A lurker's take on C.L.C pedantry

[Kenny McCormack]

That's the mature approach.

Yours,
Han from China

But you do see how that approach is inconsistent with deeply held
religious belief, do you not?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Nobody is forcing those with a stricter topicality opinion to waste
time in what they consider off-topic discussions. The act of ignoring
a thread happens at mind speed. They can ignore the thread or provide a
newsgroup redirection and then ignore the thread -- no need to waste
time injecting themselves between the OPs and the people who are happy
to spend some time helping the OPs. Live and let live.

Right, but as I explain in depth in my other post, it simply is not the
case that the "regs" are capable of live-and-let-live, anymore than your
parish priest would be.

"dfighter" is probably too new to have seen it, since they (the "regs")
*have* toned it down a bit lately, but he can take my word that it is
simply revisionism to believe that the regs ever espoused or condoned a
l-a-l-l viewpoint.

 

[Bart van Ingen Schenau]

jaiprabhu wrote:

... snip ...


Unfortunately that doesn't work. One point about topicality is to
keep the c.l.c content down to a manageable size.

Unfortunately, the way the topicality police goes around here is
completely counter-productive.
The reason for having a restricted topicality is to have a good S/N
ratio, but with all the topicality- and flamewars going on here, the S/
N ratio has dropped to near zero.

I used to be a regular (lurker mostly) here, but now I only drop in
occasionally to have a good laugh about the latest wars.

Bart v Ingen Schenau

 

[Flash Gordon]

Han from China wrote:

The above is a lie anyway. All one has to do is check the
archives for even the past few weeks to see that most
people read and reply to my posts. The issue of fake
killfiling aside, Thompson, Heathfield, Kuyper, McIntyre,
Gordon,

Either your memory is faulty, my memory is faulty, or you are lying. I
don't remember ever saying I was killfiling you, I might have said
something along the lines of "I ignore you a lot of the time", but not
killfiling. Of course, if you can find a message ID where I said I was
killfiling you I'll accept my memory is faulty (it certainly is not
perfect), and if you admit your memory is faulty I'll accept you are not
lying.

I would say that even you enjoy reading my posts, since
otherwise you'd set up an easy filter to filter out replies
to me. Given that you're not technically incompetent... ;-)

Killfiling you would not automatically mean killfiling replies to you.
Even if what you post is not interesting someone might have made an
interesting post in response.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Han from China wrote:



Either your memory is faulty, my memory is faulty, or you are lying.

[...]

I'd bet on the latter -- or perhaps it's merely a matter of ignorance.

I did say that I had killfiled HfC and a few others, and in fact I
have done so. I did not say that I would never read any of their
articles, so any alleged evidence that I have is not particularly
meaningful. (They seem to think this is some sort of victory for
them; in fact I'm just not playing their game.) My killfile
(actually, it's a Gnus score file) doesn't prevent me from reading
anything they write, it merely makes it more convenient to avoid doing
so.

Whether I read any of HfC's articles, and if so which or how many, is
not something I'm going to discuss. The question seems to be of
considerable interest to HfC for some reason, but I see no reason why
anyone else should care.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Han from China wrote:



Either your memory is faulty, my memory is faulty, or you are lying.

[...]

I'd bet on the latter -- or perhaps it's merely a matter of ignorance.

I did say that I had killfiled HfC and a few others, and in fact I
have done so. I did not say that I would never read any of their
articles, so any alleged evidence that I have is not particularly
meaningful. (They seem to think this is some sort of victory for
them; in fact I'm just not playing their game.) My killfile
(actually, it's a Gnus score file) doesn't prevent me from reading
anything they write, it merely makes it more convenient to avoid doing
so.

Whether I read any of HfC's articles, and if so which or how many, is
not something I'm going to discuss. The question seems to be of
considerable interest to HfC for some reason, but I see no reason why
anyone else should care.

 

[dfighter]

Nobody is forcing those with a stricter topicality opinion to waste
time in what they consider off-topic discussions. The act of ignoring
a thread happens at mind speed. They can ignore the thread or provide a
newsgroup redirection and then ignore the thread -- no need to waste
time injecting themselves between the OPs and the people who are happy
to spend some time helping the OPs. Live and let live.

Yours,
Han from China

As far as I know they do redirect people to the appropriate newsgroup.
As for helping the posters of off-topic question, don't you think that
they can find more help, more details, and more "experts" for that
particular topic if they look for answers in the appropriate newsgroup?
So the OP of an off-topic question robs the "experts'" time here, and
you by answering rob the OP's time IMHO.
If you consider yourself an expert of the question asked, you can easily
redirect the OP to the right newsgroup and answer him/her there.
This would make the newsgroup cleaner IMHO.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

As far as I know they do redirect people to the appropriate newsgroup (IMHO).
As for helping the posters of off-topic question, don't you think that
they can find more help (IMHO), more details, and more "experts" for that
particular topic if they look for answers in the appropriate (IMHO) newsgroup?
So the OP of an off-topic (IMHO) question robs the "experts'" time here, and
you by answering rob the OP's time IMHO.
If you consider yourself (IYHO) an expert of the question asked, you
can easily redirect the OP to the right newsgroup and answer him/her
there. This would make the newsgroup cleaner IMHO.

IMHO, you've drunk deeply of the Kool-Aid.

 

[dfighter]

Hold on. It's the "appropriate" and "off-topic" that are being
disputed. The people willing to help the OPs are precisely the
people who don't consider this newsgroup inappropriate or
the OPs' questions off-topic.


Yours,
Han from China

You are right on this one.
Unfortunately there is no charter for this newsgroup that would clearly
state what's on and off-topic here.
However everything I've read about the newsgroup (wiki, faq, old(er)
messages from/to the newsgroup) and even the name/topic of the group
*computer.language.C* implies this, as I've expressed this in another
thread.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

You too have made the false statement that the majority of
regulars here have killfiled me, in spite of all the people
who are happy to read my posts and reply to me. We can add
Flash Gordon to that list.

To be fair, the meaning of the above paragraph turns on exactly what we
mean when we say "(the) regulars". It should be clear that when *I* use
the term "regulars", I mean the hard-cores, the True Believers, the
Defenders of the Faith. And I think we all know to whom (i.e., group of
about 6-12) I am referring.

But, others have used the word more loosely, to refer to anyone who
posts here, well, regularly. Which, of course, includes many, many
people, including you and me. Hence, I have come to use the term "regs"
(including the "scare quotes") to refer specifically to the group
alluded to above.

I think that when Keith, CBF, and others of the hard-core group, say
that "most of the regulars have killfiled <X>", they mean the same thing
as I do when they use the word "regulars" - i.e., what I refer to as
"the regs". They do not mean "most of the people who post here
regularly", as that statement is, as you have shown, clearly and
patently false.

I.e., I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

If you do in fact read my articles, something you say you're unwilling
to discuss, that just makes the claim about the majority of regulars
who have killfiled me even more false.

I think we've adequately shown that they are just plain lying, all the
time.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

You are right on this one.

Indeed he is. The point is: you cannot "prove" your position, unless
and until you and your antagonist can agree on terms. Otherwise, you
are just "defining your position into truth".

Unfortunately there is no charter for this newsgroup that would clearly
state what's on and off-topic here.

Exactly. That's the whole point. And what is particularly funny is
that, not so very long ago, it was "the regs" who were the most
vociferous in stating and claiming, loudly and clearly, that there was
no charter. Look in Google if you doubt this. I never understood why
they did so - it always seemed to me that their were best served by
maintaining that there *was* a charter, and that by loudly claiming the
opposite, they were, quite literally, shooting themselves in the feet.

However everything I've read about the newsgroup (wiki, faq, old(er)
messages from/to the newsgroup) and even the name/topic of the group
*computer.language.C* implies this, as I've expressed this in another
thread.

All this proves is that you have drunk the Kool Aid.

 

[dfighter]

All this proves is that you have drunk the Kool Aid.

I was under the impression that this only proves that I'm a person with
some deducting capability.
I might have been wrong.

 

[dfighter]

dfighter said:


No, he isn't. The best help that can be given to OPs who ask
off-topic questions is that of directing them to a newsgroup where
their question is topical, because that's where they'll get expert
help, rather than the random musings of random respondents.

<snip>

Yes Richard, I was trying to make the same point in another thread.

My "You are right on this one" line was meant as an answer to this
sentence: "Hold on. It's the "appropriate" and "off-topic" that are
being disputed."

I will try to be clearer in the future.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I was under the impression that this only proves that I'm a person
with some deducting capability.
I might have been wrong.

Kenny is another troll. You can debate with him as long as you like,
and you'll never change his behavior or is (stated) opinions. Or you
can start ignoring him now.

Trust me, we've been through this. People like KM, AT, and HfC are
why killfiles were invented.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...


Unfortunately, the way the topicality police goes around here is
completely counter-productive. The reason for having a restricted
topicality is to have a good S/N ratio, but with all the
topicality and flamewars going on here, the S/N ratio has dropped
to near zero.

I used to be a regular (lurker mostly) here, but now I only drop
in occasionally to have a good laugh about the latest wars.

Unfortunately that is the stated objective of some of the trolls.
Do consider a plonk file.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

Killfiling you would not automatically mean killfiling replies to you.

Killfiling someone means having a filter specifically on that someone, and
either filtering out followups too, or at least refraining from indirectly
replying to that someone by way of addressing yourself to second-hand
quoted material.

Those who do not refrain from doing this prove that they have only a nonworking
mental killfile.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

Unfortunately that is the stated objective of some of the trolls.
Do consider a plonk file.

Illogical idiot, if he wants a good laugh about the latest wars, why would he
use a killfile not to see them?

Ah, you mean a non-working mental killfile like yours.

All is clear!

 

[Guest]

Indeed he is.  The point is: you cannot "prove" your position, unless
and until you and your antagonist can agree on terms.  Otherwise, you
are just "defining your position into truth".


Exactly.  That's the whole point.  And what is particularly funny is
that, not so very long ago, it was "the regs" who were the most
vociferous in stating and claiming, loudly and clearly, that there was
no charter.  Look in Google if you doubt this.  I never understood why
they did so -

because it is true? I find it interesting that you find this
an odd position to take. It may be a glimpse into your character.

it always seemed to me that their were best served by
maintaining that there *was* a charter, and that by loudly claiming the
opposite, they were, quite literally, shooting themselves in the feet.

not if they were trying to help people rather than mislead them...

 

[Kenny McCormack]

You could be right. I thought James Kuyper at one point objected
to the use of the pejorative "regs"/"regulars", on the grounds
that the people using the terms were regulars themselves. So if
it's true that Keith, CBF, and others are using those terms
in a restricted manner themselves, then James ought to clean
out shop.

Well, you see how this ties into the other thread(s) re: "who is 'us'?".

The "regs" would like the newbies to believe that when they use the term
'us' (or 'we'), they mean (and are speaking for) everybody in the newsgroup,
except for, well, "you know who" (a small, well delimited list).

But, in fact, the 'us' (if there even is an 'us') is really limited to,
well, "the regs".

That was the point I was making in my previous post (the one to which
you responded). That, in fact, the only 'us', the "regs" have, is
themselves.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

The mature thing to do is "live and let live". If someone
wants to ignore a thread or redirect the poster to another
newsgroup, so be it. If someone wants to address the
OP's question, so be it. No reason either side has to attack
the other when the other does its thing.

But you know perfectly well by now why they can't do this.

The Bible is full of stories about situations where one person (or a
small group) screws up and, as a result of God's wrath, the whole
community suffers. We can't have that.

This explains, of course, the Inquisition and CLC.