Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

["Phlip" <new_email@see.web.page>]

Bob Hutchison wrote:

>Pardon me for saying this, but every response to Meyer's article that
>has reached my news service is off topic.


The RFD is on-topic because all the RFCs told Tim Ottinger to post it to
a "set of related groups, and news.groups". FORTRAN - no. Haskell - no.
microsoft.public.* - no. Ada - yes.

What group are you reading?

>Is anyone actually going to respond to what he said?

No. Like I pointed out in the first reply, his (or his spoofer's)
opening sentence was so caustic almost nobody ever read further.

Further, his (or his spoofer's) opening sentence reminded us of the kind
of rhetoric from a particular poster that started the moderation process
in the first place. Irony, huh?

The entire alleged Bertrand Meyer post appears below my signature, to
submit to server path and handwriting analysis. Notice the message ID is
on the 'eiffel.com' server - a spoofer would need to tap into that
server, exploit a rebounder on it, briefly name their own server that
(and get the 'net to accept it), sneak into the ISC building, or work
there.

In summary, if one of our industry leaders wrote it, he has been
criticized from all sides for it. It erodes everyones respect for him.

I want to repeat I find the work deeply offensive, and I hope whoever
wrote it wises up. And nobody should forget that when the moderated
newsgroup starts up, this post would have passed moderation and been
accepted.

  --  Phlip at politizen dot com                  (address munged)
======= http://users.deltanet.com/~tegan/home.html =======

Path:
news!global-news-master!newsfeed.concentric.net!newshub.northeast.verio.
net!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!news.rain.org!not-for-mail
From: Bertrand Meyer <Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com>
Newsgroups:
news.groups,comp.object,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smallta
lk,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 12:47:19 -0700
Organization: Interactive Software Engineering
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com>
References: <907918039.22235@isc.org>
Reply-To: Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: outback.eiffel.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
Xref: news comp.lang.ada:77012 comp.lang.smalltalk:75209
comp.lang.c++:372631 comp.lang.eiffel:33161 comp.object:93830
news.groups:11075


`comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
any non-conforming view on object technology. (The censorship
has already begun with the redirection of replies to a single
newsgroup that no one reads. Please refuse this and reply to the
newsgroups where the original was posted, as I am doing -- with
some difficulty -- here. I can't believe the arrogance of posting
on a newsgroup and trying to bar others from replying on the same
forum!)

`comp.object.moderated' is a bad solution to a non-existent problem.
The level of noise and off-topic discussions on comp.object is
quite reasonable. Many of the group discussions are informative and
useful. It provides an excellent forum for discussions of O-O issues.
It's a great opportunity for novices to meet experts. I personally
learned a lot from it over the years, including from postings that
wouldn't have stood a chance under the proposed censorship rules.

For unknown reasons a group of self-appointed guardians of
object morality have decided that they alone know what is acceptable
and what is not. They should be encouraged to create their own
mailing list, but have no right to take over the comp.object name.
(I know, the unmoderated comp.object group would theoretically remain,
but newcomers will naturally assume that the "serious stuff" is on
the newsgroup that has the same name with the added suffix "moderated".)

This is a serious matter (that's why I am taking the time to write
this message). By suppressing the more forward-looking views and
always bowing to the "safe" majority choices even when everyone knew
they were plainly wrong, we software people as a community have
pathetically betrayed our duty to society, as witnessed by the
shameful Year 2000 mess and other looming disasters. We badly need,
for the honor of our profession and the well-being of society,
to let alternative views express themselves freely. Today, because
of the power of hype and marketing and the irresponsibiliy of some
of the very organizations that should support serious technical debate,
there are precious few avenues of expression left for non-majority views
in software technology.  comp.object is one of the best.
Do not let anyone take it away from you.

To the authors of this proposal: if you really want to have an O-O
group tailored to your own view, you are entitled to creating it
but you are NOT entitled to the name comp.object. Start your own
Web-archived mailing list, or a newsgroup with a less portentous name.

To all others: don't let this proposal be passed sneakily
on `news.groups' why you read the interesting stuff on comp.object.
Kill it before it kills you.

--
Bertrand Meyer, Interactive Software Engineering
ISE Building, 2nd Floor, 270 Storke Road Goleta, CA 93117 USA
805-685-1006, Fax 805-685-6869,
<Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com>, http://eiffel.com

--
Bertrand Meyer, Interactive Software Engineering
ISE Building, 2nd Floor, 270 Storke Road Goleta, CA 93117 USA
805-685-1006, Fax 805-685-6869,
<Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com>, http://eiffel.com