Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #26603
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? |
| Date | 2013-10-17 03:21 -0400 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <op.w4272vv60e5s1z@localhost> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <iN6dnbKaTfkt5sfPnZ2dnUVZ8lWdnZ2d@supernews.com> <op.w4xnyc1k0e5s1z@localhost> <16adnT6YFOTQLcbPnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@supernews.com> <op.w4y3zx1d0e5s1z@localhost> <KISdnZAiopvRnsDPnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 04:56:44 -0400, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 04:50:21 -0400, Andrew Haley >> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 06:53:36 -0400, Andrew Haley >>>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>>>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 03:21:42 -0400, Andrew Haley >>>>>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: ... >>>>>>>> [moderation] >>>>>>> That's not moderation is done right: it's moderation done wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That doesn't sound like a well-moderated group. >>>>>> >>>>>> Clyde, I think you may have found a volunteer... >>>>>> >>>>>> You might want to ask him how and what he would moderate though, >>>>>> first. He clearly disagrees with moderating what is required to >>>>>> keep comp.lang.forth in compliance with it's official Usenet >>>>>> charter: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Discussion about Forth." >>>>> >>>>> The purpose of moderation isn't necessarily to enforce charters. >>>>> It can be used for that, but would be too restrictive for most >>>>> groups. Sometimes, moderation can be used to keep things civil. >>>>> I prefer light-touch moderation. >>>>> >>>>>> I demonstrated what should be moderated, now snipped. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think you did that at all. IMO, you attempted to >>>>> construct a straw man. >>>> >>>> No, I didn't. I stated the facts, the truth, AISI. >>>> >>>> That's what should be moderated in accordance with the Usenet >>>> charter for comp.lang.forth, which I posted for reference. >>>> >>>> Why do you always reject what others say? >>> >>> I don't. I often reject what *you* say: >> >> Why? I speak the truth. > > :-) ... >>>> But, then again, how would _you_ really know? >>>> >>>> ISTM, that everything is a "straw man" argument to you. Just look >>>> up how many times you've posted that phrase... Is anything *not* a >>>> "straw man" argument to you? >>> >>> So far, you haven't used one in this posting. >> >> That's what I said. It's also the opposite of what you said >> previously. > > Eh? You said I used one: "IMO, you attempted to construct a straw man." Now you say I don't: "So far, you haven't used [a straw man argument] in this posting." Make up your mind. Oh... I see. You didn't mean "thread" by "posting". You meant a specific reply or post. How literal... What's with the extra -ing? >>> You proposed an insanely restrictive moderation policy >> >> No, I didn't. I didn't _propose_ *ANY* moderation. >> >> That's entirely *your* misunderstanding. > > I'm sorry, I take that back. You described an insanely > restrictive moderation policy. I described what is required according to the charter. How is it that what I described not required by the charter? You can describe it as insanely all you want, but that is a biased, derogatory comment, without any merit or proof of validity. In compliance is in compliance. >>>> No, I stated what should be moderated. >>> >>> A statement that contains "should" but not >>> "because..." is incomplete. >> >> According to whom? > > Without a "because" there is no meaningful argument. > It's just an _ex cathedra_ pronouncement. And only > a pope gets to do that. Well, you're still mischaracterizing the conversation. I didn't do what you claim. The "becauses" were stated first, earlier. They were in compliance with the charter. It was just reverse ordered from the way you apparently desired... Must I actually repeat them now with a "because" just for you? If so, what a sense of entitlement... >>> "Discussion about Forth" hardly constitutes a charter. >> >> That's the official Usenet charter for comp.lang.forth. > > I don't think so, but I guess we'll have to leave it there. > It is. Again, why do you always reject what others say? The entire Usenet collection of charter's used to be on sites like ftp.uu.net. Maybe, Google Groups displays them now... I posted it back in 2008 to comp.lang.forth with a link. It's dead now. So, here is another one: ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control-old/comp/comp.lang.forth.Z It's the first Usenet message in the compress archive. Happy? That took a minute and half with Google. Do I need to post the entire message too, or can you uncompress on your own? >>>> I also stated what happens when moderation is implemented: >>>> everyone leaves... >>> >>> I'm not surprised, when moderation is done as clumsily >>> as you suggest it should be. >> >> I didn't suggest anything. Again, you're mischaracterizing >> the discussion. > > Yes, you did. You out-and-out stated how it should be done. You > described it in detail. You can't deny it now. It's in the record. Even according to you, that's clearly *not* a suggestion. It's clearly a very clear statement. A suggestion is all wishy-washy... We might do this. We could do this. You shouldn't do this. Perhaps, this would be best. I stated what would be done in accordance with the charter. That's just a part of Usenet. It's clearly strict, but that doesn't qualify it for derision as being insane. >> And, is there a reason you can't look this up yourself? > > You made the claim, you back it up. > Stop feigning ignorance. It's not my job to educate you. If you disagree, it's your job to prove otherwise. I state the truth because it's the truth. Now, you're pulling an Alex McDonald... He could've looked up some psychology on his own too without throwing a tantrum. It's not that hard to find. I haven't been back to read his reply. He's probably still in a huff... But, maybe he'll learn something on his own during his searches. >> Whatever... >> >> Here is a "polite" description: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnal_knowledge >> >> That was the 2nd found search result, BTW. > > I know what carnal knowledge is. Then, what's the problem? ... > I don't understand your claim that "blatant use of > sexual phrasing" would be off-topic. Why? Why are > sexual metaphors inappropriate? Really? You don't understand that non-Forth discussion is off-topic? Really? Seriously? That's what you just said ... You said that previously too. I already mentioned a politically correct and socially acceptable replacement. It's gone. So, that must've been snipped by you. Snip, ask about what was snipped. Repeat ... Does that work? I would think: "not well." But, to answer your question, it makes many people uncomfortable, e.g., sex, religion, politics, guns, horsemeat, Banksy, pedophilia, necrophilia, incest, homosexuality, murder, Satanism, many other things, ... >>>>> Closures or coroutines, on-topic. >>>> >>>> These have nothing to do with Forth. >>> >>> Sure they do. >> >> Are they currently a part of Forth? > > Yes, they are. They are part of many Forth systems; > implementations written in Forth have been posted here. So? Numerous people here have stated that if it's not part of a Forth standard it's not really discussable Forth. That's what is stated almost every time someone discusses fig-Forth or Forth-83 instead of ANS Forth... Those have standards or formal documents to back them up too. That perspective would clearly be part of any future moderation policy and likely would implicitly be a part of: "Discussions about Forth." So, from that perspective, closures and coroutines aren't part of Forth, even if implemented. They're not documented as part of a standard, ANS predominantly. >>> Most of the discussion here is still characterized by >>> rational and ser[i]ous discussion. >> >> Does that include your side of the conversation in >> this thread? ... > > Absolutely! > That was rhetorical... ironic... sarcastic... dry... perhaps, even tongue-in-cheek. Seriously, I don't see much of your discussion in this thread as serious or rational. >>> Purely abusive or fallacious postings aren't so common. >> >> That, perhaps, is less so, now that Passinitti is gone >> or posting under a less abusive alias. You're welcome, BTW. > > Welcome to... what? > Passinitti free comp.lang.forth. You'll have to shoo away Hugh on your own if you don't want him here. ;-) >>>> Do you want a biased moderator or a fair one? >>>> >>>> People don't like dictators for a reason. John Levine has an >>>> excellent reputation for moderating comp.compilers. He is probably >>>> one of the best. Even so, there are 1) many people who won't post >>>> there and 2) many people who don't like the way he moderates. Those >>>> who won't post there won't because of #2 and because they can't post >>>> anonymously or without a valid email address. There are many who >>>> don't like the way he moderates. He posts little comments and >>>> clarifications at the end of posts, changes wording to mean >>>> something different from what the author asked or stated, perhaps to >>>> be on-topic, and removes entire sections of posts without indicating >>>> any censorship or moderation. >>> >>> Sounds awful. >> >> Change of heart? > > About what? I don't think that moderating c.l.f. is desirable or > even possible. "It'[d] be nice to be rid of the more egregious flames, [...]" That's not an expression of desire? Odd, I could've sworn... Are you just being the Devil's advocate here? Seems so... Rod Pemberton -- 84Nk5y once again, proving artists, citizens, authorities from around the world CAN'T recognize ART when they SEE it. Rats, chimps, gays, un-angelic angels, shell-shocked soldiers, distopian childhoods ... Whats next? We have Youtube where it's REAL, in COLOR, without need of monochrome stenciled spray paint ... BANKSY, the world is unchanged.
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2013-10-11 22:55 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-10-11 23:17 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-12 22:43 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2013-10-14 17:06 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-10-14 23:22 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2013-10-15 16:36 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-12 05:05 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-10-12 05:44 -0500
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-12 20:16 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-10-12 21:04 -1000
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-10-13 02:21 -0500
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-13 06:28 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-10-13 05:53 -0500
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? mentifex@myuw.net - 2013-10-13 06:59 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-14 03:19 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-10-13 22:00 -1000
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2013-10-14 17:17 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-10-14 03:50 -0500
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2013-10-14 17:19 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-14 22:03 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-10-15 03:56 -0500
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-17 03:21 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-10-17 03:53 -0500
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-17 05:25 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-10-17 04:40 -0500
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-10-18 06:43 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-10-18 16:00 +0200
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-10-18 08:56 -1000
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-10-19 04:03 -0500
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-10-21 09:40 +0000
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-10-21 11:51 +0000
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-10-21 12:24 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2013-10-14 17:15 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-10-12 07:18 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2013-10-12 22:27 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-13 06:28 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2013-10-12 22:33 -0700
csiph-web