The Importance of Terminology's Quality

[szr]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:40:03 -0700, szr <szrRE at szromanMO.comVE> wrote:
>
>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> Stephan Bour wrote:
>>>> Lew wrote:
>>>> } John Thingstad wrote:
>>>> } > Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, } > bash 
>>>> and C. I don't like the style, but many do.
>>>> }
>>>> } Please exclude the Java newsgroups from this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Did it ever occur to you that you don't speak for entire news
>>>> groups?
>>>
>>> Did it occur to you that there are nothing about Java in the above ?
>>
>> Looking at the original post, it doesn't appear to be about any
>> specific language.
>
> Indeed.  That suggests it's probably off-topic in most, if not all,
> of the newsgroups to which it was posted, inasmuch as they exist for
> topics specific to a given programming language.

Perhaps - comp.programming might of been a better place, but not all 
people who follow groups for specific languages follow a general group 
like that - but let me ask you something. What is it you really have 
against discussing topics with people of neighboring groups? Keep in 
mind you don't have to read anything you do not want to read. [1]

> Regardless, unless you are actually reading this thread from the
> c.l.j.p newsgroup, I'm not sure I see the point in questioning
> someone who _is_ about whether the thread belongs there or not.

I would rather have the OP comment about that, as he started the thread. 
But what gets me is why you are against that specific group being 
included but not others? What is so special about the Java group and why 
are you so sure people there don't want to read this thread? [1] What 
right do you or I or anyone have to make decisions for everyone in a 
news group? Isn't this why most news readers allow one to block a 
thread?

> And if it's a vote you want, mark me down as the third person reading
> c.l.j.p that doesn't feel this thread belongs.  I don't know whether
> Lew speaks for the entire newsgroup, but based on comments so far,
> it's pretty clear that there unanimous agreement among those who have
> expressed an opinion.

Ok, so, perhaps 3 people out of what might be several hundred, if not 
thousand (there is no way to really know, but there are certainly a lot 
of people who read that group, and as with any group, there are far more 
readers than there are people posting, so, again, just because you or 
two other people or so don't want to read a topic or dislike it, you 
feel you can decide for EVERYONE they mustn't read it? Again, this is 
why readers allow you to ignore threads. Please don't force your views 
on others; let them decide for themselves. [1]


[1] I do not mean this topic specifically,  but in general,  if one
    dislikes a thread, they are free to ignore it. I find it rather
    inconsiderate to attempt to force a decision for everyone, when
    one has the ability to simply ignore the thread entirely.


-- 
szr