Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #26536
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? |
| Date | 2013-10-14 22:03 -0400 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <op.w4y3zx1d0e5s1z@localhost> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <2qidnfzksPab18fPnZ2dnUVZ8oidnZ2d@supernews.com> <op.w4v110du0e5s1z@localhost> <iN6dnbKaTfkt5sfPnZ2dnUVZ8lWdnZ2d@supernews.com> <op.w4xnyc1k0e5s1z@localhost> <16adnT6YFOTQLcbPnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
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
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web