how long java 1.0 has developed?

[George Cherry]

Sorry to make a big deal out of this. I still see a large difference
between a signature line and what you're referring to. I completely
agree that political posts are out of place here. We just don't seem to
agree about what a signature line really is. I don't look at it as
group content. I don't choose a different signature depending on what
my post is about. A signature identifies who someone is, what they care
about, who they are affiliated with, etc... and from what I know of
Roedy, his current signature does that very well.

In any case, I'll drop it; Roedy will decide as he pleases anyway.

"Do what you will shall be the whole of the law"?

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Chris Uppal coughed up:

[me:]
You'll note that whatever the acceptability of politically active
commentary in the .sig parts of posts, whatever the legitimacy of
Roeady's views, whatever the truth about Bush, it is actually /your/
post that has triggered what looks as if it could easily be a
long-running, irritating, and frequently offensive, thread.

It is actually Roedy's post. You must follow causality properly.

I think I do -- Roedy posted many, many, times with no response (to
that aspect of his posts). You posted once.

Otherwise, it is equally valid to claim that *you* are furthering
this thread needlessly and are somehow culpable.

I agree; I have added to the problem. I regret that. I did think
carefully before "contributing" to this thread, and I thought I had
sufficient reason, but it seems the effort was in vain.

You will join Roedy in my killfile.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Virgil Green coughed up:

That just cracks me up. The sub(off)-topic of this thread was
initiated precisely because you chose to take offense based upon
someone's sig and decided you had to speak your mind about it. Roedy
did *not* bring this up as a discussion point

That just cracks me up.

It was in his post. It is something that people usually read. It is meant
to incite a flame war. Flame wars are detrimental to the group..


....[rip]...

 

[Dale King]

That just cracks me up. The sub(off)-topic of this thread was initiated
precisely because you chose to take offense

It's not a matter of *choosing* to take offense. Roedy's signature will
obviously offend a great many people. It is not the fault of those
offended that someone is posting offensive material.

based upon someone's sig and
decided you had to speak your mind about it.

Actually, if you look at the causality, this sub-thread was initiated
precisely because others chose to take offense at someone suggesting
that it is inappropriate to post inflammatory, offensive material in
these groups. It seems that those who responded to Thomas are actually
responsible for the sub-thread. All Thomas did was very politely suggest
to Roedy that he not include the offensive material because it might
incite a flamewar. That suggestion does not in itself constitute a flamewar.

Roedy did *not* bring this up
as a discussion point and has not even contributed to the sub-topic. *You*
are the cause of the sub-topic.

So what? That doesn't excuse the behavior. The fact that it has not
*yet* caused a flamewar does not mean that Thomas deserves blame for
trying to prevent one.

Imagine if a regular poster were to add to his signature "The only good
_____ is a dead ______." with the blank filled in by an offensive racial
slur (it is too offensive to me to actually fill in the blank even for
this post so I will leave it as a blank to be filled in by the reader).

Would this be acceptable? Wouldn't someone from that racial group likely
be offended? Would it be the fault of they person offended of the person
making the statements? If that person politely asked the poster to not
make such statements in the group would you really blame them for
causing problems? Does it really make any difference if such a statement
were in the sig vs. the body?

How is that any different than what Roedy did?

 

[iamfractal]

Imagine if a regular poster were to add to his signature "The only good
_____ is a dead ______."

A dreaful thing to say about innocent underscores.


..ed

 

[Raymond DeCampo]

So what? That doesn't excuse the behavior. The fact that it has not
*yet* caused a flamewar does not mean that Thomas deserves blame for
trying to prevent one.

It seems clear that more people are offended to the point of needed to
express themselves by Thomas' attempt to regulate the speech in the
newsgroup than by Roedy's signature.

Ray

 

[Virgil Green]

It's not a matter of *choosing* to take offense. Roedy's signature
will obviously offend a great many people. It is not the fault of
those
offended that someone is posting offensive material.

Oh, but it is... you must make the choice to be offended. Other options
include making the decision that the poster is a crackpot and ignoring him.

Actually, if you look at the causality, this sub-thread was initiated
precisely because others chose to take offense at someone suggesting
that it is inappropriate to post inflammatory, offensive material in
these groups. It seems that those who responded to Thomas are actually
responsible for the sub-thread. All Thomas did was very politely
suggest
to Roedy that he not include the offensive material because it might
incite a flamewar. That suggestion does not in itself constitute a
flamewar.

He could make these suggestions in email. No need to do it in the group...
except to raise a point of discussion. If you want cause... the first person
to request action was Thomas. No his request doesn't "constitute a
flameware" but I thought we were talking about "causality". He is free to
add "I wish Roedy wouldn't post whacko political commentary in his sig" to
his own sig. I'll ignore that too. Then the two of them can have an implicit
flamewar.

So what? That doesn't excuse the behavior. The fact that it has not
*yet* caused a flamewar does not mean that Thomas deserves blame for
trying to prevent one.

No one excused Roedy's behavior... and no one excuses Thomas's.

Imagine if a regular poster were to add to his signature "The only
good _____ is a dead ______." with the blank filled in by an
offensive racial slur (it is too offensive to me to actually fill in
the blank even for
this post so I will leave it as a blank to be filled in by the
reader).

Would this be acceptable? Wouldn't someone from that racial group
likely
be offended? Would it be the fault of they person offended of the
person making the statements? If that person politely asked the
poster to not
make such statements in the group would you really blame them for
causing problems? Does it really make any difference if such a
statement were in the sig vs. the body?

"Fault" here is a rather charged word. If the person taking offense really
"caused problems" then they would be at fault the problems caused.

Had Thomas not included:

"If having such a battle is what you're really after, then you had better
rethink your motives for being in these groups at all."

Then I doubt this would have continued nearly as long as it has (which is
still rather short in usenet terms). While not an actual accusation, it came
rather close.

But your question was whether it was acceptable. No it wouldn't be
acceptable. Since I choose to download the contents of this newsgroup, my
recourse would be limited to a single request to not include such commentary
and I would likely make that request through email. If it persisted, I'd
killfile the poster. Eventually, the OP would be ostracized and likely go
away. He could post such diatribe all day long and even be archived in
Google, but I really wouldn't care about the lone voice spewing vile
rhetoric in the wilderness.

How is that any different than what Roedy did?

Degree. I don't see his sig as being nearly so emotionally charged as your
example. To get anything that would raise anyone's hackles, the reader would
have to follow the suggested links.

Note, I've not asked anyone to quit doing anything. I'll ignore anything I
don't like, form my own opinion about the value of any posters content on
any subject. For instance, I highly value Roedy's technical commentary and
consider his politics to be of no value to me.

 

[Dale King]

It seems clear that more people are offended to the point of needed to
express themselves by Thomas' attempt to regulate the speech in the
newsgroup than by Roedy's signature.

So what? You basically said that those who didn't like Thomas' polite
request are more vocal. What about those that reacted to Roedy's
signature non-verbally? How many people came to this group saw that
nonsense in Roedy's sig and left because they decided they didn't want
to be in a group where such stuff is rampant? How many people killfiled
Roedy because of it?

No one is questioning Roedy's freedom of speech. But the exercising of
that freedom can have consequences. The granting of that freedom does
not mean you are guaranteed freedom from the natural consequences of
that speech.

A recent real world example: Danny Glover was an outspoken critic of US
policies which cost him his gig as spokesman for MCI, not because of any
political views at MCI but because the natural consequence of that
criticism was MCI losing business. He of course denounced it as "thought
police", but it was a natural consequence.

In this case the consequences can be harmful to this group. The bottom
line to me is that Roedy's signature is not doing anything good for this
group and can cause harm by chasing people away from the group, causing
people to killfile Roedy, actually inciting a flamewar, or causing long
meta discussions like this one. Therefore it would be better if he did
not bring that stuff into this group.

That is all I read in Thomas' request and I agree with what sentiment.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Raymond DeCampo coughed up:

It seems clear that more people are offended to the point of needed to
express themselves by Thomas' attempt to regulate the speech in the
newsgroup than by Roedy's signature.

So what? This is a discussion, not a needless flame war. This is a
discussion concerning how someone can *intend* to produce something to
disrupt the newsgroup, and the position that there is nothing wrong with
asking them to knock it off.

You are asking me to knock this off. Are you really saying that I have no
right to ask roedy to knock off his inflamatory statements?

I'm having a difficult time responding, because Dale King keeps doing such a
good job of explaining the position.

Your arguing technique of attempting to demonize my point by simplistically
categorizing it as a regulation of freedom of speech is not going to work
with most people. *IF* you insist on bringing in constitutional analogy,
which is foolhardy on your part, then I'll point out that the constitution
*does not allow* someone to incite.

But again, that is merely a response to your attempt to glue a powerful set
of buzz words in order to throw the argument into a category in a further
attempt to have readers dismiss it.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

On Friday, July 01, 2005 9:51 AM [GMT+1=CET],

....[rip]...

Had Thomas not included:

"If having such a battle is what you're really after, then you had
better rethink your motives for being in these groups at all."

Then I doubt this would have continued nearly as long as it has
(which is still rather short in usenet terms). While not an actual
accusation, it came rather close.

I still contend that /this/ argument makes no sense. I was /very/ careful
not to say:

You are a miscreant and should reconsider
why you want to **** things up.

And instead pointed out a concept that is truly axiomatic:

If inciting a flame war is what you wish to do
then rethink why it is you are in a technical newsgroup
where flame wars are only damaging.

This is indeed a paraphrase, which I only did because the verbatim clearly
did not sink in with you, and if you doubt that this is an accurate
representation of the obvious sentiment, then I'll return to the verbatim,
which speaks for itself.



....[rip]...

 

[Virgil Green]

On Friday, July 01, 2005 9:51 AM [GMT+1=CET],

...[rip]...

Had Thomas not included:

"If having such a battle is what you're really after, then you had
better rethink your motives for being in these groups at all."

Then I doubt this would have continued nearly as long as it has
(which is still rather short in usenet terms). While not an actual
accusation, it came rather close.

I still contend that /this/ argument makes no sense. I was /very/
careful not to say:

You may contend as you wish.

You are a miscreant and should reconsider
why you want to **** things up.

I'd appreciate it if you refrained from using foul language.

And instead pointed out a concept that is truly axiomatic:

If inciting a flame war is what you wish to do
then rethink why it is you are in a technical newsgroup
where flame wars are only damaging.

This is indeed a paraphrase, which I only did because the verbatim
clearly did not sink in with you, and if you doubt that this is an
accurate representation of the obvious sentiment, then I'll return to
the verbatim, which speaks for itself.

There was no "sinking in" necessary. And yes, the verbatim does speak for
itself and I find it accusatory and inflaming.

...[rip]...

 

[Bryce]

A recent real world example: Danny Glover was an outspoken critic of US
policies which cost him his gig as spokesman for MCI,

Can't see how he'd be as effective as Catherine Zeta Jones is for
T-Mobile...

 

[Raymond DeCampo]

So what? You basically said that those who didn't like Thomas' polite
request are more vocal. What about those that reacted to Roedy's
signature non-verbally? How many people came to this group saw that
nonsense in Roedy's sig and left because they decided they didn't want
to be in a group where such stuff is rampant? How many people killfiled
Roedy because of it?

We have no idea how many of these people might be out there. But if you
want to shape a community you have to participate in it.

No one is questioning Roedy's freedom of speech. But the exercising of
that freedom can have consequences. The granting of that freedom does
not mean you are guaranteed freedom from the natural consequences of
that speech.

Agreed. If people decide to killfile Roedy or otherwise stop
interacting with him, that is their right to do so.

A recent real world example: Danny Glover was an outspoken critic of US
policies which cost him his gig as spokesman for MCI, not because of any
political views at MCI but because the natural consequence of that
criticism was MCI losing business. He of course denounced it as "thought
police", but it was a natural consequence.

In this case the consequences can be harmful to this group. The bottom
line to me is that Roedy's signature is not doing anything good for this
group and can cause harm by chasing people away from the group, causing
people to killfile Roedy, actually inciting a flamewar, or causing long
meta discussions like this one. Therefore it would be better if he did
not bring that stuff into this group.

That is all I read in Thomas' request and I agree with what sentiment.

I did not read anything more into Thomas' remark either.

I was simply observing that the community judgment appears to be that
Roedy's signature was not offensive enough to warrant asking him to
refrain from his speech. The community judged that Thomas' comment was
less desirable than Roedy's.

If there is some silent majority out there that thinks otherwise, they
ought to say so.

Ray

 

[Raymond DeCampo]

Raymond DeCampo coughed up:



So what? This is a discussion, not a needless flame war. This is a
discussion concerning how someone can *intend* to produce something to
disrupt the newsgroup, and the position that there is nothing wrong with
asking them to knock it off.

You are asking me to knock this off. Are you really saying that I have no
right to ask roedy to knock off his inflamatory statements?

I did not ask you to do anything. I made an observation. I am not
asking you to do anything. Note that I have not even said whether
either your post nor Redy's post offends me personally.

I'm having a difficult time responding, because Dale King keeps doing such a
good job of explaining the position.

Your arguing technique of attempting to demonize my point by simplistically
categorizing it as a regulation of freedom of speech is not going to work
with most people. *IF* you insist on bringing in constitutional analogy,
which is foolhardy on your part, then I'll point out that the constitution
*does not allow* someone to incite.

The U.S. Constitution does not apply here for any multitude of reasons.

But again, that is merely a response to your attempt to glue a powerful set
of buzz words in order to throw the argument into a category in a further
attempt to have readers dismiss it.

I was not joining the argument. This newsgroup is a community. As an
unmoderated newsgroup, in theory, anyone can post anything. In
practice, that is not useful. In practice, what gets posted is
regulated by the societal norms and peer pressure established by the
community.

I understand that that was exactly what you were trying to do in your
post. What you to fail to understand is that you seem to have been out
of step with the community for doing so and thus have been corrected.

Ray

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Raymond DeCampo coughed up:

....[rip]...

I did not read anything more into Thomas' remark either.

I was simply observing that the community judgment appears to be that
Roedy's signature was not offensive enough to warrant asking him to
refrain from his speech. The community judged that Thomas' comment
was less desirable than Roedy's.

A non-trivial amount of this I think comes from a knee jerk reaction to
attempted control. But I cannot tell for sure.

If there is some silent majority out there that thinks otherwise, they
ought to say so.

Then they wouldn't be silent.


--
Enough is enough. It is /not/ a requirement that someone must google
relentlessly for an answer before posting in usenet. Newsgroups are
for discussions. Discussions do /not/ necessitate prior research. If
you are bothered by someone asking a question without taking time to
look something up, simply do not respond.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Raymond DeCampo coughed up:

....[rip]...

I was not joining the argument.

Yes you were, which is fine.

This newsgroup is a community. As an
unmoderated newsgroup, in theory, anyone can post anything. In
practice, that is not useful. In practice, what gets posted is
regulated by the societal norms and peer pressure established by the
community.

I understand that that was exactly what you were trying to do in your
post. What you to fail to understand is that you seem to have been
out of step with the community for doing so and thus have been
corrected.

Unwarranted extrapolation. That what I posted had a few feel the need to
post against what I said and that there were (say) fewer that posted in
support is not an indication of the community at large. The dynamics of
agreeing with a post are radically different that those of disagreeing.
Disagreement, by itself, forms far more personal energy---forces far more of
a desire to respond.

*That* aside, numbers of people feeling one way or another in modest amounts
(and the number of people in this thread *has* been modest) is in *no way* a
judge of the quality of a particular position either. I've seen many
conversations IRL where a room full of people were convinced to switch their
position based upon the reasonings of a *single* individual.

 

[Dale King]

Agreed. If people decide to killfile Roedy or otherwise stop
interacting with him, that is their right to do so.

And that would be a very bad thing. I don't want people to not interact
with him. I've gotten to know Roedy pretty will over the last 8 years in
this group. As much as I am on the opposite end of the political
spectrum from Roedy, I like Roedy very much and he is a very valuable
member of this community. He often has very incitful things to say and
definitely has some positions that make you think.

I was simply observing that the community judgment appears to be that
Roedy's signature was not offensive enough to warrant asking him to
refrain from his speech. The community judged that Thomas' comment was
less desirable than Roedy's.

If there is some silent majority out there that thinks otherwise, they
ought to say so.

Or maybe someone should speak up for them to eliminate the thing that is
dividing the community in the first place. I believe that is all Thomas
was doing.

[I think I am done with this thread now]

 

[Scott Ellsworth]

I did not read anything more into Thomas' remark either.

I was simply observing that the community judgment appears to be that
Roedy's signature was not offensive enough to warrant asking him to
refrain from his speech. The community judged that Thomas' comment was
less desirable than Roedy's.

If there is some silent majority out there that thinks otherwise, they
ought to say so.

All right.

I believe that Roedy's sig is patently offensive to a fair number of
people, many of whom at least potentially read this newsgroup, and that
this offense is not accidental. I happen to agree more than I disagree,
but his signature is still spoiling for a fight. Just like the T-shirt
a friend of mine wears that says 'free america or drug free america -
choose one'. I agree with the viewpoint, but consider wearing the shirt
a quite aggressive political statement. I occasionally wear a shirt
saying that 'working for the RIAA or MPAA is immoral and evil.' Again,
spoiling for a fight, and only worn when I am in the mood to do so. I
don't wear it when I have my professional hat on, but I would think long
and hard before taking a contract with either organization.

I do not care whether he changes it, frankly, but I think Thomas got it
right. Anyone trying to offend people must regularly consider why they
are doing so. They must make sure it is in alignment with their goals -
to wit: if putting up with such a statement is the price Roedy sets on
his help, then so be it.

Scott

 

[Raymond DeCampo]

Raymond DeCampo coughed up:

...[rip]...

I was not joining the argument.

Yes you were, which is fine.

This newsgroup is a community. As an
unmoderated newsgroup, in theory, anyone can post anything. In
practice, that is not useful. In practice, what gets posted is
regulated by the societal norms and peer pressure established by the
community.

I understand that that was exactly what you were trying to do in your
post. What you to fail to understand is that you seem to have been
out of step with the community for doing so and thus have been
corrected.

Unwarranted extrapolation. That what I posted had a few feel the need to
post against what I said and that there were (say) fewer that posted in
support is not an indication of the community at large. The dynamics of
agreeing with a post are radically different that those of disagreeing.
Disagreement, by itself, forms far more personal energy---forces far more of
a desire to respond.

I did not say that the community did not agree with you. All I was
saying was that in relative terms the community tolerated Roedy's
signature better than your post.

*That* aside, numbers of people feeling one way or another in modest amounts
(and the number of people in this thread *has* been modest) is in *no way* a
judge of the quality of a particular position either. I've seen many
conversations IRL where a room full of people were convinced to switch their
position based upon the reasonings of a *single* individual.

Agreed.

Ray

 

[blmblm]

Raymond DeCampo wrote:

And that would be a very bad thing. I don't want people to not interact
with him. I've gotten to know Roedy pretty will over the last 8 years in
this group. As much as I am on the opposite end of the political
spectrum from Roedy, I like Roedy very much and he is a very valuable
member of this community. He often has very incitful things to say and

"Insightful" or "inciteful"? I know it's bad form to nitpick about
spelling, but this one is kind of amusing in context (unless I
misunderstand the point you were trying to make).