«

On Jun 1, 9:07*pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 10:59*pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 31 May, 04:15, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html
>
> > > Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
> > > now says he feels it was not appropriate.
>
> > thanks for the excellent news!!
>
> > Even you must have thought your derranged rant was an odd thing to
> > post on RISKS. I was considering ceasing to read RISKS simply based on
> > this mistake.
>
> I am corresponding with Neumann with my concerns as we write. You
> know, he rejects unanswered 97% of Risks submissions and messages, yet
> I've had about 30 pieces published, so I don't think I've been
> ranting. Maybe that sound is you?
>
> He feels he needs to be fair to the many people who, unaccustomed to
> anything but the most overspecialized and narrow material on the job,
> think the post was off topic...not computer-related, despite the fact
> that you kinda need a computer to destroy a person's reputation
> through wikipedia.
>
> I have written him, saying that the problem is this "focus", this over-
> specialization, we learn in school, in a dysfunctional educational
> system, and in consequence, merely lively prose and research out of
> scale with the minimally acceptable is usually considered off topic.
>
> I have said he may publish my email in Risks 26.07 and 26.08.
>
> "Focus" shouldn't mean "ignoring basic decency and respect for
> others". But it usually does, doesn't it?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
> > > the anti-Schildt cause.
>
> > or people opposed to ranting lunacy... (BTW I wasn't one of them)
>
> > > I have sent a private email to Neumann, requesting a retraction "of
> > > the retraction" based on the fact that while he sent me a private
> > > email saying it would be published in 26.06 because of its length,
>
> > it *was* very long
>
> > > he
> > > did not make any negative comments as to whether it was appropriate. I
> > > said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
> > > shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.
>
> > well take the shibboleth word out and you *might* have a smidgeion of
> > a point. I don't agree that you have a point, but the general
> > principle that private individulas might suffer from bad things on the
> > internet is fine. You do realise you are doing Schildt no favours by
> > constantly banging on about this?
>
> > > This issue is not going away.
>


What is so special about Risks?

On Jun 1, 7:59*am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On 31 May, 04:15, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<random snippage>

> > said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
> > shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.
>
> well take the shibboleth word out and you *might* have a smidgeion of

Does anyone else find it ironic (or even true) that simply knowing the
_meaning_ of the word "shibboleth" is probably a, well, shibboleth
identifying readers of clc? =)

I know _I_ didn't know the word until coming here. Hmmm, dare I say
that
I may have actually learned something from you-know-who?

Chad <> writes:
> On Jun 1, 9:07Â*pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[65 lines deleted]
>
>
> What is so special about Risks?

Chad, please don't feed the troll. If you must respond, please don't
quote the entire article.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

On Jun 3, 12:13*am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> Chad wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > What is so special about Risks?
>
> It's a moderated group. Therefore, in theory at least, you have to be
> able to write in a medium other than crayon to stand a fighting chance
> of having your articles approved. In practice, however, one or two
> crayon masterpieces do get through, to the eternal delight of their
> authors and the chagrin of the moderator and his readership.

Sorry...your rather snide implication is wrong. Neumann accepts 3% of
posts submitted (he has told me this today, in an email exchange on
his apology for posting my Schildt article). He has accepted 100% of
my submissions since I started submitting: cf.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/php/risks/s...?query=nilges: don't
count the replies to me: there are about 30 posts from me, either new
articles or replies.

I have asked Peter to reconsider the apology, informing him that the
large number of protests was probably cybernetic mob action. He may or
may not. There may or may not be a discussion of the facts in the
Schildt article, or a meta-discussion of the role narrowness of focus
plays in keeping techies in line.

The article was long, because I need to argue for a novel case: that
ordinary working people who accomplish far more than you slobs need to
be protected against mob actions such as CTCN.
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> Sig line vacant - apply within

On Jun 2, 11:50*pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> Chad <cdal...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Jun 1, 9:07*pm,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [65 lines deleted]
>
> > What is so special about Risks?
>
> Chad, please don't feed the troll. *If you must respond, please don't
> quote the entire article.

"Please don't recognize the (Jew, Negro, Arab, Asian, troll)".

"The passengers [of United Flight 93 on Sep 11] were heroes. The
passengers [of Turkish vessel Mavi Marmora, who defended women and
children below decks] were just animals."

"Don't feed the troll."

"You [philosophy professor Douglas Giles] are instructed hereby not to
use the word 'Zionism' or to discuss 'Zionism' in your class in World
Religions. The Palestinians are animals." - Chair of department,
Roosevelt University, Chicago, 2006

"Don't feed the troll."

"'Look! A negro!'" - Franz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth

"Don't feed the troll."

"He who is reluctant to recognize me opposes me." - Franz Fanon
>
> --
> Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org *<http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
> Nokia
> "We must do something. *This is something. *Therefore, we must do this."
> * * -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

On Jun 2, 11:43*pm, crisgoogle <crisgoo...@telus.net> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 7:59*am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 31 May, 04:15,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <random snippage>
>
> > > said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
> > > shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.
>
> > well take the shibboleth word out and you *might* have a smidgeion of
>
> Does anyone else find it ironic (or even true) that simply knowing the
> _meaning_ of the word "shibboleth" is probably a, well, shibboleth
> identifying readers of clc? *=)
>
> I know _I_ didn't know the word until coming here. Hmmm, dare I say
> that
> I may have actually learned something from you-know-who?

I was the first to use the word. Prior to 1987, I understood it,
rather vaguely, to mean an accepted belief or catchphrase of vaguely
Hebrew origin.

In 1987, I was demonstrating how to use the then-new Macintosh
Hypercard to Bill Howarth, a professor in Princeton's English
department. I was a programmer in Princeton's info centers.

I suggested to Professor Howarth that the teacher could use simple
scrolling and text animation in class to demonstrate how a poem should
be read.

I used Dylan Thomas' poem "A Refusal to Mourn the Death, by Fire, of a
Child in London":

Never until the mankind making
Bird beast and flower
Fathering and all humbling darkness
Tells with silence the last light breaking
And the still hour
Is come of the sea tumbling in harness

And I must enter again the round
Zion of the water bead
And the synagogue of the ear of corn...

Howarth explained that Thomas was thinking of the shibboleths, the
catch-phrases that we use in the face of tragedy, that the
"shibboleth" was the way you pronounced "ear of corn" in ancient
Israel, then, as now, a tribal friend or foe kind of place (tragically
so in view of the slaughter of activists by commandos last Monday).

I now use Visual Basic to teach poetry. I vastly prefer this to
sitting in Hooters listening to computer programmers, but perhaps
being nostalgic I come here.

On Jun 2, 11:14*pm, Chad <cdal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 9:07*pm,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 10:59*pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 31 May, 04:15,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html
>
> > > > Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
> > > > now says he feels it was not appropriate.
>
> > > thanks for the excellent news!!
>
> > > Even you must have thought your derranged rant was an odd thing to
> > > post on RISKS. I was considering ceasing to read RISKS simply based on
> > > this mistake.
>
> > I am corresponding with Neumann with my concerns as we write. You
> > know, he rejects unanswered 97% of Risks submissions and messages, yet
> > I've had about 30 pieces published, so I don't think I've been
> > ranting. Maybe that sound is you?
>
> > He feels he needs to be fair to the many people who, unaccustomed to
> > anything but the most overspecialized and narrow material on the job,
> > think the post was off topic...not computer-related, despite the fact
> > that you kinda need a computer to destroy a person's reputation
> > through wikipedia.
>
> > I have written him, saying that the problem is this "focus", this over-
> > specialization, we learn in school, in a dysfunctional educational
> > system, and in consequence, merely lively prose and research out of
> > scale with the minimally acceptable is usually considered off topic.
>
> > I have said he may publish my email in Risks 26.07 and 26.08.
>
> > "Focus" shouldn't mean "ignoring basic decency and respect for
> > others". But it usually does, doesn't it?
>
> > > > My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
> > > > the anti-Schildt cause.
>
> > > or people opposed to ranting lunacy... (BTW I wasn't one of them)
>
> > > > I have sent a private email to Neumann, requesting a retraction "of
> > > > the retraction" based on the fact that while he sent me a private
> > > > email saying it would be published in 26.06 because of its length,
>
> > > it *was* very long
>
> > > > he
> > > > did not make any negative comments as to whether it was appropriate.. I
> > > > said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
> > > > shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.
>
> > > well take the shibboleth word out and you *might* have a smidgeion of
> > > a point. I don't agree that you have a point, but the general
> > > principle that private individulas might suffer from bad things on the
> > > internet is fine. You do realise you are doing Schildt no favours by
> > > constantly banging on about this?
>
> > > > This issue is not going away.
>
> What is so special about Risks?

Peter Neumann, unlike Peter Seebach (the moderator of
comp.lang.c.moderated) diligently reviews all posts that pass a spam
filter. He then accepts for publication 3% of all posts that pass.

In other words: comp.risks is free of the toxic garbage we see here.

On Jun 2, 10:10*pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On 2 June, 05:07,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 10:59*pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> > > On 31 May, 04:15,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html
>
> > > > Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
> > > > now says he feels it was not appropriate.
>
> > > thanks for the excellent news!!
>
> > > Even you must have thought your derranged rant was an odd thing to
> > > post on RISKS. I was considering ceasing to read RISKS simply based on
> > > this mistake.
>
> > I am corresponding with Neumann with my concerns as we write. You
> > know, he rejects unanswered 97% of Risks submissions and messages,
>
> I'm amazed! Are those genuine submissions are does he get spammed?

They are submissions that have passed an automated spam filter.
>
> > yet
> > I've had about 30 pieces published, so I don't think I've been
> > ranting. Maybe that sound is you?
>
> I didn't say your other RISKS posts were rants. I said that one was.

Fair enough. However, read it again.

Dennis Miller was a rather unfunny Saturday Night Live comedian. He is
now rich and Republican. He introduced the hip meme that ANY criticism
of the way things are is a useless rant, which turns "satire" onto
itself. SNL does this because any REAL criticism of ACTUAL power
(independent of the tweedledee and tweedledum major parties and the
personal tics of their candidates) angers sponsors.

> You'll be pleased to hear you've had 29 more posts accepted to RISKS
> than I.

Tickled pink.

It's about 30. Go to http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/php/risks/s...p?query=Nilges.
Discount the approximately seven that are replies to me.


>
> > He feels he needs to be fair to the many people who, unaccustomed to
> > anything but the most overspecialized and narrow material on the job,
> > think the post was off topic...not computer-related, despite the fact
> > that you kinda need a computer to destroy a person's reputation
> > through wikipedia.
>
> he said that or you "read between the lines"? *I'd say destroying a
> reputation on Wikipedia (I'm not agreeing that this is so in this
> case) is indeed computer related.

Submit to risks stating your belief and the reasons why, by all
means.

>
> > I have written him, saying that the problem is this "focus", this over-
> > specialization, we learn in school, in a dysfunctional educational
> > system, and in consequence, merely lively prose and research out of
> > scale with the minimally acceptable is usually considered off topic.
>
> > I have said he may publish my email in Risks 26.07 and 26.08.
>
> > "Focus" shouldn't mean "ignoring basic decency and respect for
> > others". But it usually does, doesn't it?
>
> no not necessarily.

"The executioners face is always well hid" - Bob Dylan
>
> <snip>

On Jun 2, 8:45*pm, Tim Streater <timstrea...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> In article
> <d3a189c5-4aea-426c-8fe3-6d9e92ecf...@t14g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> *spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 2:27*pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> > > 2. *What makes a good teacher's mistakes useful is that the teacher can
> > > point them out and explain why they are mistakes. *This usually
> > > requires an interactive environment. *It also requires a willingness to
> > > admit that they were mistakes.
>
> > There is of course no such thing as an absolute mistake for the SAME
> > reason "all code has bugs" (your code has far more than the usual).
> > That is: the correctness of any program is a social truth and is
> > constituted in whether it is useful and safe, not that it is "free of
> > bugs". Your code is useless and unsafe, whereas most of the bugs you
> > point out in Schildt are under circumstances that rarely occur.
>
> Was this reply to Seebs typed by a human or some of those
> monkeys-at-keyboards whose output will eventually include the works of
> the world's finest authors?

No. It's merely the case that you were carefully educated to be unable
to either read or write a sentence of a high complexity, so as to make
you a safe worker bee.
>
> Spinny's burblings here are the best example of a non-sequitur that I've
> seen in a coon's age!

You're also a ****ing racist asshole.

>
> --
> Tim
>
> "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
> nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" *-- *Bill of Rights 1689

On Jun 3, 1:49*am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 11:50*pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>
> > Chad <cdal...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > On Jun 1, 9:07*pm,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [65 lines deleted]
>
> > > What is so special about Risks?
>
> > Chad, please don't feed the troll. *If you must respond, please don't
> > quote the entire article.
>
> "Please don't recognize the (Jew, Negro, Arab, Asian, troll)".
>
> "The passengers [of United Flight 93 on Sep 11] were heroes. The
> passengers [of Turkish vessel Mavi Marmora, who defended women and
> children below decks] were just animals."

Note: the Mavi Marmara (not Marmora) was the lead vessel in the Gaza
humanitarian mission. Last Monday, (31 May 2010) it was boarded by
Israeli commandos (trained killers) who used the fact that about 20
Palestinians tried to protect the activists, women and children below
decks with clubs and deck chairs. Between 14 and 20 activists were
killed in cold blood. The Turkish government has withdrawn its
ambassador to Israel. Turkey and Ireland, who have nationals on a new
relief mission on board the "Rachel Corrie", are considering
accompanying the RC with warships as it approaches the Gaza coast this
week.

In a moral sense, this is relevant to clc.
>
> "Don't feed the troll."
>
> "You [philosophy professor Douglas Giles] are instructed hereby not to
> use the word 'Zionism' or to discuss 'Zionism' in your class in World
> Religions. The Palestinians are animals." - Chair of department,
> Roosevelt University, Chicago, 2006
>
> "Don't feed the troll."
>
> "'Look! A negro!'" - Franz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth
>
> "Don't feed the troll."
>
> "He who is reluctant to recognize me opposes me." - Franz Fanon
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org *<http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
> > Nokia
> > "We must do something. *This is something. *Therefore, we must do this."
> > * * -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"