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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #31369 > unrolled thread

[OT] Standards

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

Contents

  [OT] Standards Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2014-06-10 06:02 -0500
    Re: [OT] Standards "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-06-10 15:31 +0100
      Re: [OT] Standards Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2014-06-11 16:32 -0500
        Re: [OT] Standards rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-11 18:26 -0400
          Re: [OT] Standards "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-06-12 11:48 +0100

#31369 — [OT] Standards

http://xkcd.com/927/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#31370

on 10/06/2014 12:02:52, Richard Owlett wrote:
> http://xkcd.com/927/
> 


I'm not quite sure why you think standards are OT in this newsgroup. The
subject is more on-topic than most of the discourse here.

XKCD is wrong; the proposed 15th standard will never see the light of
day. Those who cry "There ought to be a standard/law/rule for this!"
generally demonstrate a lack of understanding and intolerance of
diversity.

It is also my experience that those who complain are also least likely to
do the legwork on a standards committee. They tend to shout a lot and are
not interested in consensus; are generally bullying and dismissive of
others; contribute little but emails that complain they aren't being
taken seriously; claim progress on a work of significant importance
(bordering on staggering genius) that can't be divulged right now but
that needs a specific change in the standard right now. They generally
display high levels of paranoia; one is either with them or plotting agin
them.

You may recognise in that description someone that posts regularly here
on CLF.

Good standards do not set out to impose authoritarian solutions on the
rest of the world. These kinds of standards forbid, exclude and narrow.
Good standards do the opposite. They allow innovation and competition.
They are generally developed by like minded people who understand
compromise and know the value of a well thought out standard.

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

#31420

Alex McDonald wrote:
> on 10/06/2014 12:02:52, Richard Owlett wrote:
>> http://xkcd.com/927/
>>
>
> I'm not quite sure why you think standards are OT in this newsgroup.

"Standards" ARE *NOT* 'ot'.
My rather sarcastic opinion of some posters may be
   [esp when a cartoon strikes my "funny bone".]

I hereby *SNIP* that which if I had not agreed with YOU in the 
first place I would not have posted a link to that _cartoon_ [ 
*without* comment ] in the first place.

> The subject is more on-topic than most of the discourse here.

AGREED!

>
> XKCD is wrong; the proposed 15th standard will never see the light of
> day. Those who cry "There ought to be a standard/law/rule for this!"
> generally demonstrate a lack of understanding and intolerance of
> diversity.

Tautology?

>
> /snip/
>
> Good standards do not set out to *impose* authoritarian solutions on the
> rest of the world. These kinds of standards forbid, exclude and narrow.
> Good standards do the opposite. They allow innovation and competition.

!!! *AGREED* !!!
(emphasis added)

{In the realm of natural language, it is difference between 
"prescriptive" and "descriptive" grammarians.]

If I've offended any, I apologize.

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

#31421

On 6/11/2014 5:32 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
> Alex McDonald wrote:
>> on 10/06/2014 12:02:52, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>> http://xkcd.com/927/
>>>
>>
>> I'm not quite sure why you think standards are OT in this newsgroup.
>
> "Standards" ARE *NOT* 'ot'.
> My rather sarcastic opinion of some posters may be
>    [esp when a cartoon strikes my "funny bone".]
>
> I hereby *SNIP* that which if I had not agreed with YOU in the first
> place I would not have posted a link to that _cartoon_ [ *without*
> comment ] in the first place.
>
>> The subject is more on-topic than most of the discourse here.
>
> AGREED!
>
>>
>> XKCD is wrong; the proposed 15th standard will never see the light of
>> day. Those who cry "There ought to be a standard/law/rule for this!"
>> generally demonstrate a lack of understanding and intolerance of
>> diversity.
>
> Tautology?
>
>>
>> /snip/
>>
>> Good standards do not set out to *impose* authoritarian solutions on the
>> rest of the world. These kinds of standards forbid, exclude and narrow.
>> Good standards do the opposite. They allow innovation and competition.
>
> !!! *AGREED* !!!
> (emphasis added)
>
> {In the realm of natural language, it is difference between
> "prescriptive" and "descriptive" grammarians.]
>
> If I've offended any, I apologize.

I thought it was funny... :)

-- 

Rick

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

#31446

on 11/06/2014 23:26:18, rickman wrote:
> On 6/11/2014 5:32 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
>> Alex McDonald wrote:
>>> on 10/06/2014 12:02:52, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>>> http://xkcd.com/927/
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not quite sure why you think standards are OT in this newsgroup.
>>
>> "Standards" ARE *NOT* 'ot'.
>> My rather sarcastic opinion of some posters may be
>>    [esp when a cartoon strikes my "funny bone".]
>>
>> I hereby *SNIP* that which if I had not agreed with YOU in the first
>> place I would not have posted a link to that _cartoon_ [ *without*
>> comment ] in the first place.
>>
>>> The subject is more on-topic than most of the discourse here.
>>
>> AGREED!
>>
>>>
>>> XKCD is wrong; the proposed 15th standard will never see the light of
>>> day. Those who cry "There ought to be a standard/law/rule for this!"
>>> generally demonstrate a lack of understanding and intolerance of
>>> diversity.
>>
>> Tautology?

[to Richard] Sometimes tautologies are useful. I think so in this case,
since there are those (and I know a few) that appear reasonable and sane
with their "ought" but end up (figuratively) foaming at the mouth and
insisting on "must".

>>
>>>
>>> /snip/
>>>
>>> Good standards do not set out to *impose* authoritarian solutions on the
>>> rest of the world. These kinds of standards forbid, exclude and narrow.
>>> Good standards do the opposite. They allow innovation and competition.
>>
>> !!! *AGREED* !!!
>> (emphasis added)
>>
>> {In the realm of natural language, it is difference between
>> "prescriptive" and "descriptive" grammarians.]
>>
>> If I've offended any, I apologize.
> 
> I thought it was funny... :)
> 

As they say in Standards Land; for the avoidance of doubt, I found it
funny too.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web