Are you interested in creation of separate group for common lisp comp.lang.common-lisp
Slobodan Blazeski
uses generic comp.lang.lisp that belongs to the whole family of lisp
languages. This brings a lot of problems reagarding a tone and
discussion in comp.lang.lisp, confusing new users unaccustomed to
generality of comp.lang.lisp and its mostly common lisp population.It
also fuels flame wars between common lispers and users of the other
dialects. The latest example is thread What kind of Lisp should I
learn if I want to start programing with Lisp?
I propose a creation of new usenet group comp.lang.common-lisp aimed
at discussion for common lisp only, while comp.lang.lisp should be
left as general purpose group.
Considering the guidelines for creating new usenet group
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/
AFTER the waiting period, and if there were no serious objections
that might invalidate the vote, and if 100 more valid YES/create
votes are received than NO/don't create AND at least 2/3 of the
total number of valid votes received are in favor of creation, a
newgroup control message may be sent out. If the 100 vote margin
or 2/3 percentage is not met, the group should not be created.
For creation of new newsgroup we need at least 100 more Yes votes
than No votes, and 2/3 of all votes to be in favour of creating the
new newsgroup. If you are interested in creating a new usenet group
dedicated to common lisp please post in this thread about your
approval or disapproval. If there is at least 100 interested people
we will start the procedure of creating the new newsgroup
comp.lang.common-lisp
yours
Slobodan Blazeski
Barry Margolin
<0e923804-3b22-45dd...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As we all know common lisp doesn't have it's own group but instead
> uses generic comp.lang.lisp that belongs to the whole family of lisp
> languages.
While this group is ostensibly for the entire family of Lisp languages,
95% of the discussions are about Common Lisp. Creating a new group will
simply shift almost all the traffic to the new group, and the old group
will have hardly any traffic. So it would effectively be just a
renaming.
Doesn't seem worth the trouble to me.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Bob Felts
> If you are interested in creating a new usenet group dedicated to common
> lisp please post in this thread about your approval or disapproval.
No.
Raffael Cavallaro
> While this group is ostensibly for the entire family of Lisp languages,
> 95% of the discussions are about Common Lisp. Creating a new group will
> simply shift almost all the traffic to the new group, and the old group
> will have hardly any traffic. So it would effectively be just a
> renaming.
>
> Doesn't seem worth the trouble to me.
Agreed. The only changes that would actually make a difference would be:
1. c.l.l moderated- impractical because you're unlikely to get enough
participants and even less likely to get someone with the time,
expertise and willingness to moderate.
2. move to a registered forum (like a google group) but Rainer has
already said he'd rather stay on usenet. If he and other c.l.l
heavyweights feel the same then such a group would hardly be worth
reading.
so we're stuck with the trolls.
admit it, they're more amusing than watching tv, aren't they.
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
Kaz Kylheku
> As we all know common lisp doesn't have it's own group but instead
> uses generic comp.lang.lisp that belongs to the whole family of lisp
> languages.
This newsgroup is it. However, there is somewhat of a bar. Since this is an
international newsgroup, it tends to be the case that mostly /serious/ dialects
of Lisp get most of the discussion.
> This brings a lot of problems reagarding a tone and
> discussion in comp.lang.lisp, confusing new users unaccustomed to
None of the alleged problems exist, whatsoever. For instance, we have
discussions about historic dialects of Lisp from before Common Lisp, as well as
curiosities like lisp500.c. There is some discussion about Clojure.
Things like ISLISP and EuLisp are topical, but the newsgroup doesn't seem
to attract users of these languages in large numbers.
But comp.lang.lisp is de-facto a Common Lisp newsgroup, because of the people
ho use it. There is no obvious explanation for that, but it's not enforced.
If you created comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp, either nobody would go there, and
continue using comp.lang.lisp, or nearly everyone would go there, leaving
comp.lang.lisp with next to zero traffic. I suspect a lot of the traffic would
be newbies asking about Common Lisp, and being redirected to
comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp!
> generality of comp.lang.lisp and its mostly common lisp population.It
> also fuels flame wars between common lispers and users of the other
> dialects. The latest example is thread What kind of Lisp should I
> learn if I want to start programing with Lisp?
There weren't any problems in that thread. Someone asking that question
deserves to know about alternatives like Scheme and whatnot, even though there
is a comp.lang.scheme newsgroup, etc.
> I propose a creation of new usenet group comp.lang.common-lisp aimed
> at discussion for common lisp only, while comp.lang.lisp should be
> left as general purpose group.
Actually, a much, much, much more productive idea would be to create
comp.lang.lisp.moderated
We do clearly have some ongoing topic abuse; for instance, there are certain
long-time comp.lang.lisp regulars who have not ever posted one single article
that had any pertinence to anything that can be remotely called Lisp, who
appear not to know the slightest thing about any Lisp, and have not originated
so much as a single S-expression. Such people are sociopathic abusers of the
Usenet system and a primary reason why there are moderated newsgroups.
The moderated newsgroup would allow mostly discussions pertinent to Common Lisp
and languages that are legitimate, clear dialects of Lisp and that do not have
their newsgroup already, but without the moderator being a dickhead about this.
In this newsgroup, for instance, budden criticize and improve to the package
system of CL until he is blue in the face, and K. Majorinc could sing odes to
the wonders of newLISP. Discussions comparing CL and Scheme would be
permitted, even though there is comp.lang.scheme. I.e. no /pedantic/
rejection, as long as it's strongly Lisp-related.
But certain readily identifiable kinds of off-topic disturbances would be sent
to /dev/null.
How about that.
Kaz Kylheku
> uses generic comp.lang.lisp that belongs to the whole family of lisp
> languages. This brings a lot of problems reagarding a tone and
Here is another problem with your proposal, which really damns it. The
majority of the comp.lang.lisp users are Common Lisp programmers, but in spite
of this, comp.lang.lisp is used for discussing all kinds of things. I.e. it's
not strictly a CL newsgroup. If you change its name to
comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp, it will be a farce, because the discussion there
will be the same people, talking about the same non-common-Lisp topics.
I.e. where should I go if I want to talk with Kenny Tilton about good
places to go for ice cream on the East coast?
(And don't say e-mail!)
Of course, the answer is comp.lang.lisp. For such a discussion to be redirected
to comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp, just because of the stupid reason that we are
Common Lisp guys, is a ridiculous abuse of the whole concept of topicality.
It's better to abuse the topic with a discussion, than to abuse the entire
concept of topicality with a ridiculous newsgroup creation.
:)
Scott
wrote:
>
> For creation of new newsgroup we need at least 100 more Yes votes
> than No votes, and 2/3 of all votes to be in favour of creating the
> new newsgroup.
>
I vote no. While almost all of the active participants are Common
Lispers, I think it's amusing that they don't actually hold dominion
over the group. If you created comp.lang.common-lisp, the majority
would move there, and then they would be able to tell the newLispers,
EmacsLisper, and MatzLisper that their posts aren't appropriate. Both
the new group and the old group would be less enjoyable.
Rainer Joswig
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <0e923804-3b22-45dd...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As we all know common lisp doesn't have it's own group but instead
> > uses generic comp.lang.lisp that belongs to the whole family of lisp
> > languages.
>
> While this group is ostensibly for the entire family of Lisp languages,
> 95% of the discussions are about Common Lisp. Creating a new group will
> simply shift almost all the traffic to the new group, and the old group
> will have hardly any traffic. So it would effectively be just a
> renaming.
I'm not so sure. I have not looked closely, but let's me say the posts
are coming from different groups of people:
* long time Lisp users (what ever Lisp it is)
* Common Lisp newbies and regulars
* advocacy types
* users of Newlisp, Emacs Lisp, Clojure, Scheme, ...
Emacs Lisp and Scheme already have their news groups
* students with first time contact of any Lisp
Also the topics discussed often are not Common Lisp
specific and in the discussions all kinds
of languages are mixed.
>
> Doesn't seem worth the trouble to me.
Rainer Joswig
Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelc...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com>
wrote:
> On 2009-02-09 22:35:05 -0500, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> said:
>
> > While this group is ostensibly for the entire family of Lisp languages,
> > 95% of the discussions are about Common Lisp. Creating a new group will
> > simply shift almost all the traffic to the new group, and the old group
> > will have hardly any traffic. So it would effectively be just a
> > renaming.
> >
> > Doesn't seem worth the trouble to me.
>
> Agreed. The only changes that would actually make a difference would be:
>
> 1. c.l.l moderated- impractical because you're unlikely to get enough
> participants and even less likely to get someone with the time,
> expertise and willingness to moderate.
I haven't seen moderated groups work. Do you have a good example
for a moderated newsgroup? I have to immediately
think of comp.ai or comp.lang.ml . Both groups don't look
as if moderating 'works'. Maybe there are better examples?
>
> 2. move to a registered forum (like a google group) but Rainer has
> already said he'd rather stay on usenet. If he and other c.l.l
> heavyweights feel the same then such a group would hardly be worth
> reading.
>
> so we're stuck with the trolls.
>
> admit it, they're more amusing than watching tv, aren't they.
Slobodan Blazeski
I'm usually against any kind of moderation unless its complete
trolling and spamming. So if we have comp.lang.lisp moderated froggy,
gavino, and folks selling 50$ watches will get to go but I don't see
any ground for banning budden, majorinc and Xah when they're talking
about lisp, since its their group too. If do something like
comp.lang.common-lisp.moderated that would be make discussion more cl
centric. Would it be more fun? I don't know.
bobi
Pascal J. Bourguignon
jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de
> On 2009-02-10, Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan.blaze...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As we all know common lisp doesn't have it's own group but instead
> > uses generic comp.lang.lisp that belongs to the whole family of lisp
> > languages. This brings a lot of problems reagarding a tone and
>
> Here is another problem with your proposal, which really damns it. The
> majority of the comp.lang.lisp users are Common Lisp programmers, but in spite
> of this, comp.lang.lisp is used for discussing all kinds of things. I.e. it's
> not strictly a CL newsgroup. If you change its name to
> comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp, it will be a farce, because the discussion there
> will be the same people, talking about the same non-common-Lisp topics.
It is not about changing the name of comp.lang.lisp. It is about
creating a NEW comp.lang.lisp group/hierarchy like
comp.lang.scheme or comp.lang.java. comp.lang.java also
has a lot of subgroups (advocacy, announce, help, misc, ...).
> I.e. where should I go if I want to talk with Kenny Tilton about good
> places to go for ice cream on the East coast?
>
> (And don't say e-mail!)
IRC: #lispcafe
But again, comp.lang.lisp should just stay.
Pascal J. Bourguignon
> Actually, a much, much, much more productive idea would be to create
>
> comp.lang.lisp.moderated
>
> We do clearly have some ongoing topic abuse; for instance, there are certain
> long-time comp.lang.lisp regulars who have not ever posted one single article
> that had any pertinence to anything that can be remotely called Lisp, who
> appear not to know the slightest thing about any Lisp, and have not originated
> so much as a single S-expression. Such people are sociopathic abusers of the
> Usenet system and a primary reason why there are moderated newsgroups.
>
> The moderated newsgroup would allow mostly discussions pertinent to Common Lisp
> and languages that are legitimate, clear dialects of Lisp and that do not have
> their newsgroup already, but without the moderator being a dickhead about this.
>
> In this newsgroup, for instance, budden criticize and improve to the package
> system of CL until he is blue in the face, and K. Majorinc could sing odes to
> the wonders of newLISP. Discussions comparing CL and Scheme would be
> permitted, even though there is comp.lang.scheme. I.e. no /pedantic/
> rejection, as long as it's strongly Lisp-related.
>
> But certain readily identifiable kinds of off-topic disturbances would be sent
> to /dev/null.
>
> How about that.
Agreed. Clearly it would be good to separate good lisp discussions from drivel.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
Slobodan Blazeski
the members of the smaller dialects for promoting their agenda.
Smaller dialects are practically piggy backing on common lisp
popularity. I don't know why are you coming to this newsgroup but I'm
interested to hear news about common lisp, not Matz or Emac lisp.
Sporadic non related thread from common lispers are fine with me too,
but the general thread to unify things is common lisp. If somebody
want t knwos about MAtz lisp there would be always comp.lang.lisp
bobi
Rob Warnock
+---------------
| I propose a creation of new usenet group comp.lang.common-lisp aimed
| at discussion for common lisp only, while comp.lang.lisp should be
| left as general purpose group.
I vote NO.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <rp...@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Slobodan Blazeski
I don't see what the problem is . Your discussion with Kenny about
ice cream is not more about lisp than about common lisp. So you could
talk about if you do it once in a while, and keep in mind that private
matters are better served by mail, or irc or whatever.
Even if we go for comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp-moderated moderators
would probably allow some non cl topic to pass if poster has a
sufficient credit.
cheers
bobi
Slobodan Blazeski
better choice to at least defend us from spam.
First filtering guidelines would be simple: discussion about common
lisp, with sometimes tolerating common lispers for little drift.
If we stick to comp.lang.lisp.moderated keep in mind that it won't be
fair for moderators to filter every crazy idea even if it is mildly
related to lisp, such us lisp sucks it should add @%^%&#^& feature to
be modern like my favourite language, or parens sucks since there is
lisp dialects without s-expressions. On the other hand if we have
comp.lang.common-lisp.moderated moderators could just show the
intruder the ANSI standard and reject the post.
Please advise your thoughts if you feel inappropriate in this
newsgroup mail me at (concatenate 'string "slobodan.blazeski"
"@gmail.com")
cheers
bobi
kod...@eurogaran.com
Kojak
Slobodan Blazeski a écrit :
> It seems that creating comp.lang.common-lisp.moderated would be a
> better choice to at least defend us from spam.
> First filtering guidelines would be simple: discussion about common
> lisp, with sometimes tolerating common lispers for little drift.
> [...]
I don't know if this can be done, but filtering or blacklisting only
spamers and notorius trollers while already improve S/N ratio.
After, full moderation, I'm not sure it's a good idea.
--
Jacques.
Peder O. Klingenberg
> It seems that creating comp.lang.common-lisp.moderated would be a
> better choice to at least defend us from spam.
I see very little spam in cll. Use a real usenet provider, google
ain't it. A real newsreader helps as well - it gives you the
opportunity to filter away posters you percieve as trolls, without
tying up the resources - or relying on the judgement - of some poor
sod with a moderator "badge".
Speaking of which - before trying to get a moderated newsgroup
created, I think you should have a clear idea about who you want as
moderator(s). Are you volunteering? Why should we trust your
judgement? Do you have someone else in mind? Who, and are they ok
with that idea?
My vote would be no. comp.lang.lisp does not have a high enough
volume to warrant either splitting or moderation, imo.
...Peder...
--
I wish a new life awaited _me_ in some off-world colony.
Mirko
wrote:
> As we all know common lisp doesn't have it's own group but instead
> uses generic comp.lang.lisp that belongs to the whole family of lisp
> languages. This brings a lot of problems reagarding a tone and
> discussion in comp.lang.lisp, confusing new users unaccustomed to
> generality of comp.lang.lisp and its mostly common lisp population.It
> also fuels flame wars between common lispers and users of the other
> dialects. The latest example is thread What kind of Lisp should I
> learn if I want to start programing with Lisp?
> I propose a creation of new usenet group comp.lang.common-lisp aimed
> at discussion for common lisp only, while comp.lang.lisp should be
> left as general purpose group.
> AFTER the waiting period, and if there were no serious objections
> that might invalidate the vote, and if 100 more valid YES/create
> votes are received than NO/don't create AND at least 2/3 of the
> total number of valid votes received are in favor of creation, a
> newgroup control message may be sent out. If the 100 vote margin
> or 2/3 percentage is not met, the group should not be created.
>
> For creation of new newsgroup we need at least 100 more Yes votes
> than No votes, and 2/3 of all votes to be in favour of creating the
> new newsgroup. If you are interested in creating a new usenet group
> dedicated to common lisp please post in this thread about your
> approval or disapproval. If there is at least 100 interested people
> we will start the procedure of creating the new newsgroup
> comp.lang.common-lisp
>
> yours
> Slobodan Blazeski
I appreciate your proposal, but I vote no. There is a very calm
common-lisp forum on http://www.lispforum.com/
Moderation is required, but on the part of participants.
Mirko
Peder O. Klingenberg
> I don't know if this can be done, but filtering or blacklisting only
> spamers and notorius trollers while already improve S/N ratio.
This is something to be done in the privacy of your own newsreader.
No need to impose your preferences on the rest of us.
...Peder...
--
Sløv uten dop.
Slobodan Blazeski
wrote:
> Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan.blaze...@gmail.com> writes:
> > It seems that creating comp.lang.common-lisp.moderated would be a
> > better choice to at least defend us from spam.
>
> I see very little spam in cll. Use a real usenet provider, google
> ain't it. A real newsreader helps as well - it gives you the
> opportunity to filter away posters you percieve as trolls, without
> tying up the resources - or relying on the judgement - of some poor
> sod with a moderator "badge".
>
> Speaking of which - before trying to get a moderated newsgroup
> created, I think you should have a clear idea about who you want as
> moderator(s). Are you volunteering? Why should we trust your
> judgement? Do you have someone else in mind? Who, and are they ok
> with that idea?
http://XXX.com to get free Blue Ray discs of latest movies.
cll has enough of critical mass of great people that I believe could
serve as moderators and most better than me. But I don't feel like
bothering them without knowing that there is an interest in such
group.
>
> My vote would be no. comp.lang.lisp does not have a high enough
> volume to warrant either splitting or moderation, imo.
The volume will decrease but how much of that volume is related to
topics that are not considered improtant. When I want to read about
scheme I go to comp.lang.scheme, if most people here are interested in
reading about various lisp topics beside common lisp then there is no
point in splitting.
Aatu Koskensilta
> For creation of new newsgroup we need at least 100 more Yes votes
> than No votes, and 2/3 of all votes to be in favour of creating the
> new newsgroup. If you are interested in creating a new usenet group
> dedicated to common lisp please post in this thread about your
> approval or disapproval. If there is at least 100 interested people
> we will start the procedure of creating the new newsgroup
> comp.lang.common-lisp
The document you quote is out of date. For the current procedure, see
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
(I have added news.groups to the newsgroups line.)
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Aatu Koskensilta
> I haven't seen moderated groups work. Do you have a good example
> for a moderated newsgroup?
Talk.origins, sci.math.research, sci.bio.evolution, ... Moderation
does sometimes work, after a fashion. That said, moderation on Usenet
is fraught with all sorts of problems, ranging from the technical to
the human. The general advice to those toying with the idea of a
moderated group is: don't.
Aatu Koskensilta
writes:
> But again, comp.lang.lisp should just stay.
It is rather unlikely the Big-8 Management Board would decide to send
an rmgroup for an active group teeming with on-topic Lisp chatter.
Slobodan Blazeski
> Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan.blaze...@gmail.com> writes:
> > For creation of new newsgroup we need at least 100 more Yes votes
> > than No votes, and 2/3 of all votes to be in favour of creating the
> > new newsgroup. If you are interested in creating a new usenet group
> > dedicated to common lisp please post in this thread about your
> > approval or disapproval. If there is at least 100 interested people
> > we will start the procedure of creating the new newsgroup
> > comp.lang.common-lisp
>
> The document you quote is out of date. For the current procedure, see
>
> http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
>
> (I have added news.groups to the newsgroups line.)
feebdack from common lisp community in the next few days regarding
this issue before starting the process.
Unless the majority if common lisp regulars prefer a new group, it's
better to continue with comp.lang.lisp than create unnecessary split.
cheers
bobi
>
> --
> Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi)
Aatu Koskensilta
> Thanks for your update Aatu but I would prefer to listen for the
> feebdack from common lisp community in the next few days regarding
> this issue before starting the process.
Getting a feeling of how the community feels is certainly
advisable. You might however also benefit from the insight of
news.groups regulars who have much valuable experience on group
creation, and who no doubt will readily offer reflections and
observations that might not otherwise occur to those pondering a
possible new group. In particular, the details of what goes into
moderation on Usenet, or what is involved in getting a new group
running, might not be obvious to all who might wish to form an
informed opinion on the proposed new group. (Posting in news.groups in
itself does not constitute starting the creation process.)
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
Pascal Costanza
> As we all know common lisp doesn't have it's own group but instead
> uses generic comp.lang.lisp that belongs to the whole family of lisp
> languages. This brings a lot of problems reagarding a tone and
> discussion in comp.lang.lisp, confusing new users unaccustomed to
> generality of comp.lang.lisp and its mostly common lisp population.It
> also fuels flame wars between common lispers and users of the other
> dialects. The latest example is thread What kind of Lisp should I
> learn if I want to start programing with Lisp?
> I propose a creation of new usenet group comp.lang.common-lisp aimed
> at discussion for common lisp only, while comp.lang.lisp should be
> left as general purpose group.
> Considering the guidelines for creating new usenet group
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/
> AFTER the waiting period, and if there were no serious objections
> that might invalidate the vote, and if 100 more valid YES/create
> votes are received than NO/don't create AND at least 2/3 of the
> total number of valid votes received are in favor of creation, a
> newgroup control message may be sent out. If the 100 vote margin
> or 2/3 percentage is not met, the group should not be created.
>
> than No votes, and 2/3 of all votes to be in favour of creating the
> new newsgroup. If you are interested in creating a new usenet group
> dedicated to common lisp please post in this thread about your
> approval or disapproval. If there is at least 100 interested people
> we will start the procedure of creating the new newsgroup
> comp.lang.common-lisp
I'm in favor.
Pascal
--
ELS'09: http://www.european-lisp-symposium.org/
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Kojak
Peder O. Klingenberg a écrit :
Correction: "This is something that can be done..."
Of course, I'm not in favor of moderation, but filtering spammers
at the "source" does not bother me, and I think it's a good thing.
And finnaly, this kind of filtering don't impose preferences to
anyone. Selling watches, sextoys or I don't know what else has
nothing to do with Lisp insofar we are talking about Lisp groups.
However, I can understand that some can love spams... :-)
--
Jacques.
Phil Armitage
wrote:
> I propose a creation of new usenet group comp.lang.common-lisp aimed
> at discussion for common lisp only, while comp.lang.lisp should be
> left as general purpose group.
It seems there are two issues here, the conflation of which may
actually be unimportant.
The first is the creation of a group just for Common Lisp discussion.
Filtering out the relatively small quantity of traffic for other Lisp
dialects doesn't seem that big a deal to me but maybe I underestimate
how distracting it is for others.
The second is to reduce the spamming and trolling. I agree with others
that if 'we' move then 'they' will move so probably only moderation
would work here.
I remember when I regularly read comp.lang.c++.moderated; the
discussions were very focussed which I guess meant that moderation was
working. But then I presume some people were working very hard to keep
it that way (excuse my ignorance of Usenet). Also, posts were
generally delayed quite significantly by the moderation process. Not
sure how people here would feel about that.
I'm glad this topic has come up though: I'm recently finding the
trolls have become unbearable. Kaz and others have suggested having a
proper news feed and for those of us with ISPs that don't have nntp,
we should probably find a decent service instead (recommendations
welcome!).
--
Phil
http://phil.nullable.eu/
Peder O. Klingenberg
> Of course, I'm not in favor of moderation, but filtering spammers
> at the "source" does not bother me, and I think it's a good thing.
Spam filtering is routinely done by newsadmins. It has nothing to do
with newsgroup moderation.
> And finnaly, this kind of filtering don't impose preferences to
> anyone. Selling watches, sextoys or I don't know what else has
> nothing to do with Lisp insofar we are talking about Lisp groups.
If you see this kind of spam, you need to take it up with your
newsadmins. If they can't/won't filter their feed, I would look for a
different provider.
I thought the moderation idea was for filtering out posts by humans
that were deemed undesirable. While there are a few participants here
that I feel generate little enough of value that I don't care to read
them, I would hesitate to support universal filtering of their posts
through moderation.
Nicolas Neuss
> Kojak <nnt...@janville.Borg.invalid> writes:
>> [...]
>> And finnaly, this kind of filtering don't impose preferences to
>> anyone. Selling watches, sextoys or I don't know what else has
>> nothing to do with Lisp insofar we are talking about Lisp groups.
>
> If you see this kind of spam, you need to take it up with your
> newsadmins. If they can't/won't filter their feed, I would look for a
> different provider.
Precisely. (I think that I would have left comp.lang.lisp long ago, if I
would have to read it via Google groups.) I think making the group
readable for ordinary people would be much more important than filtering
out the F#/Ocaml/Ruby/mathematica spam-trolls. But this would mean a
moderated group which has problems, too.
So, I am against a split. (And, even if a vote here should give yes, one
should ask first for the opinion of elders, especially Kent Pitman.)
Nicolas
viper-2
wrote:
>
> Unless the majority if common lisp regulars prefer a new group, it's
> better to continue with comp.lang.lisp than create unnecessary split.
I vote no.
I think most of us agree that we'd like to see Common Lisp develop as
a dialect. I think attenuating discussion about other Lisp dialects,
for example, will not serve the process of analysis, comparison, and
debate necessary to stimulate ideas for development.
agt
--
Freedom - no pane, all gaiGN!
Code Art Now
http://codeartnow.com
Email: a...@codeartnow.com
Raffael Cavallaro
<slobodan...@gmail.com> said:
> but I don't see
> any ground for banning budden, majorinc and Xah when they're talking
> about lisp
So it's the Ancient Mystic Society of No-Xahs then? ;^)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_the_Great>
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
George Neuner
wrote:
>I haven't seen moderated groups work. Do you have a good example
>for a moderated newsgroup? I have to immediately
>think of comp.ai or comp.lang.ml . Both groups don't look
>as if moderating 'works'. Maybe there are better examples?
comp.compilers, comp.lang.c.moderated
The biggest problem with moderated groups is timeliness, you have to
wait until the moderator reviews your post. It drastically cuts down
students asking homework questions, but it can be inconvenient for a
professional needing a quick answer to a question.
OTOH, the signal to noise ratio is much higher. Comp.compilers, for
example, has virtually no spam and very little off topic.
George
Xah Lee
wrote:
> As we all know common lisp doesn't have it's own group but instead
> uses generic comp.lang.lisp that belongs to the whole family of lisp
> languages. This brings a lot of problems reagarding a tone and
> discussion in comp.lang.lisp, confusing new users unaccustomed to
> generality of comp.lang.lisp and its mostly common lisp population.It
> also fuels flame wars between common lispers and users of the other
> dialects. The latest example is thread What kind of Lisp should I
> learn if I want to start programing with Lisp?
> at discussion for common lisp only, while comp.lang.lisp should be
> left as general purpose group.
> AFTER the waiting period, and if there were no serious objections
> that might invalidate the vote, and if 100 more valid YES/create
> votes are received than NO/don't create AND at least 2/3 of the
> total number of valid votes received are in favor of creation, a
> newgroup control message may be sent out. If the 100 vote margin
> or 2/3 percentage is not met, the group should not be created.
>
> For creation of new newsgroup we need at least 100 more Yes votes
> than No votes, and 2/3 of all votes to be in favour of creating the
> new newsgroup. If you are interested in creating a new usenet group
> dedicated to common lisp please post in this thread about your
> approval or disapproval. If there is at least 100 interested people
> we will start the procedure of creating the new newsgroup
> comp.lang.common-lisp
>
> Slobodan Blazeski
On Feb 10, 4:34 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
> Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan.blaze...@gmail.com> writes:
> > For creation of new newsgroup we need at least 100 more Yes votes
> > than No votes, and 2/3 of all votes to be in favour of creating the
> > new newsgroup. If you are interested in creating a new usenet group
> > dedicated to common lisp please post in this thread about your
> > approval or disapproval. If there is at least 100 interested people
> > we will start the procedure of creating the new newsgroup
> > comp.lang.common-lisp
>
> The document you quote is out of date. For the current procedure, see
>
> http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
>
> (I have added news.groups to the newsgroups line.)
I vote Yes!
let me describe my feelings on this.
Initially, i just LOL'd. I didn't believe some common lisper actually
would propose this, because my gut feelings from how i've observed
online forum social groups (including newsgroup) in the past 10 years,
made me think that the newly created comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp would
be pretty much empty, while comp.lang.lisp would remain active as it
is. Thus, on the political front, when i see some Common Lisping
fanatics throwing their fucking sneering remarks about emacs lisp or
NewLisp, i can tell them fuckheads to go home, with a sword of
righteousness!
i don't quite know how comp.lang.scheme got created (it was before my
time in newsgroup), but i sure am personally familiar, how Common
Lisping fuckheads always sneer, jibe, fuck the Scheme Language and
Scheme lisp people, especially around 1998-2002. ('was when Nagg'em is
still around, but it's not just him. Kent Pitman is among the major
abuser, but wearing a mask)
But then, some lingering love for human animal in me says no, that i
should just vote No. In the general aspect of ethology of human
animals, such schism, division, faction creation, are not good for the
whole. (some, such as the common lisper named viper-2 aka agt here,
has expressed similar sentiment in this thread, for example.)
and again, there's not really much certainty what would happen if
comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp is created. Maybe, as some say, most
traffic will move there (san or sans trolls), but i seriously doubt
it... (you have my assurance here, that if comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp
is created, i will not put a foot on it, unless there are *explicit*
written invitation or begging, or that i actually started to code in
Common Lisp (i have no such plan whatsoever in the next few years).)
overall, the whole shebang is quite silly. You see these lonely males,
old, retired, or student, who's got nothing to do all day but drivel
and piss fight among their peers, with deadpan faces writ with
morality, thinking that newsgroup is still some important conduit of
communication for scientists and professionals, whereas in reality it
is more like a staged wrestling platform of themselfs. (certain guy
named namekuseijin expressed similar sentiment recently in another
thread, and the in-house troll Kenneth Tilton certainly espouses this
school of thought)
So, i wasn't much decided. I think i'd vote no. However, scanning thru
this thread, it appears certain common lispers, namely at least the 2
Pascals (Costanza & Bourguignon), voted Yes. This made me thinking.
Technically, this is a logical proposal. After all, its quite logical
to have a newsgroup dedicated to a specialized lisp, just as there are
comp.lang.lisp.franz, comp.lang.lisp.mcl, comp.lang.lisp.x,
comp.lang.scheme.scsh,.lang.scheme.c. So, why not a
comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp?
speaking of the 2 Pascals here... let me talk a bit about my
impression of them. First of all, both of them are common lisp
fanatics. However, their newsgroup demeanor are not bad. Sometimes, in
some lisp criticism i made, they would say things that seem to me
quite idiotic. But, they are not like some common lisp fanatics here,
that are completely motherfucking idiotic, aggressive, or almost
devoid of any merit (e.g. one who's name start with “T” and has “a”
and “m” in it, one who's name start with D and has 3 letters and end
in “n”, and few others). (in fact, i'd place the 2 Pascals's newsgroup
persona to be higher than that of Kent Pitman) For another example,
Rainer, George Neuner, and quite few others, are all regular, common
lisp fanatics. The Rainer seems to me the most aggressive the way a
gonad-strong socially-ignorant juvenile 15-years old male is. (but i
think me & Rainer have come to certain semi-peaceful mutual
understanding)
... sorry i digressed. Now back to the subject proper... so, i was
thinking the proposal is not without a logical rationale. Thus i put
forth yes above. But actually, i take it back. I yield my voting right
to one Kenny Tilton, who, are connected with me thru a platonic
friendship. It is my belief that Kenny'll do the Right Thing.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
Kenneth Tilton
Long winter, eh? Just killfile froggy, bellyflop, and me and you'll be fine.
I am interested in destroying all other pretenders to the Lisp name so
let's keep their practitioners here where the hounds can get at them.
No.
kth
Dimiter "malkia" Stanev
Actually I don't mind people posting here about Emacs Lisp, it's somehow
related to the Lisp development (SLIME users).
William James certainly knows how to code ruby snippets, not sure why is
he doing that in comp.lang.lisp
I wish Jon Harrop was really useful to comp.lang.lisp, as he might be to
his languages.
Brian Mailman
> Unless the majority if common lisp regulars prefer a new group, it's
> better to continue with comp.lang.lisp than create unnecessary split.
That's a good idea. There have been traditionally two reasons to create
a group. One is to consolidate conversation from several groups and the
other is if a subtopic is overwhelming a group and it would be better to
split off.
These days, just sending a control message doesn't work to get a group
put on news spools. The cmsg only works as an advisory and it's up to
the proponent to promote the group. You need a dedicated group of
people willing to do that.
B/
Slobodan Blazeski
it's seems that it better to stick with status quo than make a new
newsgroup at this time. I wish you all enjoyable life in c.l.l. with
all bitter sweetness it comes with.
yours
Slobodan Blazeski
Francisco Vides =??B?RmVybsOhbmRleg==?=
> For creation of new newsgroup we need at least 100 more Yes votes
> than No votes, and 2/3 of all votes to be in favour of creating the
> new newsgroup. If you are interested in creating a new usenet group
> dedicated to common lisp please post in this thread about your
> approval or disapproval. If there is at least 100 interested people
> we will start the procedure of creating the new newsgroup
> comp.lang.common-lisp
No Emacs Lisp? Nor F#? Nor <obscure lisp dialect>? Nor <toy language of the
day>? Only Common Lisp?
Yes, please!
+-----------------
| Francisco Vides Fernández <fvi...@dedaloingenieros.com>
| Director técnico.
| Dédalo Ingenieros http://www.dedaloingenieros.com/
| PGP: http://pgp.rediris.es:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=0xB1299C15
+------
Pillsy
wrote:
[...]
> I propose a creation of new usenet group comp.lang.common-lisp aimed
> at discussion for common lisp only, while comp.lang.lisp should be
> left as general purpose group.
I vote NO. I find the discussion of un-Common Lisps to be interesting
as often as not, and I have a feeling that creating a new group would
be ineffective at reducing the volume of trolling or spam.
Cheers, Pillsy
Rob Warnock
+---------------
| Rainer Joswig <jos...@lisp.de> writes:
| > I haven't seen moderated groups work. Do you have a good example
| > for a moderated newsgroup?
|
| Talk.origins, sci.math.research, sci.bio.evolution, ...
Don't forget "comp.risks", "comp.dcom.telecom", & "comp.dcom.telecom.tech".
Note that "comp.risks" & "comp.dcom.telecom" have *long* histories of
successful dictatorial moderation, but that's quite rare...
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <rp...@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Kaz Kylheku
> On Feb 10, 6:43 am, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In this newsgroup, for instance, budden criticize and improve to the package
>> system of CL until he is blue in the face, and K. Majorinc could sing odes to
>> the wonders of newLISP. Discussions comparing CL and Scheme would be
>> permitted, even though there is comp.lang.scheme. I.e. no /pedantic/
>> rejection, as long as it's strongly Lisp-related.
>>
>> But certain readily identifiable kinds of off-topic disturbances would be sent
>> to /dev/null.
>>
>> How about that.
>
> I'm usually against any kind of moderation unless its complete
> trolling and spamming. So if we have comp.lang.lisp moderated froggy,
> gavino, and folks selling 50$ watches will get to go but I don't see
> any ground for banning budden, majorinc and Xah when they're talking
Bobi. Bobko. What the faaak does the above say, what I wroted! It's exactly
opposite, in agreement with you. I said in this newsgroup [i.e. the moderated
one] budden and Majorinc /could/ do what it is they do. Not that they could
not. As a non-draconian, non-dickhead moderator, I would definitely allow it.
But no moderator could be accused of being a draconian dickhead for rejecting
the completely non-related-to-lisp spewage from gavino, froggy, w_a_x, etc.
They would still have their freedom of expression---in the unmoderated group.
And to address some points made by others: no, killfiles are not good enough.
For one thing, Usenet is archived. Killfiles don't fix the fact that archives
are stuffed full of crap. There is such a thing as a concept of a nice
newsgroup whose archives are high signal, low noise, without additional
filtering having to be applied to them.
See, someone scanning archives isn't participating in the newsgroup as it
happens, day to day. He's jumping a decade forward, five years backward and so
on, with a vast number of articles at his fingertips. The patterns of trolling
and spamming, and the names of the parties, are different in every era.
Ergo, filtering over random access to twenty years of archives, though not
impossible, is quite a different game from your day to day filtering which
slowly adapts.
Think of the newsgroup discussions as creating a written cultural record.
That deserves to have quality.
Off topic, mentally deranged twits do not deserve the privilege of entering
into the the same archive along side the oracles and sages.
There is a difference between freedom of expression, and forcibly weaving your
garbage into a written chronicle, side by side with material that actually has
merit.
Brad Lucier
wrote:
> If you are interested in creating a new usenet group
> dedicated to common lisp please post in this thread about your
> approval or disapproval.
No.
Brad
Matthew D Swank
Matt
--
Don't kiss an elephant on the lips today.
Wade
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com
> On Feb 10, 4:34 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
>
> > Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan.blaze...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > For creation of new newsgroup we need at least 100 more Yes votes
> > > than No votes, and 2/3 of all votes to be in favour of creating the
> > > new newsgroup. If you are interested in creating a new usenet group
> > > dedicated to common lisp please post in this thread about your
> > > approval or disapproval. If there is at least 100 interested people
> > > we will start the procedure of creating the new newsgroup
> > > comp.lang.common-lisp
>
> > The document you quote is out of date. For the current procedure, see
>
> > http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
>
> > (I have added news.groups to the newsgroups line.)
>
> I vote Yes!
>
> let me describe my feelings on this.
>
> Initially, i just LOL'd. I didn't believe some common lisper actually
> would propose this, because my gut feelings from how i've observed
> online forum social groups (including newsgroup) in the past 10 years,
> made me think that the newly created comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp would
> be pretty much empty, while comp.lang.lisp would remain active as it
> is. Thus, on the political front, when i see some Common Lisping
> fanatics throwing their <expletive>
you probably have some interesting things to say but I normally
stop reading you at the first expletive.
Do you eat with that mouth?
As a newbie I can't see what purpose cllc-l would serve.
Aatu Koskensilta
> Thank you all for your feedback, as per the replies and mails received
> it's seems that it better to stick with status quo than make a new
> newsgroup at this time.
A wise decision, to be sure.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
Slobodan Blazeski
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2009-02-10, Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 6:43 am, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> In this newsgroup, for instance, budden criticize and improve to the package
> >> system of CL until he is blue in the face, and K. Majorinc could sing odes to
> >> the wonders of newLISP. Discussions comparing CL and Scheme would be
> >> permitted, even though there is comp.lang.scheme. I.e. no /pedantic/
> >> rejection, as long as it's strongly Lisp-related.
> >>
> >> But certain readily identifiable kinds of off-topic disturbances would be sent
> >> to /dev/null.
> >>
> >> How about that.
> >
> > I'm usually against any kind of moderation unless its complete
> > trolling and spamming. So if we have comp.lang.lisp moderated froggy,
> > gavino, and folks selling 50$ watches will get to go but I don't see
> > any ground for banning budden, majorinc and Xah when they're talking
> > about lisp, since its their group too. If do something like
>
> Bobi. Bobko. What the faaak does the above say, what I wroted! It's exactly
> opposite, in agreement with you. I said in this newsgroup [i.e. the moderated
> one] budden and Majorinc /could/ do what it is they do. Not that they could
> not. As a non-draconian, non-dickhead moderator, I would definitely allow it.
> But no moderator could be accused of being a draconian dickhead for rejecting
> the completely non-related-to-lisp spewage from gavino, froggy, w_a_x, etc.
> They would still have their freedom of expression---in the unmoderated group.
I'm glad that we agree. Though I want to see common lisp separated,
and moderated would be even better, the common lispers in this
newsgroup seemed split about creation of new cl group, with many great
posters on the both sides (*). So its better to postpone for better
days until there is a healthy majority. Or who knows maybe the future
usenet will become smart enough to filter crap, or the usenet itself
will become irrelevant. Wi'll see
cheers
bobi
(*) I don't count non common lispers since its in their advantage to
stay with status quo.
André Thieme
> For creation of new newsgroup we need at least 100 more Yes votes
> than No votes, and 2/3 of all votes to be in favour of creating the
> new newsgroup. If you are interested in creating a new usenet group
> dedicated to common lisp please post in this thread about your
> approval or disapproval. If there is at least 100 interested people
> we will start the procedure of creating the new newsgroup
> comp.lang.common-lisp
No.
Benjamin L. Russell
<DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:00:34 -0800 (PST),
>nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>[...]
>
>Along the same lines, I wish to propose creating a comp.lang.newlisp
>newsgroup for discussing newLISP-specifc issues.
>
>>[...]
Typo correction: Please substitute "specific" for "specifc" above.
-- Benjamin L. Russell
--
Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com
http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/
Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725
"Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto."
-- Matsuo Basho^
Benjamin L. Russell
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:
>[...]
>
>As a newbie I can't see what purpose cllc-l would serve.
Actually, it could be useful in providing a forum for Common
Lisp-specific discussion. This has become more pertinent these days
given the rise of such non-CL Lisp dialects as Qi, newLISP, and
Clojure.
Along the same lines, I wish to propose creating a comp.lang.newlisp
newsgroup for discussing newLISP-specifc issues. While newLISP
currently has a Web-based forum (see
http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/), for various reasons, it can still
be useful to have a USENET newsgroup as well.
Thomas Lee
Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> writes
>Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
>
>> Unless the majority if common lisp regulars prefer a new group, it's
>>better to continue with comp.lang.lisp than create unnecessary split.
>
>That's a good idea. There have been traditionally two reasons to
>create a group. One is to consolidate conversation from several groups
>and the other is if a subtopic is overwhelming a group and it would be
>better to split off.
Of course there's a third reason - there is a topic that is not covered
by other groups.
>These days, just sending a control message doesn't work to get a group
>put on news spools.
True - the days of all spools running on full autopilot are gone.
> The cmsg only works as an advisory and it's up to the proponent to
>promote the group. You need a dedicated group of people willing to do
>that.
Users of the new group also need to help, sometimes, by asking their
news supplier to carry the group.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee - t...@psp.co.uk
A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board
Majorinc Kazimir
>
> Along the same lines, I wish to propose creating a comp.lang.newlisp
> newsgroup for discussing newLISP-specifc issues. While newLISP
> currently has a Web-based forum (see
> http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/), for various reasons, it can still
> be useful to have a USENET newsgroup as well.
Thanks Ben.
Maybe in some pre-www times. Now, Usenet is dying[1] and
I think it is great: atmosphere on Usenet is just so full
of hate, violence and disrespect that it is better for all
of us to retire it. World will be a better place without
Usenet.
However, as long as comp.lang.lisp is important general
lisp forum, it has a sense to maintain some presence here.
_________
[1] http://tinyurl.com/b4xeda
Brian Mailman
> In message <PvKdnSl2j9Q7TgzU...@supernews.com>, Brian
> Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> writes
>>Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
>>
>>> Unless the majority if common lisp regulars prefer a new group, it's
>>>better to continue with comp.lang.lisp than create unnecessary split.
>>
>>That's a good idea. There have been traditionally two reasons to
>>create a group. One is to consolidate conversation from several groups
>>and the other is if a subtopic is overwhelming a group and it would be
>>better to split off.
>
> Of course there's a third reason - there is a topic that is not covered
> by other groups.
No, Thomas. I know you're supposed to be all-knowing and all that, but
with tens of thousands of groups, any topic has a place to fit in.
>
>>These days, just sending a control message doesn't work to get a group
>>put on news spools.
>
> True - the days of all spools running on full autopilot are gone.
Thanks to your diligent work at destroying the Big 8, as well as the
rest of the Components in your Unit.
>
>> The cmsg only works as an advisory and it's up to the proponent to
>>promote the group. You need a dedicated group of people willing to do
>>that.
>
> Users of the new group also need to help, sometimes, by asking their
> news supplier to carry the group.
Yes, dear Component... that's what I said.
B/
Xah Lee
> Benjamin L. Russell wrote:
>
> > Along the same lines, I wish to propose creating a comp.lang.newlisp
> > newsgroup for discussing newLISP-specifc issues. While newLISP
> > currently has a Web-based forum (see
> >http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/), for various reasons, it can still
> > be useful to have a USENET newsgroup as well.
>
> Thanks Ben.
>
> Maybe in some pre-www times. Now, Usenet is dying[1] and
> I think it is great: atmosphere on Usenet is just so full
> of hate, violence and disrespect that it is better for all
> of us to retire it. World will be a better place without
> Usenet.
Well said.
Somehow, you have these tech geekers, slaving in newsgroup, drivling
about their hatred of google's webbased newsgroup services, and still
think that newsgroup is the center of the universe. Really, socially
ignorant, fucking, morons.
Today, there are vast number of community channels, globally and
reginoally. I would say, a typical tech geeker is only awareness of
maybe less than 10% of it in any area. In the 1980s, newsgroup is
probably constitute more than 50% of online communication thru-put. It
gradually decreased thru the 1990s. Today, the whole communication
thru-put of Newsgroups probably less that, ummm, 0.0001% of
communication?
Any dork, with slight literacy of social sciences, would know
this. But with the tech geekers, even many of them are professional
programers or even professors, can be quite ignorant of social
knowledge, blinded by their technical expertise.
> However, as long as comp.lang.lisp is important general
> lisp forum, it has a sense to maintain some presence here.
>
> _________
> [1]http://tinyurl.com/b4xeda
hum, don't know why you using a url transformer. I hate those. It
hides origin.
Your url isn't that long and is with perfectly legible text:
http://kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com/2009/02/decline-of-lisp-usenet.html
Note that during 2007, 2008, and possibly 2006 too, there are
significant spam on comp.lang.lisp. (real spam, not some motherfucking
tech geeker accusing each other of “spamming”) I'd estimate that in
2008, at least 5% of traffic is spam, just from my browsing
experience.
Btw, i did a similar graph published here:
• Computer Language Popularity Trend
http://xahlee.org/lang_traf/index.html
did you copy my idea? (^_^)
i thought to regenerate to make it up to day... but the problem of
false stat caused by spam traffic, plus general lost of interest in
newgroups, made it not worth while i think.
---------------
today, newsgroup users, at least the few comp.lang.* ones i use
regularly and observed, are almost pretty much a small throng of
geekers. Vast majority of post are by just a few regulars. They read
each other, spittle with each other, and feel happy that they are
informed of what's going on the world.
Also, one common behavior of these morons is to bad mouth google
groups. If google didn't provide newsgroup service, newsgroup would
perhaps died 5 years ago. Motherfucking social literate fucking tech
geekers.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
Kaz Kylheku
> Maybe in some pre-www times. Now, Usenet is dying[1] and
> I think it is great: atmosphere on Usenet is just so full
> of hate, violence and disrespect that it is better for all
> of us to retire it.
I don't feel that at all. If you want respect, earn it.
If you want love instead of hatred, be loveable instead
of hateable.
Majorinc Kazimir
> Note that during 2007, 2008, and
> possibly 2006 too, there are
> significant spam on comp.lang.lisp.
Spam maybe contributes significantly to number
of threads, but less to number of posts, since
it doesn't generate discussion. In few months I
checked manually, there was less than 1% spam
monthly in Google archive.
>
> Btw, i did a similar graph published here:
>
> • Computer Language Popularity Trend
> http://xahlee.org/lang_traf/index.html
>
> did you copy my idea? (^_^)
>
In fact I did, but not that article - I've seen
you posted here frequency on extreme programming
group few days ago, it gave me idea.
But I didn't know that you already have article
with all these graphs.
I added link to your article, so if someone find
my post, he is also pointed to your article. I
hope it is fair now.
Evans Winner
Somehow, you have these tech geekers, slaving in
newsgroup, drivling about their hatred of google's
webbased newsgroup services [...]
If you dislike Usenet so, why use it? In any case, I have
no objection to a web-based forum.
As long as I can use it in gnus.
As for splitting comp.lang.lisp to comp.lang.lisp.cl and
comp.lang.lisp.scheme and comp.lang.lisp.stewLISP and so
forth, the putative benefits of a split -- possibly slightly
more focused threads -- should be balanced by the fact that
Usenet groups tend to need a kind of "critical mass" of
interest in a specific group in order to keep things moving;
splitting comp.lang.lisp might could just have the effect of
diffusing energy.
Aside from an occasional snide remark and some
"meta"-discussion of real or imagined snubs, generally
people who ask questions here about any variety of lisp get
some kind of answer. Even the recent question about
Emacs-as-lisp-IDE got answers. (I personally would think of
questions about how to use org-mode in Emacs as off topic
here, but a question about Emacs lisp, or even one about
using Emacs' lisp editing facilities as on topic.)
I don't know the statistics, but if there are more serious
hackers hacking Common Lisp in the world than other
varieties of lisp, then I would expect more Common Lisp
people to be active in comp.lang.lisp. I don't think it's a
conspiracy. But maybe I'm wrong. Come to think of it,
maybe the Illuminati are behind Common Lisp.
Peter J Ross
<t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <PvKdnSl2j9Q7TgzU...@supernews.com>, Brian
> Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> writes
>>Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
>>
>>> Unless the majority if common lisp regulars prefer a new group, it's
>>>better to continue with comp.lang.lisp than create unnecessary split.
>>
>>That's a good idea. There have been traditionally two reasons to
>>create a group. One is to consolidate conversation from several groups
>>and the other is if a subtopic is overwhelming a group and it would be
>>better to split off.
>
> Of course there's a third reason - there is a topic that is not covered
> by other groups.
Do you really believe that?
>>These days, just sending a control message doesn't work to get a group
>>put on news spools.
>
> True - the days of all spools running on full autopilot are gone.
The days of Big-8 groups being added on autopilot are gone, but they
didn't go so long ago that you have no resposibility to try to reverse
the trend.
As an officially appointed manager of the Big-8 hierarchies, why are
you so insouciant about their increasing resemblance to alt.* and
free.*?
>> The cmsg only works as an advisory and it's up to the proponent to
>>promote the group. You need a dedicated group of people willing to do
>>that.
>
> Users of the new group also need to help, sometimes, by asking their
> news supplier to carry the group.
How kind of you to provide Brian with so much information he didn't
already know!
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
samantha
<raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote:
> On 2009-02-09 22:35:05 -0500, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> said:
>
> > While this group is ostensibly for the entire family of Lisp languages,
> > 95% of the discussions are about Common Lisp. Creating a new group will
> > simply shift almost all the traffic to the new group, and the old group
> > will have hardly any traffic. So it would effectively be just a
> > renaming.
>
> > Doesn't seem worth the trouble to me.
>
> Agreed. The only changes that would actually make a difference would be:
>
> 1. c.l.l moderated- impractical because you're unlikely to get enough
> participants and even less likely to get someone with the time,
> expertise and willingness to moderate.
First level moderation would simply take out the OOT spam like ads for
viagra. That doesn't require any expertise. I would even
volunteer.
>
> 2. move to a registered forum (like a google group) but Rainer has
> already said he'd rather stay on usenet. If he and other c.l.l
> heavyweights feel the same then such a group would hardly be worth
> reading.
>
> so we're stuck with the trolls.
>
> admit it, they're more amusing than watching tv, aren't they.
Dunno. I am pretty selective about the little tv I watch.
- s
Raffael Cavallaro
> Dunno. I am pretty selective about the little tv I watch.
TV has gotten so bad that I usually watch it while reading c.l.l. That
way, when (not if) it gets stupid or boring I have something
interesting to read!
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.