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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #44101

Re: D>F and S>F second draft

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, 05 Dec 2015 21:28:22 -0500, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:

> HAA wrote:

It seems to me HAA asked a serious question.

What do you do with non-portable or imprecise behavior?  Do you define it
in an unlikely attempt to make it portable?  Do you define it and introduce
potential numberical errors on some or all systems?  Do you leave it as
ambiguous so that it causes programs to not always work correctly or fail
when ported?  Do you disadvantage one system versus another by either
defining or not defining?  Do you cause programs to abort unexpectedly
for undefined behavior?  Do you allow programs to continue to function
albeit with errors?

Damned if you do.  Damned if you don't.  Catch-22.

>> Bernd has likened those who disagree with your proposal as trolls
>> who need clubbing.
>
> No, that was related to you saying he did not respond to you.

First, HAA understood that you meant that he and others here are trolls:
"He appears to be leaving that job to you."  I.e., you, Bernd, clubbed
HAA like a poor little baby seal staring up at you with big, innocent,
sad, teary eyes ...

Second, HAA was correct here.  You said, "beat *all* [of] the trolls
to death," not just one of them. (emphasis, correction added)  HAA
is just one guy and can't possibly be "all" of the trolls who are
likely to eventually respond to C.G. Montgomery.  We all know that
you responded, and we suspect Hugh will respond at some point too.

> In a newsgroup you can chose to ignore people who you think are
> trolls, and I said there's no duty to club them down.  That means:
> anybody is allowed to respond to perceived trolls by ignoring them.

Just how does someone distinquish not being responded to because the
person has nothing more to say, has quit in anger, or perhaps died,
 from someone being intentionally ignored or being given the silent
treatment for having opposing viewpoints?  Silence serves no purpose
when being done intentionally because no one knows your true intent.
Is it good, bad, indifferent, angry, hurt, or what?  It's silence.

Unlike at home or work or school, in a usenet group, no one is going
to ask you why you're being quiet because no one will even notice.
Silence is golden, especially in a noisy room.  So, you might as well
be holding a grudge with a tree.  The tree won't know you're angry
with it.  People are scapegoated and attacked behind their backs all
the time because no one bothers to ask them if they were the culprit
or no one tells them when they're being blamed for something.  So,
you're denied the fair chance to defend yourself.  In this sense,
silence is just about as evil as lying.  Lying and silence both
create victims.

How is not responding to someone, by ignoring them, actually a
response to them? (rhetorical)  If you do nothing, where is the
response?  Since when is a lack of a response, a response?  ...
I agree that a lack of a decision is still a decision, because a
decision doesn't require something to actually be done in reality,
unlike a response.

Does *not* responding to supposed trolls *do* anything to actually
*make* them leave?  I think not ...

So, it seems you went off-topic again, into non-Forth territory.
This time on clubbing, (other) trolls, being ignored, lack of
humor, "knowledge" as a euphemism for "ignorance" much like three
letter agencies use "intelligence" as a euphemism for "information,"
etc.  It's clearly not the first time you have, and most likely
not the last.  Every time you do, it offers me opportunities to
show you my take on what reading your anti-American, distorted
world perspective, incorrect history, off-topic posts are like.

Thank you so much!


Rod Pemberton


-- 
How to kill Facebook.  Tell a bunch of fourth graders that
only old people use Facebook.  Wait eight years.

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

RfD: D>F and S>F second draft C G Montgomery <cgm@physics.utoledo.edu> - 2015-11-29 17:19 -0500
  Re: D>F and S>F second draft "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-12-06 13:02 +1100
    Re: D>F and S>F second draft Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-12-06 03:28 +0100
      Re: D>F and S>F second draft "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-06 04:01 -0500
    Re: D>F and S>F second draft Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-06 02:27 +0000
      Re: D>F and S>F second draft krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-06 12:55 -0800
  RfD: D>F and S>F second draft krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-06 10:18 -0800
    RfD: D>F and S>F second draft krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-06 10:55 -0800
      Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-12-06 09:31 -1000
        Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-12-06 11:48 -0800
          Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-06 12:15 -0800
            Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-12-06 14:57 -1000
        Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-06 12:07 -0800
          Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft C G Montgomery <cgm@physics.utoledo.edu> - 2015-12-06 20:04 -0500

csiph-web