Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Epic Fail Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 06:41:13 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 71 Message-ID: References: <2014Apr9.181655@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <64idnem648RzN9jOnZ2dnUVZ8iWdnZ2d@supernews.com> <2014Apr11.192347@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2014Apr13.181030@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <27ilk9dvau3o08tmi9ccedohs8j8oujac2@4ax.com> <994b70e1-c803-4f87-9e91-7c9d3575c456@googlegroups.com> <40be0d3c-35ee-4cf1-b6e8-c65b91e5ce4f@googlegroups.com> <857e05b2-1c42-4d45-8e8b-0abe45139747@googlegroups.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:29662 On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 05:40:34 -0400, Alexander Skobelev wrote: > On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:10:27 PM UTC+4, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 01:04:44 -0400, Alexander Skobelev >> wrote: >> > On Monday, April 14, 2014 8:55:55 PM UTC+4, hughag...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> [ : Hrant Hugh rant ; Hrant Hrant Hrant ] >> > >> > Hugh, wouldn't it be more productive if you published a fixed >> > version of ANS-Forth than just [being antagonistic and insulting]. >> >> If he "fixes" ANS-Forth, then it's not compliant with the ANS Forth >> standard, and therefore not ANS-Forth ... So, obviously, ANS-Forth is >> unfixable. While that's true logically, at least to a warped pedant, >> it's also part of Hugh's self-reinforcing Forth perspective/delusion >> in regards to ANS being broken/biased/tainted/commercialized etc. >> I.e., the only thing one can do now in regards to ANS Forth clearly >> being so utterly broken is to complain so loudly to the Forth standard >> committee members that no [one] will dare "destroy" the next version. >> >> Get it? > > Well, almost. > > The question is following yet. If ANS-Forth has been already broken how > can it help it, if it is not be "destroyed" in the next version? If they do nothing, it won't get worse (or better). If they do something, they might break it even more. If they do something, they definately won't fix it. I.e., pessimistic, futile, defeatist, and fear, uncertainty, doubt. He believes the ANS committee won't do the correct thing which he believes is to fix Forth. He believes they won't do that since that would break all backwards compatibility. They've gone to great lengths to preserve compatibility. So, again, this is true. > It is going to remain broken in any case, isn't it? Most likely. > And the only way to make it "good" is to change something in it, i.e. > apply some positive activity to fix its flaws. Yes. However, that breaks compatibility. > I don't believe that Hugh is able to force any member of the comittee > to start working on changes he wants just constantly complaining about > the standard's flaws and blaming Forth Inc.. True, but he already knows they won't fix Forth. He knows that they'll only patch it up, and leave many "trivial" and "historic" defects in place. I.e., you can't have a fixed Forth and have backwards compatibility. Are you beginning to see the circle? All of this is part of the self-reinforcing perspective/delusion. It's a circular logic delusion based upon a couple truths. You argue for/against one aspect, he moves to the next aspect, but all aspects are on a circle. So, the argument with him never reaches a conclusion. It continously progresses and eventually repeats. He's on the mental merry-go-round and can't, or more likely, won't get off. BTW, he's not the only one here who does this. There are a some others. Each of them has a different "wheel in the sky" topic that "keeps on turning". Fortunately, they've been "on their medications" lately. Rod Pemberton