an uptight American than British. :-) Ok, now, that's funny, and hopefully not offensive. > Speaking of different sensibilities, I remember some American friends > taking exception to the phrase which I believe is sometimes > abbreviated SOB. Do Americans find that offensive? If so, why? When > referring to a female dog would an American see the term "bitch" as > offensive - or is it that maligning someone's mother is the offensive > part? I personally don't see SOB as offensive. It was more so probably 1970's, being sort of similar in usage to "asshole" maybe a bit more vulgar, maybe because divorce rates spiked then? It doesn't seem to be used much anymore. I really don't see the B-word (bitch) as offensive, but I'm a male. Many women still don't like it, but they absolutely **HATE** the C-word (like punt). They've mostly accepted the P-word (like fuzzy cat) and words like "tits" and "ass" and "boobs" as their own, although the P-word was hated as much as the C-word until more recently. This might be part of the the the new female empowerment movement in the US. Except for the F-word, and mildly the two S-words, the seven words in George Carlin's comedy skit are not that offensive anymore or have fallen out of usage. They were once the most offensive words in American English and basically the only swear words ... Of course, the most offensive joke is "The Aristocrat's" joke which supposedly goes back to vaudeville. It was only told amongst comedians until a 2005 documentary. It is known to have been told by every comedy legends as far back as Groucho Marx ... > > Besides,I thought we had discussed that programming language more > > than a few times in the past without any objection by you to either > > the name or the actual language. Perhaps, this was on c.l.m? It's > > novel in it's simplicity. It seems you hate the language now > > too ... > > Not with me. I've always avoided any discussion about it with anyone > and I know nothing about it. That's odd ... Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 08:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160118083718.7784bd8c@_> |
| In reply to | #9107 |
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 07:34:44 -0500 Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote: [OT] > Of course, the most offensive > joke is "The Aristocrat's" joke which supposedly goes back to > vaudeville. It was only told amongst comedians until a 2005 > documentary. It is known to have been told by every comedy legends > as far back as Groucho Marx ... Yeah, ... I should probably tell you why I brought that part up as you'll likely never watch the joke being performed by comedy legends such as George Carlin, Gilbert Gottfried, Bob Saget, Penn Jillette, Sarah Silverman, etc. But, first, let's sidetrack. What do you think of Shakespeare? Is he (or she) vulgar or profane? Do you oppose murders, death, and wars in his plays? Most think of him as one of the world's greatest authors, and I suspect you do too. Yet, he spelled out the C-word in the Tweflth Night and used euphemisms for it in Ophelia, Romeo and Juliet, etc. What about the Holy Bible? Most would consider that to be one of the world's greatest books. Yet, it contains every horrible act of humanity that has ever existed, except perhaps nuclear war. I'm basically asking if you think that you're a hypocrite, politely, because I suspect you think these are great works of art just like the rest of humanity. Now, let's get back to the joke. The Aristocrat's joke is considered to be of the highest art in comedy, because it's not a joke at all, except maybe on the listener. It's about the comedic performance of the comedian and their ability to tell it without losing the audience. There is literally no joke. The comedian goes on stage without a joke, ad-libs the "joke", and then doesn't provide a punch-line, doesn't get boo-ed off-stage, doesn't get arrested for profanity or vulgarity for the "joke" part. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 23:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7jsn4$5kh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9109 |
On 18/01/2016 13:37, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 07:34:44 -0500 > Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote: [OT] > What do you think of Shakespeare? Is he (or she) vulgar or profane? I have only read a few of his plays: Hamlet, Macbeth, The Taming of the Shrew, Romeo and Juliet, and maybe a couple of others. I don't think much of some of his plots but I am in awe of some of his ways of expressing things. Hamlet is favourite. It is rich in meaningful expression. For example, lamenting that his mother remarried too soon after the death of his much-loved father, Hamlet says to his only friend, Horatio: "the funeral baked meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables." Of course it's not literal but that is a wonderful picture to describe Hamlet's state of mind. When Horatio says that Hamlet's father was a goodly king Hamlet replies: "He was a man. Take him for all in all. I shall not look upon his like again." Shakespeare's phrasing is so rich that he has added to the English language many expressions we still use today. And, incidentally, was the source of many titles for episodes of the original Star Trek. The Conscience of the King Dagger of the Mind All Our Yesterdays By Any Other Name The Undiscovered Country > Do you oppose murders, death, and wars in his plays? Most think of > him as one of the world's greatest authors, and I suspect you do too. > Yet, he spelled out the C-word in the Tweflth Night and used > euphemisms for it in Ophelia, Romeo and Juliet, etc. I don't know much about any of that. As for murders, wars etc there is a difference between mentioning them and unnecessarily going into gory detail. I don't know what Shakespeare did. I probably have not read the plays that contain those events. About all I know is: "my kingdom for a horse!" > What about the Holy Bible? Most would consider that to be one of > the world's greatest books. Yet, it contains every horrible act > of humanity that has ever existed, except perhaps nuclear war. I don't know. For the horrible acts you mention I believe the Bible says that the Israelites engaged in some depraved acts when they turned away from God and started to follow the practices of the religions of nearby nations. But I am pretty sure those things were not reported with any kind of approval, rather just the opposite. News media today report events but that doesn't mean that they approve of them. Besides, reporting bad events is a different issue, isn't it? I thought we were discussing the use of profanities. > I'm basically asking if you think that you're a hypocrite, politely, > because I suspect you think these are great works of art just like > the rest of humanity. No, I think I am consistent. For example, I greatly like some parts of Shakespeare but if I read something of his I did not like I would not make excuses for him. Similarly, I like discussions on this newsgroup but I would avoid tasteless parts, threads or subthreads. > Now, let's get back to the joke. The Aristocrat's joke ... I looked it up and found it is a form of joke with something disgusting in the middle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aristocrats It seems rather stupid to me: vulgarity for the sake of it or for shock value, perhaps. James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 12:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7l8gp$1skc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #9111 |
James Harris in discussion with Rod Pemberton: ... >> Now, let's get back to the joke. The Aristocrat's joke ... > I looked it up and found it is a form of joke with something disgusting > in the middle. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aristocrats > It seems rather stupid to me: vulgarity for the sake of it or for shock > value, perhaps. what do you think about my favorite English Comedies from Monty Python ? I love this kind of black and dirty humour. __ wolfgang
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 13:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7lcd8$j3m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9112 |
On 19/01/2016 11:52, wolfgang kern wrote: [OT] > what do you think about my favorite English Comedies from Monty Python ? > I love this kind of black and dirty humour. I think I have a quirky sense of humour in that I sometimes find the secondary jokes funnier than the main ones. The primary humour can be a bit obvious but the way they support it can be better. For example, IIRC one Python film has a Frenchman leaning over the battlement of a castle telling the English what he thinks of them. Needless to say, it is not complimentary! I can't remember his monologue but I loved the *glee* with which this Frenchman (possibly played by Cleese) took the opportunity to pour out his evidently long-held bile against the hated and despised English, and his delight that the stupid English just stood and listened to it! I can imagine him getting home to the wife later and telling her what a great day he'd had. Brilliant! Speaking of nationalistic humour, I remember The News Quiz in the days when it was wonderfully chaired by Barry Took. You won't know the names as it had a British focus but this was a radio quiz that alternated questions on the week's news events to two teams. The chairman would humorously summarise each story before going on to the next one. I gather that Aussies can be very sensitive about their population's origins as a prisoner colony. In one News Quiz episode the question was about British children copying accents they heard in Australian soap operas. The chairman (Took) summed up saying in an Australian accent that British children had been heard to change the emPHASSis on words, and to copy the Aussies in going *UP* at the end of a sentence ... which, he said, was quite surprising as most of them went down at the beginning of one to get there in the first place...! LOL. In a politically correct world one is probably not supposed to say things like that! Going back to Monty Python, you would have to give some examples. I found some of their stuff very funny, as above, but, by contrast, I remember watching the credits go up at the end of one particular episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus and realising that nothing had been funny in the entire episode! James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 21:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7m8ho$1m4r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #9113 |
James Harris replied: [OT] >> what do you think about my favorite English Comedies from Monty Python ? >> I love this kind of black and dirty humour. > I think I have a quirky sense of humour in that I sometimes find the > secondary jokes funnier than the main ones. The primary humour can be a > bit obvious but the way they support it can be better. > For example, IIRC one Python film has a Frenchman leaning over the > battlement of a castle telling the English what he thinks of them. > Needless to say, it is not complimentary! I can't remember his monologue > but I loved the *glee* with which this Frenchman (possibly played by > Cleese) took the opportunity to pour out his evidently long-held bile > against the hated and despised English, and his delight that the stupid > English just stood and listened to it! I can imagine him getting home to > the wife later and telling her what a great day he'd had. Brilliant! Yeah, excellent and brilliant too. > Speaking of nationalistic humour, I remember The News Quiz in the days > when it was wonderfully chaired by Barry Took. You won't know the names as > it had a British focus but this was a radio quiz that alternated questions > on the week's news events to two teams. The chairman would humorously > summarise each story before going on to the next one. You may know that I'm a Europien since a while, not that I wanted to bee one nor that I'm proud of it :) > I gather that Aussies can be very sensitive about their population's > origins as a prisoner colony. In one News Quiz episode the question was > about British children copying accents they heard in Australian soap > operas. The chairman (Took) summed up saying in an Australian accent that > British children had been heard to change the emPHASSis on words, and to > copy the Aussies in going *UP* at the end of a sentence ... which, he > said, was quite surprising as most of them went down at the beginning of > one to get there in the first place...! LOL. In a politically correct > world one is probably not supposed to say things like that! "Aussies" were the ones once put onto a jail island in the south. We "Austrians" can look back a thousand years in history where we once were the final border for muslim-attacks attempted to overrun Europe. btw: this refugies seem to be a long term planned sleeper installation to become activated at the 500 years day of the shame and be the date of retaliatian then. > Going back to Monty Python, you would have to give some examples. examples ?: Sir Mr.Chairman asks her Majesty the Queen: MC: Oh my Majesty, did you fart ? QN: of course I farted, or do you think I smell like this all the time ? some more: It's very important to be not beeing seen. How much can one eat (before explode) a vomit org Singing 69 (I still LMFAO, as Beth would say it) > I found some of their stuff very funny, as above, but, by contrast, I > remember watching the credits go up at the end of one particular episode > of Monty Python's Flying Circus and realising that nothing had been funny > in the entire episode! If you can't see see deep humour inside all the nasty words than you might have lost its sense at all. Even my English isn't a native one, I (partly) grew up in UK and I later had a few High-degree semesters in US. And My native dialect is 'Viennies' (particular German but most of pure old English and a lot of French, German Jew (Jiddish) and my Grandfathers Gypsy). And I also learned about "Jenish" (an old but still alive Gypsy dialect). So my view (and usage) of languges maybe not restricted or ruled by what Rod often see as a failure. Languages (terms and their use) changed a lot during my lifetime. So I can only laugh about things which are out of focus and abstract, I cannot stop laughing about windoze and Loonix and all who think that they can write any OS better than the two bloat/big-ones by using C, C+++ and other HLL-shit. I hope your parents once told you how to interprete nasty words. Myself see nothing wrong with using such 'swear-words' to declare the state of something. BS is a well known abbreviation (at least in US). M$-shit is a short cut for: sold over this planet much too often. Loonix-shit was/is a (failed) attempt to do any better than M$. We can hear all this so called swear-words like Fuck,Come,Pussy.. on radio-stations all the time on a daily base,.. so what ? __ wolfgang
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 11:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7qefk$2ip$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9114 |
On 19/01/2016 20:46, wolfgang kern wrote: [OT] > btw: this refugies seem to be a long term planned sleeper installation > to become activated at the 500 years day of the shame and be the date > of retaliatian then. Have you seen the following? A preacher tells migrants that Europe's hospitality is not due to compassion but because Europeans need to increase their populations. He says that migrants should breed Muslim children with European women (which many will see as permission to rape) and that Muslims should go on to conquer Europe. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240295 Such hate speech is believed by some. There are great dangers in bringing unknown masses to Europe and elsewhere. In the west we probably expect people to appreciate the refuge they are shown. Sadly, some who come in will see compassion as weakness. ... >> I found some of their stuff very funny, as above, but, by contrast, I >> remember watching the credits go up at the end of one particular >> episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus and realising that nothing had >> been funny in the entire episode! > > If you can't see see deep humour inside all the nasty words than > you might have lost its sense at all. Nothing to do with offensive words. Monty Python sketches varied in how funny they were. > Even my English isn't a native one, I (partly) grew up in UK and > I later had a few High-degree semesters in US. And My native dialect > is 'Viennies' (particular German but most of pure old English and a > lot of French, German Jew (Jiddish) and my Grandfathers Gypsy). And > I also learned about "Jenish" (an old but still alive Gypsy dialect). > > So my view (and usage) of languges maybe not restricted or ruled by > what Rod often see as a failure. I don't follow. I cannot remember Rod commenting on your English? James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 21:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7rgc9$13e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #9118 |
James Harris wrote: [OT] >> btw: this refugies seem to be a long term planned sleeper installation >> to become activated at the 500 years day of the shame and be the date >> of retaliatian then. ;'retaliation' > Have you seen the following? A preacher tells migrants that Europe's > hospitality is not due to compassion but because Europeans need to > increase their populations. He says that migrants should breed Muslim > children with European women (which many will see as permission to rape) > and that Muslims should go on to conquer Europe. > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240295 > > Such hate speech is believed by some. There are great dangers in > bringing unknown masses to Europe and elsewhere. In the west we probably > expect people to appreciate the refuge they are shown. Sadly, some who > come in will see compassion as weakness. Everybody in Europe seem to know about it, but never say nor do anything against it, just because this could be seen as racial hatered. Will 2029 pass by without religous fanatics wipe out our cultur ? ... > I don't follow. I cannot remember Rod commenting on your English? Rod often show me my spelling errors :) __ wolfgang
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 15:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7tgvn$mvo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9119 |
On 21/01/2016 20:48, wolfgang kern wrote: > > James Harris wrote: > > [OT] ... >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240295 >> >> Such hate speech is believed by some. There are great dangers in >> bringing unknown masses to Europe and elsewhere. In the west we >> probably expect people to appreciate the refuge they are shown. Sadly, >> some who come in will see compassion as weakness. > > Everybody in Europe seem to know about it, but never say nor do anything > against it, just because this could be seen as racial hatered. Similar here. People who warn about the dangers of uncontrolled immigration are sometimes called racist by those who want to welcome anyone and everyone. I see it like a house. We lock our front doors not because we hate our neighbours (or other races) but because we want to protect our families. We *do* let people in but only those we believe we can trust, not just anyone who knocks. > Will 2029 pass by without religous fanatics wipe out our cultur ? .... I don't know but Europe currently has a highly tolerant society which is letting in lots of people who are highly intolerant. That is a recipe for subjugation of the hosts' culture and more. James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 23:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7u9f3$ev3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #9121 |
James Harris wrote: [OT] >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240295 >>> Such hate speech is believed by some. There are great dangers in >>> bringing unknown masses to Europe and elsewhere. In the west we >>> probably expect people to appreciate the refuge they are shown. Sadly, >>> some who come in will see compassion as weakness. >> Everybody in Europe seem to know about it, but never say nor do anything >> against it, just because this could be seen as racial hatered. > Similar here. People who warn about the dangers of uncontrolled > immigration are sometimes called racist by those who want to welcome > anyone and everyone. > I see it like a house. We lock our front doors not because we hate our > neighbours (or other races) but because we want to protect our families. > We *do* let people in but only those we believe we can trust, not just > anyone who knocks. >> Will 2029 pass by without religous fanatics wipe out our cultur ? .... > I don't know but Europe currently has a highly tolerant society which is > letting in lots of people who are highly intolerant. That is a recipe > for subjugation of the hosts' culture and more. Meanwhile it's an open secret and every turkish youngster (even born in Eorope as 3rd/4th generation with an AT/EU password) tells you freely that we all once become turkish anyway. My hope and a little experience with many 20 year old 'New-Austians' is just that at least 30% will prefer our western stile of life ... one of our former cancellor use to say: "sooner or later we will demoralise them !" and he said this when Austria was still occupied by the allied force against the 3rd-empire: [this famous four in the jeep: russian/french/english/american] 1529 Vienne saved Europe from being overun by muslim (1st Turk siege) 1683 a polish knight saved Vienna and whole Europe from a 2nd attack. 1983: the infiltration of Europe by turkish immigrates began. 2029: target of taking over. Everyone Know it but who acts against ? I myself will be to old then to do much more than curse the fools. Officials may know it as well and perhaps they got a plan B for ... __ wolfgang
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 17:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n80843$sqq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9121 |
James Harris wrote:
> On 21/01/2016 20:48, wolfgang kern wrote:
>>
>> Will 2029 pass by without religous fanatics wipe out our cultur ? ....
>
> I don't know but Europe currently has a highly tolerant society which is letting in lots of people
> who are highly intolerant. That is a recipe for subjugation of the hosts' culture and more.
A little bit short sighted?
1. What we have to face at the moment are the consequences of
George Walker Bush's crusade against his asserted "axis of
evil". His (pointless!) wars destroyed the fragile balance
in the Near East and Northern Africa and left an explosive
chaos.
2. Most of the people trying to flee to Europe are victims of
civil wars between warlords supported by different forces,
including European countries, especially GB and France who
still try to control former colonies, religuous extremists
who claim to fight for the only true version of their holy
books, Russia and the USA.
3. People who seek shelter from wars are not immigrants (like
those getting a Green Card for the USA) - people flee from
wars to save their life, so we have to apply the UN Charta
and treat them as asylum seekers who will leave us as soon
as it is safe to return to their home countries.
4. Those who seek for asylum should not be stigmatised as in-
tolerant per se. A very small quantity will be intolerant,
less than ten percent might be, but the *overwhelming* ma-
jority is not that much different from the host nations.
Just the five cents from a person who has seen too much xeno-
phobic hatred throughout the years. Here in Germany, refugees
surely are less intolerant than racist Germans who burnt down
refugee camps and killed refugees just because they are "out-
landers". <http://tinyurl.com/hacl7s6>
We should remember some basic rules of Democracy and Justice,
especially the presumption of innocence and the general right
to live a humane life - if we start to question human rights,
humanity is lost.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 15:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8angb$5s5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9126 |
On 23/01/2016 16:04, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > James Harris wrote: > > >> On 21/01/2016 20:48, wolfgang kern wrote: >>> >>> Will 2029 pass by without religous fanatics wipe out our cultur ? .... >> >> I don't know but Europe currently has a highly tolerant society which >> is letting in lots of people >> who are highly intolerant. That is a recipe for subjugation of the >> hosts' culture and more. > > > A little bit short sighted? > > 1. What we have to face at the moment are the consequences of > George Walker Bush's crusade against his asserted "axis of > evil". His (pointless!) wars destroyed the fragile balance > in the Near East and Northern Africa and left an explosive > chaos. I am no fan of GW Bush. Or of war, for that matter. But I have to point out that Saddam Hussein's regime had dropped chemical/biological weapons on villages of Kurds (e.g. 5000 killed in Halabja). There has to be something wrong if a dictator uses such weapons to slaughter innocent men, women and children and yet other nations are prepared to stand aside. It is true that Bush & co did not go in in respect of such weapons but finally, much later, went in after WMDs which weren't there. But, then again, Hussein did play pride games with weapons inspectors. While still not justifying the Iraq war I did also see the joy with which Iraqi people greeted the destruction of Hussein's statue, indicating how much they must have hated to live under his regime. I also saw the courage Iraqis displayed when, even though some bombing of polling queues was likely, people queued up to cast a vote for the first time in their lives. Perhaps the failure in Iraq is as much to do with lack of planning for what would happen after the dictator fell. The western powers thought that the Iraqi people themselves would form a stable government. > 2. Most of the people trying to flee to Europe are victims of > civil wars between warlords supported by different forces, > including European countries, especially GB and France who > still try to control former colonies, religuous extremists > who claim to fight for the only true version of their holy > books, Russia and the USA. I don't think it's right that most are fleeing war. From what I have found it seems that most people (from 50 up to as many as 95 percent or maybe even more, depending on how it is reckoned) who are migrating are looking for a better life. I don't blame them at all for that, by the way, but we need to call a spade a spade. Even those who really have fled from war or persecution do have safe havens nearer home. > 3. People who seek shelter from wars are not immigrants (like > those getting a Green Card for the USA) - people flee from > wars to save their life, so we have to apply the UN Charta > and treat them as asylum seekers who will leave us as soon > as it is safe to return to their home countries. Of course, genuine refugees should be given safety. It would be good if it was, at least by default, temporary shelter until they could return to their homes. But I don't think that is what is happening. From the reports I have seen and read, most are moving to better their lives (which is quite understandable) and most want to stay. > 4. Those who seek for asylum should not be stigmatised as in- > tolerant per se. A very small quantity will be intolerant, > less than ten percent might be, but the *overwhelming* ma- > jority is not that much different from the host nations. I agree in part but I would also point out that, by their nature, the intolerant ones tend to dominate, unless there is an effective superior power to keep them from imposing their will on others. > Just the five cents from a person who has seen too much xeno- > phobic hatred throughout the years. Here in Germany, refugees > surely are less intolerant than racist Germans who burnt down > refugee camps and killed refugees just because they are "out- > landers". <http://tinyurl.com/hacl7s6> Agreed. That behaviour towards immigrants of any kind - whether refugees or economic migrants - is completely unacceptable. > We should remember some basic rules of Democracy and Justice, > especially the presumption of innocence and the general right > to live a humane life - if we start to question human rights, > humanity is lost. Please be aware that in all of what I have said I have been talking about saving life (and other things). Not because I am partisan but IMO the UK government has the right policy in 1. giving funds to support people in camps near their homes and 2. bringing the most needy safely and directly from those camps to homes in the UK. The UK approach helps stop unsafe migrations, supports poorer people (who cannot afford to pay people traffickers), avoids money going to criminal gangs, and gives the UK a chance to try to avoid importing terrorists. The German/EU approach, on the other hand, does the opposite of all those things. It encourages unsafe migration, gives preference to those who can afford to make the journey, encourages payment to unscrupulous traffickers, and gives Europe much more chance of importing terrorism. James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-29 09:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nb0v6q$p9h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9141 |
James Harris wrote:
> On 23/01/2016 16:04, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>> James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/01/2016 20:48, wolfgang kern wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Will 2029 pass by without religous fanatics wipe out our cultur ? ....
>>>
>>> I don't know but Europe currently has a highly tolerant society which
>>> is letting in lots of people
>>> who are highly intolerant. That is a recipe for subjugation of the
>>> hosts' culture and more.
>>
>> A little bit short sighted?
>>
>> 1. What we have to face at the moment are the consequences of
>> George Walker Bush's crusade against his asserted "axis of
>> evil". His (pointless!) wars destroyed the fragile balance
>> in the Near East and Northern Africa and left an explosive
>> chaos.
>
> I am no fan of GW Bush. Or of war, for that matter. But I have to point out that Saddam Hussein's
> regime had dropped chemical/biological weapons on villages of Kurds (e.g. 5000 killed in Halabja).
> There has to be something wrong if a dictator uses such weapons to slaughter innocent men, women and
> children and yet other nations are prepared to stand aside.
>
> It is true that Bush & co did not go in in respect of such weapons but finally, much later, went in
> after WMDs which weren't there. But, then again, Hussein did play pride games with weapons inspectors.
>
> While still not justifying the Iraq war I did also see the joy with which Iraqi people greeted the
> destruction of Hussein's statue, indicating how much they must have hated to live under his regime.
> I also saw the courage Iraqis displayed when, even though some bombing of polling queues was likely,
> people queued up to cast a vote for the first time in their lives.
>
> Perhaps the failure in Iraq is as much to do with lack of planning for what would happen after the
> dictator fell. The western powers thought that the Iraqi people themselves would form a stable
> government.
The problem with helping democracy to see the light of day is that
any help from outside destabilises long grown cultural, social and
political structures. This might work in countries where democracy
was replaced by an absolute ruler and is "re-imported", but surely
not in countries with tribal structures and poorly educated people
who uprate religion higher than knowledge. It's not that they were
"uneducated" - they just grew up with different values and have to
learn how to handle a new life in a secular environment. Turkey is
a good example for the time it takes to overcome grown structures,
if you want to replace them by a secular ("laical") system.
>> 2. Most of the people trying to flee to Europe are victims of
>> civil wars between warlords supported by different forces,
>> including European countries, especially GB and France who
>> still try to control former colonies, religuous extremists
>> who claim to fight for the only true version of their holy
>> books, Russia and the USA.
>
> I don't think it's right that most are fleeing war. From what I have found it seems that most people
> (from 50 up to as many as 95 percent or maybe even more, depending on how it is reckoned) who are
> migrating are looking for a better life. I don't blame them at all for that, by the way, but we need
> to call a spade a spade.
>
> Even those who really have fled from war or persecution do have safe havens nearer home.
Right, *but*: The nearest hosts can't handle an unlimited quantity
of refugees. Turkey hosts about 2.5 Million Syrians, which is more
than twice as much as the *total sum* of all asylum seekers in the
EU (who allegedly "flooded" Europe).
Here are some numbers and facts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis
especially
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis#Origins_and_motivations
Question is: How will we handle "limitations" like the one enacted
by the Austrian parliament. Is it okay to deny asylum just because
the asylum seeker was not amongst the first 37,500 - are we really
that "Christian" to tell the 37,501 and up "Go home and get killed
by ISIS, Assad, NATO, Russia, Peshmerga or other forces engaged in
Syria!"?
Those who *do not* seek shelter from wars or political suppression
("refugees driven by poverty") are immigrants, not asylum seekers.
These should be handled as immigrants, and this "stream" should be
limited individually by each host country - it does not make sense
to force poorer countries, e.g. Greece, to host immigrants knowing
they are not able to feed their own population sufficiently.
>> 3. People who seek shelter from wars are not immigrants (like
>> those getting a Green Card for the USA) - people flee from
>> wars to save their life, so we have to apply the UN Charta
>> and treat them as asylum seekers who will leave us as soon
>> as it is safe to return to their home countries.
>
> Of course, genuine refugees should be given safety. It would be good if it was, at least by default,
> temporary shelter until they could return to their homes.
>
> But I don't think that is what is happening. From the reports I have seen and read, most are moving
> to better their lives (which is quite understandable) and most want to stay.
There's a simple solution for "refugees driven by poverty": Create
jobs in their home country and they will not come here. As long as
we destroy the infrastructures of Third World countries, we should
not complain about masses of "refugees driven by poverty".
>> 4. Those who seek for asylum should not be stigmatised as in-
>> tolerant per se. A very small quantity will be intolerant,
>> less than ten percent might be, but the *overwhelming* ma-
>> jority is not that much different from the host nations.
>
> I agree in part but I would also point out that, by their nature, the intolerant ones tend to
> dominate, unless there is an effective superior power to keep them from imposing their will on others.
Agreed. That is why democracy is the most reasonable compromise to
fulfill the wishes of the majority of all people in a country. Un-
fortunately, real democracy is a /model/ we still strive for...
>> Just the five cents from a person who has seen too much xeno-
>> phobic hatred throughout the years. Here in Germany, refugees
>> surely are less intolerant than racist Germans who burnt down
>> refugee camps and killed refugees just because they are "out-
>> landers". <http://tinyurl.com/hacl7s6>
>
> Agreed. That behaviour towards immigrants of any kind - whether refugees or economic migrants - is
> completely unacceptable.
Yes - xenophobia is a world wide phenomenon. People who grew up in
Germany might be more 'sensitive' for such things, because we were
taught how fast things may get out of control and worst things can
happen if we do not stand up and try to prevent them.
>> We should remember some basic rules of Democracy and Justice,
>> especially the presumption of innocence and the general right
>> to live a humane life - if we start to question human rights,
>> humanity is lost.
>
> Please be aware that in all of what I have said I have been talking about saving life (and other
> things). Not because I am partisan but IMO the UK government has the right policy in 1. giving funds
> to support people in camps near their homes and 2. bringing the most needy safely and directly from
> those camps to homes in the UK.
>
> The UK approach helps stop unsafe migrations, supports poorer people (who cannot afford to pay
> people traffickers), avoids money going to criminal gangs, and gives the UK a chance to try to avoid
> importing terrorists.
>
> The German/EU approach, on the other hand, does the opposite of all those things. It encourages
> unsafe migration, gives preference to those who can afford to make the journey, encourages payment
> to unscrupulous traffickers, and gives Europe much more chance of importing terrorism.
If the UK did what you told, it was the first step into the proper
direction. What is happening in entire Europe at the moment - huge
growth of tendencies towards nationalistic separation coming along
with a shift to rightmost political positions - should be observed
with open eyes. I want to live in a country without *any* borders,
so re-errecting toppled turnpikes is not the thing I'd appreciate.
More over, closing a country's borders is no solution - people who
are eager to get inside will bypass points of entry and sneak over
at "soft" borders (for example dense woods where no walls might be
errected).
The German approach is kind of pragmatic. Millions of refugees are
moving towards Europe and we have to handle this stream regardless
of their origin or number. They all are human beings, so we cannot
tell the (x+1)th refugee "Go back and get killed!", where x is the
contingent all European countries together are willing to let into
their territory - forcing people to stay in or return to countries
at war is nothing else than premediated murder.
I've delivered a lot of stuff in Britain and I love the country as
well as the people. I really hope they will not isolate themselves
for speculative and questionable economic benefits. Coins have two
faces. The downside of independence: Export and import from/to the
EU might be taxed like wares from overseas, so prices for imported
wares grow and EU countries might not buy British wares any longer
because they are too expensive. Most times getting one thing comes
at the cost of losing another.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-29 19:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nb24dn$41j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9226 |
On 29/02/2016 08:26, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
> James Harris wrote:
...
>> Perhaps the failure in Iraq is as much to do with lack of planning for
>> what would happen after the
>> dictator fell. The western powers thought that the Iraqi people
>> themselves would form a stable
>> government.
>
>
> The problem with helping democracy to see the light of day is that
> any help from outside destabilises long grown cultural, social and
> political structures. This might work in countries where democracy
> was replaced by an absolute ruler and is "re-imported", but surely
> not in countries with tribal structures and poorly educated people
> who uprate religion higher than knowledge. It's not that they were
> "uneducated" - they just grew up with different values and have to
> learn how to handle a new life in a secular environment. Turkey is
> a good example for the time it takes to overcome grown structures,
> if you want to replace them by a secular ("laical") system.
Good points.
...
> Question is: How will we handle "limitations" like the one enacted
> by the Austrian parliament. Is it okay to deny asylum just because
> the asylum seeker was not amongst the first 37,500 - are we really
> that "Christian" to tell the 37,501 and up "Go home and get killed
> by ISIS, Assad, NATO, Russia, Peshmerga or other forces engaged in
> Syria!"?
The numbers game that European States are playing sounds like a bidding
war. "We offer to take N people. How many will you take? Can we bargain
the numbers up or down?" etc. ISTM they offer to take certain numbers of
people as a negotiating position as if people are like quantities of a
product.
I don't agree with that approach at all. In my view - and I am not
claiming anything other than a personal view - people should be
_brought_ to Europe and given support based on two things: need and
trustworthiness.
By "need" I mean that European governments should bring people from the
trouble zones based on need and their ability to house and protect such
people, not based on a predetermined quantity. Basing on need would
favour women, children the sick and elderly etc, at least where they
could not get the support they need in the regions where they come from.
As the Syrian war has gone on so long children's schooling is key so
that there is not a "lost generation" who miss out on all education.
By "trustworthiness" I mean that, in order to protect existing citizens,
governments should only bring in people they feel they can trust to
behave lawfully.
IMV governments should do what is necessary to fix the problems that
people are fleeing from, and should do what is necessary to support
those who flee war so they can remain in the region near their homes. If
governments resist sending money to help those people they should
consider the cost against that of taking the people to Europe.
I would stop people migrating by their own means. That means being tough
at the start and I don't think governments have the political courage
necessary. But it would save lives. And it would protect existing
European residents from danger - a prime purpose of a government.
Because lots of people are on the move, such a change of policy would
have to be well publicised and there would have to be a cut-off day:
Keep current policy until a certain date. After that, people would only
be taken from near their homes. And they *would* be turned back if they
tried to get into Europe directly. That means naval patrols to prevent
people from leaving the relative safety of land for the open sea.
> Those who *do not* seek shelter from wars or political suppression
> ("refugees driven by poverty") are immigrants, not asylum seekers.
Yes.
> These should be handled as immigrants, and this "stream" should be
> limited individually by each host country - it does not make sense
> to force poorer countries, e.g. Greece, to host immigrants knowing
> they are not able to feed their own population sufficiently.
Absolutely. Europe can welcome inward immigration but it should be based
on need, not just on taking anyone who arrives. Because of where it is
and its endless coast Greece is in the 'firing line'.
...
> There's a simple solution for "refugees driven by poverty": Create
> jobs in their home country and they will not come here. As long as
> we destroy the infrastructures of Third World countries, we should
> not complain about masses of "refugees driven by poverty".
That sounds good but how would you create those jobs?
I have to say I think most genuine refugees are those fleeing war or
famine rather than poverty.
...
> Yes - xenophobia is a world wide phenomenon. People who grew up in
> Germany might be more 'sensitive' for such things, because we were
> taught how fast things may get out of control and worst things can
> happen if we do not stand up and try to prevent them.
As the governments are the ones with the bigger amount of power do you
think that we are anywhere near the governments becoming xenophobic? I
have seen small pockets of anger but nothing widespread.
...
> If the UK did what you told, it was the first step into the proper
> direction. What is happening in entire Europe at the moment - huge
> growth of tendencies towards nationalistic separation coming along
> with a shift to rightmost political positions - should be observed
> with open eyes. I want to live in a country without *any* borders,
> so re-errecting toppled turnpikes is not the thing I'd appreciate.
> More over, closing a country's borders is no solution - people who
> are eager to get inside will bypass points of entry and sneak over
> at "soft" borders (for example dense woods where no walls might be
> errected).
Open borders are nice to have but they lack security. Sometimes, the
inconveniences of controls are needed in order to provide safety.
> ... Millions of refugees are moving towards Europe
Are you sure they are refugees? I think most people travelling are
economic migrants. I don't blame them for migrating, by the way. If I
lived in a poor country and I heard that Europe had opened its doors to
any who made the journey I would definitely consider moving myself and
my family to Europe. But I do blame Europe for issuing the invitation.
As for those who began as genuine refugees - mainly those fleeing war in
Syria - consider what has happened to them. They have had to flee their
homes due to war. At that time they were genuine refugees. Many of them
would have ended up in a safe place - possibly at a refugee camp - but
then they decided to make the journey through a number of safe countries
so that they can get to their preferred country in Europe. IMV once they
leave a safe place they are no longer refugees but migrants. Again, I
don't blame them for migrating. It must be awful being in a refugee
camp. But I don't think someone who travels from one safe place to
another should be considered as a refugee.
> and we have to handle this stream regardless
> of their origin or number. They all are human beings, so we cannot
> tell the (x+1)th refugee "Go back and get killed!", where x is the
> contingent all European countries together are willing to let into
> their territory - forcing people to stay in or return to countries
> at war is nothing else than premediated murder.
As mentioned, people are migrating through lots of safe places to get to
where they want to go. They need to have safe and adequate places to
shelter nearer home.
> I've delivered a lot of stuff in Britain and I love the country as
> well as the people. I really hope they will not isolate themselves
> for speculative and questionable economic benefits. Coins have two
> faces. The downside of independence: Export and import from/to the
> EU might be taxed like wares from overseas, so prices for imported
> wares grow and EU countries might not buy British wares any longer
> because they are too expensive. Most times getting one thing comes
> at the cost of losing another.
You mean the upcoming UK referendum? Yes, it is really interesting. I
see the outcome in a different way to you as I very much want the UK to
leave the EU club but I also want it to be a better friend and neighbour
to the rest of Europe. Withdrawing from the EU does not mean withdrawing
from Europe! The EU organisation is not the only way for people to
cooperate.
As I see you are in Augsburg how does all this appear in Germany? Feel
free to say if the Brits are a constant source of irritation! I too see
British politicians acting selfishly and not agreeing with the body of
EU opinion, and lots of other faults beside!
James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 20:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nb7jdf$tv5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9228 |
On 29/02/2016 19:02, James Harris wrote: All OT ... > By "trustworthiness" I mean that, in order to protect existing citizens, > governments should only bring in people they feel they can trust to > behave lawfully. On that point, a NATO general, Philip Breedlove has said the European migration "masks the movement of criminals, terrorists and foreign fighters" into the continent. That's no surprise. People have been warning for over a year that ISIL stated their intention to flood Europe with their jihadis. What is a surprise, at least to me, is that politicians are letting it happen. The terrorism being imported now may not become apparent for some time to come. It could remain dormant for years, until individual terror cells feel the time is right to attack another European city. The report is on the CNN website. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/02/europe/nato-general-migrants-terror James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 22:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbq4dk$9c7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9237 |
James Harris wrote: > On 29/02/2016 19:02, James Harris wrote: > >> By "trustworthiness" I mean that, in order to protect existing citizens, >> governments should only bring in people they feel they can trust to >> behave lawfully. > > On that point, a NATO general, Philip Breedlove has said the European migration "masks the movement > of criminals, terrorists and foreign fighters" into the continent. > > That's no surprise. People have been warning for over a year that ISIL stated their intention to > flood Europe with their jihadis. What is a surprise, at least to me, is that politicians are letting > it happen. > > The terrorism being imported now may not become apparent for some time to come. It could remain > dormant for years, until individual terror cells feel the time is right to attack another European > city. > > The report is on the CNN website. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/02/europe/nato-general-migrants-terror I don't think jihadists will travel as refugees simply because many of them were recruited in European countries. Hence, they do not need to risk their life with a never ending journey via Greece. They will book a passage back to their home country if they plan attacks like those responsible for Charlie Hebdo and the Paris massacre. If you read the entire CNN post, it also warned from a growing 'islamophobia' in Europe (which, thanks to Mr. Trump, might be spread all over the USA) and calls the Russian contribution in Syria *destabilising* (as I did). Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 16:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncemhb$hmn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9264 |
On 09/03/2016 21:29, Bernhard Schornak wrote: [All OT] > I don't think jihadists will travel as refugees simply because > many of them were recruited in European countries. Unfortunately, there is more than one source of jihadi infiltration. For example, one (or maybe two) of the Paris attackers had arrived as refugees in Greece, IIRC. ISIL has said it would flood Europe with thousands of its fighters. That is very credible. > Hence, they > do not need to risk their life with a never ending journey via > Greece. They will book a passage back to their home country if > they plan attacks like those responsible for Charlie Hebdo and > the Paris massacre. I don't think they need to risk much. Much of the people trafficking is apparently done by fellow ISIL supporters (esp to Libya). Jihadists can merge with other migrants prior to crossing the Mediterranean. And, sadly, it is probably the women and children who suffer most from drowning. James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 09:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndd90v$j0t$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9270 |
James Harris wrote: > On 09/03/2016 21:29, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > > [All OT] > >> I don't think jihadists will travel as refugees simply because >> many of them were recruited in European countries. > > Unfortunately, there is more than one source of jihadi infiltration. For example, one (or maybe two) > of the Paris attackers had arrived as refugees in Greece, IIRC. > > ISIL has said it would flood Europe with thousands of its fighters. That is very credible. Of course, but: Many of them are European Citizens and ISIL has almost unlimited funds to provide its members with fake passports and grant them safe passages to Europe. They will not risk valuable lifes of suizide squads in dhingies which cross the Mediterranean Sea between Turkey and Greece. >> Hence, they >> do not need to risk their life with a never ending journey via >> Greece. They will book a passage back to their home country if >> they plan attacks like those responsible for Charlie Hebdo and >> the Paris massacre. > > I don't think they need to risk much. Much of the people trafficking is apparently done by fellow > ISIL supporters (esp to Libya). Jihadists can merge with other migrants prior to crossing the > Mediterranean. And, sadly, it is probably the women and children who suffer most from drowning. See above. They do not need to save money and can take safe routes via plane or ferry. Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.os.development
csiph-web