Groups > comp.lang.c > #71913

Re: Topicality

From	Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Topicality
Date	2015-10-04 18:06 -0700
Organization	None to speak of
Message-ID	<lnzizyunsb.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink)
References	<kfn37xs9eqw.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <994a5a89-7dfd-4fc3-8092-3a164f98f50e@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 4:02:57 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> I don't know if "topicality" is exactly the right subject here
>> but I couldn't think of a better one.
>> 
>> I have in the past resisted trying to define what constitutes a
>> "topical" posting.  In particular I don't think it's helpful to
>> call something "on topic" or "off topic".  
>>
> It's hard one. Few of my posts are directly about the C standard
> as defined by ANSI. That's a very narrow topic, and in my view it's
> not enough to sustain a newsgroup.
> However I try to stick to programming (I have been drawn into answering
> Rick's theological points, but it wasn't clear how best to deal with
> that, and I took the judgement that it could possibly be helpful).
> But where you discussion of types, currency types, and hyper-inflation 
> cease to be topical? A discussion of Weimar Germany isn't obviously
> on topic, and at first sight you'd say to belongs in a history or
> economics newsgroup. But the question of whether 64 bits is going
> to be enough to store a hyper-inflected currency is relevant enough,
> drawing topicality so tightly as to exclude it would in my view be 
> too strict.

Has anyone suggested that such discussions are off-topic?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Thread

Topicality Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-03 08:02 -0700
  Re: Topicality fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 08:43 -0700
    Re: Topicality Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-03 17:04 +0100
      Re: Topicality fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 09:31 -0700
        Re: Topicality fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 09:36 -0700
          Re: Topicality "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 09:40 -0700
            Re: Topicality fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 09:52 -0700
              Re: Topicality "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 10:17 -0700
                Re: Topicality fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 10:28 -0700
                Re: Topicality fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 10:40 -0700
                Re: Topicality "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 10:57 -0700
      Re: Topicality Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-03 12:47 -0700
  Re: Topicality glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-04 05:26 +0000
    Re: Topicality fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 01:42 -0700
  Re: Topicality Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-04 14:48 -0700
    Re: Topicality Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-04 18:06 -0700
    Re: Topicality glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-05 05:09 +0000
    Re: Topicality Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-06 08:26 -0700
  Re: Topicality Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-06 18:34 +0200

csiph-web