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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #223656 > unrolled thread

technical terms overhaul

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  technical terms overhaul Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2020-06-19 21:20 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-06-19 21:40 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-19 21:50 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-06-19 22:00 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-19 22:10 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul ghe2001 <ghe2001@protonmail.com> - 2020-06-19 22:20 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-19 22:20 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-06-19 22:20 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2020-06-20 02:40 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-06-20 05:00 +0200
                  Re: technical terms overhaul ghe2001 <ghe2001@protonmail.com> - 2020-06-20 05:30 +0200
                  Re: technical terms overhaul Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-06-20 06:20 +0200
                  Re: technical terms overhaul Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2020-06-20 09:30 +0200
                    Re: technical terms overhaul Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-06-20 16:00 +0200
                      Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 16:40 +0200
                      Re: technical terms overhaul Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2020-06-20 21:10 +0200
                    Re: technical terms overhaul Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2020-06-20 18:00 +0200
                      Re: technical terms overhaul Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2020-06-22 15:50 +0200
                        Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-22 19:20 +0200
                          Re: technical terms overhaul Paul Johnson <baloo@ursamundi.org> - 2020-06-22 19:30 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-19 23:50 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 18:10 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-06-19 23:50 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-06-19 22:40 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-19 23:50 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2020-06-20 03:40 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul riveravaldez <riveravaldezmail@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 00:00 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2020-06-20 12:00 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-06-20 14:10 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-06-20 15:30 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-06-20 00:00 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-06-20 00:50 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 05:50 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2020-06-21 07:00 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 07:50 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul Stephan Seitz <stse+debian@rootsland.net> - 2020-06-21 12:20 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul fmneto@gmail.com - 2020-06-19 21:50 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> - 2020-06-19 22:30 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2020-06-19 23:10 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul elvis <elvis@dogonfire.com> - 2020-06-20 16:10 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-06-20 18:10 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Paul Johnson <baloo@ursamundi.org> - 2020-06-19 22:40 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2020-06-20 01:10 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 01:30 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 01:40 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 01:40 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2020-06-20 03:40 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 13:30 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-06-20 14:00 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 17:00 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Default User <hunguponcontent@gmail.com> - 2020-06-19 23:40 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Andrea Borgia <andrea@borgia.bo.it> - 2020-06-20 11:30 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-19 23:50 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-06-20 01:10 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2020-06-20 01:20 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-20 03:20 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul davidson@freevolt.org - 2020-06-20 04:00 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-06-20 03:10 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2020-06-20 03:30 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul elvis <elvis@dogonfire.com> - 2020-06-20 16:10 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 19:40 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-06-20 20:20 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 22:30 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-06-20 20:50 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 22:40 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-06-20 23:20 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 23:30 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 05:40 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-06-21 08:20 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-06-21 09:40 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-06-21 11:10 +0200
                  Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 11:40 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-06-20 21:00 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Francisco Mariano Neto <fmneto@usp.br> - 2020-06-20 21:40 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 22:50 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-06-20 21:40 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 23:00 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-06-21 08:00 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 08:40 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-06-21 19:50 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 22:10 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2020-06-20 22:20 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 23:00 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 07:50 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-06-21 17:40 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> - 2020-06-21 12:20 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2020-06-21 13:30 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 14:00 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2020-06-21 14:20 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-06-21 16:50 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2020-06-21 17:50 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-06-21 16:20 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 19:00 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-06-21 19:10 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul Peter Ehlert <peter@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-06-21 20:30 +0200
                  Re: technical terms overhaul "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> - 2020-06-21 21:00 +0200
                    Re: technical terms overhaul Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2020-06-21 22:50 +0200
                    Re: technical terms overhaul Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2020-06-21 23:30 +0200
                      Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-21 23:30 +0200
                        Re: technical terms overhaul davidson@freevolt.org - 2020-06-21 23:40 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2020-06-21 19:30 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul nemo <moelmoel2714@gmail.com> - 2020-06-23 22:50 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-06-21 15:10 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-21 18:00 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 21:30 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-06-21 22:30 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-21 23:00 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 23:10 +0200

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#223761

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sb, 20 iun 20, 19:33:16, deloptes wrote:
> 
> I asked them how would
> they approach the fact that logically only one thing can be considered
> correct/normal (by logic and ontology there is either P or not P that can
> be true). 

Others have already addressed your logic better than I could.

Instead I'd like to point out that "normal" is basically just some state 
agreed on by a specific majority.

Or maybe you think that everyone should be running Windows and Linux 
doesn't make any sense?

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

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

#223762

On another note, I hear from now on white bread is to be referred to as
`privilege loaf'.
-- 
`Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false,
and by the rulers as useful'.

— Lucius Annæus Seneca.

Terrorism, the new religion.

Registered Linux User: 554515

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

#223768

Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> Others have already addressed your logic better than I could.
> 
> Instead I'd like to point out that "normal" is basically just some state
> agreed on by a specific majority.
> 
> Or maybe you think that everyone should be running Windows and Linux
> doesn't make any sense?

false logic Andrei

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

#223800

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sb, 20 iun 20, 22:50:44, deloptes wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 
> > Others have already addressed your logic better than I could.
> > 
> > Instead I'd like to point out that "normal" is basically just some state
> > agreed on by a specific majority.
> > 
> > Or maybe you think that everyone should be running Windows and Linux
> > doesn't make any sense?
> 
> false logic Andrei

Apparently we are talking past each other, so I will stop here.
 
Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

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

#223831

On Sunday, June 21, 2020 01:48:08 AM Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 20 iun 20, 22:50:44, deloptes wrote:
> > Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > > Others have already addressed your logic better than I could.
> > > 
> > > Instead I'd like to point out that "normal" is basically just some
> > > state agreed on by a specific majority.
> > > 
> > > Or maybe you think that everyone should be running Windows and Linux
> > > doesn't make any sense?
> > 
> > false logic Andrei

From the peanut gallery (and with tongue in cheek), that is indeed false logic 
-- the one true answer (the one that everyone should be running) is Linux, not 
Windows. ;-)

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

#223817

Hi there


On 19/06/2020 21:14, Eike Lantzsch wrote:

> On the danger of starting a flame war ...
> thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian
> 
> instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist" I would like to propose the terms:
> "allowlist" and "rejectlist"
> instead of (for example on disk drives) "master" and "slave" I like to propose
> the terms:
> "lead" and "lag" which are e.g. used when electrically managing two pumps
> working on the same hydraulic circuit.
> 
> What do you think?

How about parent, child, kill, zombie, cooked, raw, sane.
Male, female, bisex connectors.
Red and black.
In a classic concurrent server, a client connects. The parent creates a 
child. The child does all the work (child labour). After the work is 
done the child commits suicide or gets killed by the parent.

These metaphors are not necessarily very nice. The main thing is that 
they are clear.


Regards,
Rob

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

#223819

On Sunday, 21 June 2020 06:11:58 -04 Rob van der Putten wrote:
> Hi there
>
> On 19/06/2020 21:14, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
> > On the danger of starting a flame war ...
> > thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian
> >
> > instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist" I would like to propose the terms:
> > "allowlist" and "rejectlist"
> > instead of (for example on disk drives) "master" and "slave" I like to
> > propose the terms:
> > "lead" and "lag" which are e.g. used when electrically managing two pumps
> > working on the same hydraulic circuit.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> How about parent, child, kill, zombie, cooked, raw, sane.
> Male, female, bisex connectors.
> Red and black.
> In a classic concurrent server, a client connects. The parent creates a
> child. The child does all the work (child labour). After the work is
> done the child commits suicide or gets killed by the parent.
>
> These metaphors are not necessarily very nice. The main thing is that
> they are clear.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rob

Hi also,
Yep, it is true that working on the symptoms does not cure the malady.
The terms white for good/acceptable and black for bad/unacceptable are not the
problem. The problem is that those terms with exact this connotation are
applied to human beings not for what they do as individuals but to exclude
them from privileges or to look down upon them. Debian however will have a
hard time to change the world in that respect. It can only reflect another way
of thinking by adjusting its technical terms. If the change of technical terms
without also changing the thinking is worthwhile to do, I don't know. Language
is revealing and serves to convey thoughts and feelings. I think, however,
that it is necessary to avoid the "language of the fiend"[1]. If we change the
language it might change the mind little by little - or not at all. Depends on
which influences on a person or group of persons is stronger. ("For mere
oppression may make a wise one act crazy, ..."[2])
Actually, on the other hand, changing the technical terms might rob
underprivileged people of the oportunity to pinpoint the offending acts/
thinking and that would surely be worse.

Kind regards
Eike

[1] https://ids-pub.bsz-bw.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/9127
I don't know about the availability of the book in English. Even the term
"Sprache des Unmenschen" is difficult to translate.
[2] Finding out where the citations are from, I leave as an exercise to the
reader - it should be easy. Yes, I checked it. It is easy.
--
Eike Lantzsch ZP6CGE
[2] "Again I turned my attention to all the acts of oppression that go on
under the sun. I saw the tears of the oppressed, and there was no one to
comfort them. And their oppressors had the power, and there was no one to
comfort them."

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

#223821

Eike Lantzsch wrote:

> If we change the
> language it might change the mind little by little - or not at all.
> Depends on which influences on a person or group of persons is stronger.
> ("For mere oppression may make a wise one act crazy, ..."[2])

You have obviously no idea of how language works - you are trying
dictatorship.
Language serves communication needs. Language follows our society.
So please - go change the real problems in society that is really not the
language.
Let me give you an example:
Some 40-50y ago you did not like the word Neger, so it was replaced with
Black. You did nothing all those 50y to change the perception of black. Now
you have problem with the word Black ... I bet in 50y you will still have
the same problem.

As for me my children know very well what is white/black race and know very
well what means to be tolerant or in your language "political correct".
This proves that only through education/enlightment you can reach the goal.
Start educating yourself first!

Think about and have a good day.

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

#223822

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 13:51:18 +0200
deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> wrote:


> 
> As for me my children know very well what is white/black race and
> know very well what means to be tolerant or in your language
> "political correct".

Sorry to disagree, but 'tolerant' and 'politically correct' do not
belong in the same sentence. The politically correct are as intolerant
as Puritans.

-- 
Joe

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

#223829

Joe writes:
> Sorry to disagree, but 'tolerant' and 'politically correct' do not
> belong in the same sentence.

The term "politically correct" has been pretty much destroyed and is now
just an epithet always used with intent to insult.  It originated with
the far left to mean just what it says.  Example: I once overheard the
statement "There isn't a single politically correct grocery store left
in all of Berkley!" spoken by a frustrated woman who wanted to do the
right thing in accord with her ideology.

They overused the term and carried it it extremes as ideologues will and
then the right started using it to poke fun at them. They succeeded in
converting it to a term of derision, and that's what it is today.

> The politically correct are as intolerant as Puritans.

All ideologues are as intolerant as Puritans.  The latter were a prime
example.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#223832

If I were about to do any technical terms overhaul, I'd keep two
considerations front of mind.
1) are the proposed replacements at least equally descriptive or better,
and
2) Do the proposed replacements use the same letter counts or smaller
letter counts than the original terms?
If the proposed replacements pass both tests, I'd document them in
definitions dictionaries and in terms used lists in technical memorandums
that were to be written so those who had used the older terminology
wouldn't get lost in the memorandums and other documents.
That's just my perspective on this whole thread, your mileage will vary.


-- 

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

#223827

deloptes writes:
> Some 40-50y ago you did not like the word Neger, so it was replaced
> with Black. You did nothing all those 50y to change the perception of
> black. Now you have problem with the word Black

Wrong.  "Nigger" (a corruption of negro) was only used by whites and
always had derogatory connotations.  "Black" originated with blacks and
has no derogatory connotations (except as used by racist whites who
would say "nigger" if they could get away with it).  It is what blacks I
know call themselves.  "African-american", on the other hand, is a
euphemism manufactured by liberal whites.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#223835

John Hasler wrote:

> Wrong.  "Nigger" (a corruption of negro) was only used by whites and
> always had derogatory connotations.  "Black" originated with blacks and
> has no derogatory connotations (except as used by racist whites who
> would say "nigger" if they could get away with it).  It is what blacks I
> know call themselves.  "African-american", on the other hand, is a
> euphemism manufactured by liberal whites.

Nigger because they were mostly brought from Nigeria, no? and you see
something happened with language - the black did not like white calling
them negro or nigger, but they accepted calling themselves like this.
AFAIK white accepted calling them black. Now suddenly black becomes a
problem. Why? Again some liberals stir up the waters the wrong way? 
I did not hear any black complaining being called black - might be I am
wrong, but challenging black/white list and other technical terms is
supreme stupidity.

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

#223837

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2020-06-21 at 12:53, deloptes wrote:

> John Hasler wrote:
> 
>> Wrong.  "Nigger" (a corruption of negro) was only used by whites
>> and always had derogatory connotations.  "Black" originated with
>> blacks and has no derogatory connotations (except as used by racist
>> whites who would say "nigger" if they could get away with it).  It
>> is what blacks I know call themselves.  "African-american", on the
>> other hand, is a euphemism manufactured by liberal whites.
> 
> Nigger because they were mostly brought from Nigeria, no?

No.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/nigger


(As it happens, I do also dislike the push to try to change the terms
"blacklist" and "whitelist", for reasons more linguistic than anything
else I've managed to even half-articulate. Despite that, I find the
positions and arguments you've been expressing in this thread to be
significantly more objectionable than that push itself, and I think that
if anything you're doing the "cause" of opposing such a change
considerably more harm than good; I might sooner concede that fight than
join forces with such arguments to try to win it.)

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

#223840

On 6/21/20 10:01 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2020-06-21 at 12:53, deloptes wrote:
>
>> John Hasler wrote:
>>
>>> Wrong.  "Nigger" (a corruption of negro) was only used by whites
>>> and always had derogatory connotations.  "Black" originated with
>>> blacks and has no derogatory connotations (except as used by racist
>>> whites who would say "nigger" if they could get away with it).  It
>>> is what blacks I know call themselves.  "African-american", on the
>>> other hand, is a euphemism manufactured by liberal whites.
>> Nigger because they were mostly brought from Nigeria, no?
> No.
>
> https://www.etymonline.com/word/nigger
>
>
> (As it happens, I do also dislike the push to try to change the terms
> "blacklist" and "whitelist", for reasons more linguistic than anything
> else I've managed to even half-articulate. Despite that, I find the
> positions and arguments you've been expressing in this thread to be
> significantly more objectionable than that push itself, and I think that
> if anything you're doing the "cause" of opposing such a change
> considerably more harm than good; I might sooner concede that fight than
> join forces with such arguments to try to win it.)
I have been biting my tongue...

I empathically agree: "I find the positions and arguments you've been 
expressing in this thread to be significantly more objectionable than 
that push itself, and I think that if anything you're doing the "cause" 
of opposing such a change considerably more harm than good"

in my own words... Please just drop it.
It Ain't Broke

Peter

>

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

#223843

Personally, if I were a moderator on this List, I would order this 
thread terminated with extreme prejudice.

--
JHHL

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

#223851

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 11:55:51 -0700
"James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> wrote:

> Personally, if I were a moderator on this List, I would order this 
> thread terminated with extreme prejudice.

Hear! Hear!


-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

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

#223855

On 6/21/20 2:55 PM, James H. H. Lampert wrote:

> Personally, if I were a moderator on this List, I would order this 
> thread terminated with extreme prejudice.

Agreed.

Speaking as someone who hosts a lot of email lists - it really gets 
annoying when discussions of offense & netiquette crowd out a 
substantive discussion.  I'm almost at the point where I'm willing to 
relax my strong "free speech" stance, to make calls for "moderation" or 
banning people the one and only grounds for immediate ejection from a list.

Cheers,

Miles Fidelman



-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

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

#223856

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020, Miles Fidelman wrote:

> On 6/21/20 2:55 PM, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
>
>> Personally, if I were a moderator on this List, I would order this thread 
>> terminated with extreme prejudice.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Speaking as someone who hosts a lot of email lists - it really gets
> annoying when discussions of offense & netiquette crowd out a
> substantive discussion.   I'm almost at the point where I'm willing
> to relax my strong "free speech" stance, to make calls for
> "moderation" or banning people the one and only grounds for
> immediate ejection from a list.

Russell set, allow me to introduce the Russell moderation policy.

-- 
@almightygenie 8 Jun 2020 | @Windex
   Thanks, Windex. That's a relief. Your drink is even more refreshing
   now that I know that it deplores racism & discrimination.
twitter.com/almightygenie/status/1270096054864809988

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

#223857

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020, davidson wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jun 2020, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
>> On 6/21/20 2:55 PM, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
>> 
>>> Personally, if I were a moderator on this List, I would order this thread 
>>> terminated with extreme prejudice.
>> 
>> Agreed.
>> 
>> Speaking as someone who hosts a lot of email lists - it really gets
>> annoying when discussions of offense & netiquette crowd out a
>> substantive discussion.   I'm almost at the point where I'm willing
>> to relax my strong "free speech" stance, to make calls for
>> "moderation" or banning people the one and only grounds for
>> immediate ejection from a list.
>
> Russell set, allow me to introduce the Russell moderation policy.

It would be *Frege*'s moderation policy. And subsequently confounded
by discovery of the Russell Moderator.

-- 
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12518471 alexk already addressed
your concern: your keys, preferably issued by your org's CA (instead
of being generated by you) should be short-lived, oftentimes for the
duration of your "work shift". The tools listed above support this.

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

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web