Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #38814 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-05-04 09:44 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-05-08 16:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 112 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
FORTH - How Does It Work? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-04 09:44 -0700
FORTH - How Does It Work? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-04 10:21 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 11:00 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-05 03:03 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-05 11:31 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-05-05 01:31 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-05-05 08:49 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-05-05 11:16 +0200
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-05 02:33 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-04 08:49 -1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-05-04 19:13 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-04 20:35 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-04 10:43 -1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-05-05 08:52 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-05 10:54 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-05 10:56 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-05-04 20:01 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-04 17:23 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-04 17:34 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-05 00:25 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-05-05 12:41 +0200
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-05-05 03:31 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-05 08:41 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-05 11:36 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-05-07 11:26 +1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-06 16:46 -1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-05-07 00:06 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-05-10 12:57 +1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-09 21:36 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-09 18:36 -1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-09 22:09 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-05-10 13:38 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2015-05-10 14:23 -0500
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-10 20:51 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-05-11 01:18 +0200
Apology to Walter Banks - was [Re: FORTH - How Does It Work?] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2015-05-10 23:09 -0500
Re: Apology to Walter Banks - was [Re: FORTH - How Does It Work?] Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-05-11 07:24 -0400
Re: Apology to Walter Banks - was [Re: FORTH - How Does It Work?] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 11:34 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-10 19:18 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-05-11 07:50 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? beeflo <beeflobill@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:37 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 11:32 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-12 05:21 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-12 14:08 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-12 14:52 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-12 17:18 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-05-13 08:41 +0200
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-13 08:07 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-13 19:29 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-12 08:10 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-12 17:13 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-12 09:33 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-12 15:38 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-12 21:51 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-12 16:05 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-14 17:26 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? bettilyona@gmail.com - 2015-06-02 10:21 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-02 20:39 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? bettilyona@gmail.com - 2015-06-08 13:14 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 13:15 +0200
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-20 14:37 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-06-20 08:23 -1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-20 19:24 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-06-21 12:30 +0200
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-21 20:58 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-22 00:13 +0200
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-05-11 12:10 +1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 11:35 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-11 16:52 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-11 08:12 -1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 12:37 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-05-11 15:59 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-11 21:34 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 16:42 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-11 21:52 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 14:55 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-12 16:22 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-12 22:42 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 11:18 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 15:04 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 20:38 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 14:31 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-05-12 07:06 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-11 21:30 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 14:52 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 20:40 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-05-12 03:38 +0200
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 22:10 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 20:25 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-12 01:13 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-12 11:03 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-05-12 16:08 +0200
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-12 14:04 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 19:08 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 22:46 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-05-14 18:30 +1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-13 22:55 -1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-05-16 05:08 +1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-15 09:54 -1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 13:59 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-14 10:40 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-14 03:12 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-14 12:03 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-10 22:09 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-11 10:12 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-11 18:57 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 11:48 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-11 20:28 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-12 21:28 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 11:29 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Ching-Tang Tseng <ilikeforth@gmail.com> - 2015-05-04 19:40 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? tthomas@duelcraft2.com - 2015-05-08 16:22 -0700
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 14:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Jun20.163703@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #39882 |
Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:
>And it would mean every single word is state-smart (which is
>a horror to some, but greatly abstracts things for a "user").
Until the "user" tries to do one of the things that don't work as
expected with STATE-smart words, and then the "great abstraction"
becomes a horrible kludge, especially for the user.
> In this scheme it would mean that if you would want
>to execute a word in compilation mode, it would require [ ], e.g.
>
>: example < [ if ] ." smaller" [ else ] ." greater" [ then ] ;
Note that you should have put ." inside [ ... ], too.
Now we also want to get rid of the immediate "[": Express
interpretation by a prefix character "[", and compilation by a prefix
character "_", and you get:
[: example _< [if [." smaller" [else [." greater" [then [;
A pure-ASCII variant of something like colorForth. Original, more
substantial posting: <7ihhui$fgp$1@news.tuwien.ac.at>
>I can live with user-defined words in case sensitivity, however the standard
>requires all Forth words to be in uppercase.
No, user-defined words can be in any case.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2015: http://www.mpeforth.com/euroforth2015/euroforth2015.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 08:23 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <-rWdncyOYZAEMhjInZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #39882 |
On 6/20/15 1:15 AM, Hans Bezemer wrote: A couple of minor points: ... > On the other hand I fully agree with the amount of C constructs creeping in. > The horror of 'A' as a valid way to enter character constants has not been > stressed enough. Yes, one could define: > > char A constant 'A' > > And it would work. But on a case-insensitive system this wouldn't: > > char a constant 'a' Sure it would. Case sensitivity/insensitivity only applies to dictionary searches; The word 'char' simply parses forward in the input stream and picks up the next character, so it would get the correct thing in both cases. It's just that in a case-sensitive system CHAR might be recognized differently than char. > I can live with user-defined words in case sensitivity, however the standard > requires all Forth words to be in uppercase. Personally, I find uppercase > unreadable - so that doesn't come in. Basic Forth words have to be *findable* in upper case. They don't have to be either defined or used in upper case in a case-insensitive system. So it's only case-sensitive systems that are restricted in this matter. In general, case-sensitivity seems to be waning. I haven't seen a case-sensitive system in a long time. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 19:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <402d5a33-0ad3-431f-9b60-fa23b1b62875@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #39899 |
On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 11:23:22 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 6/20/15 1:15 AM, Hans Bezemer wrote: > A couple of minor points: > > ... > > On the other hand I fully agree with the amount of C constructs creeping in. > > The horror of 'A' as a valid way to enter character constants has not been > > stressed enough. Yes, one could define: > > > > char A constant 'A' > > > > And it would work. But on a case-insensitive system this wouldn't: > > > > char a constant 'a' > > Sure it would. Case sensitivity/insensitivity only applies to dictionary > searches; The word 'char' simply parses forward in the input stream and > picks up the next character, so it would get the correct thing in both > cases. It's just that in a case-sensitive system CHAR might be > recognized differently than char. As usual, you expressed an opinion after totally failing to understand the point being made --- his point is that 'a' and 'A' are the same word in a dictionary search. > > I can live with user-defined words in case sensitivity, however the standard > > requires all Forth words to be in uppercase. Personally, I find uppercase > > unreadable - so that doesn't come in. > > Basic Forth words have to be *findable* in upper case. They don't have > to be either defined or used in upper case in a case-insensitive system. > So it's only case-sensitive systems that are restricted in this matter. > > In general, case-sensitivity seems to be waning. I haven't seen a > case-sensitive system in a long time. The Forth-200x mailing list is usually quite dead, but occasionally there is an outburst of activity --- recently we had a 63-post thread discussing the definitions of "byte" and "char" --- this thread was eventually killed by Mitch Bradley's comment: "Is it just me, or has this 'discussion' really become unbelievably boring?" During the thread, there was a discussion of UTF-8 and UTF-16. Somewhat humorously (to me), this lengthy procession of pseudo-intellectual babble never touched on the basic problem: there is no standard way to write TOUPPER and TOLOWER in UTF-x and hence there is no way to use these formats in Forth that is case-insensitive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-21 12:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55869237$0$2946$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #39910 |
hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > As usual, you expressed an opinion after totally failing to understand the > point being made --- his point is that 'a' and 'A' are the same word in a > dictionary search. We understand each other ;-) >> In general, case-sensitivity seems to be waning. I haven't seen a >> case-sensitive system in a long time. I'd love to have a case-sensitive system but there are two things keeping me from doing it: - I don't like uppercase words - not even the standard ones; - I could make all user defined words case sensitive, but that would make porting stuff much more difficult. So I enforce some discipline when I'm programming new stuff - it's the way of least resistance. > The Forth-200x mailing list is usually quite dead, but occasionally there > is an outburst of activity --- recently we had a 63-post thread discussing > the definitions of "byte" and "char" --- this thread was eventually killed > by Mitch Bradley's comment: "Is it just me, or has this 'discussion' > really become unbelievably boring?" Well, being part of this discussion - we were slowly coming to an end anyway, so I think not much was lost. I wouldn't say it's pseudo babble - it's the consequence of building a system of terms and definitions and their consequences of interpreting them in the real world. For a pragmatic crowd of Forth-ers, yes, it may seem "babble". But just as much as a well designed program isn't "overthinking it", a well defined system of terms and definitions isn't "babble". Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-21 20:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mm74uv$cgd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39910 |
on 21/06/2015 03:24:28, hugh wrote: > > During the thread, there was a discussion of UTF-8 and UTF-16. > Somewhat hum orously (to me), this lengthy procession of > pseudo-intellectual babble neve r touched on the basic problem: there > is no standard way to write TOUPPER a nd TOLOWER in UTF-x and hence > there is no way to use these formats in Forth that is > case-insensitive. > There is a standard way to upper and lower case, and it's not based on UTF; it's based on case folding Unicode code points (although converting to UTF-16 or UTF-32 can provide adequate case folding). http://www.unicode.org/faq/casemap_charprop.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-22 00:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mm7csd$cr3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39939 |
Alex McDonald wrote: > on 21/06/2015 03:24:28, hugh wrote: > >> >> During the thread, there was a discussion of UTF-8 and UTF-16. >> Somewhat hum orously (to me), this lengthy procession of >> pseudo-intellectual babble neve r touched on the basic problem: there >> is no standard way to write TOUPPER a nd TOLOWER in UTF-x and hence >> there is no way to use these formats in Forth that is >> case-insensitive. >> > > There is a standard way to upper and lower case, and it's not based on > UTF; it's based on case folding Unicode code points (although converting > to UTF-16 or UTF-32 can provide adequate case folding). > http://www.unicode.org/faq/casemap_charprop.html Actually, the Rational for XChar does deal (in a Taoist way, pointing to the minimal solution) with that problem: "Many Forth systems today are case insensitive, to accept lower case standard words. It is sufficient to be case insensitive for the ASCII subset to make this work — this saves a large code mapping table for comparison of other symbols. Case is mostly an issue of European languages (Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic), but similar issues exist between traditional and simplified Chinese (finally being dealt with by Unihan), and between different Latin code pages in the Universal Character Set (UCS), e.g., full width vs. normal half width Latin letters." The actual problem of a case insensitve Forth (which today most are) is that standard Forth words are all written in uppercase by the standard, but we want to write them in lower case, sometimes mixed case (e.g. control structures in caps, the rest lower case). These words all use only the ASCII subset. Problem solved. If you look at the reason why you do something, you can do it much cheaper than when you just implement an overgeneralized solution to everything. Of course you can use accent and unihan normalization followed by case-folding of Unicode to do your case-insensitive compare, but it is not required by the standard, as this is IMHO overengineering. It's not forbidden, either. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 12:10 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mip32i$ssp$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #38926 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 5/9/15 4:57 PM, HAA wrote: > ... > > Yet it is these same 'clf' folk whom you permit (rely on) to define Forth via > > the Standard. > > A significant number of the voting members (according to the published > Forth 2012) are rarely if ever on c.l.f., They must be MIA. 'cfv' results suggest what response there has been has come mostly from c.l.f. http://www.forth200x.org/ > and a number of c.l.f regulars > aren't on the Standards team (including myself). You are the notable exception. Don't believe 200x represents what Forth is about?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 11:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <miqi70$l5t$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38953 |
On 5/10/2015 10:10 PM, HAA wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 5/9/15 4:57 PM, HAA wrote: >> ... >>> Yet it is these same 'clf' folk whom you permit (rely on) to define Forth via >>> the Standard. >> >> A significant number of the voting members (according to the published >> Forth 2012) are rarely if ever on c.l.f., > > They must be MIA. 'cfv' results suggest what response there has been > has come mostly from c.l.f. > > http://www.forth200x.org/ > >> and a number of c.l.f regulars >> aren't on the Standards team (including myself). > > You are the notable exception. Don't believe 200x represents what > Forth is about? That is a scary thought! 8-O -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 16:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <miqj66$rm9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38972 |
on 11/05/2015 16:35:54, rickman wrote: > On 5/10/2015 10:10 PM, HAA wrote: >> Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>> On 5/9/15 4:57 PM, HAA wrote: >>> ... >>>> Yet it is these same 'clf' folk whom you permit (rely on) to define Forth via >>>> the Standard. >>> >>> A significant number of the voting members (according to the published >>> Forth 2012) are rarely if ever on c.l.f., >> >> They must be MIA. 'cfv' results suggest what response there has been >> has come mostly from c.l.f. >> >> http://www.forth200x.org/ >> >>> and a number of c.l.f regulars >>> aren't on the Standards team (including myself). >> >> You are the notable exception. Don't believe 200x represents what >> Forth is about? > > That is a scary thought! 8-O > 1. CLF is not the place for standards discussions & decisions, but it is the place for discussions about standards, amongst other Forth things. The standards discussions take place on the Forth200x Yahoo group. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/forth200x/info 2. The Forth200x standards group doesn't represent Forth users or companies that produce and use Forth products. The standards group defines the language. 3. Anyone can participate. I have had an RfD make it through to standardization, although I am not on the standards committee, nor do I post on (although I read) the Forth200x mailing list. I have influenced the committee's decision making on a number of other RfDs as a once-maintainer of Win32Forth and now the author of another Windows based Forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 08:12 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <EOWdnapQXadubc3InZ2dnUU7-YOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #38974 |
On 5/11/15 5:52 AM, Alex McDonald wrote: > on 11/05/2015 16:35:54, rickman wrote: >> On 5/10/2015 10:10 PM, HAA wrote: >>> Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>>> On 5/9/15 4:57 PM, HAA wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> Yet it is these same 'clf' folk whom you permit (rely on) to define Forth via >>>>> the Standard. >>>> >>>> A significant number of the voting members (according to the published >>>> Forth 2012) are rarely if ever on c.l.f., >>> >>> They must be MIA. 'cfv' results suggest what response there has been >>> has come mostly from c.l.f. >>> >>> http://www.forth200x.org/ >>> >>>> and a number of c.l.f regulars >>>> aren't on the Standards team (including myself). >>> >>> You are the notable exception. Don't believe 200x represents what >>> Forth is about? >> >> That is a scary thought! 8-O >> > > 1. CLF is not the place for standards discussions & decisions, but it is > the place for discussions about standards, amongst other Forth things. > The standards discussions take place on the Forth200x Yahoo group. > https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/forth200x/info > > 2. The Forth200x standards group doesn't represent Forth users or > companies that produce and use Forth products. The standards group > defines the language. > > 3. Anyone can participate. I have had an RfD make it through to > standardization, although I am not on the standards committee, nor do I > post on (although I read) the Forth200x mailing list. I have influenced > the committee's decision making on a number of other RfDs as a > once-maintainer of Win32Forth and now the author of another Windows based > Forth. Good summary, thank you, Alex. The official ANSI guidelines that the Forth94 team operated under directed that the standards team should have representation from vendors, users, and other standards bodies. The Forth94 team had, over its 6-year lifetime, members from 5 Forth vendors, a dozen or so user organizations plus several individual Forth programmers, and members of two IEEE standards groups (who were also Forth programmers). Input from non-members was also welcomed; in particular, drafts were published with a 3-month comment period, and all comments were addressed. The current standards body seems to be following similar guidelines. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 12:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b147e864-70db-454f-b279-d0700e074d49@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #38982 |
On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 11:12:04 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 5/11/15 5:52 AM, Alex McDonald wrote: > > 1. CLF is not the place for standards discussions & decisions, but it is > > the place for discussions about standards, amongst other Forth things. > > The standards discussions take place on the Forth200x Yahoo group. > > https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/forth200x/info This isn't true. When I posted RfDs on that Forth-200x mailing list, I was told that it had to first be discussed on C.L.F. before it could be considered by the Forth-200x committee. Bernd Payson warned me to "wear a flame-proof suit" --- so I posted it on C.L.F. and got flamed by the usual gang of idiots: John Passaniti, Alex McDonald, etc.. The whole business is a joke --- nobody will ever get an RfD through the committee except by brown-nosing --- nobody cares about the technical merits. > > 2. The Forth200x standards group doesn't represent Forth users or > > companies that produce and use Forth products. The standards group > > defines the language. So, who does the Forth-200x standards group represent? God? When they define the language, do they get this definition from divine inspiration, or do they just pull it out of their ass? I would really expect a language standards group to represent the language users. > > 3. Anyone can participate. I have had an RfD make it through to > > standardization, although I am not on the standards committee, nor do I > > post on (although I read) the Forth200x mailing list. I have influenced > > the committee's decision making on a number of other RfDs as a > > once-maintainer of Win32Forth and now the author of another Windows based > > Forth. The ANS-Forth standard was gratuitously complicated. A lot of cruft, such as PAD was standardized. Also, a lot totally useless and stupid ideas such as TO were standardized. Forth-200x is more of the same --- we have N>R and NR> for example, and now Bernd and Anton (aka "Dumb and Dumber") are introducing a lot of weird and complex nonsense (SET-COMPILER COMP-SEM etc.) into the standard as they struggle to understand the concept of Forth interpretation and compilation (which was actually figured out 40 years ago, and is quite simple). Jeff Fox told me that Charles Moore had described ANS-Forth as being 100 times more complicated than necessary. Shortly thereafter, the Forth-200x standards group began their work. Jeff Fox and Charles Moore assumed that the name "Forth-200x" implied that it would be 200 times more complicated than necessary, which would be the logical next step. Sure: "anybody can participate." Leon Wagner allows yahoos like Alex McDonald to get their RfDs accepted so long as the RfD can be implemented with five minutes of work --- Leon does this to give the Forth-200x contributors the feeling that they have contributed, and project the appearance that Forth-200x is a community effort rather than just SwiftForth with pretensions --- the result however, is a lot of gratuitous complication with no discernible plan or direction. The problem with "anybody can participate" is that you have people like Alex McDonald, with an I.Q. of maybe 85 --- getting his RfDs passed primarily as a reward for brown-nosing --- meanwhile, somebody such as myself who knows about Forth cross-compilers gets banned (I wrote my cross-compiler in UR/Forth from Ray Duncan's Laboratory Microsystem Inc., not ANS-Forth from Forth Inc.). > Good summary, thank you, Alex. Well, paste a tin-foil star on your little sycophant's forehead --- he declared plainly that Forth-200x doesn't represent the Forth users --- such loyalty is surely worthy of a tin-foil star on his forehead! > The official ANSI guidelines that the Forth94 team operated under > directed that the standards team should have representation from > vendors, users, and other standards bodies. The Forth94 team had, over > its 6-year lifetime, members from 5 Forth vendors, a dozen or so user > organizations plus several individual Forth programmers, and members of > two IEEE standards groups (who were also Forth programmers). Input from > non-members was also welcomed; in particular, drafts were published with > a 3-month comment period, and all comments were addressed. > > The current standards body seems to be following similar guidelines. This is baloney. In 1993, one year prior to ANS-Forth getting written in stone, Ray Duncan was on C.L.F. describing aspects of ANS-Forth as "brain-damaged." Now, he is listed in the ANS-Forth document as a contributor. Also, in 1994, he gave up on Forth as a lost cause. Similarly, Charles Moore is listed in the ANS-Forth document as a contributor, although he said that ANS-Forth was 100 times more complicated than necessary. Elizabeth Rather is a name-dropper. She has built her entire career out of pretending to have the support of luminaries in the Forth community, all of whom think she is a blithering idiot. The truth is that ANS-Forth is just a marketing tactic from Forth Inc. --- an effort to convince the world that Forth Inc. defines the Forth language, and all Forth programmers rely on Forth Inc. for guidance --- Forth-200x is the same steaming pile of salesmanship, piled 10 times deeper and with 20 years of putrefaction at its core. > Cheers, > Elizabeth Normally you conclude these posts with "Aloha" --- did you realize that bragging about living in Hawaii comes off as being arrogant? --- or is it that you had to leave Hawaii for your own safety after the assassination attempt?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 15:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mir1n7$t1f$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #38987 |
On 11/05/2015 3:37 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > Well, paste a tin-foil star on your little sycophant's > forehead --- he declared plainly that Forth-200x doesn't > represent the Forth users That is the part that you have been missing in this discussion. Standards represent what currently exists. They codify the existing practice. That is also why they get revised periodically. Standards groups are designed to define what is there not what users would like to see there. Groups like this debate idea's that sometimes get turn into implementations that may eventually become part of a standard. The way (only way) to change what is in a standard is to develop a tool set and with the user experience to back it up argue for its inclusion in a standard. In every standards group I have been part of there are always a lot of people who are critical of the standard. Standards can be changed but to do so you have to do serious amounts of homework and have working proof the idea is sound. It is a high bar and every case I have been involved in a standard that it hasn't been used that whole part of the industry regretted it. If you are right in the changes you want to make and you want to make those changes part of a standard prove it with documented implementations and experience. Developing a good standard takes a lot of work by a lot of people. My quick calculation is that each C release takes about 50 Man years plus the background work that each person does. w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 21:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mir3mc$30v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38988 |
on 11/05/2015 20:59:25, Walter Banks wrote: > On 11/05/2015 3:37 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Well, paste a tin-foil star on your little sycophant's >> forehead --- he declared plainly that Forth-200x doesn't >> represent the Forth users > > That is the part that you have been missing in this discussion. > Standards represent what currently exists. They codify the existing > practice. That is also why they get revised periodically. > > Standards groups are designed to define what is there not what users > would like to see there. Groups like this debate idea's that sometimes > get turn into implementations that may eventually become part of a > standard. > > The way (only way) to change what is in a standard is to develop a > tool set and with the user experience to back it up argue for its > inclusion in a standard. In every standards group I have been part of > there are always a lot of people who are critical of the standard. > Standards can be changed but to do so you have to do serious amounts > of homework and have working proof the idea is sound. > > It is a high bar and every case I have been involved in a standard > that it hasn't been used that whole part of the industry regretted it. > If you are right in the changes you want to make and you want to make > those changes part of a standard prove it with documented > implementations and experience. Developing a good standard takes a lot > of work by a lot of people. My quick calculation is that each C > release takes about 50 Man years plus the background work that each > person does. > > w.. > > > Rough consensus and running code is exactly how the IETF manages its business. Hugh would have a meltdown trying to understand how it works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 16:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mir45u$4ud$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38988 |
On 5/11/2015 3:59 PM, Walter Banks wrote: > On 11/05/2015 3:37 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Well, paste a tin-foil star on your little sycophant's >> forehead --- he declared plainly that Forth-200x doesn't >> represent the Forth users > > That is the part that you have been missing in this discussion. > Standards represent what currently exists. They codify the existing > practice. That is also why they get revised periodically. > > Standards groups are designed to define what is there not what users > would like to see there. Groups like this debate idea's that sometimes > get turn into implementations that may eventually become part of a > standard. > > The way (only way) to change what is in a standard is to develop a tool > set and with the user experience to back it up argue for its inclusion > in a standard. In every standards group I have been part of there are > always a lot of people who are critical of the standard. Standards can > be changed but to do so you have to do serious amounts of homework and > have working proof the idea is sound. > > It is a high bar and every case I have been involved in a standard that > it hasn't been used that whole part of the industry regretted it. If you > are right in the changes you want to make and you want to make those > changes part of a standard prove it with documented implementations and > experience. Developing a good standard takes a lot of work by a lot of > people. My quick calculation is that each C release takes about 50 Man > years plus the background work that each person does. I know it is pointless to ask this, but Hugh is a famous idiot and most people know enough to not reply to him. I see Alex is vainly still trying to communicate with him even though by now he must understand that it will have no impact on Hugh. Hugh has some mental illness that makes him rather paranoid and possibly delusional. He sees Elizabeth Rather as his arch enemy and imagines the entire Forth community as her puppets. I am really not exaggerating at all. I think this is very clear from his recent posts as from many others. I don't know why Alex continues to discuss Hugh's posts. At the end of his most recent post he explains why Hugh isn't involved in the standard body anymore, "You were banned for being a disruptive asswipe with a serious personality disorder." Why give his writings the respect of a reply here? When you wrestle with a pig, you both get muddy. But the pig enjoys it. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 21:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mir4p7$7e3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38991 |
on 11/05/2015 21:42:37, rickman wrote: > On 5/11/2015 3:59 PM, Walter Banks wrote: >> On 11/05/2015 3:37 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> Well, paste a tin-foil star on your little sycophant's >>> forehead --- he declared plainly that Forth-200x doesn't >>> represent the Forth users >> >> That is the part that you have been missing in this discussion. >> Standards represent what currently exists. They codify the existing >> practice. That is also why they get revised periodically. >> >> Standards groups are designed to define what is there not what users >> would like to see there. Groups like this debate idea's that sometimes >> get turn into implementations that may eventually become part of a >> standard. >> >> The way (only way) to change what is in a standard is to develop a tool >> set and with the user experience to back it up argue for its inclusion >> in a standard. In every standards group I have been part of there are >> always a lot of people who are critical of the standard. Standards can >> be changed but to do so you have to do serious amounts of homework and >> have working proof the idea is sound. >> >> It is a high bar and every case I have been involved in a standard that >> it hasn't been used that whole part of the industry regretted it. If you >> are right in the changes you want to make and you want to make those >> changes part of a standard prove it with documented implementations and >> experience. Developing a good standard takes a lot of work by a lot of >> people. My quick calculation is that each C release takes about 50 Man >> years plus the background work that each person does. > > I know it is pointless to ask this, but Hugh is a famous idiot and > most people know enough to not reply to him. I see Alex is vainly > still trying to communicate with him even though by now he must > understand that it will have no impact on Hugh. > > Hugh has some mental illness that makes him rather paranoid and > possibly delusional. He sees Elizabeth Rather as his arch enemy and > imagines the entire Forth community as her puppets. I am really not > exaggerating at all. I think this is very clear from his recent posts > as from many others. > > I don't know why Alex continues to discuss Hugh's posts. At the end of > his most recent post he explains why Hugh isn't involved in the > standard body anymore, "You were banned for being a disruptive asswipe > with a serious personality disorder." Why give his writings the > respect of a reply here? > > When you wrestle with a pig, you both get muddy. But the pig enjoys > it. > True. Occasionally there is a pearl that Hugh identifies, but it's clear that they've become fewer and fewer in number. Hugh's ugly attacks on Ms Rather and his paranoid homophobia I find incredibly annoying. But I really should stop, you're right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <095f34a7-e109-4267-ab59-eb41b7fc7af7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #38992 |
On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 1:52:58 PM UTC-7, Alex McDonald wrote: > Hugh's ... paranoid homophobia I find incredibly annoying. But I > really should stop, you're right. Are you coming out of the closet, Alex?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-12 16:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mit9ba$di5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38995 |
hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 1:52:58 PM UTC-7, Alex McDonald wrote: > > Hugh's ... paranoid homophobia I find incredibly annoying. But I "homophobia" logically would mean "like-phobia". Only an idiot would believe that it should mean "fear of homosexuals". Nobody 100 years ago or 50 years ago "accused" another of "homophobia". The cultural marxists have programmed the airheads to apply that word to normal people and to call homosexuals "gay". It's fine to use name-calling against normal people, but it is very wicked to call homosexuals "queer". Creatures like Alex can scarcely be considered human. They cannot think for themselves, and they are virtually devoid of natural instincts. They are almost indistinguishable from organic robots. Perhaps they have no souls. Alex "knows" that he is righteous and that Hugh is wicked; his masters told him so. > > really should stop, you're right. > > Are you coming out of the closet, Alex?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-12 22:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c353b66-5fa4-4521-a42d-2807551e28b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #39030 |
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 9:23:10 AM UTC-7, WJ wrote: > "homophobia" logically would mean "like-phobia". Only an idiot > would believe that it should mean "fear of homosexuals". WJ, you are not making any sense, as usual. Google "define homophobia" and you get: "dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people." The etymology of the word is irrelevant. I don't really like the word because for me it is not really "fear" but more "disgust" --- however, whether you like particular words or not, you have to use the words in your society in order to communicate. Alex McDonald was accusing me of having a dislike or prejudice against homosexual people. Nothing I have said in this thread would provoke that. This is a standard liberal tactic, to accuse people of being homophobic or racist. The idea is that this automatically establishes a moral high-ground for the accuser, and puts the accused in the awkward position of having to provide evidence that he is not homophobic or racist (which is impossible). It is best to not respond to these accusations, because doing so is effectively the same as agreeing that the accuser has the authority to judge, and agreeing that you are a plebeian who deserves to be judged by the same. For the record, I'm not racist; people can't be blamed for their genetic makeup; also, as a practical matter, genetics has very little effect on how people turn out. On the other hand, I think it is a good idea to be prejudiced against juggalos, Jews, and homosexuals --- they chose to live in a depraved manner --- this is not genetics, but it is a conscious choice, so they should be held responsible for how they turned out. The meaning of words changes over time. This is why it is difficult to read text written 200 years ago and understand it, even though it is in English and contains only words that you know the meaning of today. For example, the word "liberal" meant what "libertarian" means today, so it has changed its meaning 180 degrees. Within my lifetime, I have seen the word "leader" change its meaning 180 degrees to mean "follower" --- for example, an elementary school in my neighborhood has a sign outside that says: "Everybody can be a leader!" --- this would have been meaningless gibberish in 1985, but it makes perfect sense in 2015 when you take into account the new definition of "leader." Within the last 5 or 10 years, the word "pride" begun changing its meaning to "homosexual" (we now have "pride parades," a term that would have been gibberish in 1985, but now is easily understood) --- in another 20 years the change will likely be complete, and nobody will think of "pride" as having any other meaning than "homosexual" --- when people of the future read texts from our time in which we claim to have pride, these texts will be completely misunderstood. The English languages changes its meaning over time. I have read "Canterbury Tales" in the original, and the English language has changed so drastically in 500 years as to pretty much be a different language. By comparison, Spanish has changed very little. "Don Quixote" that was also written about 500 years ago is still readable in the original. The only change Spanish has made in that time, was to switch out the 'x' for the 'j' --- other than that, it is almost exactly the same language today as 500 years ago. Most likely, in 500 years nobody will be able to read any English documents from our time because English will have changed so much --- so the only way to know anything about our time will be to read Spanish documents --- that is rather depressing, that the Mexicans will have the last word (maybe we should be nicer to them, so they have something good to say about us).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-13 11:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8df90500-e2f7-4010-ac9f-cdfaf5333f9c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #39065 |
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:42:37 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > I think it is a good idea to be prejudiced against juggalos It seems like NOBODY likes juggalos, not even punk rockers and anarchists, who seem to be ready to accept darn near everything. :^) Note that in punk rock culture and modern anarchist culture, it is almost expected that you are gay or bisexual. Being otherwise constitutes being hetro-normative, which is another word which you may not have heard of, another liberal word. This as opposed to the old anarchist culture where being a mere nudist would have sufficed. Magnets, who do they work? Forth, how does it work? Maybe I should have asked the juggalos how Forth works?! :^) As far as being prejudiced against gays and bisexuals, I used to work at a decorative ceramics studio in Salem, Oregon and it seems like the population was about 50/50 with 50% normal christian types and 50% liberals. Remarkably enough everyone seemed to get along pretty well and that fit in just fine with my then milder, younger, more idealistic, libertarian world view, ( whatever libertarian means ). But, then I encountered the opposite view in which heterosexual people were seen as being oppressive, and in which all people are really just gay or bisexual, and that heterosexuality was a repressive social construct in which I was automatically labeled the bad guy for not being gay. This is something that has been like a thorn in my side for years. For some reason, it just really bothers me that people can't just get along, and that there are large blocks of people who hate me just because of who I am. So, I see that there are many different kinds of hatred, and that hatred is not just a one way street. There could even be kinds of hatred where one village hates another village that lies just 10km down the road, and this hatred might infact be hundreds of years old. So, there is hatred of people who are straight and there is hatred of people who are gay. I wish that humanity would somehow get over its problems, but I see that as being in the far distant future. Jason
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 15:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mjvdmq$7od$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39030 |
WJ wrote: > hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 1:52:58 PM UTC-7, Alex McDonald wrote: > > > Hugh's ... paranoid homophobia I find incredibly annoying. But I > > "homophobia" logically would mean "like-phobia". Only an idiot > would believe that it should mean "fear of homosexuals". > > Nobody 100 years ago or 50 years ago "accused" another of > "homophobia". The cultural marxists have programmed the airheads > to apply that word to normal people and to call homosexuals "gay". > It's fine to use name-calling against normal people, but it is very > wicked to call homosexuals "queer". > > Creatures like Alex can scarcely be considered human. They cannot > think for themselves, and they are virtually devoid of natural > instincts. They are almost indistinguishable from organic robots. > Perhaps they have no souls. > > Alex "knows" that he is righteous and that Hugh is wicked; > his masters told him so. > > > > really should stop, you're right. > > > > Are you coming out of the closet, Alex? Winston Smith has suggested that normal people ought to start fighting back against the Satanic cultural marxists by using the same kind of neologisms that they use. Our counterpart to their "homophobia" would be "heterohate". Instead of calling homosexual "marriage" "marriage equality", we should call it "marriage mockery". -- He has nothing but kind sentiments for those who would destroy his home and family.... He is universally tolerant. He is totally unprejudiced. If he has any principles, he keeps them well concealed.... He is, to the extent of his abilities, exactly like the next citizen, who, he trusts, is trying to be exactly like him: a faceless, characterless putty-man. --- Father Feeney; "Should Hate Be Outlawed?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web