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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #26606

Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated?

Path csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.forth
Subject Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated?
Date Thu, 17 Oct 2013 05:25:13 -0400
Organization Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines 102
Message-ID <op.w43dsbqp0e5s1z@localhost> (permalink)
References <3717081b-941f-400f-a27f-6c6558292c06@googlegroups.com> <op.w4t3i0kw0e5s1z@localhost> <bKSdnYpBqcNpusTPnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d@supernews.com> <op.w4u9qlq10e5s1z@localhost> <2qidnfzksPab18fPnZ2dnUVZ8oidnZ2d@supernews.com> <op.w4v110du0e5s1z@localhost> <iN6dnbKaTfkt5sfPnZ2dnUVZ8lWdnZ2d@supernews.com> <op.w4xnyc1k0e5s1z@localhost> <16adnT6YFOTQLcbPnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@supernews.com> <op.w4y3zx1d0e5s1z@localhost> <KISdnZAiopvRnsDPnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@supernews.com> <op.w4272vv60e5s1z@localhost> <QPKdndFVV6Y9OMLPnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@supernews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
X-Complaints-To abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux)
X-Notice Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref csiph.com comp.lang.forth:26606

Show key headers only | View raw

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 04:53:52 -0400, Andrew Haley  
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
...

>> I described what is required according to the charter.
>> How is it that what I described not required by the charter?
>
> As I've already explained: a) I don't think that "discussion about
> Forth" constitutes a charter,

How can you say it doesn't constitute a charter when it's the
actual charter?  Isn't that an example of irrational?

I provided a link that in the last post to the archived charter instead
of quoting it.  Everything is there.  Date.  Group.  Message-ID. ...

> OK, I'll define my terms.  I'll define a sane moderation policy as one
> that encourages discussion, prevents unnecessary friction, and leads
> to a healthy newsgroup.  If the result of moderating in the way you
> describe is that everyone would leave, then that moderation is insane.
>

Then, your moderation is "insane" (personification) too.  I made this
point previously.  They'll leave due to mild moderation too.  I previously
mentioned why and for what reasons.

>> You don't understand that non-Forth discussion is off-topic?
>> Really?  Seriously?  That's what you just said ...  You said that
>> previously too.
>
> There's nothing non-Forth about the phrase "carnal knowledge".

Irrelevant.

> It's been in use for years if not decades.

Irrelevant.

>> I already mentioned a politically correct and socially acceptable
>> replacement.  It's gone.  So, that must've been snipped by you.
>
> Well, yes.  I don't want an alternative.  I want to know why you
> believe that we would need an alternative.
>

Already stated.

>> 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, ...
>
> So what?

So what ... what?

I'm not sure how that applies to what is stated above or even
prior snipped context...

It really doesn't matter that it makes people uncomfortable,
it'd be off-topic anyway.

>> So?  Numerous people here have stated that if it's not
>> part of a Forth standard it's not really discussable Forth.
>
> I don't remember that happening.  I'd respectfully have to
> disagree with them, and remind them that Forth is a broad church.

... "broad church" ...

Do you see Forth as a religion? cult?

I know other people claim that, but usually not Forth devotees.

>> 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.
>
> So what?  There's no statement anywhere that Forth means only Standard
> Forth.  And where would people discuss the new standard, which, by
> definition, contains things not in the current standard?
>

If C is off-topic due to a moderation policy, where would people discuss
C for a Forth coded in C, like GForth? ...


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

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