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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#26410 — Anyone else wish this was Moderated?

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.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#26411

On Friday, October 11, 2013 10:55:49 PM UTC-7, 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.

Moderation doesn't work all that well. Look at comp.lang.asm.x86 --- consider how Randy Hyde was attacked for writing HLA and was eventually banned from clax --- and clax is a moderated forum. The attackers said that HLA was not an assembler --- HLA allows the user to globally define registers however, and that is the distinction between an assembler and a high-level language.
 
Please tell us which six you are so impressed by! Not me, presumably. I wrote the novice package (http://www.forth.org/novice.html), and everybody on comp.lang.forth says that I am wasting their time by mentioning it. Should I assume that you are in that broad category? I don't recall having seen much of anything from you on comp.lang.forth in the past, so I'm not clear on who or what you are --- why are you wasting our time with this thread?

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

#26444

On 10/12/2013 2:17 AM, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 11, 2013 10:55:49 PM UTC-7, 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.
>
> Moderation doesn't work all that well. Look at comp.lang.asm.x86 --- consider how Randy Hyde was attacked for writing HLA and was eventually banned from clax --- and clax is a moderated forum. The attackers said that HLA was not an assembler --- HLA allows the user to globally define registers however, and that is the distinction between an assembler and a high-level language.
>
> Please tell us which six you are so impressed by! Not me, presumably. I wrote the novice package (http://www.forth.org/novice.html), and everybody on comp.lang.forth says that I am wasting their time by mentioning it. Should I assume that you are in that broad category? I don't recall having seen much of anything from you on comp.lang.forth in the past, so I'm not clear on who or what you are --- why are you wasting our time with this thread?

Not *everybody* thinks you waste their time by mentioning your novice 
package.  I mean, you waste our time so many *other* ways the novice 
package hardly deserves a mention...  lol  Just kidding Hugh.  I 
couldn't resist.  I might actually take a look at your novice package 
someday.  I'm sure I could learn from it.  It's not like I am a highly 
experienced Forth programmer.

-- 

Rick

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

#26531

I like Rickman's comment:

> Not *everybody* thinks you waste their time by mentioning your novice 
> 
> package.  I mean, you waste our time so many *other* ways the novice 
> 
> package hardly deserves a mention...  lol  Just kidding Hugh.  I 
> 
> couldn't resist.  I might actually take a look at your novice package 
> 
> someday.  I'm sure I could learn from it.  It's not like I am a highly 
> 
> experienced Forth programmer.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
> Rick

I truly appreciate Hugh's Novice Package. That said it and it's goals are not a end-all be-all solution to me. I can envision projects where it could play a significant, fundamental role, and other projects where it would not be selected. That's the way of the world.

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

#26540

On Monday, October 14, 2013 5:06:31 PM UTC-7, Clyde W. Phillips Jr. wrote:
> I like Rickman's comment:
> 
> > Not *everybody* thinks you waste their time by mentioning your novice 
> > package.  I mean, you waste our time so many *other* ways the novice 
> > package hardly deserves a mention...  lol  Just kidding Hugh.  I 
> > couldn't resist.  I might actually take a look at your novice package 
> > someday.  I'm sure I could learn from it.  It's not like I am a highly 
> > experienced Forth programmer.

Rickman is purely a troll --- what you liked was actually sarcasm and you didn't realize it (he doesn't just overtly attack people like me, but he also tricks innocent souls such as yourself into agreeing with him when he means the opposite of what he's saying).

> I truly appreciate Hugh's Novice Package. That said it and it's goals are not a end-all be-all solution to me. I can envision projects where it could play a significant, fundamental role, and other projects where it would not be selected. That's the way of the world.

The novice package is mostly a collection of work-arounds to ANS-Forth flaws. The reason why everybody hates it is because it tends to shine a light on ANS-Forth flaws (obviously, why have an entire package of work-arounds to the flaws if there weren't any flaws). This is why most of the criticism is just vulgar, saying that it "sucks" or is "crap" etc. --- it is rare for anybody to say that it is not useful, and that is typically from people who haven't even downloaded it, but are just following the herd in criticizing it.

Anyway, thanks for saying that you "truly appreciate" it --- this is the first positive comment that anybody has ever made about it (since 2009 when I first released it). Previously, the closest that anybody ever came to saying anything positive about it was Paul Rubin who said that it was a lot of tedious code that anybody could have written, but that it was to my credit that I had taken the time to write it. In case you don't know who Paul Rubin is, this is an example of him posting some of his own Forth code:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/4TOUV67MQA0

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

#26569

On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 1:22:03 AM UTC-5, hughag...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 14, 2013 5:06:31 PM UTC-7, Clyde W. Phillips Jr. wrote:
> 
> > I like Rickman's comment:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Not *everybody* thinks you waste their time by mentioning your novice 
> 
> > > package.  I mean, you waste our time so many *other* ways the novice 
> 
> > > package hardly deserves a mention...  lol  Just kidding Hugh.  I 
> 
> > > couldn't resist.  I might actually take a look at your novice package 
> 
> > > someday.  I'm sure I could learn from it.  It's not like I am a highly 
> 
> > > experienced Forth programmer.
> 
> 
> 
> Rickman is purely a troll --- what you liked was actually sarcasm and you didn't realize it (he doesn't just overtly attack people like me, but he also tricks innocent souls such as yourself into agreeing with him when he means the opposite of what he's saying).
> 
> 
> 
> > I truly appreciate Hugh's Novice Package. That said it and it's goals are not a end-all be-all solution to me. I can envision projects where it could play a significant, fundamental role, and other projects where it would not be selected. That's the way of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> The novice package is mostly a collection of work-arounds to ANS-Forth flaws. The reason why everybody hates it is because it tends to shine a light on ANS-Forth flaws (obviously, why have an entire package of work-arounds to the flaws if there weren't any flaws). This is why most of the criticism is just vulgar, saying that it "sucks" or is "crap" etc. --- it is rare for anybody to say that it is not useful, and that is typically from people who haven't even downloaded it, but are just following the herd in criticizing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, thanks for saying that you "truly appreciate" it --- this is the first positive comment that anybody has ever made about it (since 2009 when I first released it). Previously, the closest that anybody ever came to saying anything positive about it was Paul Rubin who said that it was a lot of tedious code that anybody could have written, but that it was to my credit that I had taken the time to write it. In case you don't know who Paul Rubin is, this is an example of him posting some of his own Forth code:
> 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/4TOUV67MQA0

You are welcome but you are mistaken if you think I was taken by your view of his comment.

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

#26416

On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:55:49 -0400, Clyde W. Phillips Jr.  
<cwpjr02@gmail.com> wrote:

> I can think of six or a few more more I'd trust
> to keep this a Forth forum.
>

Moderation is a double-edged sword.

You eliminate content the moderator doesn't approve.
But, you also alienate those who post but are moderated
in whole or in part.  I.e., "quality" supposedly improves,
but then everyone stops posting because they keep getting
moderated.  I.e., they think or feel their contribution
is being disrepected, suppressed, or ignored via the
mandatory censorship called "moderation."

You also have the loss of interactiveness.  Moderation
introduces a delay before a message is posted.  A person
or automated list must approve each message.  It can
be minutes or hours to approve a post.  Messages are
relayed via email to the moderator for approval.  Some
Usenet servers don't support email forwarding, i.e.,
they don't allow posting to moderated groups.  They
allow reading...  You also have the potential issue
of loss of privacy and/or anonymity.  Some moderated
groups require valid email addresses.  That denies
some people their perceived rights.  So, they don't
post anymore.

Personally, I can't think of more than four people that
I'd trust, and it's only likely that two of them could
even be on your list...  I'm pretty sure the six you
trust aren't on my list.  I'm assuming these are longterm
regulars all of whom have severe bias issues, i.e.,
pre-existing non-resolved personal conflicts with other
people.  The two that I think could be on your list
likely aren't, although I believe they could be.  So,
they'd be 7 and 8 for you.  Then, of course, you have
the issue of whether any of them would want to do so.
It takes time to moderate.  You've presumed some of
those you trust would do so.  A sample set of six is
really too small a group to select from.  Of course,
all of this is ignoring the fact that you didn't
volunteer your time and life to do so, but asked
for others here to freely do the work *you* desire...


> Too many others are wasting my time here.

Your perspective is entirely backwards.

Ignoring the fact that you're rude, I'm truly tired of
the "greedy," ruthlessly self-centered assholes on Usenet
like you who somehow think we're here to enrich *you*
in some way.  How did you get that way?  What's wrong
with you that you think the value of others is only
their value to you?  Using that faulty logic, I could
easily claim that you waste my time by *not* posting
posts which inform me...  Using that faulty logic,
I could claim that since I've posted many posts, some
of which I can easily presume informed you of something,
that you owe me for my time and you should pay up by
posting something informative too...

We're not here to inform you, educate you, solve your
business problems, solve your homework, be your friend,
satisfy your demands of us, or anything else.  Whatever
we post is due to our own nature, hopefully, good nature,
but not always...  Sometimes, people who are out of control,
rude, inconsiderate, need to be reminded of their place.

So, if your time is being wasted, it's because you chose
to be here, post here, read here.  It's because you chose
to be unselective of what messages you read.  Although,
yes, it's true, most of the regulars can't maintain topic,
so message quality is on the decline.


Rod Pemberton

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

#26419

Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:55:49 -0400, Clyde W. Phillips Jr.  
> <cwpjr02@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I can think of six or a few more more I'd trust
>> to keep this a Forth forum.
>>
> 
> Moderation is a double-edged sword.
> 
> You eliminate content the moderator doesn't approve.
> But, you also alienate those who post but are moderated
> in whole or in part. 

So what?  As long as moderation is done right it's only flamers and
grossly off-topic postings that get moderated.

> You also have the loss of interactiveness.

That's the main problem, IMO.  That, and the extra work for the
moderator.

Andrew.

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

#26436

On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 06:44:04 -0400, Andrew Haley  
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:55:49 -0400, Clyde W. Phillips Jr.
>> <cwpjr02@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> I can think of six or a few more more I'd trust
>>> to keep this a Forth forum.
>>>
>>
>> Moderation is a double-edged sword.
>>
>> You eliminate content the moderator doesn't approve.
>> But, you also alienate those who post but are moderated
>> in whole or in part.
>
> So what?  As long as moderation is done right it's only
> flamers and grossly off-topic postings that get moderated.
>

Did you miss the point?  It's not just the "worst" who will
be moderated.  It'll be the many "regulars" too.  I.e., the
people you'd expect to be able to read without them being
moderated.  Their posts will be blocked, returned via email,
or censored, i.e., moderated, too.

E.g., if Bernd wanders onto history yet again, moderated.
If Ms. Rather promotes FORTH Inc., moderated.  If Stephen
promotes MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd, moderated.  If
Hans promotes 4th, moderated.  If Rick or Howerd wanders
into microprocessors, moderated.  If David or Hugh wanders
into Java and C, moderated.  If Arthur (mentifex) posts
about Artificial Intelligence, moderated.  If someone
mentions "carnal knowledge" of Forth, moderated.  If
someone mentions closures or co-routines for Forth,
moderated.  If someone mentions any dissenting viewpoint
or an unpopular perspective, moderated.  People like WJ,
Gavino, Passaniti, rickman, etc could be blocked outright
depending on the moderator.  80% of Hugh would be moderated
by almost any moderator: Tesco, anti-Ms. Rather, anti-C,
taxi-cabs, Testra, ...  Hugh's posts wouldn't make any
sense after being censored.  At least, we can understand
them now.  This isn't FUD.  You need only look at a
well moderated group like comp.compilers.

I.e., once you get done moderating everyone fairly,
consistenlty, what's left?  Boring Forth code.  Boring
Forth specification interpretation.  The regulars can't
stay on-topic as-is, i.e., discuss Forth, because they're
so burnt-out from seeing Forth code for days and years,
a never ending, nightmare or hell.  I'd say only four
people here would be unmoderated...  That's out of what?
100? 120?


Rod Pemberton

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

#26455

On 10/12/13 2:16 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 06:44:04 -0400, Andrew Haley
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:55:49 -0400, Clyde W. Phillips Jr.
>>> <cwpjr02@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I can think of six or a few more more I'd trust
>>>> to keep this a Forth forum.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Moderation is a double-edged sword.
>>>
>>> You eliminate content the moderator doesn't approve.
>>> But, you also alienate those who post but are moderated
>>> in whole or in part.
>>
>> So what?  As long as moderation is done right it's only
>> flamers and grossly off-topic postings that get moderated.
>>
>
> Did you miss the point?  It's not just the "worst" who will
> be moderated.  It'll be the many "regulars" too.  I.e., the
> people you'd expect to be able to read without them being
> moderated.  Their posts will be blocked, returned via email,
> or censored, i.e., moderated, too.
>
> E.g., if Bernd wanders onto history yet again, moderated.
> If Ms. Rather promotes FORTH Inc., moderated.  If Stephen
> promotes MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd, moderated.  If
> Hans promotes 4th, moderated.  If Rick or Howerd wanders
> into microprocessors, moderated.  If David or Hugh wanders
> into Java and C, moderated.  If Arthur (mentifex) posts
> about Artificial Intelligence, moderated.  If someone
> mentions "carnal knowledge" of Forth, moderated.  If
> someone mentions closures or co-routines for Forth,
> moderated.  If someone mentions any dissenting viewpoint
> or an unpopular perspective, moderated.  People like WJ,
> Gavino, Passaniti, rickman, etc could be blocked outright
> depending on the moderator.  80% of Hugh would be moderated
> by almost any moderator: Tesco, anti-Ms. Rather, anti-C,
> taxi-cabs, Testra, ...  Hugh's posts wouldn't make any
> sense after being censored.  At least, we can understand
> them now.  This isn't FUD.  You need only look at a
> well moderated group like comp.compilers.
>
> I.e., once you get done moderating everyone fairly,
> consistenlty, what's left?  Boring Forth code.  Boring
> Forth specification interpretation.  The regulars can't
> stay on-topic as-is, i.e., discuss Forth, because they're
> so burnt-out from seeing Forth code for days and years,
> a never ending, nightmare or hell.  I'd say only four
> people here would be unmoderated...  That's out of what?
> 100? 120?

It all depends on who's doing the moderating and what the rules are. I'm 
active on several boards that are moderated superbly.

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]

#26457

Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 06:44:04 -0400, Andrew Haley  
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:55:49 -0400, Clyde W. Phillips Jr.
>>> <cwpjr02@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> I can think of six or a few more more I'd trust
>>>> to keep this a Forth forum.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Moderation is a double-edged sword.
>>>
>>> You eliminate content the moderator doesn't approve.
>>> But, you also alienate those who post but are moderated
>>> in whole or in part.
>>
>> So what?  As long as moderation is done right it's only
>> flamers and grossly off-topic postings that get moderated.
>>
> 
> Did you miss the point?  It's not just the "worst" who will be
> moderated.  It'll be the many "regulars" too.  I.e., the people
> you'd expect to be able to read without them being moderated.  Their
> posts will be blocked, returned via email, or censored, i.e.,
> moderated, too.
> 
> E.g., if Bernd wanders onto history yet again, moderated.  If
> Ms. Rather promotes FORTH Inc., moderated.  If Stephen promotes
> MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd, moderated.  If Hans promotes 4th,
> moderated.  If Rick or Howerd wanders into microprocessors,
> moderated.  If David or Hugh wanders into Java and C, moderated.

That's not moderation is done right: it's moderation done wrong.

> If Arthur (mentifex) posts about Artificial Intelligence, moderated.
> If someone mentions "carnal knowledge" of Forth, moderated.  If
> someone mentions closures or co-routines for Forth, moderated.  If
> someone mentions any dissenting viewpoint or an unpopular
> perspective, moderated.  People like WJ, Gavino, Passaniti, rickman,
> etc could be blocked outright depending on the moderator.  80% of
> Hugh would be moderated by almost any moderator: Tesco,
> anti-Ms. Rather, anti-C, taxi-cabs, Testra, ...  Hugh's posts
> wouldn't make any sense after being censored.  At least, we can
> understand them now.  This isn't FUD.  You need only look at a well
> moderated group like comp.compilers.

That doesn't sound like a well-moderated group.

Andrew.

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

#26463

On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 03:21:42 -0400, Andrew Haley  
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 06:44:04 -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."

I demonstrated what should be moderated, now snipped.


Rod Pemberton

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

#26464

Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 03:21:42 -0400, Andrew Haley  
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 06:44:04 -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.

You produced an example of what might happen if the group were very
tightly moderated in a vain attempt to show that moderation wouldn't
work.  But you didn't show that at all: you showed that bad moderation
wouldn't work.  I agree that bad moderation wouldn't work.

Your list of what would be blocked was a bit preposterous.  Of course,
Forth vendors promoting their Forths would be on-topic.  (Not that
that happens much.)  Microprocessors are on topic as long as there is
a connection with Forth, maybe even if there isn't: it depends on the
moderation policy.  Java and C likewise: comparisons with other
languages are on-topic.  "Carnal knowledge" of Forth, on-topic.
Closures or coroutines, on-topic.  Dissenting viewpoints on Forth, as
long as they aren't just flames, on-topic.

Things that you correctly said would be blocked by any reasonable
moderator: many of Hugh's posts, because they are either grossly
abusive or grossly off-topic.  People wandering off into discussions
about history would also be grossly off-topic, so blocked.  Mentifex
posts?  Somehwat Forth-related, so maybe some would go through.

Andrew.

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

#26474

On Sunday, October 13, 2013 3:53:36 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: 
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 03:21:42 -0400, Andrew Haley 
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: 
> >> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: 
>>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 06:44:04 -0400, Andrew Haley 
>>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: 
> >>> [...] Mentifex posts? Somehwat Forth-related, 
> >>> so maybe some would go through. 
> >>> Andrew.

No, none would go through, because 
MODERATION IF MENTIFEX_BYE_BYE THEN

Arthur (Mentifex)
-- 
Can you read free-preview Forth code?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FKJY1WY 
Can you read German? 
http://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/de.sci.informatik.ki/3pSWJCs_eE8 

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

#26492

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:
>>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 06:44:04 -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?

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?

> You produced an example of what might happen if the group
> were very tightly moderated in a vain attempt to show that
> moderation wouldn't work.

No, I stated what should be moderated.  Again, that's in
accordance with the Usenet charter for comp.lang.forth,
which I posted for reference.

I also stated what happens when moderation is implemented:
everyone leaves...  I also told why: censorship is disrespectful.
I also pointed out that it's not just the "worst of the worst,"
or those temporarily "gone bad," but the "regulars" who will
leave too.  That's what happens when you can't get your entire
point across due to "moderation."  I.e., most don't really
like it, even if they supported it initially for valid reasons.

> But you didn't show that at all: you showed that bad
> moderation wouldn't work.  I agree that bad moderation
> wouldn't work.

You haven't defined what good moderation is to you, yet.
I don't see why I have to presume what you mean by "bad
moderation."  What was bad about it?  Everything I
stated should be moderated was in accordance with this
groups' charter.  It clearly wasn't my personal desires.
As you well know, I'd allow anything C related.  I also
don't have much of a problem with a good portion of Hugh's
rants, but not the faulty understanding of C stuff, incorrect
history, etc...

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.

> Your list of what would be blocked was a bit preposterous.

Why?

See comp.compilers still moderated by John Levine.

See comp.lang.asm.x86 (c.l.a.x.) before Charles Crayne passed away.

etc.

> Of course, Forth vendors promoting their Forths would be on-topic.

Yes, you missed the point.  If you were moderator, you wouldn't
censor Ms. Rather or Stephen Pelc for promoting Forth products.
Personally, I doubt you'd censor either of them at all no matter
how egregious their comments might be some day.

> Microprocessors are on topic as long as there is
> a connection with Forth, maybe even if there isn't:

How many have had a connection with Forth in the past year?  Do
you know off-hand?  Is it like 10%? 20%?  I know it's very little
because I keep complaining about rickman posting...
I'd guess that at least 50% of the microprocessor posts over the
past year have been purely non-Forth.  Zip, zero, nada.

> it depends on the moderation policy.

See the comp.lang.forth Usenet charter.  The charter is the
moderation policy for moderated groups.  That's why c.l.a.x.
changed their policies prior to "robo-moderation".  Their
policies are much more liberal in part due to my input.  But,
for c.l.f., ISTM you're espousing very liberal moderation,
which is basically what we already have without moderation.
If you don't want strict moderation, what's the point?

> Java and C likewise:

See the comp.lang.forth Usenet charter.  That is the moderation
policy for comp.lang.forth, if moderated.  Do you plan to introduce
a new charter prior to implementing moderation?  That would be
prudent given that you clearly don't agree with the Usenet charter
for comp.lang.forth as expressed by it's current three words...

> comparisons with other languages are on-topic.

off-topic?

Seems off-topic from what I've seen for the past seven years...

At least, everyone attacks comparisons of Forth to other
languages, even if that conversation would be fruitful.
AIR, Ms. Rather recently indirectly stated she _always_
interprets these as "flames."  The groups seems to do so too.

> "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.

A politically correct and socially acceptable phrase might be:

   "implementation specific details"

or, perhaps an abbreviation for the phrase: ISD.

> Closures or coroutines, on-topic.

These have nothing to do with Forth.  How can these be
declared on-topic if c.l.f. is moderated to restrict
conversation to: "Discussion about Forth?"  Clearly,
three words are insufficient from your perspective.

> Dissenting viewpoints on Forth, as long as they aren't
> just flames, on-topic.

Who decides what is or isn't a "flame?"  You?  Everything is
a "straw man" to you and much of the rest is a "flame."  If
it's not those, then it's off-topic...  Alex McDonald?
Everything non-Forth is perceived as an "off the chandelier"
falsehood by him.  Ms. Rather?  (hyper-conservative)
Hugh Aquilar? (too rant-ical)  I.e., there isn't a person here
who posts frequently, i.e., cares enough to moderate, that
isn't biased in some major way.  When are you going to accept
that?  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.


Rod Pemberton

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

#26494

On 10/13/13 9:19 PM, Rod Pemberton 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:
>>>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 06:44:04 -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.

"Discussion about Forth" strikes me as a fairly broad topic. Forth 
standards? Forth implementation strategies? Newbie Forth questions? 
Available Forth products, both commercial and PD/open source? Forth help 
questions? Forth benchmarks? Forth code examples? All those, plus 
probably more, strike me as being "discussion about Forth".

What is not: personal attacks; unsubstantiated attacks; political 
discussion; discussion of merits of other languages; probably more.

As I said before, I have participated in moderated as well as 
unmoderated groups. Much depends, obviously, on the skill and 
disposition of the moderator, but it can produce very civil and useful 
discussions.

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]

#26533

On Monday, October 14, 2013 3:00:57 AM UTC-5, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 10/13/13 9:19 PM, Rod Pemberton 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:
> 
> >>>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
> 
> >>>>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 06:44:04 -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.
> 
> 
> 
> "Discussion about Forth" strikes me as a fairly broad topic. Forth 
> 
> standards? Forth implementation strategies? Newbie Forth questions? 
> 
> Available Forth products, both commercial and PD/open source? Forth help 
> 
> questions? Forth benchmarks? Forth code examples? All those, plus 
> 
> probably more, strike me as being "discussion about Forth".
> 
> 
> 
> What is not: personal attacks; unsubstantiated attacks; political 
> 
> discussion; discussion of merits of other languages; probably more.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, I have participated in moderated as well as 
> 
> unmoderated groups. Much depends, obviously, on the skill and 
> 
> disposition of the moderator, but it can produce very civil and useful 
> 
> discussions.
> 
> 
> 
> 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."
> 
> ==================================================

I'm good with your statement. As if it means much outside of the both of us.

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

#26498

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:
>>>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 06:44:04 -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: we tend to disagree.  That's
OK.

> 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.

You proposed an insanely restrictive moderation policy and used it as
an argument against moderation per se.  A straw man argument is "a
common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on
misrepresentation of an opponent's position." [Wikipedia]  I have
never seen a more blatant example of a straw man argument.

>> You produced an example of what might happen if the group
>> were very tightly moderated in a vain attempt to show that
>> moderation wouldn't work.
> 
> No, I stated what should be moderated.

A statement that contains "should" but not "because..." is incomplete.
Why on Earth should c.l.f. be moderated like that?

> Again, that's in accordance with the Usenet charter for
> comp.lang.forth, which I posted for reference.

Is there a charter for c.l.f. ?  I don't think I've seen one.
"Discussion about Forth" hardly constitutes a charter.

> 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.

>> But you didn't show that at all: you showed that bad
>> moderation wouldn't work.  I agree that bad moderation
>> wouldn't work.
> 
> You haven't defined what good moderation is to you, yet.

Sure I have.  No abuse, flames, or grossly off-topic postings.  With
lots of leeway and flexibility.

> I don't see why I have to presume what you mean by "bad moderation."
> What was bad about it?

It was far, far, too narrowly drawn IMO.  So strict as to make any kind
of conversation impossible.

> Everything I stated should be moderated was in accordance with this
> groups' charter.  It clearly wasn't my personal desires.  As you
> well know, I'd allow anything C related.  I also don't have much of
> a problem with a good portion of Hugh's rants, but not the faulty
> understanding of C stuff, incorrect history, etc...

Sure, but you'd not block a post for being incorrect, would you?

> 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.  I don't have to post an elaborate thesis
saying what I'd do instead.  I might choose to do so.

>> Of course, Forth vendors promoting their Forths would be on-topic.
> 
> Yes, you missed the point.  If you were moderator, you wouldn't
> censor Ms. Rather or Stephen Pelc for promoting Forth products.

Why would anyone block such things, should any be posted?  They're not
off-topic.

> Personally, I doubt you'd censor either of them at all no matter how
> egregious their comments might be some day.
>
>> Microprocessors are on topic as long as there is a connection with
>> Forth, maybe even if there isn't:
> 
> How many have had a connection with Forth in the past year?  Do
> you know off-hand?  Is it like 10%? 20%?  I know it's very little
> because I keep complaining about rickman posting...

I don't know.

> I'd guess that at least 50% of the microprocessor posts over the
> past year have been purely non-Forth.  Zip, zero, nada.
> 
>> it depends on the moderation policy.
> 
> See the comp.lang.forth Usenet charter.  The charter is the
> moderation policy for moderated groups.  That's why c.l.a.x.
> changed their policies prior to "robo-moderation".  Their policies
> are much more liberal in part due to my input.  But, for c.l.f.,
> ISTM you're espousing very liberal moderation, which is basically
> what we already have without moderation.  If you don't want strict
> moderation, what's the point?

It's be nice to be rid of the more egregious flames, but I don't think
there is a point to moderation, and besides that it's almost
impossible to change an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup to a moderated
one.  You'd have to create a new group, c.l.f.moderated, and try to
persuade people to go there.

>> Java and C likewise:
> 
> See the comp.lang.forth Usenet charter.  That is the moderation
> policy for comp.lang.forth, if moderated.  Do you plan to introduce
> a new charter prior to implementing moderation?  That would be
> prudent given that you clearly don't agree with the Usenet charter
> for comp.lang.forth as expressed by it's current three words...

Three words is not a moderation policy.  Of course there would have to
be a charter prior to implementing moderation.  But, as I said, it
would have to be a new group anyway.

>> comparisons with other languages are on-topic.
> 
> off-topic?
> 
> Seems off-topic from what I've seen for the past seven years...
> 
> At least, everyone attacks comparisons of Forth to other languages,
> even if that conversation would be fruitful.  AIR, Ms. Rather
> recently indirectly stated she _always_ interprets these as
> "flames."  The groups seems to do so too.

Even if attacked, that doesn't mean they're off-topic, or should be
blocked.

>> "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.

> A politically correct and socially acceptable phrase might be:
> 
>   "implementation specific details"
> 
> or, perhaps an abbreviation for the phrase: ISD.
> 
>> Closures or coroutines, on-topic.
> 
> These have nothing to do with Forth.

Sure they do.

> How can these be declared on-topic if c.l.f. is moderated to
> restrict conversation to: "Discussion about Forth?"  Clearly, three
> words are insufficient from your perspective.

 Well, of course.  There would have to be a moderation policy.
"Discussion about Forth" is hardly that.

>> Dissenting viewpoints on Forth, as long as they aren't just flames,
>> on-topic.
> 
> Who decides what is or isn't a "flame?"  You?

The moderator.  It's usually pretty obvious.

> Everything is a "straw man" to you and much of the rest is a
> "flame."

Not everything, no.  Most of the discussion here is still
characterized by rational and serous discussion.  Purely abusive or
fallacious postings aren't so common.

> If it's not those, then it's off-topic...  Alex McDonald?
> Everything non-Forth is perceived as an "off the chandelier"
> falsehood by him.  Ms. Rather?  (hyper-conservative) Hugh Aquilar?
> (too rant-ical) I.e., there isn't a person here who posts
> frequently, i.e., cares enough to moderate, that isn't biased in
> some major way.

That's almost certainly true.

> When are you going to accept that?

Me, personally?  Never.

> 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.

Andrew.

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

#26534

I am good with these comments also. And I applaud you for attempting to explain your perspective.

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

#26536

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:
>>>>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 06:44:04 -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.

> You proposed an insanely restrictive moderation policy

No, I didn't.  I didn't _propose_ *ANY* moderation.

That's entirely *your* misunderstanding.

I simply stated what *would be* moderated according to the charter.

You seem to to want to turn it into an argument about me or opposing
me in some way...

> and used it as an argument against moderation per se.

Again, I didn't _propose_ *ANY* moderation.  Re-read.

> A straw man argument is "a common type of argument and is
> an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an
> opponent's position." [Wikipedia]  I have never seen a
> more blatant example of a straw man argument.
>

This straw man argument only exists in your mind due to
failure to comprehend what was stated.  I can't help you
with that.  I can only repeat, gain, that you misunderstood.

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

According to whom?

And, what would be the "because" points were made first,
earlier...

> Why on Earth should c.l.f. be moderated like that?

That's the Usenet charter.  That's why.

>> Again, that's in accordance with the Usenet charter for
>> comp.lang.forth, which I posted for reference.
>
> Is there a charter for c.l.f. ?

Yes.

> I don't think I've seen one.

Sure you did.  I (re)posted it since it's difficult to locate.

> "Discussion about Forth" hardly constitutes a charter.

That's the official Usenet charter for comp.lang.forth.

>> 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.

>>> But you didn't show that at all: you showed that bad
>>> moderation wouldn't work.  I agree that bad moderation
>>> wouldn't work.
>>
>> You haven't defined what good moderation is to you, yet.
>
> Sure I have.

No, you didn't.

> No abuse, flames, or grossly off-topic postings.  With
> lots of leeway and flexibility.

Now, you have.

>> I don't see why I have to presume what you mean by
>> "bad moderation."   What was bad about it?
>
> It was far, far, too narrowly drawn IMO.  So strict as
> to make any kind of conversation impossible.

It's in accordance with the charter.  Everything listed was not
"Discussion about Forth."  I.e., "moderate-able".

>> Everything I stated should be moderated was in accordance with this
>> groups' charter.  It clearly wasn't my personal desires.  As you
>> well know, I'd allow anything C related.  I also don't have much of
>> a problem with a good portion of Hugh's rants, but not the faulty
>> understanding of C stuff, incorrect history, etc...
>
> Sure, but you'd not block a post for being incorrect, would you?
>

I wouldn't block any posts.  I don't currently...  I can inspire
people to stop posting through words: logical, vile, etc.

How would I get to correct, er... educate, Hugh in an open forum if
I blocked everything wrong that he posted?  Duh...

I have no plans to moderate either.  So, why are you making this
about me?

>> 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.  You mostly
deride and denigrate, e.g., "bad moderation", "insanely restrictive".

>> [...]
> Why would anyone block such things, should any be posted?
> They're not off-topic.
>

They are off-topic.  *READ* the charter...

>>> "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?  I must take that as "insanely"
dry tongue-in-cheek...

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

Whatever...

Here is a "polite" description:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnal_knowledge

That was the 2nd found search result, BTW.

>> A politically correct and socially acceptable phrase might be:
>>
>>   "implementation specific details"
>>
>> or, perhaps an abbreviation for the phrase: ISD.
>>
>>> Closures or coroutines, on-topic.
>>
>> These have nothing to do with Forth.
>
> Sure they do.
>

Are they currently a part of Forth?  No.  I.e., off-topic,
because it's not: "Discussion about Forth."

>> How can these be declared on-topic if c.l.f. is moderated to
>> restrict conversation to: "Discussion about Forth?"  Clearly,
>> three words are insufficient from your perspective.
>
>  Well, of course.  There would have to be a moderation policy.
> "Discussion about Forth" is hardly that.
>

It would be.

>>> Dissenting viewpoints on Forth, as long as they aren't just
>>> flames, on-topic.
>>
>> Who decides what is or isn't a "flame?"  You?
>
> The moderator.  It's usually pretty obvious.
>

Apparently not, given your misunderstanding of things in the
present and past...

>> Everything is a "straw man" to you and much of the rest is a
>> "flame."
>
> Not everything, no.

Not much, though.

> Most of the discussion here is still characterized by
> rational and serous discussion.

Does that include your side of the conversation in
this thread? ...

> 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.

>> 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?  Amazing...


Rod Pemberton

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web