{SECOND} REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.lisp.newlisp.
NEWSGROUPS LINE:
For your newsgroups file:
comp.lang.lisp.newlisp The newLISP programming language.
RATIONALE: comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
Interested in discussing an issue involving the newLISP programming
language, I went looking for a Big-8 group where I could discuss
topics and issues related to newLISP, but to no avail.
newLISP (see http://www.newlisp.org/) is a Lisp-1 dialect of the Lisp
programming language. It currently has a base of at least 346
registered users (as of Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at 11:52 AM (Tokyo
time), and is a general-purpose scripting language. It comes with a
fast, light, multi-tab DrScheme-style IDE (see
http://www.newlisp.org/index.cgi?page=IDE) equipped with syntax
highlighting and a built-in REPL.
There is a "newLISP fan club" Web-based forum (see
http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/) with a total of 14448 articles by
346 registered users, as of Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at 11:52 AM
(Tokyo time). However, the forum is set up so that anything posted
can conceivably be deleted afterwards, and requires use of a browser;
however, many USENET users object to a Web-based discussion forum for
programming language discussion because of the possibility of
moderation. I would like to promote discussion of various issues
related to the programming language newLISP on an unmoderated forum.
Comp.lang.lisp covers Lisp dialects of all sorts, but has a rather
Common Lisp-oriented focus. Comp.lang.scheme covers dialects of the
Scheme programming language, of which newLISP is not a dialect.
Comp.lang.functional covers functional programming dialects of all
sorts, but much of the discussion there would be confusing to new
users of newLISP, who are not aware of such differences as a Lisp-1
vs. a Lisp-2 dialect, or of a statically typed programming language
vs. a dynamically typed programming language, and so forth.
If created, this group would be limited to discussion of topics and
issues related to the newLISP programming language, including
announcements. Announcements posted on comp.lang.lisp.newlisp should
include a prefix of either "[ANN]" or "[ANNOUNCE]" in the subject
header.
CHARTER:
comp.lang.lisp.newlisp is an unmoderated group for the discussion
of topics and issues related to the newLISP programming language.
Topics include programming language theory, functional programming,
multimedia programming, formal semantics, syntax, and any other topics
related to the newLISP programming language.
Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. The usual
suspects are prohibited (spam, binaries, direct advertising, etc.)
PROCEDURE:
For more information on the newsgroup creation process, please see:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
Those who wish to influence the development of this RFD and its final
resolution should subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate
in the relevant threads in that newsgroup. This is both a courtesy to
groups in which discussion of creating a new group is off-topic as
well as the best method of making sure that one's comments or
criticisms are heard.
All discussion of active proposals should be posted to
news.groups.proposals
To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
news.groups.proposals.
If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the
discussion may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken
to ensure that all discussion appears in news.groups.proposals as
well.
We urge those who would like to read or post in the proposed newsgroup
to make a comment to that effect in this thread; we ask proponents to
keep a list of such positive posts with the relevant message ID (e.g.,
Barney Fife, <································@sysmatrix.net>).
Such lists of positive feedback for the proposal may constitute good
evidence that the group will be well-used if it is created.
DISTRIBUTION:
This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.groups.proposals
news.groups
comp.lang.lisp
comp.lang.scheme
PROPONENT:
Benjamin L. Russell ············@Yahoo.com
CHANGE HISTORY:
{2006-11-30 Newest version of this boilerplate}
{2009-03-06 1st RFD}
{2009-03-12 2nd RFD}
--
Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com
http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/
Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725
"Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto."
-- Matsuo Basho^
In news.announce.newgroups on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:55:04 EDT, Benjamin
L.Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> {SECOND} REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
<...>
> If created, this group would be limited to discussion of topics and
> issues related to the newLISP programming language, including
> announcements. Announcements posted on comp.lang.lisp.newlisp should
> include a prefix of either "[ANN]" or "[ANNOUNCE]" in the subject
> header.
The instructions for posting announcements probably belong in the
Charter, not the Rationale.
Otherwise, my only remaining objection is that there's still no
convincing evidence that the new newsgroup would be used enough to
justify its existence.
<...>
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
Peter J Ross wrote:
> In news.announce.newgroups on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:55:04 EDT, Benjamin
> L.Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> {SECOND} REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group
>> comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
>
> <...>
>
>> If created, this group would be limited to discussion of topics and
>> issues related to the newLISP programming language, including
>> announcements. Announcements posted on comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
>> should include a prefix of either "[ANN]" or "[ANNOUNCE]" in the
>> subject header.
>
> The instructions for posting announcements probably belong in the
> Charter, not the Rationale.
You missed this:
"Interested in discussing an issue involving the newLISP programming
language, I went looking for a Big-8 group where I could discuss
topics and issues related to newLISP, but to no avail."
With something like 80,000 group, there's ALWAYS a place to discuss
something. If there wasn't a group where newLISP could be discussed
there'd be no need for a Distribution list, other than news.groups.
If the proponent intended to mean, "there's few, if any, messages on
Usenet," though, that's a different matter. that would indicate:
> ...that there's still no convincing evidence that the new newsgroup
> would be used enough to justify its existence.
B/
Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> writes:
> Otherwise, my only remaining objection is that there's still no
> convincing evidence that the new newsgroup would be used enough to
> justify its existence.
Right, comp.lang.lisp is perfectly suitable for newLISP chatter, and
is indeed being used for that purpose to a small extent.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (················@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> writes:
> In news.announce.newgroups on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:55:04 EDT, Benjamin
> L.Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> {SECOND} REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> unmoderated group comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
>
> <...>
>
>> If created, this group would be limited to discussion of topics and
>> issues related to the newLISP programming language, including
>> announcements. Announcements posted on comp.lang.lisp.newlisp should
>> include a prefix of either "[ANN]" or "[ANNOUNCE]" in the subject
>> header.
>
> The instructions for posting announcements probably belong in the
> Charter, not the Rationale.
>
> Otherwise, my only remaining objection is that there's still no
> convincing evidence that the new newsgroup would be used enough to
> justify its existence.
Well if a newsgroup for clojure has been rejected two weeks ago, I
don't think there's more rational for a newsgroup for newLisp anyways.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
···@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes:
> Well if a newsgroup for clojure has been rejected two weeks ago, I
> don't think there's more rational for a newsgroup for newLisp anyways.
Not to mention the lack of a dedicated common-lisp group. It would seem
very silly to have dedicated groups for minor dialects but not for the
major ones.
[If the newlisp people feel drowned out by common-lisp discussion,
perhaps the right solution would actually be propose a group for CL....]
-Miles
--
Mayonnaise, n. One of the sauces that serve the French in place of a state
religion.
Miles Bader <·····@gnu.org> wrote:
>···@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes:
>>Well if a newsgroup for clojure has been rejected two weeks ago, I
>>don't think there's more rational for a newsgroup for newLisp anyways.
>Not to mention the lack of a dedicated common-lisp group. It would seem
>very silly to have dedicated groups for minor dialects but not for the
>major ones.
>[If the newlisp people feel drowned out by common-lisp discussion,
>perhaps the right solution would actually be propose a group for CL....]
Of course, it's unethical for someone not discussing a topic on Usenet
to propose a group to discuss the topic. In any event, a group for
common LISP was just proposed weeks ago, and rejected by the LISP
community on Usenet.
Miles Bader <·····@gnu.org> wrote:
> ···@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes:
> > Well if a newsgroup for clojure has been rejected two weeks ago, I
> > don't think there's more rational for a newsgroup for newLisp anyways.
>
> Not to mention the lack of a dedicated common-lisp group. It would seem
> very silly to have dedicated groups for minor dialects but not for the
> major ones.
What matters is the number of people who want to discuss a topic on
Usenet. If there are many who wish to discuss the minor dialect and few
who want to talk the major ones on Usenet, that would be justification
for creating groups for the minor dialects. So far, it doesn't appear
that their are many who wish to discuss any dialects on Usenet.
> [If the newlisp people feel drowned out by common-lisp discussion,
> perhaps the right solution would actually be propose a group for CL....]
Experience has shown that trying to tell someone else to leave a group
usually doesn't work. People will only leave and use a different
discussion group if that is what they want to do.
--
Kathy
Le Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:55:04 EDT,
Benjamin L.Russell a écrit :
> {SECOND} REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
>
> [...]
Why not testing in CLC your assumption concerning the potential
number of posters and the relevance of CLC and newlisp split-up?
If necessary, it will always be time to review your request on
a sounder basis. No ?
My 2¢,
--
Jacques.
Note: This is being crossposted to comp.lang.lisp as the proponent
should have discussed splitting out newLISP discussion among the Usenet
LISP community prior to starting the RFD process.
It is crossposted to news.groups and not news.groups.proposals because
there is no valid reason messages to the unmoderated LISP group should
be subject to moderation.
Benjamin L.Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> {SECOND} REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.lisp.newlisp.
I take it when I requested that you suspend this RFD until discussion
was thoroughly hashed out in comp.lang.lisp, and you stated that you
agreed to it, you weren't being sincere.
That is most unfortunate.
There is nearly no discussion of newLISP on Usenet. You yourself are not
known for discussing the topic, although I do note that you started a
thread the other day. Several users of the Web forum stated that they
didn't want to post to Usenet.
Who is this newsgroup for?
The LISP community on Usenet is in comp.lang.lisp. Should newLISP become
a popular topic of discussion among the Usenet LISP community, I would
expect the discussion to take place in that group.
But unless and until there is significant discussion of newLISP taking
place on Usenet, the group you propose won't be useful.
>NEWSGROUPS LINE:
>For your newsgroups file:
>comp.lang.lisp.newlisp The newLISP programming language.
>RATIONALE: comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
>Interested in discussing an issue involving the newLISP programming
>language, I went looking for a Big-8 group where I could discuss
>topics and issues related to newLISP, but to no avail.
This isn't a truthful RATIONALE, given that comp.lang.lisp is the ideal
newsgroup to use to discuss newLISP.
You're still using the existence of the Web boards as rationale for a
Usenet newsgroup, but they are still irrelevant.
>Comp.lang.lisp covers Lisp dialects of all sorts, but has a rather
>Common Lisp-oriented focus.
That does not prevent you from starting threads discussing newLISP. In
fact, the one time you started a thread, it got PLENTY of discussion.
>Comp.lang.scheme covers dialects of the Scheme programming language,
You didn't crosspost either RFD to this newsgroup.
>If created, this group would be limited to discussion of topics and
>issues related to the newLISP programming language, including
>announcements. Announcements posted on comp.lang.lisp.newlisp should
>include a prefix of either "[ANN]" or "[ANNOUNCE]" in the subject
>header.
This doesn't belong in RATIONALE.
>CHARTER:
>comp.lang.lisp.newlisp is an unmoderated group for the discussion
>of topics and issues related to the newLISP programming language.
>Topics include programming language theory, functional programming,
>multimedia programming, formal semantics, syntax, and any other topics
>related to the newLISP programming language.
In programming, is there a technical difference between semantics and
syntax? I'm not a programmer, so I don't know.
>Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
>and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. The usual
>suspects are prohibited (spam, binaries, direct advertising, etc.)
Don't put cute statement in boilerplate, please.
1) Do not ban spam on a per-newsgroup basis. If you see spam on your
News server, it's not because it's allowed in the groups you use. It's
because the server doesn't implement countermeasures, which affect ALL
newsgroups, not just groups with spam bans in charters.
2) State, plainly, that binaries are banned. It's that simple.
3) Direct advertising has no definition, so don't say that. A few
servers have TOS/AUP banning advertisement, so sometimes an advertising
ban may be enforceable, but not if you make up terms.
>DISTRIBUTION:
>This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
> news.groups.proposals
> news.groups
> comp.lang.lisp
> comp.lang.scheme
Couldn't you proofread something as critical as the distribution? You
failed to crosspost to two of those newsgroups.
>CHANGE HISTORY:
>{2006-11-30 Newest version of this boilerplate}
>{2009-03-06 1st RFD}
>{2009-03-12 2nd RFD}
And that's the second time you've misstated the change history. The
dates are wrong. You copied a comment about the revision history of the
boilerplate itself, sheesh.
Kindly do not submit another RFD till you have someone else
proofread it for critical errors.
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
...
> Benjamin L.Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>> Comp.lang.lisp covers Lisp dialects of all sorts, but has a rather
>> Common Lisp-oriented focus.
>
> That does not prevent you from starting threads discussing newLISP. In
> fact, the one time you started a thread, it got PLENTY of discussion.
We also have massive threads from time to time on Clojure, Qi, and
F-Flat. Otoh, in the applicant's defense the only discussion here of
newLISP is how bad it is, so I can't blame them for seeking refuge
elsewhere.
OK, look, while I have you, the two people regularly posting to my
mailing list are feeling a bit cramped. Time for comp.constraints.cells?
kenny
I think it is better not to create proposed newsgroup:
(1) There is little discussion on Newlisp on Usenet;
- mostly comparison with other Lisp dialects and
comp.lang.lisp is probably better for that.
(2) Newlisp users use existing web forum and have
no interest in splitting the communication. Only much
larger groups can benefit from such splitting.
(3) There is not too much traffic on comp.lang.lisp.
Actually, it is in significant decline for last three years
consecutively[1].
(4) Russell didn't discussed Newlisp prior to RFD,
neither on Usenet nor on web forum. With more experience,
he might easily change his opinion or conclude that Newlisp
doesn't interest him on the first place.
[1]http://kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com/2009/02/decline-of-lisp-usenet.html
--
Blog: http://kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com
Kazimir Majorinc wrote:
> (3) There is not too much traffic on comp.lang.lisp.
> Actually, it is in significant decline for last three years
> consecutively[1].
Name another language that can decline for three straight years after
having been dead for fifteen.
Meanwhile, you have a web site with a chart of usenet statistics on a
language you do not like? I thought /I/ had no life...thx!
kt
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
< Name another language that can decline for three
straight years after having been dead for fifteen. >
It was about c.l.l, not Lisp; I use Lisp, not CL,
but I'd prefer CL over Java or C++...
--
http://kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com
[news.groups.proposals added to Newsgroups line and f'ups directed to
news.groups.proposals]
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:24:40 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<···@chinet.com> wrote:
>Note: This is being crossposted to comp.lang.lisp as the proponent
>should have discussed splitting out newLISP discussion among the Usenet
>LISP community prior to starting the RFD process.
>
>It is crossposted to news.groups and not news.groups.proposals because
>there is no valid reason messages to the unmoderated LISP group should
>be subject to moderation.
>
>Benjamin L.Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> {SECOND} REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> unmoderated group comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
>
>>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>>unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.lisp.newlisp.
>
>I take it when I requested that you suspend this RFD until discussion
>was thoroughly hashed out in comp.lang.lisp, and you stated that you
>agreed to it, you weren't being sincere.
>
>That is most unfortunate.
I received a message from an administrative member of
news.groups.proposals noting that you had redirected the thread from
news.groups.proposals to news.groups (being new to creating a
newsgroup, I had thought that the same people read both news.groups
and news.groups.proposals, and hadn't realized the significance of the
difference at first), and that while the board member felt obligated
to read news.groups.proposals, that person didn't feel obligated to
read news.groups.
Therefore, I promised to try to move the discussion back to
news.groups.proposals, but then discovered that so many messages had
been posted to the first RFD on news.groups and comp.lang.lisp that
that was, by then, impossible with that RFD.
Since a number of people had pointed out areas of improvement for the
first RFD, I then thought to kill two birds with one stone by
submitting a revised RFD as a second RFD. This main purpose was to
try to satisfy the administrators by trying to move the discussion
back to news.groups.proposals.
Why do you and the administrators need to keep fighting about which
newsgroups get to discuss the RFD's? It's impossible to keep you and
the administrators happy at the same time. If I satisfy you, then
they say something about it, and if I satisfy them, then you say
something about it. Either way, I get flamed.
>>Comp.lang.scheme covers dialects of the Scheme programming language,
>
>You didn't crosspost either RFD to this newsgroup.
This is not true. I posted the first RFD to comp.lang.scheme as well
on March 10, 2009, at 12:18 PM (see
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/browse_thread/thread/f6c5066346672b00#).
>>If created, this group would be limited to discussion of topics and
>>issues related to the newLISP programming language, including
>>announcements. Announcements posted on comp.lang.lisp.newlisp should
>>include a prefix of either "[ANN]" or "[ANNOUNCE]" in the subject
>>header.
>
>This doesn't belong in RATIONALE.
IIRC, I put it in RATIONALE because the boilerplate I had copied it
from originally had it in RATIONALE.
>>CHARTER:
>>comp.lang.lisp.newlisp is an unmoderated group for the discussion
>>of topics and issues related to the newLISP programming language.
>>Topics include programming language theory, functional programming,
>>multimedia programming, formal semantics, syntax, and any other topics
>>related to the newLISP programming language.
>
>In programming, is there a technical difference between semantics and
>syntax? I'm not a programmer, so I don't know.
Of course there is. Syntax tells us about how a code fragment is
written; semantics tells us about how it behaves. According to the
textbook _Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation_ (see
http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Books/ProgLangs/2007-04-26/),
by Shriram Krishnamurthi, quoted from pages 3 to 4:
>Virtually every language consists of
>
>. a peculiar syntax,
>
>. some behavior associated with each syntax,
>
>. numerous useful libraries, and
>
>. a collection of idioms that programmers of that language use.
>
>[...]
>
>The first insignificant attribute is the syntax. Syntaxes are highly sensitive topics,
>but in the end, they don_$B!G_(Bt tell us very much about a program_$B!G_(Bs behavior.
>
>[...]
>
> [W]e will focus on the behavior associated with syntax, namely the semantics
>of programming languages. In popular culture, people like to say _$B!H_(BIt_$B!G_(Bs just semantics!_$B!I_(B, which is a kind of
>put-down: it implies that their correspondent is quibbling over minor details of meaning in a jesuitical way.
>But communication is all about meaning: even if you and I use different words to mean the same thing, we
>understand one another; but if we use the same word to mean different things, great confusion results. In
>this study, therefore, we will wear the phrase _$B!H_(BIt_$B!G_(Bs just semantics!_$B!I_(B as a badge of honor, because semantics
>leads to discourse which (we hope) leads to civilization.
> Just semantics. That_$B!G_(Bs all there is.
That is the distinction.
>>Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
>>and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. The usual
>>suspects are prohibited (spam, binaries, direct advertising, etc.)
>
>Don't put cute statement in boilerplate, please.
I didn't add it there; it was there from the original boilerplate.
>1) Do not ban spam on a per-newsgroup basis. If you see spam on your
>News server, it's not because it's allowed in the groups you use. It's
>because the server doesn't implement countermeasures, which affect ALL
>newsgroups, not just groups with spam bans in charters.
>
>2) State, plainly, that binaries are banned. It's that simple.
>
>3) Direct advertising has no definition, so don't say that. A few
>servers have TOS/AUP banning advertisement, so sometimes an advertising
>ban may be enforceable, but not if you make up terms.
How about the following alternative statement:
>Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
>and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. Binaries are prohibited.
>Meta-discussion of this newsgroup within this newsgroup is discouraged;
>post meta-discussion threads in a meta-newsgroup. Meta-discussion of what
>discussion belongs in this newsgroup, and what discussion does not, is
>discouraged; the point of this newsgroup is to discuss issues related to the
>newLISP programming langauge, not to discuss what discussion belongs in this
>newsgroup; post thread of meta-discussion of discussion in a meta-discussion of
>discussion-level-specific newsgroup. Meta-discussion of any of the above, or
>meta-discussion of such meta-discussion, or meta-discussion of meta-discussion
>of such meta-discussion, and so forth, is prohibited; post any of the above in
>the appropriate meta-discussion-level-specific newsgroup. Meta-discussion of
>this paragraph is prohibited.
>>DISTRIBUTION:
>>This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>>
>> news.groups.proposals
>> news.groups
>> comp.lang.lisp
>> comp.lang.scheme
>
>Couldn't you proofread something as critical as the distribution? You
>failed to crosspost to two of those newsgroups.
Sorry about that. There was a problem with the NNTP servers, which
refused to post a message with too many recipients (I had also been
BCC'ing myself to four different e-mail accounts, and apparently, the
combination of several newsgroups and several e-mail addresses caused
my post to be rejected). I then reduced the list, and resent the
post, forgetting that I needed to change this portion as well. The
next time I send out any RFD, I'll double-check this portion.
>>CHANGE HISTORY:
>>{2006-11-30 Newest version of this boilerplate}
>>{2009-03-06 1st RFD}
>>{2009-03-12 2nd RFD}
>
>And that's the second time you've misstated the change history. The
>dates are wrong. You copied a comment about the revision history of the
>boilerplate itself, sheesh.
The dates reflect when the RFD's were initially submitted, not when
they were actually posted. Both of the RFD's were initially rejected
before they were reposted and accepted. By then, the dates had become
unsynchronized.
Again, I probably should have double-checked this portion after my
initial RFD's were rejected and then resubmitted. Sorry about the
confusion again; I'll be sure to double-check this portion the next
time I submit any RFD.
-- Benjamin L. Russell
--
Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com
http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/
Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725
"Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto."
-- Matsuo Basho^
*irrelevant newsgroup removed, proper newsgroup restored*
Benjamin L.Russell wrote:
> I received a message from an administrative member of
> news.groups.proposals noting that you had redirected the thread from
> news.groups.proposals to news.groups
I bet it was either the Sill Component of the Timas Silleeski Unit or
the Morgan wannabe (but neverwillbe).
Yes, it's great for doing things "privately" in email.
That should be a hint about how the process really works and how you'll
treated when you cease to be useful to it.
B/
*followup game defeated*
Dave Sill wrote:
> The only thing standing in the way of your proposal, as far as I'm
> concerned, is that it lacks support. I'd like to see 10-15 people
> posting to NGP saying they'd use the group. So far I think I've seen
> two. That translates to a NO vote.
As I just said, when you cease to be useful.... they like to threaten
their oh-so-famous NO vote.
But the secret is this--it's not important. Not in the least.
I don't believe this is a justified group, but if you really really
really really want it, then send the newgroup message yourself, in your
own name and start work on getting the group propagated.
No, really. Their so-called vote is not important (indeed, it's already
been taken, the announcement is just a formality).
B/
Brian Mailman wrote:
> Dave Sill wrote:
>
>> The only thing standing in the way of your proposal, as far as I'm
>> concerned, is that it lacks support. I'd like to see 10-15 people
>> posting to NGP saying they'd use the group. So far I think I've seen
>> two. That translates to a NO vote.
>
> As I just said, when you cease to be useful.... they like to threaten
> their oh-so-famous NO vote.
>
> But the secret is this--it's not important. Not in the least.
>
> I don't believe this is a justified group, but if you really really
> really really want it, then send the newgroup message yourself, in your
> own name and start work on getting the group propagated.
How then will proposals in the Big-8 differ from alt proposals? Why not
just counsel the proponent to propose there?
> No, really. Their so-called vote is not important (indeed, it's already
> been taken, the announcement is just a formality).
Is it *so* important to you to undermine what you find to be a disagreeable
process in the Big-8 that you would advise a proponent to take this sort of
action? While I agree a signed newgroup from the board might not carry the
weight it used to it's still better than starting from scratch as we do in
alt. As it stands, the proposal seems a doomed undertaking in any event, so
your advice wouldn't likely make much of a difference, but it does seem
like a drastic measure just to prove a point.
--
dvus
dvus wrote:
> Brian Mailman wrote:
>> Dave Sill wrote:
>>
>>> The only thing standing in the way of your proposal, as far as
>>> I'm concerned, is that it lacks support. I'd like to see 10-15
>>> people posting to NGP saying they'd use the group. So far I think
>>> I've seen two. That translates to a NO vote.
>>
>> As I just said, when you cease to be useful.... they like to
>> threaten their oh-so-famous NO vote.
>>
>> But the secret is this--it's not important. Not in the least.
>>
>> I don't believe this is a justified group, but if you really really
>> really really want it, then send the newgroup message yourself, in
>> your own name and start work on getting the group propagated.
>
> How then will proposals in the Big-8 differ from alt proposals?...
We all get quite tired of "bringing you up to speed" on things you
already know. But for the benefit of the onlookers in cll, there's no
difference any more, except that there's a speed bump in the Big8.
>> No, really. Their so-called vote is not important (indeed, it's
>> already been taken, the announcement is just a formality).
>
> Is it *so* important to you to undermine what you find to be a
> disagreeable process in the Big-8 that you would advise a proponent
> to take this sort of action?
Is it so important for you to constantly and continuously
mischaracterize my words in order for you to be a Secret Squirrel? You
know the below, but for the onlookers we'll give you yet another
refresher course:
I'm not undermining anything. I'm simply telling them the facts. Which
are:
1. The bambies have made themselves totally irrelevant.
1a. There's no perceivable difference any more between alt.*
creation and Big8 creation, other than somewhat more servers
automatically honor the bambies' advisories.
2. Anyone wishing a Big8 group can send their own advisory and start
work on getting the group propagated.
B/
Brian Mailman wrote:
> dvus wrote:
>> Brian Mailman wrote:
>>> Dave Sill wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only thing standing in the way of your proposal, as far as
>>>> I'm concerned, is that it lacks support. I'd like to see 10-15
>>>> people posting to NGP saying they'd use the group. So far I think
>>>> I've seen two. That translates to a NO vote.
>>>
>>> As I just said, when you cease to be useful.... they like to
>>> threaten their oh-so-famous NO vote.
>>>
>>> But the secret is this--it's not important. Not in the least.
>>>
>>> I don't believe this is a justified group, but if you really really
>>> really really want it, then send the newgroup message yourself, in
>>> your own name and start work on getting the group propagated.
>>
>> How then will proposals in the Big-8 differ from alt proposals?...
>
> We all get quite tired of "bringing you up to speed" on things you
Are all the folks in "we all" as condescending as you seem to have become?
> already know. But for the benefit of the onlookers in cll, there's no
> difference any more, except that there's a speed bump in the Big8.
>
>>> No, really. Their so-called vote is not important (indeed, it's
>>> already been taken, the announcement is just a formality).
>>
>> Is it *so* important to you to undermine what you find to be a
>> disagreeable process in the Big-8 that you would advise a proponent
>> to take this sort of action?
>
> Is it so important for you to constantly and continuously
> mischaracterize my words in order for you to be a Secret Squirrel? You
> know the below, but for the onlookers we'll give you yet another
> refresher course:
>
> I'm not undermining anything. I'm simply telling them the facts. Which
> are:
>
> 1. The bambies have made themselves totally irrelevant.
In your view. Representing your views as facts to further an agenda at
other's possible expense is bad business. Yes, you may be able to present
facts demonstrating that the Board's control messages are less effective
than previously, but that's certainly not the same as "totally irrelevent".
Had someone else made a statement like that they'd have been branded a
"goddam liar". I'll just say I think you're exaggerating.
> 1a. There's no perceivable difference any more between alt.*
> creation and Big8 creation, other than somewhat more servers
> automatically honor the bambies' advisories.
That could be a big difference, depending on the value of "somewhat". Even
a few auto-process servers could start a chain of newgroup acceptance
depending on how the downstream servers process them.
> 2. Anyone wishing a Big8 group can send their own advisory and start
> work on getting the group propagated.
Do you honestly believe that doing that and starting from scratch is better
for the proponent than having a few servers process the newgroup
automatically? I mean, even one server is better than zero, isn't it?
--
dvus
dvus wrote:
> Brian Mailman wrote:
>>> How then will proposals in the Big-8 differ from alt
>>> proposals?...
>>
>> We all get quite tired of "bringing you up to speed" on things you
>
> Are all the folks in "we all" as condescending as you seem to have
> become?
You seem to enjoy using the word "condescending" a lot. Condescending
would be taking widdle dvus by the hand and spoon feeding him. Instead,
I simply tell you where to find the information you so obviously lack.
[...]
>>> Is it *so* important to you to undermine what you find to be a
>>> disagreeable process in the Big-8 that you would advise a
>>> proponent to take this sort of action?
>>
>> Is it so important for you to constantly and continuously
>> mischaracterize my words in order for you to be a Secret Squirrel?
>> You know the below, but for the onlookers we'll give you yet
>> another refresher course:
>>
>> I'm not undermining anything. I'm simply telling them the facts.
>> Which are:
>>
>> 1. The bambies have made themselves totally irrelevant.
NOTE, ORIGINAL TEXT FROM POST-EDITING RESTORED:
1a. There's no perceivable difference any more between alt.*
creation and Big8 creation, other than somewhat more servers
automatically honor the bambies' advisories.
2. Anyone wishing a Big8 group can send their own advisory and start
work on getting the group propagated.
> In your view.
You need to read to the links in William Bagwell's .sig to find out how
alt.* groups work. It's obvious that yet again, you've been asleep for
several years and someone's been using your keyboard.
B/
Brian Mailman wrote:
> dvus wrote:
>> Brian Mailman wrote:
>
>>>> How then will proposals in the Big-8 differ from alt
>>>> proposals?...
>>>
>>> We all get quite tired of "bringing you up to speed" on things you
>>
>> Are all the folks in "we all" as condescending as you seem to have
>> become?
>
> You seem to enjoy using the word "condescending" a lot. Condescending
> would be taking widdle dvus by the hand and spoon feeding him. Instead,
> I simply tell you where to find the information you so obviously lack.
I don't enjoy using the word in the least. But, when I ask a simple
question and get told that "We all get quite tired of 'bringing you up to
speed'... "
I take it as being somewhat condescending.
> [...]
>
>>>> Is it *so* important to you to undermine what you find to be a
>>>> disagreeable process in the Big-8 that you would advise a
>>>> proponent to take this sort of action?
>>>
>>> Is it so important for you to constantly and continuously
>>> mischaracterize my words in order for you to be a Secret Squirrel?
>>> You know the below, but for the onlookers we'll give you yet
>>> another refresher course:
>>>
>>> I'm not undermining anything. I'm simply telling them the facts.
>>> Which are:
>>>
>>> 1. The bambies have made themselves totally irrelevant.
>
> NOTE, ORIGINAL TEXT FROM POST-EDITING RESTORED:
>
> 1a. There's no perceivable difference any more between alt.*
> creation and Big8 creation, other than somewhat more servers
> automatically honor the bambies' advisories.
Yes, and that's exactly the difference to which I was referring. It would
seem a disservice to tell a proponent that having the new group he desired
picked up automatically by zero servers (well, there's Altopia, I guess) is
better than having it automatically picked up by however many there are
presently who honor Big-8 controls.
> 2. Anyone wishing a Big8 group can send their own advisory and start
> work on getting the group propagated.
>
>> In your view.
>
> You need to read to the links in William Bagwell's .sig to find out how
> alt.* groups work. It's obvious that yet again, you've been asleep for
> several years and someone's been using your keyboard.
We're discussing Big-8 groups here, not alt. Why did you yank three words
out of a paragraph I wrote?
Here:
"In your view. Representing your views as facts to further an agenda at
other's possible expense is bad business. Yes, you may be able to present
facts demonstrating that the Board's control messages are less effective
than previously, but that's certainly not the same as "totally irrelevent".
Had someone else made a statement like that they'd have been branded a
"goddam liar". I'll just say I think you're exaggerating."
Thats the whole thing. Why would reading on how alt groups work respond to
anything I said in there?
--
dvus
dvus wrote:
> Brian Mailman wrote:
>> dvus wrote:
>>> Brian Mailman wrote:
>>
>>>>> How then will proposals in the Big-8 differ from alt
>>>>> proposals?...
>>>>
>>>> We all get quite tired of "bringing you up to speed" on things
>>>> you
>>>
>>> Are all the folks in "we all" as condescending as you seem to
>>> have become?
>>
>> You seem to enjoy using the word "condescending" a lot.
>> Condescending would be taking widdle dvus by the hand and spoon
>> feeding him. Instead, I simply tell you where to find the
>> information you so obviously lack.
>
> I don't enjoy using the word in the least...
Sometimes verbalizing a problem actually solves it. If you don't enjoy
using the word as you've done for years, then don't use it. I hope you
don't consider me pointing that out as too condescending.
> But, when I ask a simple question and get told that "We all get quite
> tired of 'bringing you up to speed'... "
That's not condescending. That's the answer.
> I take it as being somewhat condescending.
See above on how to solve that issue for yourself.
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Is it *so* important to you to undermine what you find to be
>>>>> a disagreeable process in the Big-8 that you would advise a
>>>>> proponent to take this sort of action?
>>>>
>>>> Is it so important for you to constantly and continuously
>>>> mischaracterize my words in order for you to be a Secret
>>>> Squirrel? You know the below, but for the onlookers we'll give
>>>> you yet another refresher course:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not undermining anything. I'm simply telling them the
>>>> facts. Which are:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The bambies have made themselves totally irrelevant.
>>
>> NOTE, ORIGINAL TEXT FROM POST-EDITING RESTORED:
>>
>> 1a. There's no perceivable difference any more between alt.*
>> creation and Big8 creation, other than somewhat more servers
>> automatically honor the bambies' advisories.
>
> Yes, and that's exactly the difference to which I was referring. It
> would seem a disservice to tell a proponent that having the new group
> he desired picked up automatically by zero servers (well, there's
> Altopia, I guess) is better than having it automatically picked up by
> however many there are presently who honor Big-8 controls.
>
>> 2. Anyone wishing a Big8 group can send their own advisory and
>> start work on getting the group propagated.
>>
>>> In your view.
>>
>> You need to read to the links in William Bagwell's .sig to find out
>> how alt.* groups work. It's obvious that yet again, you've been
>> asleep for several years and someone's been using your keyboard.
>
> We're discussing Big-8 groups here, not alt....
Hint, just to bring you up to speed again: there's little difference
any more.
Why did you yank three
> words out of a paragraph I wrote?
> Here:
>
> "In your view. Representing your views as facts to further an agenda
> at other's possible expense is bad business. Yes, you may be able to
> present facts demonstrating that the Board's control messages are
> less effective than previously, but that's certainly not the same as
> "totally irrelevent". Had someone else made a statement like that
> they'd have been branded a "goddam liar". I'll just say I think
> you're exaggerating."
>
> Thats the whole thing. Why would reading on how alt groups work
> respond to anything I said in there?
That would be condescending to tell you again.
B/
Brian Mailman wrote:
> dvus wrote:
>> Brian Mailman wrote:
>>> dvus wrote:
>>>> Brian Mailman wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> How then will proposals in the Big-8 differ from alt
>>>>>> proposals?...
>>>>>
>>>>> We all get quite tired of "bringing you up to speed" on things
>>>>> you
>>>>
>>>> Are all the folks in "we all" as condescending as you seem to
>>>> have become?
>>>
>>> You seem to enjoy using the word "condescending" a lot.
>>> Condescending would be taking widdle dvus by the hand and spoon
>>> feeding him. Instead, I simply tell you where to find the
>>> information you so obviously lack.
>>
>> I don't enjoy using the word in the least...
>
> Sometimes verbalizing a problem actually solves it. If you don't enjoy
> using the word as you've done for years, then don't use it. I hope you
> don't consider me pointing that out as too condescending.
No, it's just silly. I, like others, use words to convey my meaning. I
don't particularily enjoy using *any* word, as long as it says what I mean
it's done it's job. It'd be like saying I didn't enjoy using the letter
"Q". If you got the impression I enjoyed using the word "condescending"
because I used it in more than one response to you perhaps you might look
elsewhere for the reason.
>> But, when I ask a simple question and get told that "We all get quite
>> tired of 'bringing you up to speed'... "
>
> That's not condescending. That's the answer.
I asked how Big-8 and alt proposals would differ if people simply sent
their own cmsgs as you suggested. You replied that "We all get quite tired
of "bringing you up to speed" on things". That doesn't seem like an answer
to anything other than "What do you all get tired of?", and I didn't ask
that.
>> I take it as being somewhat condescending.
>
> See above on how to solve that issue for yourself.
It's really not an issue to be solved, just an observation.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> Is it *so* important to you to undermine what you find to be
>>>>>> a disagreeable process in the Big-8 that you would advise a
>>>>>> proponent to take this sort of action?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it so important for you to constantly and continuously
>>>>> mischaracterize my words in order for you to be a Secret
>>>>> Squirrel? You know the below, but for the onlookers we'll give
>>>>> you yet another refresher course:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not undermining anything. I'm simply telling them the
>>>>> facts. Which are:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The bambies have made themselves totally irrelevant.
>>>
>>> NOTE, ORIGINAL TEXT FROM POST-EDITING RESTORED:
>>>
>>> 1a. There's no perceivable difference any more between alt.*
>>> creation and Big8 creation, other than somewhat more servers
>>> automatically honor the bambies' advisories.
>>
>> Yes, and that's exactly the difference to which I was referring. It
>> would seem a disservice to tell a proponent that having the new group
>> he desired picked up automatically by zero servers (well, there's
>> Altopia, I guess) is better than having it automatically picked up by
>> however many there are presently who honor Big-8 controls.
>>
>>> 2. Anyone wishing a Big8 group can send their own advisory and
>>> start work on getting the group propagated.
>>>
>>>> In your view.
>>>
>>> You need to read to the links in William Bagwell's .sig to find out
>>> how alt.* groups work. It's obvious that yet again, you've been
>>> asleep for several years and someone's been using your keyboard.
>>
>> We're discussing Big-8 groups here, not alt....
>
> Hint, just to bring you up to speed again: there's little difference
> any more.
It would seem that's your belief, but as long as the Board's controls carry
any weight it's contradicted. And, in my view, certainly not a situation to
be wished for.
>> Why did you yank three
>> words out of a paragraph I wrote?
>
>> Here:
>>
>> "In your view. Representing your views as facts to further an agenda
>> at other's possible expense is bad business. Yes, you may be able to
>> present facts demonstrating that the Board's control messages are
>> less effective than previously, but that's certainly not the same as
>> "totally irrelevent". Had someone else made a statement like that
>> they'd have been branded a "goddam liar". I'll just say I think
>> you're exaggerating."
>>
>> Thats the whole thing. Why would reading on how alt groups work
>> respond to anything I said in there?
>
> That would be condescending to tell you again.
Telling me again that in your view there's little difference between alt
and Big-8 proposals doesn't address my reason given above that I don't
agree with your premise. It just avoids answering my question with vague
references to non sequiturs about my supposed lack of understanding.
--
dvus
dvus wrote:
> Brian Mailman wrote:
[...]
> ...If you got the impression I enjoyed using the word "condescending"
> because I used it in more than one response to you perhaps you might
> look elsewhere for the reason.
Well yes. You use it whenever you wind up on the "other" side of an
argument and have nothing of substance to say in reply.
>>> But, when I ask a simple question and get told that "We all get
>>> quite tired of 'bringing you up to speed'... "
>>
>> That's not condescending. That's the answer.
>
> I asked how Big-8 and alt proposals would differ if people simply
> sent their own cmsgs as you suggested. You replied that "We all get
> quite tired of "bringing you up to speed" on things". That doesn't
> seem like an answer to anything other than "What do you all get tired
> of?", and I didn't ask that.
<shrug>. That you haven't been keeping up isn't an issue for me.
>>> I take it as being somewhat condescending.
>>
>> See above on how to solve that issue for yourself.
>
> It's really not an issue to be solved, just an observation.
Eh. It's quite tiresome to keep repeating the same things to you
because you wish to be a self-appointed speed bump. Bring yourself up
to speed.
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it *so* important to you to undermine what you find to
>>>>>>> be a disagreeable process in the Big-8 that you would
>>>>>>> advise a proponent to take this sort of action?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it so important for you to constantly and continuously
>>>>>> mischaracterize my words in order for you to be a Secret
>>>>>> Squirrel? You know the below, but for the onlookers we'll
>>>>>> give you yet another refresher course:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not undermining anything. I'm simply telling them the
>>>>>> facts. Which are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. The bambies have made themselves totally irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> NOTE, ORIGINAL TEXT FROM POST-EDITING RESTORED:
>>>>
>>>> 1a. There's no perceivable difference any more between alt.*
>>>> creation and Big8 creation, other than somewhat more servers
>>>> automatically honor the bambies' advisories.
>>>
>>> Yes, and that's exactly the difference to which I was referring.
>>> It would seem a disservice to tell a proponent that having the
>>> new group he desired picked up automatically by zero servers
>>> (well, there's Altopia, I guess) is better than having it
>>> automatically picked up by however many there are presently who
>>> honor Big-8 controls.
>>>
>>>> 2. Anyone wishing a Big8 group can send their own advisory and
>>>> start work on getting the group propagated.
>>>>
>>>>> In your view.
>>>>
>>>> You need to read to the links in William Bagwell's .sig to find
>>>> out how alt.* groups work. It's obvious that yet again, you've
>>>> been asleep for several years and someone's been using your
>>>> keyboard.
>>>
>>> We're discussing Big-8 groups here, not alt....
>>
>> Hint, just to bring you up to speed again: there's little
>> difference any more.
>
> It would seem that's your belief...
See above, repetition about bringing yourself up to speed.
B/
Brian Mailman wrote:
> dvus wrote:
>> Brian Mailman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> ...If you got the impression I enjoyed using the word "condescending"
>> because I used it in more than one response to you perhaps you might
>> look elsewhere for the reason.
>
> Well yes. You use it whenever you wind up on the "other" side of an
> argument and have nothing of substance to say in reply.
There's always an "other" side or there'd be no argument. "Condescending" is
always insisting the other side's point is without substance.
>>>> But, when I ask a simple question and get told that "We all get
>>>> quite tired of 'bringing you up to speed'... "
>>>
>>> That's not condescending. That's the answer.
>>
>> I asked how Big-8 and alt proposals would differ if people simply
>> sent their own cmsgs as you suggested. You replied that "We all get
>> quite tired of "bringing you up to speed" on things". That doesn't
>> seem like an answer to anything other than "What do you all get tired
>> of?", and I didn't ask that.
>
> <shrug>. That you haven't been keeping up isn't an issue for me.
Nor should it be, were it true.
>>>> I take it as being somewhat condescending.
>>>
>>> See above on how to solve that issue for yourself.
>>
>> It's really not an issue to be solved, just an observation.
>
> Eh. It's quite tiresome to keep repeating the same things to you
> because you wish to be a self-appointed speed bump. Bring yourself up
> to speed.
I'm only a "speed bump" because I won't display unquestioning disparagement
towards the board.
>>>>>>>> Is it *so* important to you to undermine what you find to
>>>>>>>> be a disagreeable process in the Big-8 that you would
>>>>>>>> advise a proponent to take this sort of action?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it so important for you to constantly and continuously
>>>>>>> mischaracterize my words in order for you to be a Secret
>>>>>>> Squirrel? You know the below, but for the onlookers we'll
>>>>>>> give you yet another refresher course:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not undermining anything. I'm simply telling them the
>>>>>>> facts. Which are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. The bambies have made themselves totally irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> NOTE, ORIGINAL TEXT FROM POST-EDITING RESTORED:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1a. There's no perceivable difference any more between alt.*
>>>>> creation and Big8 creation, other than somewhat more servers
>>>>> automatically honor the bambies' advisories.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and that's exactly the difference to which I was referring.
>>>> It would seem a disservice to tell a proponent that having the
>>>> new group he desired picked up automatically by zero servers
>>>> (well, there's Altopia, I guess) is better than having it
>>>> automatically picked up by however many there are presently who
>>>> honor Big-8 controls.
>>>>
>>>>> 2. Anyone wishing a Big8 group can send their own advisory and
>>>>> start work on getting the group propagated.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In your view.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to read to the links in William Bagwell's .sig to find
>>>>> out how alt.* groups work. It's obvious that yet again, you've
>>>>> been asleep for several years and someone's been using your
>>>>> keyboard.
>>>>
>>>> We're discussing Big-8 groups here, not alt....
>>>
>>> Hint, just to bring you up to speed again: there's little
>>> difference any more.
>>
>> It would seem that's your belief...
>
> See above, repetition about bringing yourself up to speed.
You keep ignoring the fact that *some* providers still honor the Board's
controls. That's better than none. Telling proponents there's little or no
"perceivable" difference between alt and big-8 creation is simply not true and
is a disservice to those proponents, and you damn well know it. I understand
you don't like the Board and you don't like ngp and you don't like those who
don't hate the Board, and so on, but don't take it out on proponents just to
further your apparent agenda to turn the Big-8 into something alt-like. That's
just plain wrong!
--
dvus
dvus wrote:
> Brian Mailman wrote:
>> <shrug>. That you haven't been keeping up isn't an issue for me.
>
> Nor should it be, were it true.
Ah, so you've gone to news.newusers.questions then after all. Cool.
B/
dvus wrote:
> Brian Mailman wrote:
> ... Telling proponents there's little or no "perceivable" difference
> between alt and big-8 creation is simply not true
I thought you'd gone to news.newusers.questions to find out how group
creation worked? Guess you lied, above.
> and is a disservice to those proponents, and you damn well know it. I
> understand you don't like the Board and you don't like ngp and you
> don't like those who don't hate the Board, and so on,
Those are your words, not mine. As usual, you're displaying you aren't
just a pettifogging, slightly retarded old man, but someone skilled at
playing all kinds of rhetorical tricks and questionable "debating"
technique.
> but don't take
> it out on proponents just to further your apparent agenda to turn the
> Big-8 into something alt-like. That's just plain wrong!
<boggle> I haven't done anything of the sort, and it's rather Rovian of
you to turn and accuse me of doing what the bambies you so admire have done.
B/
>
Brian Mailman wrote:
> dvus wrote:
>> Brian Mailman wrote:
>
>> ... Telling proponents there's little or no "perceivable" difference
>> between alt and big-8 creation is simply not true
>
> I thought you'd gone to news.newusers.questions to find out how group
> creation worked? Guess you lied, above.
"Above"? You mean where you wrote that you'd "guessed" I went to nnq and then
went on to comment in this follow-up to yourself as if *I'd* actually said
that?
>> and is a disservice to those proponents, and you damn well know it. I
>> understand you don't like the Board and you don't like ngp and you
>> don't like those who don't hate the Board, and so on,
>
> Those are your words, not mine.
Of course they're my words, I wrote them.
> As usual, you're displaying you aren't
> just a pettifogging, slightly retarded old man, but someone skilled at
> playing all kinds of rhetorical tricks and questionable "debating"
> technique.
C,mon, Brian, which is it? Am I an old retard or a skilled debater? Or does it
change depending on the point you're trying to make?
>> but don't take
>> it out on proponents just to further your apparent agenda to turn the
>> Big-8 into something alt-like. That's just plain wrong!
>
> <boggle> I haven't done anything of the sort, and it's rather Rovian of
> you to turn and accuse me of doing what the bambies you so admire have done.
Heh, "Rovian", you worked in a little politics there! Anyway, I don't "so
admire" the board, I just understand some of their actions. And you *have* told
people to ignore Big-8 group creation policy and just send their own controls
and promote, which is basically what alt proponents are told. I haven't seen
board members advising that course of action, just you.
--
dvus
dvus wrote:
> Brian Mailman wrote:
>>> and is a disservice to those proponents, and you damn well know
>>> it. I understand you don't like the Board and you don't like ngp
>>> and you don't like those who don't hate the Board, and so on,
>>
>> Those are your words, not mine.
>
> Of course they're my words, I wrote them.
Why yes, you did. Of course, they're meaningless, but <shrug>.
>> As usual, you're displaying you aren't just a pettifogging,
>> slightly retarded old man, but someone skilled at playing all kinds
>> of rhetorical tricks and questionable "debating" technique.
>
> C,mon, Brian, which is it? Am I an old retard or a skilled debater?
> Or does it change depending on the point you're trying to make?
LOL. Yes, I agree. That's not what I wrote.
>>> but don't take it out on proponents just to further your apparent
>>> agenda to turn the Big-8 into something alt-like. That's just
>>> plain wrong!
>>
>> <boggle> I haven't done anything of the sort, and it's rather
>> Rovian of you to turn and accuse me of doing what the bambies you
>> so admire have done.
>
> Heh, "Rovian", you worked in a little politics there! Anyway, I don't
> "so admire" the board, I just understand some of their actions. And
> you *have* told people to ignore Big-8 group creation policy and just
> send their own controls and promote, which is basically what alt
> proponents are told. I haven't seen board members advising that
> course of action, just you.
There you go, admiring the bambies again! Well, it's just like you to
cherry pick what you claim you say you see in order to stretch your
point, which is also usually a very straw straw man.
B/
Brian Mailman wrote:
> dvus wrote:
>> Brian Mailman wrote:
>
>>>> and is a disservice to those proponents, and you damn well know
>>>> it. I understand you don't like the Board and you don't like ngp
>>>> and you don't like those who don't hate the Board, and so on,
>>>
>>> Those are your words, not mine.
>>
>> Of course they're my words, I wrote them.
>
> Why yes, you did. Of course, they're meaningless, but <shrug>.
>
>>> As usual, you're displaying you aren't just a pettifogging,
>>> slightly retarded old man, but someone skilled at playing all kinds
>>> of rhetorical tricks and questionable "debating" technique.
>>
>> C,mon, Brian, which is it? Am I an old retard or a skilled debater?
>> Or does it change depending on the point you're trying to make?
>
> LOL. Yes, I agree. That's not what I wrote.
>
>>>> but don't take it out on proponents just to further your apparent
>>>> agenda to turn the Big-8 into something alt-like. That's just
>>>> plain wrong!
>>>
>>> <boggle> I haven't done anything of the sort, and it's rather
>>> Rovian of you to turn and accuse me of doing what the bambies you
>>> so admire have done.
>>
>> Heh, "Rovian", you worked in a little politics there! Anyway, I don't
>> "so admire" the board, I just understand some of their actions. And
>> you *have* told people to ignore Big-8 group creation policy and just
>> send their own controls and promote, which is basically what alt
>> proponents are told. I haven't seen board members advising that
>> course of action, just you.
>
> There you go, admiring the bambies again! Well, it's just like you to
> cherry pick what you claim you say you see in order to stretch your
> point, which is also usually a very straw straw man.
Well, if all you're going to do is repeat the same thing, that "you didn't
write that" every time someone paraphrases you it's going to be a long night.
Is it necessary to repeat you verbatim in order to debate a point? I notice you
have no problems attributing things to people that they didn't say but replies
to your comments have to be absolutely semantically exact or you retreat to the
"that's not what I wrote" excuse to avoid any substantive answers.
More to the point, please explain how I "admired" the board in saying I
understand some of their actions or in saying I didn't see them doing what
you're doing. While you're at it, maybe you could explain where the straw man
is in my comments, or is that accusation just another handy sleight-of-hand to
avoid real discussion?
--
dvus
dvus wrote:
> Brian Mailman wrote:
>> dvus wrote:
>>> Brian Mailman wrote:
>>
>>>>> and is a disservice to those proponents, and you damn well know
>>>>> it. I understand you don't like the Board and you don't like ngp
>>>>> and you don't like those who don't hate the Board, and so on,
>>>>
>>>> Those are your words, not mine.
>>>
>>> Of course they're my words, I wrote them.
>>
>> Why yes, you did. Of course, they're meaningless, but <shrug>.
>>
>>>> As usual, you're displaying you aren't just a pettifogging,
>>>> slightly retarded old man, but someone skilled at playing all kinds
>>>> of rhetorical tricks and questionable "debating" technique.
>>>
>>> C,mon, Brian, which is it? Am I an old retard or a skilled debater?
>>> Or does it change depending on the point you're trying to make?
>>
>> LOL. Yes, I agree. That's not what I wrote.
>>
>>>>> but don't take it out on proponents just to further your apparent
>>>>> agenda to turn the Big-8 into something alt-like. That's just
>>>>> plain wrong!
>>>>
>>>> <boggle> I haven't done anything of the sort, and it's rather
>>>> Rovian of you to turn and accuse me of doing what the bambies you
>>>> so admire have done.
>>>
>>> Heh, "Rovian", you worked in a little politics there! Anyway, I don't
>>> "so admire" the board, I just understand some of their actions. And
>>> you *have* told people to ignore Big-8 group creation policy and just
>>> send their own controls and promote, which is basically what alt
>>> proponents are told. I haven't seen board members advising that
>>> course of action, just you.
>>
>> There you go, admiring the bambies again! Well, it's just like you to
>> cherry pick what you claim you say you see in order to stretch your
>> point, which is also usually a very straw straw man.
>
> Well, if all you're going to do is repeat the same thing, that "you
> didn't write that" every time someone paraphrases you it's going to be a
> long night. Is it necessary to repeat you verbatim in order to debate a
> point? I notice you have no problems attributing things to people that
> they didn't say but replies to your comments have to be absolutely
> semantically exact or you retreat to the "that's not what I wrote"
> excuse to avoid any substantive answers.
>
> More to the point, please explain how I "admired" the board in saying I
> understand some of their actions or in saying I didn't see them doing
> what you're doing. While you're at it, maybe you could explain where the
> straw man is in my comments, or is that accusation just another handy
> sleight-of-hand to avoid real discussion?
>
So having figured out that good-faith, intellectually-honest dialog with
your antagonist is not to be had you are now paying for another five
minutes? Wonderful.
kt
Kenneth Tilton wrote:
> dvus wrote:
>> Brian Mailman wrote:
>>> dvus wrote:
> So having figured out that good-faith, intellectually-honest dialog
> with your antagonist is not to be had you are now paying for another
> five minutes? Wonderful.
Right, and that's why I'm walking off rather than allow myself to keep
getting trolled.
B/
Brian Mailman <········@sfo.invalid> writes:
> You [dvus] seem to enjoy using the word "condescending" a lot.
Like dvus, I'm a language buff and enjoy using many
words. "Antediluvian" in particular is a favourite, as is
"pettifogging".
--
Aatu Koskensilta (················@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
> Brian Mailman <········@sfo.invalid> writes:
>
>> You [dvus] seem to enjoy using the word "condescending" a lot.
>
> Like dvus, I'm a language buff and enjoy using many
> words. "Antediluvian" in particular is a favourite, as is
> "pettifogging".
I have many interests, currently I have devoted all my spare time to
ascertaining the source of the metals used for the nails that held Noah's
Ark together.
--
dvus
In message <··································@4ax.com>, Benjamin
L.Russell <············@Yahoo.com> writes
>Why do you and the administrators need to keep fighting about which
>newsgroups get to discuss the RFD's?
When the Big-8 Management Board was created, we made some changes in the
way newsgroup management was carried out. Sadly, some folks wanted to go
back the old ways and take pretty much every chance to make the point.
Sadly, sometimes they flame the proponent, i.e. you, in some mistaken
belief that they are doing "the right thing".
> It's impossible to keep you and the administrators happy at the same
>time.
You have two important constituencies: the folks who want the new groups
(and on whose behalf you are proposing a new group, and the B8MB who are
the ones who decide for/against the proposal. You are, of course, free
to post and discuss in news.groups but most proponents tend to get a
pretty poor reception there (it seems because some folks flame because
they can).
The place the B8MB looks for the discussion is here, not news.groups.
You are free to post there, but I suspect you will not get a great
reception, as I think you have already discovered. If you want to carry
on the discussions in news.groups, or even just lurk there, feel free.
There are sometimes some good points made there - but don't feel
obliged.
> If I satisfy you, then they say something about it, and if I satisfy
>them, then you say something about it. Either way, I get flamed.
I would sincerely hope that no one is flaming you here and that you get
no flames at all from anyone in the B8MB. You have received advice and
from the mails I've seen that was intended as helpful and definitely not
a flame. As for the abuse in news.groups, many proponents ignore it,
preferring to discuss the proposal rationally in news.groups.proposals
(i.e. here).
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee - ···@psp.co.uk
A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board
Thomas Lee <···@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>Benjamin L.Russell <············@Yahoo.com> writes
>>If I satisfy you, then they say something about it, and if I satisfy
>>them, then you say something about it. Either way, I get flamed.
>I would sincerely hope that no one is flaming you here and that you get
>no flames at all from anyone in the B8MB. You have received advice and
>from the mails I've seen that was intended as helpful and definitely not
>a flame. As for the abuse in news.groups, many proponents ignore it,
>preferring to discuss the proposal rationally in news.groups.proposals
>(i.e. here).
The proponent has received no abuse in news.groups, merely helpful
advice. That there's no support from either the Usenet LISP community
nor those posting to the Web board that the proponent pointed out
earlier isn't abuse. That several members of the Usenet LISP community
have stated that the existing newsgroup is appropriate for newLISP
discussion is not abuse. That this very same issue came up a few weeks
ago when there was a group proposed for common LISP, then quickly
withdrawn, is valuable advice.
Pointing out to Mr. Russell that Usenet discussion of newLISP is
negligible is not abuse.
Mr. Russell was not flamed, not even once. This has been an extremely
civil discussion.
(News.groups.proposals removed from the newsgroups line.)
Thomas Lee <···@psp.co.uk> writes:
> In message <··································@4ax.com>, Benjamin
> L.Russell <············@Yahoo.com> writes
>> Why do you and the administrators need to keep fighting about which
>> newsgroups get to discuss the RFD's?
>
> When the Big-8 Management Board was created, we made some changes in
> the way newsgroup management was carried out. Sadly, some folks
> wanted to go back the old ways and take pretty much every chance to
> make the point.
Well, that only applies to Wayne Brown, strictly speaking. Others
critical of the board usually have specific (imaginary or real)
grievances in mind.
> Sadly, sometimes they flame the proponent, i.e. you, in some
> mistaken belief that they are doing "the right thing".
Yes, sometimes people do get flamed on Usenet. It is quite unnecessary
to drag proponents into general Big-8 policy fights. Unless the issue
comes up, the prudent course of action would surely be to simply set
any quarrels aside and just discuss the proposal. Until and unless
news.groups becomes too toxic to bear in context of the particular
proposal in question trying to move the discussion either to
news.groups.proposals or news.groups is bound to involve the proponent
in all sorts of irrelevant fighting. In case of this proposal, I find
Adam's behaviour, and his attempt at defusing the situation by
explicitly asking you set aside any question of where the discussion
should take place, more appropriate than yours.
Now, all this is of course very easy for me to say, since I'm not at
the receiving end of the undying hatred and evil flames of the hordes
of the anti-board (TINAB). Yet, I again futilely suggest you try and
keep your calm.
> As for the abuse in news.groups, many proponents ignore it,
> preferring to discuss the proposal rationally in
> news.groups.proposals (i.e. here).
The proponents will surely use their good sense and best judgement to
arrive at a conclusion as to where they may profitably discuss their
proposals, taking into account the explicit wishes of the board and
their impression of the atmosphere in this or that group. That the
board likes to conduct its business with proponents in
news.groups.proposals is made amply clear in the official policy
statements the proponent has hopefully perused.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (················@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:21:11 +0200, in news.groups, Aatu Koskensilta
<················@uta.fi> bloviated:
>
>Well, that only applies to Wayne Brown, strictly speaking. Others
>critical of the board usually have specific (imaginary or real)
>grievances in mind.
>
Specific (real): They suck.
Specific (imaginary): They suck like Bush.
They suck, but are no where near as bad as Bush.
Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
[snip]
> Now, all this is of course very easy for me to say, since I'm not at
> the receiving end of the undying hatred and evil flames of the hordes
> of the anti-board (TINAB). Yet, I again futilely suggest you try and
> keep your calm.
[snip]
Amen. Whether by design or otherwise, as time passes, news.groups has
become a place where useful proposal discussion *can* actually take place
despite the lack of moderation. I, for one, think proponents will be much
more likely to attempt to brave the tide in here after lurking a while than
they might have in the past, while admitting I never would have predicted
such a thing would ever come to pass. Ironically, it's probable that the
existance of ngp is as responsible for this as anything else.
--
dvus
Aatu Koskensilta <················@uta.fi> wrote:
>Thomas Lee <···@psp.co.uk> writes:
>>Benjamin L.Russell <············@Yahoo.com> writes
>>>Why do you and the administrators need to keep fighting about which
>>>newsgroups get to discuss the RFD's?
>>When the Big-8 Management Board was created, we made some changes in
>>the way newsgroup management was carried out. Sadly, some folks
>>wanted to go back the old ways and take pretty much every chance to
>>make the point.
>Well, that only applies to Wayne Brown, strictly speaking. Others
>critical of the board usually have specific (imaginary or real)
>grievances in mind.
I am not on record as being a supporter of the prior system, which
Thomas appears to be suggesting, not Aatu.
>>Sadly, sometimes they flame the proponent, i.e. you, in some
>>mistaken belief that they are doing "the right thing".
>Yes, sometimes people do get flamed on Usenet. It is quite unnecessary
>to drag proponents into general Big-8 policy fights. Unless the issue
>comes up, the prudent course of action would surely be to simply set
>any quarrels aside and just discuss the proposal. Until and unless
>news.groups becomes too toxic to bear in context of the particular
>proposal in question trying to move the discussion either to
>news.groups.proposals or news.groups is bound to involve the proponent
>in all sorts of irrelevant fighting. In case of this proposal, I find
>Adam's behaviour, and his attempt at defusing the situation by
>explicitly asking you set aside any question of where the discussion
>should take place, more appropriate than yours.
Are you trying to ruin my reputation as an asshole and liar, as Jeremy
accused me of being just yesterday?
>Now, all this is of course very easy for me to say, since I'm not at
>the receiving end of the undying hatred and evil flames of the hordes
>of the anti-board (TINAB). Yet, I again futilely suggest you try and
>keep your calm.
Did you miss the sign up sheet?
Mark Kramer <······@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>Thomas Lee <···@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>>The place the B8MB looks for the discussion is here, not news.groups.
>This IS news.groups. At least, that's where I read your article. Do you
>not know where you post?
>>You are free to post there, but I suspect you will not get a great
>>reception, as I think you have already discovered.
>Yes, he won't, because those who actually care about Usenet still read
>and post here, and they realize that "they will come" is untrue, that
>web boards are inherently incompatible with unmoderated Usenet groups,
>and that web board users typically object to the influx of Usenet and
>vice versa.
>Bad ideas deserve less than great reception.
For those who haven't followed in comp.lang.lisp, one user brought up
the idea of gating between Usenet and the Web board in which newLISP is
discussed. Several Board members then attached this baggage to the
proposal we are discussing. None of this was the proponent's doing.
From: Adam H. Kerman
Subject: Ping newLISP proponent (was: Ping Bambies - your boilerplate is broken again)
Date:
Message-ID: <gpc0gv$9d3$1@news.albasani.net>
The purpose of this message is to bring to your attention the all too
typical nature of proposal discsussion, as affected by use of a
moderated newsgroup.
Kathy Morgan <·······@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> wrote:
>>Benjamin L.Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>><...>
>>> CHANGE HISTORY:
>>> {2006-11-30 Newest version of this boilerplate}
>>> {2009-03-06 1st RFD}
>>> {2009-03-12 2nd RFD}
>>The 1st RFD was not posted on 06 March.
>I don't remember for sure, but I believe that may have been the date the
>proponent first attempted to post the 1st RFD. I rejected it and made
>him revise it to include crossposts to potentially affected groups, so
>that created a few days delay before it actually was posted.
I made similar points, attempting to post twice to news.groups.proposals.
Can one of the news.groups.proposals moderators identify the word
or sentence in either of my messages that was neither congenial nor
constructive?
Is it incongenial and unconstructive to point out that the
news.announce.newgroups moderators committed errors when two RFDs by
the same proponent were approved, even though they misstated facts about
their change history and the groups they were crossposted to?
The Usenet community is left to wonder why there are two documents, both
of which state they are 2nd RFD, while 1st RFD from March 6 was never
approved for posting to Usenet.
I believe I am owed an apology, and I believe the Usenet community is
owed an on-the-record clarification of exactly where we are in the
process, and which documents are First and Second RFDs.
Is it now clear to the proponent what's wrong with moderated proposal
discussion? Peter demonstrates that the unmoderated proposal discussion
group, news.groups, can be used to bring problems with RFDs to the Big 8
Management Board's attention. I demonstrate that when I attempt to raise
these critical issues in the moderated proposal discussion group, my two
messages are censored.
=====Forwarded message==============
Message-ID: <···························@jik3.kamens.brookline.ma.us>
To: ···@chinet.com
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
From: ·······@ngp.big-8.org
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:17:58 -0400
news.groups.proposals was established to provide a congenial and
constructive place for discussion of new groups or changes to the
group list. Your submission has been rejected because it is not
consistent with this goal.
Content that is not conducive to the development of a proposal is
disallowed, including personal attacks, derogatory nicknames,
repetitive arguments, and flames.
You may wish to tone down your language and resubmit. You can read
the charter of news.groups.proposals at <http://www.big-8.org/~ngp/>.
Please direct your queries to ········@ngp.big-8.org.
Thank you,
- Moderator.
============================================ Full text of your message follows
> From ····@schnuerpel.eu Thu Mar 12 16:00:23 2009
> Return-Path: <····@schnuerpel.eu>
> Received: from pinatubo.switch.ch (pinatubo-2.switch.ch [130.59.1.10])
> by jik3.kamens.brookline.ma.us (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2CK0MXW025778
> for <···@ngp.big-8.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:00:23 -0400
> Received: from [78.47.18.35] (helo=schnuerpel.eu)
> by pinatubo.switch.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
> (envelope-from <····@schnuerpel.eu>)
> id 1Lhr4n-0007UU-Ry
> for ·····················@moderators.isc.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:00:21 +0100
> Received: by schnuerpel.eu (Postfix, from userid 9)
> id 906CD3427E00; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:00:19 +0100 (CET)
> To: ·····················@moderators.isc.org
> From: "Adam H. Kerman" <···@chinet.com>
> Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
> Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
> Organization: albasani.net
> Message-ID: <············@news.albasani.net>
> References: <··································@4ax.com> <································@supernews.com>
> X-Trace: news.albasani.net LEPtpPu5gS+P1HoQyRVwN1dJbxdFtQHf4QV4u/kJHgAtYxx6NSGED+de0ve0gVcJlhIsXY5MotqmVvkwm88knPNH7gvS6uTy/AM7CpdEwA4zT55eDnt335XPjvH8n3Q4
> X-Complaints-To: ·····@albasani.net
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:00:19 +0000 (UTC)
> X-User-ID: I/tlYZefXSRpROvZSRD3BwUg5Umg6OqQr78XnwQp7V8=
> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001)
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:qhkuOdlo7PDTInLTjDsJ27HffbM=
>
> Martin X. Moleski, SJ <·······@canisius.edu> wrote:
> >Benjamin L.Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Marty, do not reply to me in email. Reply only on Usenet.
>
> >>DISTRIBUTION:
> >>This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
> >> news.groups.proposals
> >> news.groups
> >> comp.lang.lisp
> >> comp.lang.scheme
>
> >I approved the 2nd RFD even though this is not true.
> >You have made some good changes in it in response
> >to questions people have raised.
>
> >The actual distribution of the 2nd RFD was to:
>
> >news.announce.newgroups
> >news.groups.proposals
> >comp.lang.lisp
>
> If the RFD isn't accurate, you should have required the proponent to
> resubmit it.
>
> >Lastly, you should use the change history to actually
> >make notes about what changes were made. The notes
> >should not be in {braces like these} and should not
> >include the date of the boilerplate. So:
>
> >CHANGE HISTORY:
> >2009-03-06 Proposed creation of comp.lang.newlisp.
> >2009-03-12 Changed name to comp.lang.lisp.newlisp;
> > revised newsgroups line.
>
> I saw an RFD that stated in the Change History in the message that it
> was second RFD. Can you state, for the record, that it was actually
> First RFD? I saw nothing posted to Usenet on the stated date of March 6.
>
> How about requiring the proponent to post the RFD with accurate change
> history? Get him to post a revised 2nd RFd that's accurate this time.
From: Adam H. Kerman
Subject: Re: Ping Bambies - your boilerplate is broken again
Date:
Message-ID: <gpe2vs$5e3$3@news.albasani.net>
Peter J Ross <············@gmail.com> wrote:
>on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:17:03 -0900, Kathy Morgan <·······@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>Benjamin L.Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> <...>
>>>> CHANGE HISTORY:
>>>> {2006-11-30 Newest version of this boilerplate}
>>>> {2009-03-06 1st RFD}
>>>> {2009-03-12 2nd RFD}
>>>The 1st RFD was not posted on 06 March.
>>I don't remember for sure, but I believe that may have been the date the
>>proponent first attempted to post the 1st RFD. I rejected it and made
>>him revise it to include crossposts to potentially affected groups, so
>>that created a few days delay before it actually was posted.
>The proponent has confirmed this. On this occasion, the mistake was
>the proponent's.
Of course proponents make mistakes. The moderator who approved the two
RFDs made a bigger mistake by not requesting that the proponent deal
with this matter.
No, Marty, you're wrong. It is a really big deal to mislead the Usenet
community about where we are in the RFD process. A 1st RFD MUST NOT
state that it's a 2nd RFD.
>Whatever happened to the idea of simplifying RFDs and the RFD process?
>The "Distribution" and "Change History" parts of RFDs convey little or
>no useful information, and are only of interest when they're wrong.
In this case, it proved to be critical.
The real problem is the rest of the boilerplate.
I went through news.groups, news.groups.proposals, and comp.lang.lisp
this morning looking for support for this proposal. Other than
<·······················@askin-17.linkpendium.com> from Brian Leverich
who said he "would follow" the newsgroup, I found none. The consensus
in comp.lang.lisp appears to be that there is no need for a split given
the current traffic level in the group.
As others have pointed out, perhaps there is an opportunity here to
explore a web-to-news gateway. The fact that there is a robust web
forum doesn't translate into any Usenet discussion unless there's
actually a gateway. On the other hand, the success of the gmane groups
in areas like OpenOffice suggest potential for this approach. It would
require commitment on someone's part to actually implement the facility,
and cooperation from the owner of the web forum, but would improve the
discussion environment if successful.
Peter J Ross wrote:
> In news.groups on 21 Mar 2009 00:11:57 GMT, Jeremy Nixon
> <····@u.defocus.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter J Ross <············@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The discussion of the RFD is over, for the present.
>>
>> It does seem to be. I will be able to vote on the information I
>> have now.
>
> Wasn't the proponent hoping to come back with better evidence that
> the newsgroup will be well-used?
It would seem the proponent no longer controls when s/he wishes the
after-vote vote to occur.
B/
>
>>> Nobody, including you, speaks for "the populace".
>>
>> No, but I have a responsibility to listen to it, and listening to a
>> skewed viewpoint from extremists would not be sufficient to
>> fulfill that responsibility.
>
> What's skewed or extreme about the view that a separate *.announce
> group for newLISP might be a bad idea? What's skewed or extreme about
> the view that a blank line after "For your newsgroups file:" may be
> unsafe? These are the kind of views that are expressed about RFDs
> here.
>
> If there's an extremist here, it's me. I'm the one who, unlike Adam
> for example, refuses to participate in NGP at all and regularly calls
> for it to be rmgrouped. And yet I'm the only one here other than Bob
> Officer (who seems to be busy in other newsgroups) who you say is
> worth reading.
>
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:52:22 -0700, Brian Mailman
<········@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>Peter J Ross wrote:
>> In news.groups on 21 Mar 2009 00:11:57 GMT, Jeremy Nixon
>> <····@u.defocus.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter J Ross <············@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The discussion of the RFD is over, for the present.
>>>
>>> It does seem to be. I will be able to vote on the information I
>>> have now.
>>
>> Wasn't the proponent hoping to come back with better evidence that
>> the newsgroup will be well-used?
>
>It would seem the proponent no longer controls when s/he wishes the
>after-vote vote to occur.
Actually, I had been considering whether to continue with this
proposal because of an inconsistency in statements made by the creator
of the newLISP language on whether a bug in evaluating multi-lne
statements in the REPL in the GUI-based IDE (now fixed) had really
been a bug: Specifically, the creator first claimed that it wasn't,
and then fixed it, thus effectively denying his initial statement
(otherwise, why would it have been needed to have been fixed in the
first place?). Such an inconsistency in statements by the creator of
a programming language caused me to have some doubts about the
usefulness of the language itself, despite the fact that the bug had
been fixed.
Nevertheless, since I have received messages from at least one other
person to continue to fulfill my "duties" as the proponent, I plan to
ask that creator if he is interested in a gateway between his Web
board and the proposed new USENET group. Other members of his Web
board do not seem to be interested in participating in USENET, so
basically I need his support to have the newsgroup started.
I'll post a follow-up message here when I hear back from him.
-- Benjamin L. Russell
--
Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com
http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/
Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725
"Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto."
-- Matsuo Basho^
Benjamin L. Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>Nevertheless, since I have received messages from at least one other
>person to continue to fulfill my "duties" as the proponent, I plan to
>ask that creator if he is interested in a gateway between his Web
>board and the proposed new USENET group. Other members of his Web
>board do not seem to be interested in participating in USENET, so
>basically I need his support to have the newsgroup started.
>I'll post a follow-up message here when I hear back from him.
Is this other person you heard from currently discussing newLISP on Usenet?
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:47:43 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<···@chinet.com> wrote:
>Benjamin L. Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Nevertheless, since I have received messages from at least one other
>>person to continue to fulfill my "duties" as the proponent, I plan to
>>ask that creator if he is interested in a gateway between his Web
>>board and the proposed new USENET group. Other members of his Web
>>board do not seem to be interested in participating in USENET, so
>>basically I need his support to have the newsgroup started.
>
>>I'll post a follow-up message here when I hear back from him.
>
>Is this other person you heard from currently discussing newLISP on Usenet?
He's meta-discussing how to further discussion of newLISP by creating
a gateway between the current newLISP Web-based forum and the proposed
comp.lang.lisp.newlisp newsgroup. I haven't yet queried the creator
of newLISP on this idea, but according to him, I have "duties of a
proponent" which include "do[ing] supporting PR for the group." I
wasn't aware that a proponent had any "duties" as such, but according
to him, apparently they do.
Prior to hearing from him, I had still been thinking about whether to
continue with this RFC because of inconsistencies in statements by the
creator of newLISP in admitting whether a bug (now fixed) really was a
bug. When I proposed the first RFC, this issue had not yet existed.
Such inconsistencies can possibly change the value of the programming
language to USENET in my opinion. If the creator of a programming
language says that a bug is not really a bug, and then turns around
and fixes the "bug," is that creator trustworthy?
Alas, my "duties of a proponent" beckon....
<heads back to work at "do[ing] supporting PR for the group.">
-- Benjamin L. Russell
--
Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com
http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/
Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725
"Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto."
-- Matsuo Basho^
Benjamin L. Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:47:43 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <···@chinet.com> wrote:
>> Is this other person you heard from currently discussing newLISP on
>> Usenet?
>
> He's meta-discussing how to further discussion of newLISP by creating
> a gateway between the current newLISP Web-based forum and the
> proposed comp.lang.lisp.newlisp newsgroup. I haven't yet queried the
> creator of newLISP on this idea, but according to him, I have "duties
> of a proponent" which include "do[ing] supporting PR for the group."
> I wasn't aware that a proponent had any "duties" as such, but
> according to him, apparently they do.
One of the duties of a proponent is to recognize if the proposed group
isn't viable at all and withdraw the RFD.
B/
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:23:35 +0900, Benjamin L. Russell
<············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>[...]
>
>I'm going to respond to his
>opinion and see if it is possible to expand support for the proposed
>comp.lang.lisp.newlisp newsgroup on the newLISP Fan Club.
>
>Given unixtechie's favorable response, it may be possible to convince
>him to participate in newLISP discussion on USENET. Furthermore,
>since he claims to be "an active participant in a very tightly
>connected "universe" of blogs," it may be possible to ask for his
>assistance in gathering additional support.
>
>Admittedly, this is not much of a basis yet, but this is a new
>response that materialized in reply to my post on that Web forum, so
>with additional posts there, perhaps I can obtain further favorable
>responses. I'll post some new messages there and write back here
>shortly on the response (or lack of one) that I receive.
There has been another response (see
http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=15069#15069), by a
user called "newdep," to the suggestion of establishing a gateway on
the newLISP Fan Club (albeit lukewarm--this user doesn't mind
discussing newLISP on USENET, but thinks that newLISP is better
promoted by having users use it on servers, rather than by spreading
discussion).
I have followed up (see
http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=15072#15072) on the
responses by both unixtechie and newdep in suggesting that unixtechie
voice his support directly in this thread, and by stating that
discussion is necessary to attract users to write the interesting
applications.
I'll follow up here shortly on further developments in that thread.
-- Benjamin L. Russell
--
Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com
http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/
Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725
"Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto."
-- Matsuo Basho^
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:57:39 +0900, Benjamin L. Russell
<············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:23:35 +0900, Benjamin L. Russell
><············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>[...]
>>
>>I'm going to respond to his
>>opinion and see if it is possible to expand support for the proposed
>>comp.lang.lisp.newlisp newsgroup on the newLISP Fan Club.
>>
>>Given unixtechie's favorable response, it may be possible to convince
>>him to participate in newLISP discussion on USENET. Furthermore,
>>since he claims to be "an active participant in a very tightly
>>connected "universe" of blogs," it may be possible to ask for his
>>assistance in gathering additional support.
>>
>>Admittedly, this is not much of a basis yet, but this is a new
>>response that materialized in reply to my post on that Web forum, so
>>with additional posts there, perhaps I can obtain further favorable
>>responses. I'll post some new messages there and write back here
>>shortly on the response (or lack of one) that I receive.
>
>There has been another response (see
>http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=15069#15069), by a
>user called "newdep," to the suggestion of establishing a gateway on
>the newLISP Fan Club (albeit lukewarm--this user doesn't mind
>discussing newLISP on USENET, but thinks that newLISP is better
>promoted by having users use it on servers, rather than by spreading
>discussion).
>
>I have followed up (see
>http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=15072#15072) on the
>responses by both unixtechie and newdep in suggesting that unixtechie
>voice his support directly in this thread, and by stating that
>discussion is necessary to attract users to write the interesting
>applications.
>
>I'll follow up here shortly on further developments in that thread.
Due to lack of interest by Lutz, the creator of newLISP, and
opposition by a majority of participants in the related thread on
comp.lang.lisp, I have decided temporarily to withdraw the 2nd RFD
pending further developments.
I am still interested in creating comp.lang.lisp.newlisp; for the time
being, I have merely decided to seek alternative approaches.
If this RFD is reinstated in the future, or a revised RFD is drafted,
I shall post a further announcement to that effect.
-- Benjamin L. Russell
--
Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com
http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/
Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725
"Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto."
-- Matsuo Basho^
["Followup-To:" header set to news.groups.]
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Alexander Bartolich <···················@gmx.at> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>Alexander Bartolich <···················@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Poeple willing to contribute months and months of consistent effort
>>>>are typically not willing to let kooks, trolls and spammers ruin it.
>
>>>I'm truly disappointed in this comment. Why would a News administrator,
>>>of all people, lump in spam with kooks and trolls?
>
>>Ever heard of signal to noise ratio?
>
> You're not contributing to signal.
You said that proponents must invest a lot of work in their group.
I replied that investors want protection for their investment, that
Usenet cannot offer such protection, und thus the investors of your
liking will not come.
You replied with a mix of ad hominem and non sequitur.
I answered your non sequitur anyway ("kooks, trolls and spammers are
all together noise").
You replied with ad hominem.
>> [...]
>>Everything worthwile was already said in ngp.
>
> Then what are you doing here?
I wanted to prove that I can have a heated discussion with one of
my users, but failed at having a discussion.
--
seq 0 1 99 | xargs -I. echo 'Romani Ite Domum!'
Alexander Bartolich <···················@gmx.at> wrote:
>["Followup-To:" header set to news.groups.]
These followup-to games are unbelievably immature. The proponent is
reading the LISP group, I hope.
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Alexander Bartolich <···················@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Alexander Bartolich <···················@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>>>Poeple willing to contribute months and months of consistent effort
>>>>>are typically not willing to let kooks, trolls and spammers ruin it.
>>>>I'm truly disappointed in this comment. Why would a News administrator,
>>>>of all people, lump in spam with kooks and trolls?
>>>Ever heard of signal to noise ratio?
>>You're not contributing to signal.
>You said that proponents must invest a lot of work in their group.
I never said anything of the kind. I do not suggest that a proposed
newsgroup would belong to a proponent under any circumstances.
I did say that a proponent should perform specific tasks, else no one
will and the group will likely fail.
>I replied that investors want protection for their investment, that
>Usenet cannot offer such protection, und thus the investors of your
>liking will not come.
Your analogy to "investments" is absurd.
>You replied with a mix of ad hominem and non sequitur.
It's not ad hominem to object to your analogies.
>I answered your non sequitur anyway ("kooks, trolls and spammers are
>all together noise").
>You replied with ad hominem.
I objected to the way you lumped spam in with kooks and trolls. I
observe that you STILL haven't explained to us how it's possible to
control spam on a per-group level if it's not done for all groups.
You demanded that I thump my resume at you to prove expertise, which I
refuse to do. You made the silly charge, so prove it.
Or admit you made a misstatement.
>>>Everything worthwile was already said in ngp.
>>Then what are you doing here?
>I wanted to prove that I can have a heated discussion with one of
>my users, but failed at having a discussion.
Are we having a discussion? I'm really not aware that you are discussing
anything I wrote.
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:00:38 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<···@chinet.com> wrote:
>Alexander Bartolich <···················@gmx.at> wrote:
>>["Followup-To:" header set to news.groups.]
>
>These followup-to games are unbelievably immature. The proponent is
>reading the LISP group, I hope.
He is.
In other news, the has been another response (see
http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=15073#15073) on the
newLISP Fan Club, this one by a user named "Jeff," stating, in a
nutshell, as follows:
On Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:48 am, "Jeff" <address unavailable> wrote:
>Successful promotion comes from an active community, not a community of activists.
More specifically, he argued as follows:
>The best way to promote a language is to ensure that there are a large
>number of available libraries and projects using the language. Programmers
>are not as susceptible to marketing as CIOs are. They tend to use what
>they find is the most useful and the most interesting, and, often, what
>gets the job done in the fewest lines of code.
Unfortunately, he also wrote as follows:
>No one said that newlisp should not be promoted. We all think that more
>projects should use newlisp and that it is an elegant, pragmatic language.
>What we don't all think is that it needs its own usenet group. Hell, even
>common lisp has to share.
My impression is that most of the newLISP Fan Club members, with the
exception of myself and one other member named "unixtechie," are not
very enthusiastic of USENET culture, and believe that newLISP should
be promoted by writing applications, instead of by furthering
discussion.
Unfortunately, this approach leaves out hobbiests such as myself, who
are not professional programmers and are mainly interested in
programming language theory.
Therefore, I think that I should adopt a different approach: Start a
grass-roots movement for newLISP based completely in USENET.
I plan to switch tactics for now and see how much interest I can
gather directly on USENET by posting a few interesting articles
relating to newLISP and seeing what response I receive. Based on that
response, then I'll decide what to do (or not to do) next.
-- Benjamin L. Russell
--
Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com
http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/
Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725
"Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto."
-- Matsuo Basho^
From: Peter J Ross
Subject: newLISP RFD withdrawn? (was: 2nd RFD: comp.lang.lisp.newlisp)
Date:
Message-ID: <slrngsmnii.nnt.pjr@pjr.gotdns.org>
[follow-ups set]
In news.groups on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:41:09 +0900, Benjamin L Russell
<············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
<...>
> My impression is that most of the newLISP Fan Club members, with the
> exception of myself and one other member named "unixtechie," are not
> very enthusiastic of USENET culture, and believe that newLISP should
> be promoted by writing applications, instead of by furthering
> discussion.
>
> Unfortunately, this approach leaves out hobbiests such as myself, who
> are not professional programmers and are mainly interested in
> programming language theory.
>
> Therefore, I think that I should adopt a different approach: Start a
> grass-roots movement for newLISP based completely in USENET.
>
> I plan to switch tactics for now and see how much interest I can
> gather directly on USENET by posting a few interesting articles
> relating to newLISP and seeing what response I receive. Based on that
> response, then I'll decide what to do (or not to do) next.
I think this is the best plan at present. Should we assume that the
RFD is now formally withdrawn? You can easily resume the process more
or less where you left off at some future date when you have
satisfactory evidence of newLISP discussion on Usenet.
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator