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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #74666 > unrolled thread

CAlive on Google Groups

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:05 -0800
    Re: CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:11 -0800
    Re: CAlive on Google Groups Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-11-02 19:14 +0100
      Re: CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 10:20 -0800
        Re: CAlive on Google Groups Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-11-02 19:23 +0100
          Re: CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 10:24 -0800
          Re: CAlive on Google Groups James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-02 13:30 -0500
            Re: CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 10:32 -0800
              Re: CAlive on Google Groups Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-02 18:44 +0000
                Re: CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 10:46 -0800
                  Re: CAlive on Google Groups Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-11-02 14:04 -0500
                    Re: CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 11:21 -0800
              Re: CAlive on Google Groups David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-02 20:25 +0100
                Re: CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:04 -0800
                  Re: CAlive on Google Groups David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-02 23:45 +0100
                    Re: CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 17:50 -0800
                    Re: CAlive on Google Groups Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-03 00:52 -0800
                      Re: CAlive on Google Groups fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 01:46 -0800
                      Re: CAlive on Google Groups David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-03 12:59 +0100
                        Re: CAlive on Google Groups gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-11-03 14:22 +0000
                    Re: CAlive on Google Groups Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-03 13:31 +0000
                      Re: CAlive on Google Groups David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-04 11:00 +0100
                        Re: CAlive on Google Groups Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-04 10:32 +0000
                          Re: CAlive on Google Groups David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-04 13:34 +0100
                            Re: CAlive on Google Groups Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-04 13:00 +0000
                              Re: CAlive on Google Groups Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-04 06:25 -0800
                                Re: CAlive on Google Groups David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-04 20:52 +0100
                                Re: CAlive on Google Groups fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 12:49 -0800
                            Re: CAlive on Google Groups James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-04 08:49 -0500
                              Newsgroups (Was: CAlive on Google Groups) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-11-04 14:29 +0000
                                Re: Newsgroups Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 19:42 +0000
                                  Re: Newsgroups Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 02:35 -0800
                                    Re: Newsgroups Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-10 07:17 +1300
                                      Re: Newsgroups Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-09 18:39 +0000
                                        Re: Newsgroups Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-10 07:45 +1300
                                  Re: Newsgroups gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-11-10 00:13 +0000
                        Re: CAlive on Google Groups Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-04 11:17 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#74666 — CAlive on Google Groups

If anyone's interested.  Public group.  Anyone can join:

    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/caliveprogramminglanguage

Stop by, join up, and participate in the discussions, if only to keep me
from posting for the crickets.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#74667

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 12:05:43 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> If anyone's interested.  Public group.  Anyone can join:
> 
>     https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/caliveprogramminglanguage
> 
> Stop by, join up, and participate in the discussions, if only to keep me
> from posting for the crickets.

-----
Inaugural post

    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/caliveprogramminglanguage/EHqQfqqi0M4

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74672

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:05:31 -0800 (PST)
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:

> If anyone's interested.  Public group.  Anyone can join:
> 
>     https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/caliveprogramminglanguage
> 
> Stop by, join up, and participate in the discussions, if only to keep
> me from posting for the crickets.
> 
> Best regards,
> Rick C. Hodgin

I can't see it on albasani?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74674

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:14:28 PM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:05:31 -0800 (PST)
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > If anyone's interested.  Public group.  Anyone can join:
> > 
> >     https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/caliveprogramminglanguage
> > 
> > Stop by, join up, and participate in the discussions, if only to keep
> > me from posting for the crickets.
> 
> I can't see it on albasani?

I don't know what albasani is.  I like the name though.  It sounds like
a ship:  "This is Captain Melzzzzz, of the U.S.S. Albasani."

:-)

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74676

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 10:20:14 -0800 (PST)
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:14:28 PM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:05:31 -0800 (PST)
> > "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > If anyone's interested.  Public group.  Anyone can join:
> > > 
> > >     https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/caliveprogramminglanguage
> > > 
> > > Stop by, join up, and participate in the discussions, if only to
> > > keep me from posting for the crickets.  
> > 
> > I can't see it on albasani?  
> 
> I don't know what albasani is.  

It's free news server.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74677

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:23:15 PM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 10:20:14 -0800 (PST)
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:14:28 PM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:05:31 -0800 (PST)
> > > "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > If anyone's interested.  Public group.  Anyone can join:
> > > > 
> > > >     https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/caliveprogramminglanguage
> > > > 
> > > > Stop by, join up, and participate in the discussions, if only to
> > > > keep me from posting for the crickets.  
> > > 
> > > I can't see it on albasani?  
> > 
> > I don't know what albasani is.  
> 
> It's free news server.

Ah!  Well, I don't have comp.lang.calive yet, so it's likely to only
be on the Google Groups link.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74679

On 11/02/2015 01:23 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 10:20:14 -0800 (PST)
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:14:28 PM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:05:31 -0800 (PST)
>>> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> If anyone's interested.  Public group.  Anyone can join:
>>>>
>>>>     https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/caliveprogramminglanguage
>>>>
>>>> Stop by, join up, and participate in the discussions, if only to
>>>> keep me from posting for the crickets.  
>>>
>>> I can't see it on albasani?  
>>
>> I don't know what albasani is.  
> 
> It's free news server.

I'm not positive, but I think he created a Google group, not a usenet
newsgroup. It's certainly not visible on eternalseptember. Google makes
both usenet newsgroups and Google groups visible in the same way,
leading to some potential confusion about which is which.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74680

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-5, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 11/02/2015 01:23 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 10:20:14 -0800 (PST)
> > "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:14:28 PM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:05:31 -0800 (PST)
> >>> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>   
> >>>> If anyone's interested.  Public group.  Anyone can join:
> >>>>
> >>>>     https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/caliveprogramminglanguage
> >>>>
> >>>> Stop by, join up, and participate in the discussions, if only to
> >>>> keep me from posting for the crickets.  
> >>>
> >>> I can't see it on albasani?  
> >>
> >> I don't know what albasani is.  
> > 
> > It's free news server.
> 
> I'm not positive, but I think he created a Google group, not a usenet
> newsgroup. It's certainly not visible on eternalseptember. Google makes
> both usenet newsgroups and Google groups visible in the same way,
> leading to some potential confusion about which is which.

According to my research, creation of the Usenet group comp.lang.calive
has to go through a process, and usually takes a while.  One of the
criteria is that there must be discussion about it.  And since there
is discussion about it (from me) and the replies are mostly, "Go away,
kid, you bother me," it's unlikely that there would be enough discussion
to make them accept it

So, for now it's only a Google Groups group.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74681

On 02/11/2015 18:32, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-5, James Kuyper wrote:

>> I'm not positive, but I think he created a Google group, not a usenet
>> newsgroup. It's certainly not visible on eternalseptember. Google makes
>> both usenet newsgroups and Google groups visible in the same way,
>> leading to some potential confusion about which is which.
>
> According to my research, creation of the Usenet group comp.lang.calive
> has to go through a process, and usually takes a while.  One of the
> criteria is that there must be discussion about it.

It's astonishing then how most of the existing usenet groups managed to 
come into existence.

99% of them (at least) seem to be utter trash, are full of spam, or are 
dead for all intents and purposes.

Maybe the bar is just very low.

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74682

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:44:49 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
> On 02/11/2015 18:32, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-5, James Kuyper wrote:
> 
> >> I'm not positive, but I think he created a Google group, not a usenet
> >> newsgroup. It's certainly not visible on eternalseptember. Google makes
> >> both usenet newsgroups and Google groups visible in the same way,
> >> leading to some potential confusion about which is which.
> >
> > According to my research, creation of the Usenet group comp.lang.calive
> > has to go through a process, and usually takes a while.  One of the
> > criteria is that there must be discussion about it.
> 
> It's astonishing then how most of the existing usenet groups managed to 
> come into existence.
> 
> 99% of them (at least) seem to be utter trash, are full of spam, or are 
> dead for all intents and purposes.
> 
> Maybe the bar is just very low.

Maybe there's another way to create it.  I searched for how to do it
and pages regarding "The Big 8" came up as a management board.

If I try to create comp.lang.calive, will anyone come and support me
at least to get it initially created?  That's my big question.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74683

On Monday November 2 2015 13:46, in comp.lang.c, "Rick C. Hodgin"
<rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:44:49 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
>> On 02/11/2015 18:32, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-5, James Kuyper wrote:
>> 
>> >> I'm not positive, but I think he created a Google group, not a usenet
>> >> newsgroup. It's certainly not visible on eternalseptember. Google makes
>> >> both usenet newsgroups and Google groups visible in the same way,
>> >> leading to some potential confusion about which is which.
>> >
>> > According to my research, creation of the Usenet group comp.lang.calive
>> > has to go through a process, and usually takes a while.  One of the
>> > criteria is that there must be discussion about it.
>> 
>> It's astonishing then how most of the existing usenet groups managed to
>> come into existence.
>> 
>> 99% of them (at least) seem to be utter trash, are full of spam, or are
>> dead for all intents and purposes.
>> 
>> Maybe the bar is just very low.
> 
> Maybe there's another way to create it.  I searched for how to do it
> and pages regarding "The Big 8" came up as a management board.

Yes, it is the management board for the "big 8" newsgroup roots (comp.*,
misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.* and humanities.*). If you want a
newsgroup in one of these roots (say comp.lang.calive in the comp.* root),
you have to get approval from The Big 8 Management board.

If you are serious, you might read
  http://big-8.org/articles/h/o/w/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup.html
and follow it's instructions.

> If I try to create comp.lang.calive, will anyone come and support me
> at least to get it initially created?  That's my big question.

A suggestion: you might make it a "moderated" group to keep the (initial) spam
content low. An open group, especially a low-volume open group, will attract
spammers and trolls, and lose focus almost immediately.

HTH
-- 
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
PGP public key available upon request

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74686

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 2:04:32 PM UTC-5, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> On Monday November 2 2015 13:46, in comp.lang.c, "Rick C. Hodgin"
> <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:44:49 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
> >> On 02/11/2015 18:32, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >> > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-5, James Kuyper wrote:
> >> 
> >> >> I'm not positive, but I think he created a Google group, not a usenet
> >> >> newsgroup. It's certainly not visible on eternalseptember. Google makes
> >> >> both usenet newsgroups and Google groups visible in the same way,
> >> >> leading to some potential confusion about which is which.
> >> >
> >> > According to my research, creation of the Usenet group comp.lang.calive
> >> > has to go through a process, and usually takes a while.  One of the
> >> > criteria is that there must be discussion about it.
> >> 
> >> It's astonishing then how most of the existing usenet groups managed to
> >> come into existence.
> >> 
> >> 99% of them (at least) seem to be utter trash, are full of spam, or are
> >> dead for all intents and purposes.
> >> 
> >> Maybe the bar is just very low.
> > 
> > Maybe there's another way to create it.  I searched for how to do it
> > and pages regarding "The Big 8" came up as a management board.
> 
> Yes, it is the management board for the "big 8" newsgroup roots (comp.*,
> misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.* and humanities.*). If you want a
> newsgroup in one of these roots (say comp.lang.calive in the comp.* root),
> you have to get approval from The Big 8 Management board.
> 
> If you are serious, you might read
>   http://big-8.org/articles/h/o/w/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup.html
> and follow it's instructions.
> 
> > If I try to create comp.lang.calive, will anyone come and support me
> > at least to get it initially created?  That's my big question.
> 
> A suggestion: you might make it a "moderated" group to keep the (initial) spam
> content low. An open group, especially a low-volume open group, will attract
> spammers and trolls, and lose focus almost immediately.
> 
> HTH

Thank you, Lew.  It does.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74687

On 02/11/15 19:32, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-5, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 11/02/2015 01:23 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 10:20:14 -0800 (PST)
>>> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:14:28 PM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:05:31 -0800 (PST)
>>>>> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If anyone's interested.  Public group.  Anyone can join:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/caliveprogramminglanguage
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop by, join up, and participate in the discussions, if only to
>>>>>> keep me from posting for the crickets.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't see it on albasani?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what albasani is.
>>>
>>> It's free news server.
>>
>> I'm not positive, but I think he created a Google group, not a usenet
>> newsgroup. It's certainly not visible on eternalseptember. Google makes
>> both usenet newsgroups and Google groups visible in the same way,
>> leading to some potential confusion about which is which.
>
> According to my research, creation of the Usenet group comp.lang.calive
> has to go through a process, and usually takes a while.  One of the
> criteria is that there must be discussion about it.  And since there
> is discussion about it (from me) and the replies are mostly, "Go away,
> kid, you bother me," it's unlikely that there would be enough discussion
> to make them accept it
>
> So, for now it's only a Google Groups group.
>
> Best regards,
> Rick C. Hodgin
>

I believe the requirements are a good deal less for a group under "alt". 
  You might like to create "alt.comp.lang.calive", and if that takes off 
and gains followers, you have a good basis for applying for a real 
"comp.lang.calive" group.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74692

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 2:25:58 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> On 02/11/15 19:32, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-5, James Kuyper wrote:
> >> On 11/02/2015 01:23 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 10:20:14 -0800 (PST)
> >>> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:14:28 PM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:05:31 -0800 (PST)
> >>>>> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> If anyone's interested.  Public group.  Anyone can join:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>      https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/caliveprogramminglanguage
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Stop by, join up, and participate in the discussions, if only to
> >>>>>> keep me from posting for the crickets.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can't see it on albasani?
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't know what albasani is.
> >>>
> >>> It's free news server.
> >>
> >> I'm not positive, but I think he created a Google group, not a usenet
> >> newsgroup. It's certainly not visible on eternalseptember. Google makes
> >> both usenet newsgroups and Google groups visible in the same way,
> >> leading to some potential confusion about which is which.
> >
> > According to my research, creation of the Usenet group comp.lang.calive
> > has to go through a process, and usually takes a while.  One of the
> > criteria is that there must be discussion about it.  And since there
> > is discussion about it (from me) and the replies are mostly, "Go away,
> > kid, you bother me," it's unlikely that there would be enough discussion
> > to make them accept it
> >
> > So, for now it's only a Google Groups group.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Rick C. Hodgin
> >
> 
> I believe the requirements are a good deal less for a group under "alt". 
>   You might like to create "alt.comp.lang.calive", and if that takes off 
> and gains followers, you have a good basis for applying for a real 
> "comp.lang.calive" group.

I'll go for the comp.lang.calive group once there's enough traction.
The Google Groups group is fine for now.  I don't expect to have anyone
show up there to discuss anything as I believe all feel my effort in
this product for the Lord is nothing less than a fool's errand.

Nonetheless, I'll switch over there to full-time posting in the near
future.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74714

On 02/11/15 21:04, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 2:25:58 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>> On 02/11/15 19:32, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

>>> According to my research, creation of the Usenet group comp.lang.calive
>>> has to go through a process, and usually takes a while.  One of the
>>> criteria is that there must be discussion about it.  And since there
>>> is discussion about it (from me) and the replies are mostly, "Go away,
>>> kid, you bother me," it's unlikely that there would be enough discussion
>>> to make them accept it
>>>
>>> So, for now it's only a Google Groups group.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Rick C. Hodgin
>>>
>>
>> I believe the requirements are a good deal less for a group under "alt".
>>    You might like to create "alt.comp.lang.calive", and if that takes off
>> and gains followers, you have a good basis for applying for a real
>> "comp.lang.calive" group.
>
> I'll go for the comp.lang.calive group once there's enough traction.
> The Google Groups group is fine for now.  I don't expect to have anyone
> show up there to discuss anything as I believe all feel my effort in
> this product for the Lord is nothing less than a fool's errand.
>
> Nonetheless, I'll switch over there to full-time posting in the near
> future.
>

Certainly there are some people in c.l.c. would strongly prefer that all 
CAlive discussions take place somewhere else, such as a dedicated Google 
Group.  And there are others who would find c.l.c. a drier, duller place 
- for better or worse, you make many posts that engage at least some 
people here.  I think it makes sense to have a place where you can 
discuss your language freely without always having to defend yourself or 
explain why you want something other than C or C++, but I for one would 
not complain about occasional posts here pointing people to threads in 
the new group, when you want to discuss CAlive with people experienced 
with C.  I don't know whether I would get involved in such discussions 
there - perhaps the moderator would block my posts :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74727

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 5:45:48 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> On 02/11/15 21:04, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 2:25:58 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> >> On 02/11/15 19:32, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> 
> >>> According to my research, creation of the Usenet group comp.lang.calive
> >>> has to go through a process, and usually takes a while.  One of the
> >>> criteria is that there must be discussion about it.  And since there
> >>> is discussion about it (from me) and the replies are mostly, "Go away,
> >>> kid, you bother me," it's unlikely that there would be enough discussion
> >>> to make them accept it
> >>>
> >>> So, for now it's only a Google Groups group.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Rick C. Hodgin
> >>>
> >>
> >> I believe the requirements are a good deal less for a group under "alt".
> >>    You might like to create "alt.comp.lang.calive", and if that takes off
> >> and gains followers, you have a good basis for applying for a real
> >> "comp.lang.calive" group.
> >
> > I'll go for the comp.lang.calive group once there's enough traction.
> > The Google Groups group is fine for now.  I don't expect to have anyone
> > show up there to discuss anything as I believe all feel my effort in
> > this product for the Lord is nothing less than a fool's errand.
> >
> > Nonetheless, I'll switch over there to full-time posting in the near
> > future.
> >
> 
> Certainly there are some people in c.l.c. would strongly prefer that all 
> CAlive discussions take place somewhere else, such as a dedicated Google 
> Group.  And there are others who would find c.l.c. a drier, duller place 
> - for better or worse, you make many posts that engage at least some 
> people here.  I think it makes sense to have a place where you can 
> discuss your language freely without always having to defend yourself or 
> explain why you want something other than C or C++, but I for one would 
> not complain about occasional posts here pointing people to threads in 
> the new group, when you want to discuss CAlive with people experienced 
> with C.  I don't know whether I would get involved in such discussions 
> there - perhaps the moderator would block my posts :-)

I was thinking about that.  I know comp.lang.asm.x86 is moderated, and
the moderator, Frank Kotler, has what he calls "a white list" of names
who can auto-post.  So maybe it's not too bad to setup.

I don't really want to moderate anything in particular except spam,
and personally insulting or personally demeaning comments.  If comments
are legitimately speaking to a potential weakness of CAlive or one of
my ideas, then I'm all for hearing and posting the criticism.  But if
it's something more than that, such as a mindset against me personally
so that anything I propose is deemed as awful, then that's not productive
to anybody.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74735

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:45:48 PM UTC, David Brown wrote:
> On 02/11/15 21:04, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
> Certainly there are some people in c.l.c. would strongly prefer that all 
> CAlive discussions take place somewhere else, such as a dedicated Google 
> Group.  And there are others who would find c.l.c. a drier, duller place 
> - for better or worse, you make many posts that engage at least some 
> people here.  I think it makes sense to have a place where you can 
> discuss your language freely without always having to defend yourself or 
> explain why you want something other than C or C++, but I for one would 
> not complain about occasional posts here pointing people to threads in 
> the new group, when you want to discuss CAlive with people experienced 
> with C.  I don't know whether I would get involved in such discussions 
> there - perhaps the moderator would block my posts :-)
>
All the thread except one with posts in them have CAlive in their title.
It's a bit much.

There are subjects which aren't quite topical, but are reasonably closely
related to C. Ada Lovelace, for example, wasn't a C programmer. But
she was the world's first computer programmer. You'd have to be
a topic fiend to object to a single thread on, say, the proposal to
give her the empty plinth in Trafalgar Square (to non-British readers, 
this is a spot for a statue to commemorate somebody, but no-one
has decided who deserves such a prominent statue, since William IV's
statue was abandoned in 1841 due to the money running out).

One "join the petition" thread is OK. But not endless posts about Ada 
Lovelace's life and times, her choice of hats, and so on. More
tolerable in comp.lang.ada.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74738

W dniu wtorek, 3 listopada 2015 09:53:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał:
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:45:48 PM UTC, David Brown wrote:
> > On 02/11/15 21:04, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >
> > Certainly there are some people in c.l.c. would strongly prefer that all 
> > CAlive discussions take place somewhere else, such as a dedicated Google 
> > Group.  And there are others who would find c.l.c. a drier, duller place 
> > - for better or worse, you make many posts that engage at least some 
> > people here.  I think it makes sense to have a place where you can 
> > discuss your language freely without always having to defend yourself or 
> > explain why you want something other than C or C++, but I for one would 
> > not complain about occasional posts here pointing people to threads in 
> > the new group, when you want to discuss CAlive with people experienced 
> > with C.  I don't know whether I would get involved in such discussions 
> > there - perhaps the moderator would block my posts :-)
> >
> All the thread except one with posts in them have CAlive in their title.
> It's a bit much.
> 
> There are subjects which aren't quite topical, but are reasonably closely
> related to C. Ada Lovelace, for example, wasn't a C programmer. But
> she was the world's first computer programmer. You'd have to be
> a topic fiend to object to a single thread on, say, the proposal to
> give her the empty plinth in Trafalgar Square (to non-British readers, 
> this is a spot for a statue to commemorate somebody, but no-one
> has decided who deserves such a prominent statue, since William IV's
> statue was abandoned in 1841 due to the money running out).
> 
> One "join the petition" thread is OK. But not endless posts about Ada 
> Lovelace's life and times, her choice of hats, and so on. More
> tolerable in comp.lang.ada.

I agree with that - This is not evan a matter of hundreds post  but just the matter of trashing the front page of topic list, damn

ir c hodgin would just put this in one thread it would be ok, this trashing whole group front page is a SPAM - what they can do yet - writing whole posts on the fornyt page - each line as a empty topic title

If rch will not go more sane here i will throw him out form the group of sane people
i am able to eventually talk on something

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74747

On 03/11/15 09:52, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:45:48 PM UTC, David Brown wrote:
>> On 02/11/15 21:04, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>
>> Certainly there are some people in c.l.c. would strongly prefer that all 
>> CAlive discussions take place somewhere else, such as a dedicated Google 
>> Group.  And there are others who would find c.l.c. a drier, duller place 
>> - for better or worse, you make many posts that engage at least some 
>> people here.  I think it makes sense to have a place where you can 
>> discuss your language freely without always having to defend yourself or 
>> explain why you want something other than C or C++, but I for one would 
>> not complain about occasional posts here pointing people to threads in 
>> the new group, when you want to discuss CAlive with people experienced 
>> with C.  I don't know whether I would get involved in such discussions 
>> there - perhaps the moderator would block my posts :-)
>>
> All the thread except one with posts in them have CAlive in their title.
> It's a bit much.
> 
> There are subjects which aren't quite topical, but are reasonably closely
> related to C. Ada Lovelace, for example, wasn't a C programmer. But
> she was the world's first computer programmer. You'd have to be
> a topic fiend to object to a single thread on, say, the proposal to
> give her the empty plinth in Trafalgar Square (to non-British readers, 
> this is a spot for a statue to commemorate somebody, but no-one
> has decided who deserves such a prominent statue, since William IV's
> statue was abandoned in 1841 due to the money running out).
> 
> One "join the petition" thread is OK. But not endless posts about Ada 
> Lovelace's life and times, her choice of hats, and so on. More
> tolerable in comp.lang.ada.
> 

Agreed.

It would be easy for Rick to have a single CAlive thread, where he posts
brief comments about new threads in the calive group that he thinks
might be of interest to some c.l.c. regulars.  People who /really/ don't
like such off-topic posts here can simply mark the thread as ignored and
be done with it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74756

In article <n1a7fh$ont$1@dont-email.me>,
David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
...
>It would be easy for Rick to have a single CAlive thread, where he posts
>brief comments about new threads in the calive group that he thinks
>might be of interest to some c.l.c. regulars.  People who /really/ don't
>like such off-topic posts here can simply mark the thread as ignored and
>be done with it.
>

The thing to keep in mind is that Rick is /absurd/.  Of that, there can be no
doubt.  But he is /funny/, and that's better than being topical.

There's absolutely no justification on topicality grounds for discussing
other languages (whether they be real ones like C++, Ada, or Pascal, or
imaginary ones like RDC, CAlive, etc) in CLC.  That's been well established
over the years.  But, trumping that is the fact that Rick's posts are funny
and amusing, so we are willing to tolerate him.  I.e., being entertaining
trumps being topical.

Although, Kiks may not agree with that.  I've noticed that Kiks has been
pretty quiet throughout all the Rick threads.  He (Kiki) may even have
killfiled him (Rick).

-- 
Faith doesn't give you the answers; it just stops you from asking the questions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web