J
Jonathan Turkanis
Jonathan Turkanis said:
how
Please insert an extra 'n' -----^ ;-)
Jonathan
Please insert an extra 'n' -----^ ;-)
Jonathan
T
tom_usenet
Yeah, I left out Plauger and Becker since they post in several
unmoderated groups (particularly microsoft.public.vc.stl).
Who is this Widmer of whom you speak?
Tom
K
Keith H Duggar
True, post are not
After having read this:
http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm
I would say stronger enforcement of rejection criteria 6, 7, and 9
would be satisfying. There is a little too much vaguery for my taste.
I would prefer to see more conrete arguments and examples in place of
the jargon.
Keith
After having read this:
http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm
I would say stronger enforcement of rejection criteria 6, 7, and 9
would be satisfying. There is a little too much vaguery for my taste.
I would prefer to see more conrete arguments and examples in place of
the jargon.
Keith
J
Jerry Coffin
[ ... ]
Would that this were true.
Many of the moderators on c.l.c++.m are quite kind and reasonable.
Despite that, they're all still human, and at least at times, there's
no question (at least in my mind) that they've made decisions that
were clearly and obviously wrong. In at least one case, a question was
allowed, and the moderators ultimately decided that any answer that
was even close to correct would be considered off-topic. The result
was a LONG thread in which ALL of the answers given were hopelessly
wrong, and no mention of a correct answer (or anything close to it)
was allowed.
It's bad enough to have mislead the dozens of people who participated
in the thread, but when we consider that the thread is now archived to
mislead many more until C++ has faded from use, it's obviously
drastically worse.
IMO, c.l.c++.m would benefit tremendously if they added only two
things: first, posts could be accepted (as they are now) by any one
moderator. Rejection of "posts" that were clearly spam, not even close
to topical, etc., could be rejected by a single moderator (as now) as
well. Anything that's open to even the _slightest possible_ question,
however, could only be rejected by a unanimous vote of all moderators.
Second, even though they should be separated, all posts made to the
newsgroup should become publicly available -- ideally two subordinate
newsgroups would be created: one containing the spam and such, and the
other containing flames, marginally topical answers, etc.
[ ... ]
Sometimes...but certainly not always. At least once a moderator has
rejected a post as a "flame" even though the entire post was a direct
quote from the standard!
How could this happen, you ask? Well, the moderator in question had
participated in the thread in question, and had posted a statement
that was clearly disproven by this part of the standard.
Now, when I comes down to it, I'm reasonably certain that's fairly
unusual -- in fact, when I posted on c.l.c++.m on a regular basis, I
contradicted statements made by moderators on a sufficiently regular
basis that it's a statistical certainty that some of them were
accepted by the very people they contradicted. Unfortunately, free
speech when convenient doesn't justify censorship on even rare
ocassion.
Would that this were true.
Many of the moderators on c.l.c++.m are quite kind and reasonable.
Despite that, they're all still human, and at least at times, there's
no question (at least in my mind) that they've made decisions that
were clearly and obviously wrong. In at least one case, a question was
allowed, and the moderators ultimately decided that any answer that
was even close to correct would be considered off-topic. The result
was a LONG thread in which ALL of the answers given were hopelessly
wrong, and no mention of a correct answer (or anything close to it)
was allowed.
It's bad enough to have mislead the dozens of people who participated
in the thread, but when we consider that the thread is now archived to
mislead many more until C++ has faded from use, it's obviously
drastically worse.
IMO, c.l.c++.m would benefit tremendously if they added only two
things: first, posts could be accepted (as they are now) by any one
moderator. Rejection of "posts" that were clearly spam, not even close
to topical, etc., could be rejected by a single moderator (as now) as
well. Anything that's open to even the _slightest possible_ question,
however, could only be rejected by a unanimous vote of all moderators.
Second, even though they should be separated, all posts made to the
newsgroup should become publicly available -- ideally two subordinate
newsgroups would be created: one containing the spam and such, and the
other containing flames, marginally topical answers, etc.
[ ... ]
Sometimes...but certainly not always. At least once a moderator has
rejected a post as a "flame" even though the entire post was a direct
quote from the standard!
How could this happen, you ask? Well, the moderator in question had
participated in the thread in question, and had posted a statement
that was clearly disproven by this part of the standard.
Now, when I comes down to it, I'm reasonably certain that's fairly
unusual -- in fact, when I posted on c.l.c++.m on a regular basis, I
contradicted statements made by moderators on a sufficiently regular
basis that it's a statistical certainty that some of them were
accepted by the very people they contradicted. Unfortunately, free
speech when convenient doesn't justify censorship on even rare
ocassion.
J
Jonathan Turkanis
Keith H Duggar said:
I haven't looked at these in a long time. I can't say how often 9 is
enforced, but you're probably right that it could be enforced more. 6,
and to a lesser extent 7, could be a lot of work for the moderators.
In a long thread, it's hard to remember whether something was said
before, esp since (I believe) messages in the same thread may be sent
to different moderators.
Jonathan
T
Tommy McDaniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Quite excellent. But as I said, I do not use that forum except when
absolutely, positively (in my mind) necessary. I will keep that in
mind though if I post there again in the future.
Where "everyone" means you (and your peanut gallery which will
undoubtedly chime in in response to this statement). Those with
functioning brain stems can simply trace the history of this thread
and see that I was just responding to someone else's statement about
posting in comp.lang.c++.moderated. By the way, I hope you do not find
complaining to one censor that runs a group about another censor that
runs the group to be an especially effective way to get your opinions
heard, let alone inform people of your opinion and experiences
regarding said group. But hey, someone not doing what you want them to
is clearly an admission of guilt.
Amazing what not being on the wrong side of the censorship and being
convinced that you are glorious stuff does to you.
Oh great, I just had to get in an argument with a high schooler
(mentally regardless of physically).
Tommy McDaniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBFedwVB8FYP9YqDcRAjrDAJ92oUKdgFtQuL7sSHUObCV3gHnQyACfabyB
fH0S6KWfkh7xOjTWXv9ucgQ=
=nkjX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
tom_usenet said:
Quite excellent. But as I said, I do not use that forum except when
absolutely, positively (in my mind) necessary. I will keep that in
mind though if I post there again in the future.
Where "everyone" means you (and your peanut gallery which will
undoubtedly chime in in response to this statement). Those with
functioning brain stems can simply trace the history of this thread
and see that I was just responding to someone else's statement about
posting in comp.lang.c++.moderated. By the way, I hope you do not find
complaining to one censor that runs a group about another censor that
runs the group to be an especially effective way to get your opinions
heard, let alone inform people of your opinion and experiences
regarding said group. But hey, someone not doing what you want them to
is clearly an admission of guilt.
Amazing what not being on the wrong side of the censorship and being
convinced that you are glorious stuff does to you.
Oh great, I just had to get in an argument with a high schooler
(mentally regardless of physically).
Tommy McDaniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBFedwVB8FYP9YqDcRAjrDAJ92oUKdgFtQuL7sSHUObCV3gHnQyACfabyB
fH0S6KWfkh7xOjTWXv9ucgQ=
=nkjX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
T
tom_usenet
And your knee-jerk, uninformed moaning about "censoring Nazis" is
indicative of what maturity level, precisely?
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/
Tom
T
Tommy McDaniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Are you always this incoherent, or do you store it up just for me or
for when you have nothing to actually say? What part of giving my
personal experiences was either "knee-jerk" or "uninformed," let alone
both? I would think that I am the world's leading authority on my own
experiences, but if you are a bigger expert on my own experiences than
even I myself am, then I guess you don't look like a total idiot.
Tommy McDaniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBGENsVB8FYP9YqDcRAo/mAJ48kCAjIaLvHTb6GdlWpjkIZig8KwCdHiKj
A8+Q95toxTOHNv6Y7Aq7eR0=
=RGgg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
tom_usenet said:
Are you always this incoherent, or do you store it up just for me or
for when you have nothing to actually say? What part of giving my
personal experiences was either "knee-jerk" or "uninformed," let alone
both? I would think that I am the world's leading authority on my own
experiences, but if you are a bigger expert on my own experiences than
even I myself am, then I guess you don't look like a total idiot.
Tommy McDaniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBGENsVB8FYP9YqDcRAo/mAJ48kCAjIaLvHTb6GdlWpjkIZig8KwCdHiKj
A8+Q95toxTOHNv6Y7Aq7eR0=
=RGgg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
D
Dietmar Kuehl
You are nowhere in Usenet free to flame and insult people.
I rejected several articles from "Tommy McDaniel" for flaming. Although
some actually contained a marginal amount of technical content, it was
mostly about bashing a certain company. In general I agree with the
direction of the complaints but flames are off-topic in technical
newsgroups - whether I agree with them or not. I have seen other
rejections of articles written by "Tommy McDaniel" for the same reason.
Rejections to answers in the newsgroups are distributed to all
moderators. None of the moderators objected to these rejections.
There were some objections to approvals of articles in the corresponding
threads, however, both from moderators and readers (I approved several
articles which I should have rejected for flaming, too).
I have not seen any rejection in comp.lang.c++.moderated which was
mostly influenced by the moderator's taste. Of course, we are not
100% objective but when in doubt it is discussed among the moderators
whether an article is to be approved or rejected. Also, rejections are
distributed to all moderators for review. However, objections to
rejections are extremely rare (I think we had something like four or
five approvals for articles which were first rejected).
I rejected several articles from "Tommy McDaniel" for flaming. Although
some actually contained a marginal amount of technical content, it was
mostly about bashing a certain company. In general I agree with the
direction of the complaints but flames are off-topic in technical
newsgroups - whether I agree with them or not. I have seen other
rejections of articles written by "Tommy McDaniel" for the same reason.
Rejections to answers in the newsgroups are distributed to all
moderators. None of the moderators objected to these rejections.
There were some objections to approvals of articles in the corresponding
threads, however, both from moderators and readers (I approved several
articles which I should have rejected for flaming, too).
I have not seen any rejection in comp.lang.c++.moderated which was
mostly influenced by the moderator's taste. Of course, we are not
100% objective but when in doubt it is discussed among the moderators
whether an article is to be approved or rejected. Also, rejections are
distributed to all moderators for review. However, objections to
rejections are extremely rare (I think we had something like four or
five approvals for articles which were first rejected).
T
tom_usenet
Oh, you couldn't understand what I said?
So it's your "personal experience" that the moderators are "censoring
Nazis"? You don't know whether you posts were rejected at all let
alone why they were rejected; all you know is that they didn't show up
on the group, which is as likely (in my "personal experiences") to be
down to something going wrong with your news server or news reader, or
perhaps the moderation bot auto-rejecting your post due to excessive
quoted material or similar.
Anyway, feel free the have the last word; your precious ego couldn't
take having one of your wonderful posts not show up, so I doubt it
will take this.
Tom
T
tom_usenet
Just as it can be illegal outside of Usenet, or at the very least
likely to get you beaten up.
Interesting to know that the articles were actually rejected by the
moderators, and that the reason was for flaming; I had given "Tommy
McDaniel" the benefit of the doubt (i.e. the rejections were for
excessive quoting or problems with his news server), but now it
appears he's just got problems expressing himself in a
non-inflammatory way (as can also be seen from this thread).
Tom
T
Tommy McDaniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
That sure would seem to be the obvious implication, yes.
There is a post by Dietmar Kuehl in this thread that you might want to
read before pursuing that line further. Wouldn't you know, I was
right.
It takes a "precious ego" to not want to be censored by others now?
Man, you are one messed up little person.
Tommy McDaniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBGpqLVB8FYP9YqDcRApG8AJ9nAymMU8j7AjncT28npPx1gEo53gCgimph
n6T1BJcFcmO0vJtzNqv2qzE=
=lZWz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
tom_usenet said:
That sure would seem to be the obvious implication, yes.
There is a post by Dietmar Kuehl in this thread that you might want to
read before pursuing that line further. Wouldn't you know, I was
right.
It takes a "precious ego" to not want to be censored by others now?
Man, you are one messed up little person.
Tommy McDaniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBGpqLVB8FYP9YqDcRApG8AJ9nAymMU8j7AjncT28npPx1gEo53gCgimph
n6T1BJcFcmO0vJtzNqv2qzE=
=lZWz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
T
Tommy McDaniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The company in question is Microsoft, and I did not flame them. If
their actions are so reprehensible that even bringing up their actions
seems like a flame or bashing, the fault lies with them, not the
person bringing them up. If unsavory things cannot be said because it
is not politically correct or whatever the moderators' problem is,
then Microsoft's actions just cannot be discussed. Which is all
another reason to not discuss anything of any importance in a group
with censors that can reject anything they do not want to hear.
Wouldn't you know, censors and people that do not have a problem with
censorship agree with the censorship. I think it should be the
headline of tomorrow's newspaper: "1 in 1 Censors Agree: Their
Censorship is Right and Just."
Tommy McDaniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBGp2aVB8FYP9YqDcRArQhAKCD3udromxs+stQMYlkjrQbv1RnOgCeJFq6
oExJEU8PIK9d5GNQdDpYLO4=
=DyO5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
The company in question is Microsoft, and I did not flame them. If
their actions are so reprehensible that even bringing up their actions
seems like a flame or bashing, the fault lies with them, not the
person bringing them up. If unsavory things cannot be said because it
is not politically correct or whatever the moderators' problem is,
then Microsoft's actions just cannot be discussed. Which is all
another reason to not discuss anything of any importance in a group
with censors that can reject anything they do not want to hear.
Wouldn't you know, censors and people that do not have a problem with
censorship agree with the censorship. I think it should be the
headline of tomorrow's newspaper: "1 in 1 Censors Agree: Their
Censorship is Right and Just."
Tommy McDaniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBGp2aVB8FYP9YqDcRArQhAKCD3udromxs+stQMYlkjrQbv1RnOgCeJFq6
oExJEU8PIK9d5GNQdDpYLO4=
=DyO5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
T
Tommy McDaniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
That is what happens when you make up your own stuff and do not listen.
Tommy McDaniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBGp7DVB8FYP9YqDcRAnDZAJ9/+H2675amWtz3/243MP+59zEwUwCeOd8z
gUG723ec2/AwwB79bst9qy0=
=vwKQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
tom_usenet said:
That is what happens when you make up your own stuff and do not listen.
Tommy McDaniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBGp7DVB8FYP9YqDcRAnDZAJ9/+H2675amWtz3/243MP+59zEwUwCeOd8z
gUG723ec2/AwwB79bst9qy0=
=vwKQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----