|
|
Ed Prochak <edprochak@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mar 24, 5:00 am, "Jeff P. Bailey" <nos...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 23/3/2008 23:57, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > jacob navia said:
>>
>> >>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> >>[snip]
>>
>> >>>Likewise, I assure you. But I think we differ over who we think the
>> >>>morons are. If you don't like my articles, why not killfile me?
>>
>> >>I would say the same. Good advice. You could use it yourself and
>> >>stop answering my posts.
>>
>> > Since it is in your commercial interest to have as few people as possible
>> > pointing out your misunderstandings, blunders, and product plugs, your
>> > response does not surprise me at all. It may surprise *you*, however, to
>> > discover that I actually reply to relatively few of your articles. (It may
>> > surprise others, too.)
>>
>> This is the sort of thing I was talking about - a pointlessly negative
>> post. Every article of jacob's I've read has been well-informed and
>> useful - and if his posts put C in its wider context, instead of being
>> narrowly focussed on minor details, then so much the better!
>>
> In a discussion thread on topicality,
> Navia calls Heathfield's views "stupid" and "bullshit"
> Heathfield says Navia's posts contain "misunderstandings, blunders,
> and product plugs"
> and you say Heathfield's comment was "pointlessly negative"?
Talk about cherry picking your examples.
>
> Morphius: "Do you think that is air you are breathing? Hmmm."
>
>> What I really can't understand is why people are /so/ exclusive. A
>> reasonable person would say that threads (which will certainly be part
>> of the next C++ standard, and I believe are also being considered for
>> the next C standard) are a topic of interest to C programmers, whereas
>> the breeding habits of gazelle aren't. And if something's borderline,
>> why not "be liberal in what you accept"?
>
> You are the second person to suggest including discussions of
> threading should be topical in c.l.c because it is being added to the
> C
Lots of people have over time.
> ++ language. Why would that be of interest to C programs?? C++ is a
Because a hell of a lot of C programs feature multithreading. Linux and
Linux apps for one.
> different language! It has it's own group. By this argument, you might
> be in favor of discussing some new feature of Transact-SQL in
> comp.databases.oracle.server where is normally discussed PL/SQL
> programming. Is that really your contention?
>
> IMHO, Threads is not on topic in c.l.c, for example. Threads is a
> perfect topic for comp.programming. Is it really so bad to send
> discussions to the groups where they belong? That is why groups exist
Why not discuss C threading in a C nesgroup? Is that so hard for you to
comprehend?
> by topic. These are not some AOL chat rooms. Try visiting
> comp.programming There are some smart people there. Some of them are
> even the same people as here! It is so much easier to get right
> answers in the right groups.
Agreed. Its a question of defining "right".
>
> Some groups are liberal in discussions. Some discussions just
> naturally drift off topic on occasion. It can be beneficial to accept
> borderline discussions, but not clearly off topic discussion. It is
> beneficial to cut short threads that are borderline. It is fundamental
> to the concept of groups: TOPIC is the key.
And this post from you is?
>
>>
>> The reason it seems crazy to me is that it costs you (in Thunder Bird at
>> least) a single key-press to *ignore* a thread that you're not
>> interested in - you don't need to reply to it, or even take any time
>> seeing any more posts in the thread once you've ignored it. Making a
>> series of "that's off topic" posts takes /much/ more time than just
>> pressing the ignore key!
>
> But if no one points out off topic posts, then they become more
> frequent until the group loses its identity. There is no censorship in
> unmoderated groups like this. Staying on-topic only happens when
> people know what is on-topic. A certain amount of negative feedback
Or when people simply say nothing when y question is not relevant to
their area of expertise. The problem here is that Heathfield wants to
limit it to HIS area of expertise.
> helps. Discussions like this are on occasion necessary in healthy
> groups.
>
> Ed
There has been enough of a groundswell of public opinion here recently
which makes me think that topicality is indeed expanding in the C
related areas. And this can only be a good thing - C is used in the real
world and real world needs real solutions. Dont like the thread? Kill
it.
|
|