| Peter E. C. Dashwood 2004-05-24, 8:30 pm |
| Good stuff, Bill.
I admire your optimism...<G>
Of course, the rules you suggest would mean I can't post here... <G>
If you intend to confine CLC to rational, reasonable, factual posts
after only 8 years or so of dribble, rubbish, abuse, crooked thinking,
and misinformation, well, where's the fun in that?
Fortunately, it is an unmoderated forum and nothing you or anyone else
can say will make the slightest difference.
Reasonable people of goodwill who post here, already observe your
suggested guidelines; the ones who don't are never likely to.
Still, it's nice that after all this time, SOMEBODY has at least
mentioned it and sought to do something about it.
I'm almost tempted to share your optimism...<G>
Pete.
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<Caxpc.1777$SZ4.537@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> Not that I really think that it will do much good, but before we "turn off"
> many more people (as we did last time) when we tried to deal with post that lead
> to "naming calling" and other unpleasantries, let me explain what as I see as
> the problem.
>
> Generalizations that are NOT qualified often end up as useless (fruitless)
> diatribes back and forth.
>
> Take the statement (for example) from a recent thread,
>
> "Did you mean statically linked? Only mainframers still do that."
>
> There are so many "easy to find" exceptions to this generalizations, that the
> POINT that was trying to be made was (or might be) lost. If the last statement
> were changed to any of the following, I think it would advance rather than
> restrict discussion. Consider:
>
> A) I haven't seen a statically linked application except on an (IBM) mainframe
> for years.
>
> B) I don't recommend using statically linked programs and haven't seen others
> using it - except on certain mainframes.
>
> C) In all of my recent jobs, they have told us NOT to use statically linked
> applications.
>
> D) I don't use statically linked applications. Can others tell me if they do or
> don't and if so why?
>
> ***
>
> Each of these (like many other possible wording) AVOIDS using an
> (unsubstantiated and easy to dispute) "generalization which is phrased as if it
> were a FACT.
>
> From my experience in comp.lang.cobol (and many other forums) - those who
> express their personal opinions and experiences CLEARLY identified as such
> tend to be well respected and listed to.
>
> Those who make generic statements and state opinions AS IF THEY WERE FACTS
> tend to cause arguments and have their opinions be-littled.
>
> ***
>
> It seems to me to be SO easy (and profitable) to always express opinions and
> experiences clearly identified as such.
>
> Any time you (generic) are tempted to write a statement of the type
> Everyone ....
> No one ...
> Every compiler ...
> COBOL programs always ....
> Modern programs always/never ...
> Mainframes (all) ....
>
> be very VERY careful. The chances (again from my experience) are that
> 1) you are wrong
> 2) your point will be lost in arguments about terminology and counter-examples
>
> ****
>
> Finally, I know that I (and others) can simply IGNORE those stating opinions as
> facts. However, as threads in comp.lang.cobol ARE archived and the
> "unsuspecting" may find such posts. Therefore, I do think it is important that
> such semi-truths and misinformation be refuted and/or corrected.
|