The Importance of Terminology's Quality

[Arne Vajhøj]

szr wrote:
> 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]

I very much doubt that the original thread is relevant for the Java
group.

But the subthread Lew commente don was about Perl and Unix. That is
clearly off topic.

Personally I am rather tolerant for topics. But I can not blame Lew
for requesting that a Perl-Unix discussion does not get cross posted
to a Java group.

>> 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?

I doubt Lew read any of the other groups, so it seems quite
natural that he did not comment on the on/off topic characteristics
in those.

>> 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]

And I am sure that Lew did not intended to pretend to speak for
the entire group. He spoke for himself.

I believe there has been several posts that agreed with him and none
that disagreed, so it seems very plausible that the group indeed agree
with him.

Arguing that a huge silent majority has a different opinion
than those speaking up is a very questionable argument. Everybody
could try and count them for their view. The only reasonable
thing is not to count them.

Arne