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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #26410 > unrolled thread

Anyone else wish this was Moderated?

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

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#26542

Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 04:50:21 -0400, Andrew Haley  
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 06:53:36 -0400, Andrew Haley
>>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 03:21:42 -0400, Andrew Haley
>>>>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> ...
> 
>>>>>>> [moderation]
>>>>>> That's not moderation is done right: it's moderation done wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't sound like a well-moderated group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clyde, I think you may have found a volunteer...
>>>>>
>>>>> You might want to ask him how and what he would moderate though,
>>>>> first.  He clearly disagrees with moderating what is required to
>>>>> keep comp.lang.forth in compliance with it's official Usenet
>>>>> charter:
>>>>>
>>>>>   "Discussion about Forth."
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of moderation isn't necessarily to enforce charters.
>>>> It can be used for that, but would be too restrictive for most
>>>> groups.  Sometimes, moderation can be used to keep things civil.
>>>> I prefer light-touch moderation.
>>>>
>>>>> I demonstrated what should be moderated, now snipped.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you did that at all.  IMO, you attempted to
>>>> construct a straw man.
>>>
>>> No, I didn't.  I stated the facts, the truth, AISI.
>>>
>>> That's what should be moderated in accordance with the Usenet
>>> charter for comp.lang.forth, which I posted for reference.
>>>
>>> Why do you always reject what others say?
>>
>> I don't.  I often reject what *you* say:
> 
> Why?  I speak the truth.

:-)

>>> But, then again, how would _you_ really know?
>>>
>>> ISTM, that everything is a "straw man" argument to you.  Just look
>>> up how many times you've posted that phrase...  Is anything *not* a
>>> "straw man" argument to you?
>>
>> So far, you haven't used one in this posting.
> 
> That's what I said.  It's also the opposite of what you said
> previously.

Eh?

>> You proposed an insanely restrictive moderation policy
> 
> No, I didn't.  I didn't _propose_ *ANY* moderation.
> 
> That's entirely *your* misunderstanding.

I'm sorry, I take that back.  You described an insanely restrictive
moderation policy.

>>> No, I stated what should be moderated.
>>
>> A statement that contains "should" but not
>> "because..." is incomplete.
> 
> According to whom?

Without a "because" there is no meaningful argument.  It's just an _ex
cathedra_ pronouncement.  And only a pope gets to do that.

>> "Discussion about Forth" hardly constitutes a charter.
> 
> That's the official Usenet charter for comp.lang.forth.

I don't think so, but I guess we'll have to leave it there.

>>> I also stated what happens when moderation is implemented:
>>> everyone leaves...
>>
>> I'm not surprised, when moderation is done as clumsily
>> as you suggest it should be.
> 
> I didn't suggest anything.  Again, you're mischaracterizing
> the discussion.

Yes, you did.  You out-and-out stated how it should be done.  You
described it in detail.  You can't deny it now.  It's in the record.

>>> This seems to be a standard argumentative tactic used by you.  I.e.,
>>> don't define what you mean, don't provide examples of what you mean,
>>> then declare something bad or contrary to what others expect it to
>>> mean, without really explaining it.
>>
>> If you make a point that I disagree with, I'll post an argument
>> explaining why I disagree.
> 
> You've never posted an argument.  An argument has points and counter
> points.  I make points.  You don't make any points.

Heh.  Well, they look like points to me; I'll leave others to judge.

>>>> "Carnal knowledge" of Forth, on-topic.
>>>
>>> The information may be on-topic.  The phrase isn't - due to it
>>> blatant use of sexual phrasing.  I would've assumed you knew that.
>>
>> References, please.  I think you're making this up.
> 
> OMG!  Really?  Are you joking?

No.

> And, is there a reason you can't look this up yourself?

You made the claim, you back it up.

> Whatever...
> 
> Here is a "polite" description:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnal_knowledge
> 
> That was the 2nd found search result, BTW.

I know what carnal knowledge is.  I don't understand your claim that
"blatant use of sexual phrasing" would be off-topic.  Why?  Why are
sexual metaphors inappropriate?

>>>> Closures or coroutines, on-topic.
>>>
>>> These have nothing to do with Forth.
>>
>> Sure they do.
> 
> Are they currently a part of Forth?

Yes, they are.  They are part of many Forth systems; implementations
written in Forth have been posted here.

>> Most of the discussion here is still characterized by
>> rational and serous discussion.
> 
> Does that include your side of the conversation in
> this thread? ...

Absolutely!

>> Purely abusive or fallacious postings aren't so common.
> 
> That, perhaps, is less so, now that Passinitti is gone
> or posting under a less abusive alias.  You're welcome, BTW.

Welcome to... what?

>>> Do you want a biased moderator or a fair one?
>>>
>>> People don't like dictators for a reason.  John Levine has an
>>> excellent reputation for moderating comp.compilers.  He is probably
>>> one of the best.  Even so, there are 1) many people who won't post
>>> there and 2) many people who don't like the way he moderates.  Those
>>> who won't post there won't because of #2 and because they can't post
>>> anonymously or without a valid email address.  There are many who
>>> don't like the way he moderates.  He posts little comments and
>>> clarifications at the end of posts, changes wording to mean
>>> something different from what the author asked or stated, perhaps to
>>> be on-topic, and removes entire sections of posts without indicating
>>> any censorship or moderation.
>>
>> Sounds awful.
> 
> Change of heart?

About what?  I don't think that moderating c.l.f. is desirable or even
possible.

Andrew.

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

#26603

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 04:56:44 -0400, Andrew Haley  
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 04:50:21 -0400, Andrew Haley
>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 06:53:36 -0400, Andrew Haley
>>>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 03:21:42 -0400, Andrew Haley
>>>>>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
...

>>>>>>>> [moderation]
>>>>>>> That's not moderation is done right: it's moderation done wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That doesn't sound like a well-moderated group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clyde, I think you may have found a volunteer...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You might want to ask him how and what he would moderate though,
>>>>>> first.  He clearly disagrees with moderating what is required to
>>>>>> keep comp.lang.forth in compliance with it's official Usenet
>>>>>> charter:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   "Discussion about Forth."
>>>>>
>>>>> The purpose of moderation isn't necessarily to enforce charters.
>>>>> It can be used for that, but would be too restrictive for most
>>>>> groups.  Sometimes, moderation can be used to keep things civil.
>>>>> I prefer light-touch moderation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I demonstrated what should be moderated, now snipped.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you did that at all.  IMO, you attempted to
>>>>> construct a straw man.
>>>>
>>>> No, I didn't.  I stated the facts, the truth, AISI.
>>>>
>>>> That's what should be moderated in accordance with the Usenet
>>>> charter for comp.lang.forth, which I posted for reference.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you always reject what others say?
>>>
>>> I don't.  I often reject what *you* say:
>>
>> Why?  I speak the truth.
>
> :-)

...

>>>> But, then again, how would _you_ really know?
>>>>
>>>> ISTM, that everything is a "straw man" argument to you.  Just look
>>>> up how many times you've posted that phrase...  Is anything *not* a
>>>> "straw man" argument to you?
>>>
>>> So far, you haven't used one in this posting.
>>
>> That's what I said.  It's also the opposite of what you said
>> previously.
>
> Eh?

You said I used one:
"IMO, you attempted to construct a straw man."

Now you say I don't:
"So far, you haven't used [a straw man argument] in this posting."

Make up your mind.

Oh...  I see. You didn't mean "thread" by "posting".

You meant a specific reply or post.  How literal...

What's with the extra -ing?

>>> You proposed an insanely restrictive moderation policy
>>
>> No, I didn't.  I didn't _propose_ *ANY* moderation.
>>
>> That's entirely *your* misunderstanding.
>
> I'm sorry, I take that back.  You described an insanely
> restrictive moderation policy.

I described what is required according to the charter.
How is it that what I described not required by the charter?
You can describe it as insanely all you want, but that
is a biased, derogatory comment, without any merit or
proof of validity.  In compliance is in compliance.

>>>> No, I stated what should be moderated.
>>>
>>> A statement that contains "should" but not
>>> "because..." is incomplete.
>>
>> According to whom?
>
> Without a "because" there is no meaningful argument.
> It's just an _ex cathedra_ pronouncement.  And only
> a pope gets to do that.

Well, you're still mischaracterizing the conversation.  I
didn't do what you claim.  The "becauses" were stated first,
earlier.  They were in compliance with the charter.  It was
just reverse ordered from the way you apparently desired...
Must I actually repeat them now with a "because" just for
you?  If so, what a sense of entitlement...

>>> "Discussion about Forth" hardly constitutes a charter.
>>
>> That's the official Usenet charter for comp.lang.forth.
>
> I don't think so, but I guess we'll have to leave it there.
>

It is.  Again, why do you always reject what others say?

The entire Usenet collection of charter's used to be on sites
like ftp.uu.net.  Maybe, Google Groups displays them now...

I posted it back in 2008 to comp.lang.forth with a link.
It's dead now.  So, here is another one:

ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control-old/comp/comp.lang.forth.Z

It's the first Usenet message in the compress archive.

Happy?  That took a minute and half with Google.

Do I need to post the entire message too, or can you uncompress
on your own?

>>>> I also stated what happens when moderation is implemented:
>>>> everyone leaves...
>>>
>>> I'm not surprised, when moderation is done as clumsily
>>> as you suggest it should be.
>>
>> I didn't suggest anything.  Again, you're mischaracterizing
>> the discussion.
>
> Yes, you did.  You out-and-out stated how it should be done.  You
> described it in detail.  You can't deny it now.  It's in the record.

Even according to you, that's clearly *not* a suggestion.
It's clearly a very clear statement.  A suggestion is all
wishy-washy...  We might do this.  We could do this.  You
shouldn't do this.  Perhaps, this would be best.  I stated
what would be done in accordance with the charter.  That's
just a part of Usenet.  It's clearly strict, but that doesn't
qualify it for derision as being insane.

>> And, is there a reason you can't look this up yourself?
>
> You made the claim, you back it up.
>

Stop feigning ignorance.  It's not my job to educate you.

If you disagree, it's your job to prove otherwise.  I state
the truth because it's the truth.

Now, you're pulling an Alex McDonald...  He could've looked
up some psychology on his own too without throwing a tantrum.
It's not that hard to find.  I haven't been back to read his
reply.  He's probably still in a huff...  But, maybe he'll
learn something on his own during his searches.

>> Whatever...
>>
>> Here is a "polite" description:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnal_knowledge
>>
>> That was the 2nd found search result, BTW.
>
> I know what carnal knowledge is.

Then, what's the problem? ...

> I don't understand your claim that "blatant use of
> sexual phrasing" would be off-topic.  Why?  Why are
> sexual metaphors inappropriate?

Really?  You don't understand that non-Forth discussion
is off-topic?  Really?  Seriously?  That's what you
just said ...  You said that previously too.

I already mentioned a politically correct and socially
acceptable replacement.  It's gone.  So, that must've
been snipped by you.  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, ...

>>>>> Closures or coroutines, on-topic.
>>>>
>>>> These have nothing to do with Forth.
>>>
>>> Sure they do.
>>
>> Are they currently a part of Forth?
>
> Yes, they are.  They are part of many Forth systems;
> implementations written in Forth have been posted here.

So?  Numerous people here have stated that if it's not
part of a Forth standard it's not really discussable Forth.

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.

>>> Most of the discussion here is still characterized by
>>> rational and ser[i]ous discussion.
>>
>> Does that include your side of the conversation in
>> this thread? ...
>
> Absolutely!
>

That was rhetorical... ironic... sarcastic... dry...
perhaps, even tongue-in-cheek.  Seriously, I don't see much
of your discussion in this thread as serious or rational.

>>> Purely abusive or fallacious postings aren't so common.
>>
>> That, perhaps, is less so, now that Passinitti is gone
>> or posting under a less abusive alias.  You're welcome, BTW.
>
> Welcome to... what?
>

Passinitti free comp.lang.forth.  You'll have to shoo away
Hugh on your own if you don't want him here.  ;-)

>>>> Do you want a biased moderator or a fair one?
>>>>
>>>> People don't like dictators for a reason.  John Levine has an
>>>> excellent reputation for moderating comp.compilers.  He is probably
>>>> one of the best.  Even so, there are 1) many people who won't post
>>>> there and 2) many people who don't like the way he moderates.  Those
>>>> who won't post there won't because of #2 and because they can't post
>>>> anonymously or without a valid email address.  There are many who
>>>> don't like the way he moderates.  He posts little comments and
>>>> clarifications at the end of posts, changes wording to mean
>>>> something different from what the author asked or stated, perhaps to
>>>> be on-topic, and removes entire sections of posts without indicating
>>>> any censorship or moderation.
>>>
>>> Sounds awful.
>>
>> Change of heart?
>
> About what?  I don't think that moderating c.l.f. is desirable or
> even possible.

"It'[d] be nice to be rid of the more egregious flames, [...]"

That's not an expression of desire?  Odd, I could've sworn...


Are you just being the Devil's advocate here?  Seems so...


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.

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

#26605

Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 04:56:44 -0400, Andrew Haley  
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 04:50:21 -0400, Andrew Haley
>>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 06:53:36 -0400, Andrew Haley
>>>>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 03:21:42 -0400, Andrew Haley
>>>>>>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> ...
> 
>>>>>>>>> [moderation]
>>>>>>>> That's not moderation is done right: it's moderation done wrong.
>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>> You proposed an insanely restrictive moderation policy
>>>
>>> No, I didn't.  I didn't _propose_ *ANY* moderation.
>>>
>>> That's entirely *your* misunderstanding.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I take that back.  You described an insanely
>> restrictive moderation policy.
> 
> 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, and b) that phrase can be interpreted
narrowly or broadly.

> Even according to you, that's clearly *not* a suggestion.  It's
> clearly a very clear statement.  A suggestion is all wishy-washy...
> We might do this.  We could do this.  You shouldn't do this.
> Perhaps, this would be best.  I stated what would be done in
> accordance with the charter.  That's just a part of Usenet.  It's
> clearly strict, but that doesn't qualify it for derision as being
> insane.

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.

>>> And, is there a reason you can't look this up yourself?
>>
>> You made the claim, you back it up.
> 
> Stop feigning ignorance.  It's not my job to educate you.
> 
> If you disagree, it's your job to prove otherwise.  I state the
> truth because it's the truth.

You made the claim, you back it up.

>>> Whatever...
>>>
>>> Here is a "polite" description:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnal_knowledge
>>>
>>> That was the 2nd found search result, BTW.
>>
>> I know what carnal knowledge is.
> 
> Then, what's the problem? ...
> 
>> I don't understand your claim that "blatant use of sexual phrasing"
>> would be off-topic.  Why?  Why are sexual metaphors inappropriate?
> 
> Really?

Yes, really.

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

> 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.

> 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?

>> Yes, they are.  They are part of many Forth systems;
>> implementations written in Forth have been posted here.
> 
> 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.

> 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?

>>> Change of heart?
>>
>> About what?  I don't think that moderating c.l.f. is desirable or
>> even possible.
> 
> "It'[d] be nice to be rid of the more egregious flames, [...]"
> 
> That's not an expression of desire?  Odd, I could've sworn...

No, it's not.  I'd be nice to be rid of the more egregious flames, but
I don't think that moderating c.l.f. is desirable or even possible.

> Are you just being the Devil's advocate here?  Seems so...

It may seem so to you, but no, I'm not.

Andrew.

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

#26606

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.

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

#26607

Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
> 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.

That was a newsgroup creation message, I think.

>>> 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 the crux of the matter.  If the question is topicality, then it
matters very much.  The fact that "carnal knowledge" is a sexual
metaphor matters not a jot.

>>> 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? ...

You're being evasive.  Where would people discuss the new standard?

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

If it was relevant to a Forth coded in C, it wouldn't be off-topic.

Andrew.

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

#26631

On Monday, October 14, 2013 4:50:21 AM UTC-4, Andrew Haley wrote:
> 
>>> "Carnal knowledge" of Forth, on-topic.
>> 
>> The information may be on-topic.  The phrase isn't - due to it
>> blatant use of sexual phrasing.  I would've assumed you knew that.
> 
> References, please.  I think you're making this up.
> 
Stephen Pelc coined this term, and I like it. BTW, if you're careless in your Forth coding you might feel as if Forth is gaining carnal knowledge of you.

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

#26632

Brad Eckert wrote:

> On Monday, October 14, 2013 4:50:21 AM UTC-4, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> 
>>>> "Carnal knowledge" of Forth, on-topic.
>>> 
>>> The information may be on-topic.  The phrase isn't - due to it
>>> blatant use of sexual phrasing.  I would've assumed you knew that.
>> 
>> References, please.  I think you're making this up.
>> 
> Stephen Pelc coined this term, and I like it.

I always wonder why this phrase is a problem. Is this the "no sex please, we 
are British" stuff?  Stephen Pelc lives on the island, but apparently not 
affected.

For me it's a pun with words, it's "kernel knowledge" written in a way that 
shows the intimacy with the system this knowledge actually means.

Or, to translate it: "if it requires carnal knowledge, portability is fucked 
up".

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

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

#26637

On 10/18/13 4:00 AM, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> Brad Eckert wrote:
>
>> On Monday, October 14, 2013 4:50:21 AM UTC-4, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Carnal knowledge" of Forth, on-topic.
>>>>
>>>> The information may be on-topic.  The phrase isn't - due to it
>>>> blatant use of sexual phrasing.  I would've assumed you knew that.
>>>
>>> References, please.  I think you're making this up.
>>>
>> Stephen Pelc coined this term, and I like it.
>
> I always wonder why this phrase is a problem. Is this the "no sex please, we
> are British" stuff?  Stephen Pelc lives on the island, but apparently not
> affected.
>
> For me it's a pun with words, it's "kernel knowledge" written in a way that
> shows the intimacy with the system this knowledge actually means.
>
> Or, to translate it: "if it requires carnal knowledge, portability is fucked
> up".
>

I don't know who invented the term "carnal knowledge", but it was in 
general use in the ANS Forth TC from the late '80's.

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]

#26644

Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:
> Brad Eckert wrote:
> 
>> On Monday, October 14, 2013 4:50:21 AM UTC-4, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> "Carnal knowledge" of Forth, on-topic.
>>>> 
>>>> The information may be on-topic.  The phrase isn't - due to it
>>>> blatant use of sexual phrasing.  I would've assumed you knew that.
>>> 
>>> References, please.  I think you're making this up.
>>> 
>> Stephen Pelc coined this term, and I like it.
> 
> I always wonder why this phrase is a problem. Is this the "no sex please, we 
> are British" stuff?

No.  AFAIK it's Americans who have objected.

Andrew.

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

#26657

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:43:43 -0700 (PDT), Brad Eckert
<hwfwguy@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> "Carnal knowledge" of Forth, on-topic.

>Stephen Pelc coined this term, and I like it. BTW, if you're careless in
>your Forth coding you might feel as if Forth is gaining carnal knowledge
>of you.

I first heard the term on the ANS committee. "Carnal knowledge" is,
as far as I know, a biblical reference. How could it possibly be rude?
If not a biblical reference, the phrase has been a euphemism in
England for a couple of centuries or more.

The idea of inventing a euphemism for a euphemism is just silly.

Stephen


-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

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

#26658

stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>The idea of inventing a euphemism for a euphemism is just silly.

That's the euphemism treadmill.  Maybe euphemisms themselves are just
silly.

- 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 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/

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

#26660

On Monday, 21 October 2013 12:51:28 UTC+1, Anton Ertl  wrote:
> stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
> >The idea of inventing a euphemism for a euphemism is just silly.
> That's the euphemism treadmill.  Maybe euphemisms themselves are just
> silly.

Tres stupide, if you'll pardon my French.

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

#26532

Is this a Usenet Chartered list. Sure has the title for it.

Does that matter. And from your arguments re: sticking to a Usenet definition of moderation I have to ask. Is that a good charter? It seems to be out of date vis current thought expresses by many in many a forum.

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

#26425

On Saturday, October 12, 2013 1:55:49 AM UTC-4, Clyde W. Phillips Jr. wrote:
> I can think of six or a few more more I'd trust to keep this a Forth forum.
> 
> Too many others are wasting my time here.
>
Maybe we should just stop feeding the trolls. It's easy to skip over trolls.

Moderation doesn't go all that well with a Bohemian anti-authoritarian culture.

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

#26448

On Saturday, October 12, 2013 12:55:49 AM UTC-5, Clyde W. Phillips Jr. wrote:
> I can think of six or a few more more I'd trust to keep this a Forth forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Too many others are wasting my time here.

My point stands. The valid points in reply are entirely about the nature and his story of moderation. Moderation truly is in the eye of the beholder. If i was tasked at moderating the comments so far some of each one would have passed moderation. I didn't specify what or how to moderate. If I don't like or get how a moderator does what they do I can talk to them or move on or just watch.

And yet "my trust" has been construed as being impressed, not having the same  list of trusted people, or that my feelings about my time spent here are invalid or somehow rude, or better, my feeling are recast as some others less than satisfactory interaction.

Online forums seem to strip civility from interaction and grant broad license to paint anyone as a anything for the purpose of cyber targeting.

And I'm obviously naive to think a topic is about said topic. If any motive spewed here can be attributed to any post I've made I may the one who needs moderation. Since I know what I'm here for and what I post, I don't think so.

And yet I respect ever reply here. If respect for the poster or the topic were evident I would have never posted this thread.

Aim here->|null.

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

#26462

On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 01:27:55 -0400, Clyde W. Phillips Jr.  
<cwpjr02@gmail.com> wrote:

> And yet I respect ever[y] reply here.

And yet you were the one who called for moderation...

Since when is censorship respectful? (never)

> If respect for the poster or the topic were evident I
> would have never posted this thread.

Contradict much?


Rod Pemberton

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

#26449

On Saturday, October 12, 2013 12:55:49 AM UTC-5, Clyde W. Phillips Jr. wrote:
> I can think of six or a few more more I'd trust to keep this a Forth forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Too many others are wasting my time here.

BTW: This forum is moderated. Ad hock, ad nauseum.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web