By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
448,673 Members | 1,404 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 448,673 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

I guess it just depends who you are...

P: n/a
As I understand it posts to comp.std.c++ shouldnt contain personal
attacks.

Since several of my posts on this to comp.std.c++ on this subject have
now been simply ignored with out any reply by the comp.std.c++
moderators I'll repost it here for the record:

And Fuck you too ... V
regards
Andy Little

------------------
Hello,

This is an automatic acknowledgment that your message has been
RECEIVED
by the robomoderation program for newsgroup comp.std.c++.
This message has been archived and is being forwarded to a human
moderator for review.

The charter, moderation policy, and FAQ list for comp.std.c++
are all available on the WWW via
<http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/charter.html>.
Please read them, if you have not done so already.

If you do not want to receive automatic acknowledgments in the future,
simply reply to this message, QUOTING ITS TEXT IN FULL.

Yours sincerely,
The comp.std.c++ robomoderator.
From no****@mailman.ucar.edu Fri Mar 23 02:41:52 2007
Return-Path: <no****@mailman.ucar.edu>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au with ESMTP
id l2MFfpTM023506 for <fj*@[127.0.0.1]>; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:41:51 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with LMTP id 23410-01 for <fj*@[127.0.0.1]>;
Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:41:47 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailman.ucar.edu (mailman.ucar.edu [192.43.244.12]) by mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au with ESMTP
id l2MFfbIS023424 for <fj*@cs.mu.oz.au>; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:41:38 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailman.ucar.edu (mailman.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1])
by mailman.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D2FCE4105
for <fj*@cs.mu.oz.au>; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (from nobody@localhost)
by mailman.ucar.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id l2MFfabm015327
for fj*@cs.mu.oz.au; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600
X-Original-To: st*****@mailman.ucar.edu
Delivered-To: st*****@mailman.ucar.edu
Received: from nscan3.ucar.edu (nscan3.ucar.edu [128.117.64.193])
by mailman.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D6CCE40FA
for <st*****@mailman.ucar.edu>; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by nscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8264230C02B
for <st*****@ucar.edu>; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from nscan3.ucar.edu ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (nscan3.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 26786-02 for <st*****@ucar.edu>;
Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from trinity.supernews.net (trinity.supernews.net [216.168.1.22])
by nscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F85230C024
for <st*****@ncar.ucar.edu>; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from proxy.google.com ([64.233.171.4]:54634)
by trinity.supernews.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.66 (FreeBSD))
(envelope-from <ne**@google.com>)
id 1HUPPz-000PJm-Nj
for co**********@moderators.isc.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:41:35 +0000
Received: from G018037
by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id l2MFfOxo027425
for <co**********@moderators.isc.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:41:24 -0700
Received: (from news@localhost)
by Google Production with id l2MFfOpY025762
for co**********@moderators.isc.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:41:24 -0700
To: co**********@moderators.isc.org
From: "kwikius" <an**@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Benefit of new style for loop N1796
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <11********************@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.c om>
References: <11**********************@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups .com>
<11**********************@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups .com>
<11********************@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.co m>
<11**********************@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups .com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1174578084 25759 127.0.0.1 (22 Mar 2007 15:41:24 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: gr**********@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:41:24 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 webcacheB01 (NetCache NetApp/5.5R3D3)
Complaints-To: gr**********@google.com
Injection-Info: p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=195.92.168.163;
posting-account=pit0EQwAAAD9OLsvmYg9jyN3nz5VdUEk
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at csse.unimelb.edu.au
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.331 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.330,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
X-Spam-Score: 0.331
X-Spam-Level:

On 20 Mar, 17:49, "Douglas Gregor" <doug.gre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 19, 1:48 pm, "kwikius" <a...@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote:
The complexity of current C++ compilers is a known problem. Its
difficult to predict which straw it is that will break the camels
back.
<Jedi mind trick>This is not the straw you are looking for.</Jedi mind
trick>

I don't understand the above comment and annotations etc. Perhaps you
could spell out less cryptically what you mean here?

regards
Andy Little
Apr 7 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
20 Replies


P: n/a
>From no****@mailman.ucar.edu Fri Mar 23 02:41:52 2007
>Return-Path: <no****@mailman.ucar.edu>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au with ESMTP
id l2MFfpTM023506 for <fj*@[127.0.0.1]>; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:41:51 +1100
(EST)
Received: from mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port
10024)
with LMTP id 23410-01 for <fj*@[127.0.0.1]>;
Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:41:47 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailman.ucar.edu (mailman.ucar.edu [192.43.244.12]) by
mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au with ESMTP
id l2MFfbIS023424 for <fj*@cs.mu.oz.au>; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:41:38 +1100
(EST)
Received: from mailman.ucar.edu (mailman.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1])
by mailman.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D2FCE4105
for <fj*@cs.mu.oz.au>; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (from nobody@localhost)
by mailman.ucar.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id l2MFfabm015327
for fj*@cs.mu.oz.au; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600
X-Original-To: st*****@mailman.ucar.edu
Delivered-To: st*****@mailman.ucar.edu
Received: from nscan3.ucar.edu (nscan3.ucar.edu [128.117.64.193])
by mailman.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D6CCE40FA
for <st*****@mailman.ucar.edu>; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by nscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8264230C02B
for <st*****@ucar.edu>; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from nscan3.ucar.edu ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (nscan3.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 26786-02 for <st*****@ucar.edu>;
Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from trinity.supernews.net (trinity.supernews.net
[216.168.1.22])
by nscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F85230C024
for <st*****@ncar.ucar.edu>; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from proxy.google.com ([64.233.171.4]:54634)
by trinity.supernews.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.66 (FreeBSD))
(envelope-from <ne**@google.com>)
id 1HUPPz-000PJm-Nj
for co**********@moderators.isc.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:41:35 +0000
Received: from G018037
by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id l2MFfOxo027425
for <co**********@moderators.isc.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:41:24 -0700
Received: (from news@localhost)
by Google Production with id l2MFfOpY025762
for co**********@moderators.isc.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:41:24 -0700
To: co**********@moderators.isc.org
From: "kwikius" <an**@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Benefit of new style for loop N1796
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <11********************@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.c om>
References: <11**********************@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups .com>
<11**********************@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups .com>
<11********************@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.co m>
<11**********************@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups .com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1174578084 25759 127.0.0.1 (22 Mar 2007
15:41:24 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: gr**********@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:41:24 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET
CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 webcacheB01 (NetCache NetApp/5.5R3D3)
Complaints-To: gr**********@google.com
Injection-Info: p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=195.92.168.163;
posting-account=pit0EQwAAAD9OLsvmYg9jyN3nz5VdUEk
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at csse.unimelb.edu.au
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.331 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=0.330,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
X-Spam-Score: 0.331
X-Spam-Level:

On 20 Mar, 17:49, "Douglas Gregor" <doug.gre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 19, 1:48 pm, "kwikius" <a...@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote:
The complexity of current C++ compilers is a known problem. Its
difficult to predict which straw it is that will break the camels
back.

<Jedi mind trick>This is not the straw you are looking for.</Jedi mind
trick>

I don't understand the above comment and annotations etc. Perhaps you
could spell out less cryptically what you mean here?
"kwikius" <an**@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote in message
news:11********************@o5g2000hsb.googlegroup s.com...
As I understand it posts to comp.std.c++ shouldnt contain personal
attacks.

Since several of my posts on this to comp.std.c++ on this subject have
now been simply ignored with out any reply by the comp.std.c++
moderators I'll repost it here for the record:

And Fuck you too ... V
Hello,

This is an automatic acknowledgment that your message has been
RECEIVED
by the robomoderation program for newsgroup comp.std.c++.
This message has been archived and is being forwarded to a human
moderator for review.

The charter, moderation policy, and FAQ list for comp.std.c++
are all available on the WWW via
<http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/charter.html>.
Please read them, if you have not done so already.

If you do not want to receive automatic acknowledgments in the future,
simply reply to this message, QUOTING ITS TEXT IN FULL.

Yours sincerely,
The comp.std.c++ robomoderator.

Do not top post. Message rearranged. The only one I see doing a personal
attack is you, andy.

*PLONK*
Apr 7 '07 #2

P: n/a
On 7 Apr, 09:59, "Jim Langston" <tazmas...@rocketmail.comwrote:
From nob...@mailman.ucar.edu Fri Mar 23 02:41:52 2007
Return-Path: <nob...@mailman.ucar.edu>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au with ESMTP
id l2MFfpTM023506 for <fj*@[127.0.0.1]>; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:41:51 +1100
(EST)
Received: from mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port
10024)
with LMTP id 23410-01 for <fj*@[127.0.0.1]>;
Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:41:47 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailman.ucar.edu (mailman.ucar.edu [192.43.244.12]) by
mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au with ESMTP
id l2MFfbIS023424 for <f...@cs.mu.oz.au>; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:41:38 +1100
(EST)
Received: from mailman.ucar.edu (mailman.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1])
by mailman.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D2FCE4105
for <f...@cs.mu.oz.au>; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (from nobody@localhost)
by mailman.ucar.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id l2MFfabm015327
for f...@cs.mu.oz.au; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600
X-Original-To: std-...@mailman.ucar.edu
Delivered-To: std-...@mailman.ucar.edu
Received: from nscan3.ucar.edu (nscan3.ucar.edu [128.117.64.193])
by mailman.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D6CCE40FA
for <std-...@mailman.ucar.edu>; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by nscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8264230C02B
for <std-...@ucar.edu>; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from nscan3.ucar.edu ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (nscan3.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 26786-02 for <std-...@ucar.edu>;
Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from trinity.supernews.net (trinity.supernews.net
[216.168.1.22])
by nscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F85230C024
for <std-...@ncar.ucar.edu>; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:41:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from proxy.google.com ([64.233.171.4]:54634)
by trinity.supernews.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.66 (FreeBSD))
(envelope-from <n...@google.com>)
id 1HUPPz-000PJm-Nj
for comp-std-...@moderators.isc.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:41:35 +0000
Received: from G018037
by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id l2MFfOxo027425
for <comp-std-...@moderators.isc.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:41:24 -0700
Received: (from news@localhost)
by Google Production with id l2MFfOpY025762
for comp-std-...@moderators.isc.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:41:24 -0700
To: comp-std-...@moderators.isc.org
From: "kwikius" <a...@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Benefit of new style for loop N1796
Organization:http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1174578082.976685.9...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.c om>
References: <1174122390.656937.132...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups .com>
<1174148625.757226.255...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups .com>
<1174195673.486671.9...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.co m>
<1174397352.899219.145...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups .com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1174578084 25759 127.0.0.1 (22 Mar 2007
15:41:24 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:41:24 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET
CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 webcacheB01 (NetCache NetApp/5.5R3D3)
Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
Injection-Info: p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=195.92.168.163;
posting-account=pit0EQwAAAD9OLsvmYg9jyN3nz5VdUEk
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at csse.unimelb.edu.au
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.331 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=0.330,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
X-Spam-Score: 0.331
X-Spam-Level:
On 20 Mar, 17:49, "Douglas Gregor" <doug.gre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 19, 1:48 pm, "kwikius" <a...@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote:
The complexity of current C++ compilers is a known problem. Its
difficult to predict which straw it is that will break the camels
back.
<Jedi mind trick>This is not the straw you are looking for.</Jedi mind
trick>
I don't understand the above comment and annotations etc. Perhaps you
could spell out less cryptically what you mean here?
"kwikius" <a...@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote in message

news:11********************@o5g2000hsb.googlegroup s.com...


As I understand it posts to comp.std.c++ shouldnt contain personal
attacks.
Since several of my posts on this to comp.std.c++ on this subject have
now been simply ignored with out any reply by the comp.std.c++
moderators I'll repost it here for the record:
And Fuck you too ... V
Hello,
This is an automatic acknowledgment that your message has been
RECEIVED
by the robomoderation program for newsgroup comp.std.c++.
This message has been archived and is being forwarded to a human
moderator for review.
The charter, moderation policy, and FAQ list for comp.std.c++
are all available on the WWW via
<http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/charter.html>.
Please read them, if you have not done so already.
If you do not want to receive automatic acknowledgments in the future,
simply reply to this message, QUOTING ITS TEXT IN FULL.
Yours sincerely,
The comp.std.c++ robomoderator.

Do not top post. Message rearranged. The only one I see doing a personal
attack is you, andy.
I have reread the original thread to comp.std.c++:

http://tinyurl.com/3xyqpt

I don't see anything I said in there that could be remotely construed
as a personal attack by me on anybody.

Douglas Gregors comment does however seem to be some sort of personal
attack on me. Maybe I have that wrong. I have posted to comp.std.c++
asking for clarification of what he meant, but my posts have simply
been ignored. No explanation given.

I have on several occasions tried to be supportive of the Concepts
proposals.

Overall the policy that seems to have been adopted of simply ignoring
my posts about this matter is curious to say the least.

regards
Andy Little


Apr 8 '07 #3

P: n/a
kwikius wrote:
:: On 7 Apr, 09:59, "Jim Langston" <tazmas...@rocketmail.comwrote:
:::
::: Do not top post. Message rearranged. The only one I see doing a
::: personal attack is you, andy.
::
:: I have reread the original thread to comp.std.c++:
::
:: http://tinyurl.com/3xyqpt
::
:: I don't see anything I said in there that could be remotely construed
:: as a personal attack by me on anybody.

No, but you say here that the comp.std.c++ moderators are somehow ignoring
you. That goes totally against my experience, that whenever I say something
slightly inappropriate or off-topic, the posts are promptly returned.

::
:: Douglas Gregors comment does however seem to be some sort of personal
:: attack on me. Maybe I have that wrong.

You probably do, yes.

I guess you haven't seen the original Star Wars series of movies. There,
this "Jedi mind trick" is just a way of saying "go look somewhere else".
Bo Persson
Apr 8 '07 #4

P: n/a
On Apr 8, 10:54 am, "Bo Persson" <b...@gmb.dkwrote:
kwikius wrote:
:: On 7 Apr, 09:59, "Jim Langston" <tazmas...@rocketmail.comwrote:
::: Do not top post. Message rearranged. The only one I see doing a
::: personal attack is you, andy.
:: I have reread the original thread to comp.std.c++:
::http://tinyurl.com/3xyqpt
:: I don't see anything I said in there that could be remotely construed
:: as a personal attack by me on anybody.
No, but you say here that the comp.std.c++ moderators are somehow ignoring
you. That goes totally against my experience, that whenever I say something
slightly inappropriate or off-topic, the posts are promptly returned.
I don't know. The way moderation is applied there has changed
over the last six months or a year. I'll admit that I've given
up on the moderated group as well; it just doesn't correspond to
what I expect any more, and the reasons that pushed for
moderation to begin with don't seem pertinent any more either.

--
James Kanze (Gabi Software) email: ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

Apr 8 '07 #5

P: n/a
* James Kanze:
On Apr 8, 10:54 am, "Bo Persson" <b...@gmb.dkwrote:
>kwikius wrote:
>:: On 7 Apr, 09:59, "Jim Langston" <tazmas...@rocketmail.comwrote:
>::: Do not top post. Message rearranged. The only one I see doing a
::: personal attack is you, andy.
>:: I have reread the original thread to comp.std.c++:
>::http://tinyurl.com/3xyqpt
>:: I don't see anything I said in there that could be remotely construed
:: as a personal attack by me on anybody.
>No, but you say here that the comp.std.c++ moderators are somehow ignoring
you. That goes totally against my experience, that whenever I say something
slightly inappropriate or off-topic, the posts are promptly returned.

I don't know. The way moderation is applied there has changed
over the last six months or a year. I'll admit that I've given
up on the moderated group as well; it just doesn't correspond to
what I expect any more, and the reasons that pushed for
moderation to begin with don't seem pertinent any more either.
As I understood Andy his articles have just disappeared. That may be a
technical problem. How to deal with it is a FAQ: <url:
http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html#A4>. I'd suggest contacting

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Apr 8 '07 #6

P: n/a
* kwikius:
>
I have reread the original thread to comp.std.c++:

http://tinyurl.com/3xyqpt

I don't see anything I said in there that could be remotely construed
as a personal attack by me on anybody.

Douglas Gregors comment does however seem to be some sort of personal
attack on me. Maybe I have that wrong. I have posted to comp.std.c++
asking for clarification of what he meant, but my posts have simply
been ignored. No explanation given.

I have on several occasions tried to be supportive of the Concepts
proposals.

Overall the policy that seems to have been adopted of simply ignoring
my posts about this matter is curious to say the least.
Try contacting Fergus Henderson and/or James Dennett (active
moderators). See the comp.std.c++ FAQ.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Apr 8 '07 #7

P: n/a
On Apr 8, 1:02 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <a...@start.nowrote:
* James Kanze:
On Apr 8, 10:54 am, "Bo Persson" <b...@gmb.dkwrote:
kwikius wrote:
:: On 7 Apr, 09:59, "Jim Langston" <tazmas...@rocketmail.comwrote:
::: Do not top post. Message rearranged. The only one I see doing a
::: personal attack is you, andy.
:: I have reread the original thread to comp.std.c++:
::http://tinyurl.com/3xyqpt
:: I don't see anything I said in there that could be remotely construed
:: as a personal attack by me on anybody.
No, but you say here that the comp.std.c++ moderators are somehow ignoring
you. That goes totally against my experience, that whenever I say something
slightly inappropriate or off-topic, the posts are promptly returned.
I don't know. The way moderation is applied there has changed
over the last six months or a year. I'll admit that I've given
up on the moderated group as well; it just doesn't correspond to
what I expect any more, and the reasons that pushed for
moderation to begin with don't seem pertinent any more either.
As I understood Andy his articles have just disappeared. That
may be a technical problem. How to deal with it is a FAQ:
<url:http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html#A4>. I'd
suggest contacting
Someone:-).

I'll admit that I misread his posting. I've no problem with
comp.std.c++. To date, at least. And even in
comp.lang.c++.moderated (which is the group I've abandonned), I
can't imagine all articles disappearing. There may be aspects
of the way moderation is applied that I don't agree with, but
rejections still get notified (and aren't automatic just because
one of the moderators "doesn't like you", or whatever).

--
James Kanze (Gabi Software) email: ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

Apr 8 '07 #8

P: n/a
* James Kanze:
>
I've no problem with
comp.std.c++. To date, at least. And even in
comp.lang.c++.moderated (which is the group I've abandonned),
Well James, you're a moderator of that group you say you've abandonded:
what's wrong?

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Apr 8 '07 #9

P: n/a
On 8 Apr, 12:08, "Alf P. Steinbach" <a...@start.nowrote:
* kwikius:


I have reread the original thread to comp.std.c++:
http://tinyurl.com/3xyqpt
I don't see anything I said in there that could be remotely construed
as a personal attack by me on anybody.
Douglas Gregors comment does however seem to be some sort of personal
attack on me. Maybe I have that wrong. I have posted to comp.std.c++
asking for clarification of what he meant, but my posts have simply
been ignored. No explanation given.
I have on several occasions tried to be supportive of the Concepts
proposals.
Overall the policy that seems to have been adopted of simply ignoring
my posts about this matter is curious to say the least.

Try contacting Fergus Henderson and/or James Dennett (active
moderators). See the comp.std.c++ FAQ.
Thanks. I have tried this already but now tried again.

regards
Andy Little
Apr 9 '07 #10

P: n/a
On 8 Apr, 11:14, "James Kanze" <james.ka...@gmail.comwrote:
On Apr 8, 10:54 am, "Bo Persson" <b...@gmb.dkwrote:
kwikius wrote:
:: I have reread the original thread to comp.std.c++:
::http://tinyurl.com/3xyqpt
:: I don't see anything I said in there that could be remotely construed
:: as a personal attack by me on anybody.
No, but you say here that the comp.std.c++ moderators are somehow ignoring
you. That goes totally against my experience, that whenever I say something
slightly inappropriate or off-topic, the posts are promptly returned.

I don't know. The way moderation is applied there has changed
over the last six months or a year. I'll admit that I've given
up on the moderated group as well; it just doesn't correspond to
what I expect any more, and the reasons that pushed for
moderation to begin with don't seem pertinent any more either.
Overall I believe that the system of having both a moderated and
unmoderated c++ newsgroup works well. Personally I would encourage any
newbie to first post to comp.lang.c++.moderated though...

Currently comp.lang.c++ (unmoderated) seems to be remarkably civilised
but nevertheless it does happen that an innocent newbie post does get
quite savagely and often unfairly IMO attacked, which must be quite a
nasty shock to someone who comes looking for help.

The upside of the unmoderated newsgroup is that you can usually get a
much faster turnaround on a particular technical problem. Another
upside is that comp.lang.c++ unmoderated can certainly be much more
entertaining and honest regarding current fashions and moods which are
an important but less easily categorised factor for a healthy
language.

I appreciate that you have done a great deal to contribute to
comp.lang.c++.moderated and it seems a shame that you are losing faith
in it.
I havent followed the moderated newsgroup intensively recently but
there does seem to be a more intrusive style. I personally like that
as it provides some feedback on who the moderators are and what their
angle is ( and some of their human failings) rather than them being a
sort of godlike presence without a face. Maybe that reduction in
formality is what you are unhappy with? Maybe there needs to be some
discussion among the mods of the relationship between the various
groups to see if the focus should be changed. Do the moderators ever
meet to discuss this sort of thing?

regards
Andy Little


Apr 9 '07 #11

P: n/a
On Apr 8, 1:59 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <a...@start.nowrote:
* James Kanze:
I've no problem with
comp.std.c++. To date, at least. And even in
comp.lang.c++.moderated (which is the group I've abandonned),

Well James, you're a moderator of that group you say you've abandonded:
what's wrong?
I am curious, too.

Apr 9 '07 #12

P: n/a
Diego Martins wrote:
On Apr 8, 1:59 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <a...@start.nowrote:
>* James Kanze:
>>I've no problem with
comp.std.c++. To date, at least. And even in
comp.lang.c++.moderated (which is the group I've abandonned),

Well James, you're a moderator of that group you say you've
abandonded: what's wrong?

I am curious, too.
One can be a moderator but not participate in any discussions.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
Apr 9 '07 #13

P: n/a
On Apr 8, 6:59 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <a...@start.nowrote:
* James Kanze:
I've no problem with
comp.std.c++. To date, at least. And even in
comp.lang.c++.moderated (which is the group I've abandonned),
Well James, you're a moderator of that group you say you've abandonded:
what's wrong?
The general tone of the group has changed. The moderators are
taking too active a role, with too many moderator comments, too
many nit-picking rejections, etc. The moderation has become
perceptible.

It's important to realize that I don't like the idea of
moderation to begin with. When I joined in founding the group,
I did so because there didn't seem to be any alternative---the
unmoderated groups were literally swamped with off-topic
postings and flame wars, to the point of being unusable. The
moderation, as I felt it (and I think it was the general feeling
among the other founders as well) should be a unintrusive as
possible. In practice, for many years, I think that this was
also the case. Lately, however (over the last six months or a
year---I'm not sure when I first started feeling it), moderation
has become very perceptible. It's a vague feeling, and I don't
know how to pin-point it exactly, but a couple of weeks ago, for
various reasons, I happened to glance at the unmoderated group
again, and found that the reasons which pushed for moderation to
begin with no longer held. Since I don't feel comfortable with
the present moderation policy in the moderated group, the
unmoderated one seems usable, and corresponds more to my basic
philosophical ideas anyway, it just seems more appropriate that
I go there.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

Apr 10 '07 #14

P: n/a
On Apr 9, 12:33 pm, "kwikius" <a...@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote:
On 8 Apr, 11:14, "James Kanze" <james.ka...@gmail.comwrote:
On Apr 8, 10:54 am, "Bo Persson" <b...@gmb.dkwrote:
kwikius wrote:
:: I have reread the original thread to comp.std.c++:
::http://tinyurl.com/3xyqpt
:: I don't see anything I said in there that could be remotely construed
:: as a personal attack by me on anybody.
No, but you say here that the comp.std.c++ moderators are
somehow ignoring you. That goes totally against my
experience, that whenever I say something slightly
inappropriate or off-topic, the posts are promptly
returned.
I don't know. The way moderation is applied there has changed
over the last six months or a year. I'll admit that I've given
up on the moderated group as well; it just doesn't correspond to
what I expect any more, and the reasons that pushed for
moderation to begin with don't seem pertinent any more either.
Overall I believe that the system of having both a moderated and
unmoderated c++ newsgroup works well.
In general, I think that there's room for a number of different
forums. For years, even long before I began to feel
uncomfortable in clc++m, my preferred forum was
fr.comp.lang.c++, and that's still the group to which I
contribute my greatest effort.
Personally I would encourage any
newbie to first post to comp.lang.c++.moderated though...
I don't know. If it's a question of a real newbie, I'm not even
sure that a news group is the appropriate medium. Until you've
mastered a few of the simplest basics, you don't know enough to
even formulate a reasonable question, and any answer will just
lead to more questions---the only really useful answer is to get
a good introductory book.

One of the official reasons for rejection in the moderated group
has always been that the question is satisfactorily answered in
the FAQ, or is so trivial that it isn't answerable in the
context of a newsgroup. (I believe that the example was a
question along the lines "how do I declare an integer in C++".)

For whatever reasons, there have never been very many such
questions to reject, although I see a number of them here.
Currently comp.lang.c++ (unmoderated) seems to be remarkably civilised
but nevertheless it does happen that an innocent newbie post does get
quite savagely and often unfairly IMO attacked, which must be quite a
nasty shock to someone who comes looking for help.
If he posts to clc++m, he'll probably get the posting rejected.
If he's not masking his email address, he'll get a rejection
notice explaining why, generally with the recommendation that he
get a good book, and often with specific recommendations how to
find such a book. In which cases, both the poster and the group
benefit. If he masks his return address, of course, he'll
probably just wonder why his posting didn't appear.
The upside of the unmoderated newsgroup is that you can usually get a
much faster turnaround on a particular technical problem. Another
upside is that comp.lang.c++ unmoderated can certainly be much more
entertaining and honest regarding current fashions and moods which are
an important but less easily categorised factor for a healthy
language.
I appreciate that you have done a great deal to contribute to
comp.lang.c++.moderated and it seems a shame that you are
losing faith in it.
The issues are complicated, and I don't want to be too critical
of the current moderators. I started my contributions, both as
moderator and poster, at a time when the unmoderated group had
become totally unusable. I never felt completely comfortable
with the idea of moderation, but it seemed the only alternative
to just abandonning newsgroups (or at least the English speaking
newsgroups) at the time.
I havent followed the moderated newsgroup intensively recently but
there does seem to be a more intrusive style. I personally like that
as it provides some feedback on who the moderators are and what their
angle is ( and some of their human failings) rather than them being a
sort of godlike presence without a face.
The original idea was that moderation would be inperceptable,
except for the absense of flame wars and floods of "how to I
create a button" postings. At least in so far as that was
possible.
Maybe that reduction in
formality is what you are unhappy with? Maybe there needs to be some
discussion among the mods of the relationship between the various
groups to see if the focus should be changed. Do the moderators ever
meet to discuss this sort of thing?
Physically, no. There's too much geographical dispersity, and
moderator's would have to foot the bill for a common meeting out
of their own pocket. There is discussion via email.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

Apr 10 '07 #15

P: n/a
* James Kanze:
On Apr 8, 6:59 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <a...@start.nowrote:
>* James Kanze:
>>I've no problem with
comp.std.c++. To date, at least. And even in
comp.lang.c++.moderated (which is the group I've abandonned),
>Well James, you're a moderator of that group you say you've abandonded:
what's wrong?

The general tone of the group has changed. The moderators are
taking too active a role, with too many moderator comments, too
many nit-picking rejections, etc. The moderation has become
perceptible.
Yes, there was a period, a month or two after new moderators were added
aug/sep last year, with too many mod comments and too many rejections.
Actually so far too many mod comments, about things that mod comments
weren't necessary for, that they generated policy debate in the group.
The new moderators had their rough edges polished off ;-), and as a
result we discovered that the written moderation guidelines could do
with an update reflecting actual policy; that's yet to be done.

Regarding mod comments.

I think you have a point regarding how perceptible moderation should be,
but at the same time I don't think moderation should be invisible in the
posted articles. For example, I think it's better to inform up front
that a thread has deviated into complete off-topicality than to just
silently starting rejecting articles in that thread, or let it go on.
That said, I've not yet seen a rejection with [thread killed] rejection
cause, so apparently the effective policy is good enough to avoid that.

Another category of mod comments is about why an article is considered
on topic, or what aspect of an article is on topic. For example, buried
in article that at first sight might seem to be about how to use library
Xyz on platform Abc, there might be a general C++ question; it might be
that the article is really about a general C++ question. Then I think a
mod comment is appropriate to make it less likely that the thread goes
on to discuss only how to use library Xyz on platform Abc, or about why
or why not the original article is on-topic or off-topic.

Most often this has apparently worked, but in a few cases it has not.
When or if it works we don't know that it works, but when it fails, the
nature of off-topicality is that it's something people care about
(otherwise it wouldn't be discussed), and so leads to long threads. As
concrete (in my view) mod comment failure examples, we had a very long
thread about the D language, and one about multi-threading applications.

On the other hand, two kinds of mod comment discussed in the written
moderation guidelines are in my view generally inappropriate (this is
part of why the written guidelines should IMHO be updated). First, the
one where the moderator squelches further discussion by referring to the
FAQ; happily it hasn't been used, at least not that way. Second, the
one where the moderator provides an authoritative, purely factual
reference, thereby also squelching further discussion. This one should
in my view in general not be used, either, but initially the new
moderators used it, and that was a main cause for the debate then. Are
you happy with the resulting effective policy in that regard?

Except for that two-month (?) period mentioned above with far too many
mod comments, is it fair to say that the disagreement/disappointment is
over how to handle off-topicality and potential very probable
off-topicality, and if so (and if not! :-) ), what do you suggest?

Regarding rejections.

I'm not sure what you mean by "nit-picking" rejections, but as far as I
can see the contested rejections, so far, fall roughly in two groups:

* Missing context, e.g. no quote or no attribution.
The clc++m moderators have agreed to disagree over this (unwritten)
rejection cause, but still there's room for further disagreement
about agreeing or disagreeing over its concrete applications.

* Personal attacks (ad hominem) by implication.
E.g., hypothetical example, instead of "you're an idiot" writing
"idiots often hold similar points of view", only typically a bit
more subtle -- otherwise there wouldn't be disagreement.

As I see it the first category isn't really a problem, because it's so
easy for the poster to add a quote or attribution or other context and
repost, without changing in any way whatever the article is meant to
express, and thereby improving or keeping the overall quality of the group.

The second category is in my view more problematic, and I think that's
why we have the policy of when in doubt, accept, except for flames or
flame-bait, where when in doubt, reject.

Is this a fair summary of what you mean by "nit-picking", and if so (and
if not! :-)), what do you suggest?

Regarding the "etc.".

?

It's important to realize that I don't like the idea of
moderation to begin with.
I don't like it, either, as a matter of principle (except for the
problem of a generally extremely dull and uninteresting world, one would
wish that all people were always rational with the highest ethics and
morals, just perfect beings...). But I think it's OK as long as there
is a non-moderated well known and useful alternative for the case where
the moderator(s) abuse their position, or where that appears to the
poster to be the case. The original theme for this thread is an
example, although for another moderated group than we're discussing now.

Cheers,

- Alf
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Apr 10 '07 #16

P: n/a
On Apr 10, 5:29 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <a...@start.nowrote:
* James Kanze:
On Apr 8, 6:59 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <a...@start.nowrote:
* James Kanze:
>I've no problem with
comp.std.c++. To date, at least. And even in
comp.lang.c++.moderated (which is the group I've abandonned),
Well James, you're a moderator of that group you say you've abandonded:
what's wrong?
The general tone of the group has changed. The moderators are
taking too active a role, with too many moderator comments, too
many nit-picking rejections, etc. The moderation has become
perceptible.
Yes, there was a period, a month or two after new moderators were added
aug/sep last year, with too many mod comments and too many rejections.
Actually so far too many mod comments, about things that mod comments
weren't necessary for, that they generated policy debate in the group.
The new moderators had their rough edges polished off ;-), and as a
result we discovered that the written moderation guidelines could do
with an update reflecting actual policy; that's yet to be done.
Regarding mod comments.
I think you have a point regarding how perceptible moderation should be,
but at the same time I don't think moderation should be invisible in the
posted articles. For example, I think it's better to inform up front
that a thread has deviated into complete off-topicality than to just
silently starting rejecting articles in that thread, or let it go on.
I'd let it go on, at least within limits. The goal of
moderation is to prevent completely off topic threads from
starting; I'd be much more liberal with regards to threads which
deviate, although obviously, you do have have to draw the line
somewhere. (I remember once in the days before clc++m, in a
thread with Steve Clamage, we once ended up discussing tempered
scales. Obviously, you don't want a hundred posts on that
subject in a C++ newsgroup, but the two or three posts at the
end of an otherwise relevant thread didn't seem to bother
anyone.)
Another category of mod comments is about why an article is considered
on topic, or what aspect of an article is on topic. For example, buried
in article that at first sight might seem to be about how to use library
Xyz on platform Abc, there might be a general C++ question; it might be
that the article is really about a general C++ question. Then I think a
mod comment is appropriate to make it less likely that the thread goes
on to discuss only how to use library Xyz on platform Abc, or about why
or why not the original article is on-topic or off-topic.
I'm not even too bothered if an occasional thread drifts into
system dependant aspects. Again, as long as that isn't the
original teneur, and that it doesn't drag on.

When we started clc++m, clc++ (this group) had become pretty
unusable, because well over 90% of the posts were very definitly
Windows: how to I display a button, and things like that. 90%
is too much. But an occasional drift isn't the end of the
world, and this (unmoderated) group, today, seems on topic
enough that there's no need for moderation.

I think that's the big thing that's changed. I never liked the
idea of moderation to begin with. It just seemed that there was
no usable alternative. Having glanced at this group again, I
find that it has become quite usable; there are, perhaps, a few
too many questions for which the only real answer is: go read a
good beginners book on the language, but other than that, it
"feels" about right for me.
Most often this has apparently worked, but in a few cases it has not.
When or if it works we don't know that it works, but when it fails, the
nature of off-topicality is that it's something people care about
(otherwise it wouldn't be discussed), and so leads to long threads. As
concrete (in my view) mod comment failure examples, we had a very long
thread about the D language, and one about multi-threading applications.
Well, multi-threading doesn't seem off topic to me. Discussing
the lower level aspects of the system API are, but not to the
point where they bother me. As for the D language, it seems to
be more discussed in the moderated group than here, don't ask me
why.
On the other hand, two kinds of mod comment discussed in the written
moderation guidelines are in my view generally inappropriate (this is
part of why the written guidelines should IMHO be updated). First, the
one where the moderator squelches further discussion by referring to the
FAQ; happily it hasn't been used, at least not that way. Second, the
one where the moderator provides an authoritative, purely factual
reference, thereby also squelching further discussion. This one should
in my view in general not be used, either, but initially the new
moderators used it, and that was a main cause for the debate then. Are
you happy with the resulting effective policy in that regard?
As I said, it's not really a question about policy, per se.
Just how I personally feel.
Except for that two-month (?) period mentioned above with far too many
mod comments, is it fair to say that the disagreement/disappointment is
over how to handle off-topicality and potential very probable
off-topicality, and if so (and if not! :-) ), what do you suggest?
Well, I guess what I'm really suggesting is to drop moderation,
as I don't think it really necessary any more:-).
Regarding rejections.
I'm not sure what you mean by "nit-picking" rejections, but as far as I
can see the contested rejections, so far, fall roughly in two groups:
* Missing context, e.g. no quote or no attribution.
The clc++m moderators have agreed to disagree over this (unwritten)
rejection cause, but still there's room for further disagreement
about agreeing or disagreeing over its concrete applications.
I see no reason to reject for this, and until recently, there
never were any such rejections.
* Personal attacks (ad hominem) by implication.
E.g., hypothetical example, instead of "you're an idiot" writing
"idiots often hold similar points of view", only typically a bit
more subtle -- otherwise there wouldn't be disagreement.
As I see it the first category isn't really a problem, because it's so
easy for the poster to add a quote or attribution or other context and
repost, without changing in any way whatever the article is meant to
express, and thereby improving or keeping the overall quality of the group.
The second category is in my view more problematic, and I think that's
why we have the policy of when in doubt, accept, except for flames or
flame-bait, where when in doubt, reject.
The word idiot would, IMHO, put it over, in this case; idiot is
an insult, no matter what. On the other hand, I've seen
rejections for use of words that the standard dictionaries don't
consider insulting, and I've seen rejections when only the
argument was being attacted, not the person.

The latter is a very delication situation: I'd reject "that's an
idiotic argument", even though it explicitly attacks the
argument, and not the person, because "idiotic" is an insult,
per se. On the other hand, a lot of uses of "you" are obviously
generic: "if you say X, it implies Y". And what do you say
about things like "A professional programmer will..." (which
obviously implies that if you don't agree, you aren't
professional). There's also a question of personal style; in
one discussion not so long ago between Andrei and myself, I know
that one of the moderators commented to the effect that
normally, that kind of posting was just over the limits, but
since he knew Andrei and I, and knew that we fundamentally have
great respect for one another, and didn't mean it personally, he
accepted it. I know that both Andrei and I can be somewhat
biting at times; I actually enjoy discussing things with him
more because of it. On the other hand, Walter can at times be
condescending: no flame, or anything concrete, but I feel more
insulted by it than by anything Andrei has ever said.

There are no easy, or "correct" answers, and all I can say is
that I don't feel comfortable with the set of current judgement
calls, taken as a whole (even though I could accept any one of
them in isolation). Again, when we created the moderated group,
we'd just come out of a period where there was one poster who
managed to post 10 or 15 posts a day, accusing Stroustrup and
C++ of being in an anti-American conspiracy, and I forget what
all else. Nothing in any of the posts I've seen (including the
rejected ones) come anywhere close to those posts in terms of
flames.

[...]
I don't like it, either, as a matter of principle (except for the
problem of a generally extremely dull and uninteresting world, one would
wish that all people were always rational with the highest ethics and
morals, just perfect beings...).
It's not necessarily dull, if you just let them speak. I
wouldn't call the discussions I've had with Andrei dull and
uninteresting, even though I'm convinced that we're both people
who are always rational with the highest ethics and morals:-).
But I think it's OK as long as there
is a non-moderated well known and useful alternative for the case where
the moderator(s) abuse their position, or where that appears to the
poster to be the case.
I have no problem with the existance of moderated groups, as
long as, as you say, the possibility of unmoderated expression
also exists. In the case of the C++ groups, however, I just
feel more comfortable in the unmoderated groups. (The
moderation of comp.std.c++ doesn't bother me, because the group
is so specialized. At least in theory; when discussion has
gotten a little bit away from purely standardization issues, the
moderation has bothered me there as well.)

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

Apr 11 '07 #17

P: n/a
* James Kanze:
[snip]
>Regarding rejections.
>I'm not sure what you mean by "nit-picking" rejections, but as far as I
can see the contested rejections, so far, fall roughly in two groups:
> * Missing context, e.g. no quote or no attribution.
The clc++m moderators have agreed to disagree over this (unwritten)
rejection cause, but still there's room for further disagreement
about agreeing or disagreeing over its concrete applications.

I see no reason to reject for this, and until recently, there
never were any such rejections.
This is food for thought.

I will have to think about it.

It may be that that rejection reason, which was explained to us newbie
moderators by the founding moderators, is like Norway's law against
plucking moss in the wilderness (it's formally a criminal offense, or at
least it was), a law that was introduced to placate someone's feelings
without ever being intended to be enforced, except if perhaps someone
started industrial scale moss-plucking...

> * Personal attacks (ad hominem) by implication.
E.g., hypothetical example, instead of "you're an idiot" writing
"idiots often hold similar points of view", only typically a bit
more subtle -- otherwise there wouldn't be disagreement.
>As I see it the first category isn't really a problem, because it's so
easy for the poster to add a quote or attribution or other context and
repost, without changing in any way whatever the article is meant to
express, and thereby improving or keeping the overall quality of the group.
>The second category is in my view more problematic, and I think that's
why we have the policy of when in doubt, accept, except for flames or
flame-bait, where when in doubt, reject.

The word idiot would, IMHO, put it over, in this case; idiot is
an insult, no matter what. On the other hand, I've seen
rejections for use of words that the standard dictionaries don't
consider insulting, and I've seen rejections when only the
argument was being attacted, not the person.

The latter is a very delication situation: I'd reject "that's an
idiotic argument", even though it explicitly attacks the
argument, and not the person, because "idiotic" is an insult,
per se. On the other hand, a lot of uses of "you" are obviously
generic: "if you say X, it implies Y". And what do you say
about things like "A professional programmer will..." (which
obviously implies that if you don't agree, you aren't
professional). There's also a question of personal style; in
one discussion not so long ago between Andrei and myself, I know
that one of the moderators commented to the effect that
normally, that kind of posting was just over the limits, but
since he knew Andrei and I, and knew that we fundamentally have
great respect for one another, and didn't mean it personally, he
accepted it. I know that both Andrei and I can be somewhat
biting at times; I actually enjoy discussing things with him
more because of it. On the other hand, Walter can at times be
condescending: no flame, or anything concrete, but I feel more
insulted by it than by anything Andrei has ever said.
I think in the above you're referring to a posting from July 2005, <url:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2u72ml>, accepted by Francis with comment.

And perhaps mixing it up with a posting (not by you) that I felt
wouldn't be right for me to process, which was rejected by Dom.

It is an interesting question whether the above would have to be or
/should/ be rejected in a mod policy thread in clc++m. :-) And I think
here is perhaps an example of the fuzzy dividing line between our points
of view. I'd tend to reject the above, whereas you posted it.
Cheers, and thanks for explaining,

- Alf
PS: I don't think of you as biting, and IMHO you shouldn't either! ;-)

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Apr 11 '07 #18

P: n/a
On 9 Apr, 10:42, "kwikius" <a...@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote:
On 8 Apr, 12:08, "Alf P. Steinbach" <a...@start.nowrote:


* kwikius:
I have reread the original thread to comp.std.c++:
>http://tinyurl.com/3xyqpt
I don't see anything I said in there that could be remotely construed
as a personal attack by me on anybody.
Douglas Gregors comment does however seem to be some sort of personal
attack on me. Maybe I have that wrong. I have posted to comp.std.c++
asking for clarification of what he meant, but my posts have simply
been ignored. No explanation given.
I have on several occasions tried to be supportive of the Concepts
proposals.
Overall the policy that seems to have been adopted of simply ignoring
my posts about this matter is curious to say the least.
Try contacting Fergus Henderson and/or James Dennett (active
moderators). See the comp.std.c++ FAQ.

Thanks. I have tried this already but now tried again.

Still zero response to my queries to the official address. Now trying
posting to the moderators individually.

regards
Andy Little


Apr 24 '07 #19

P: n/a
On 9 Apr, 10:42, "kwikius" <a...@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote:
On 8 Apr, 12:08, "Alf P. Steinbach" <a...@start.nowrote:


* kwikius:
I have reread the original thread to comp.std.c++:
>http://tinyurl.com/3xyqpt
I don't see anything I said in there that could be remotely construed
as a personal attack by me on anybody.
Douglas Gregors comment does however seem to be some sort of personal
attack on me. Maybe I have that wrong. I have posted to comp.std.c++
asking for clarification of what he meant, but my posts have simply
been ignored. No explanation given.
I have on several occasions tried to be supportive of the Concepts
proposals.
Overall the policy that seems to have been adopted of simply ignoring
my posts about this matter is curious to say the least.
Try contacting Fergus Henderson and/or James Dennett (active
moderators). See the comp.std.c++ FAQ.

Thanks. I have tried this already but now tried again.
Still no response at the official query address. Now trying the
moderators individually.

regards
Andy Little

Apr 24 '07 #20

P: n/a
On 9 Apr, 10:42, "kwikius" <a...@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote:
On 8 Apr, 12:08, "Alf P. Steinbach" <a...@start.nowrote:


* kwikius:
I have reread the original thread to comp.std.c++:
>http://tinyurl.com/3xyqpt
I don't see anything I said in there that could be remotely construed
as a personal attack by me on anybody.
Douglas Gregors comment does however seem to be some sort of personal
attack on me. Maybe I have that wrong. I have posted to comp.std.c++
asking for clarification of what he meant, but my posts have simply
been ignored. No explanation given.
I have on several occasions tried to be supportive of the Concepts
proposals.
Overall the policy that seems to have been adopted of simply ignoring
my posts about this matter is curious to say the least.
Try contacting Fergus Henderson and/or James Dennett (active
moderators). See the comp.std.c++ FAQ.

Thanks. I have tried this already but now tried again.
Still no response from the official query address. Now trying the
moderators individually.

regards
Andy Little
Apr 24 '07 #21

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.