Home > Archive > Fortran > November 2005 > Group Deterioration
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Group Deterioration
|
|
| Gary L. Scott 2005-11-16, 9:58 pm |
| This group appears to be degrading...please everyone that is wrong,
admit that you're wrong, and everyone that's right stop rubbing it in.
--
Gary Scott
mailto:garyscott@ev1.net
Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com
Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html
Why are there two? God only knows.
If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.
-- Henry Ford
| |
| Dan Nagle 2005-11-16, 9:58 pm |
| Hello,
Gary L. Scott wrote:
> This group appears to be degrading...please everyone that is wrong,
> admit that you're wrong, and everyone that's right stop rubbing it in.
I think Gary has a point.
But one value of this newsgroup is that newbies can get
reliable advice on Fortran problems.
Obviously, misinformation confidently stated and never retracted
reduces that value.
Other than trying to correct the misinformation,
what course of action can be proposed for a public forum
such as c.l.f?
Trust me, the only reason certain folks are *not* in my killfile
is that I feel the need to correct misinformation.
--
Cheers!
Dan Nagle
Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.
| |
| Rich Townsend 2005-11-16, 9:58 pm |
| Dan Nagle wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Gary L. Scott wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I think Gary has a point.
>
> But one value of this newsgroup is that newbies can get
> reliable advice on Fortran problems.
>
> Obviously, misinformation confidently stated and never retracted
> reduces that value.
>
> Other than trying to correct the misinformation,
> what course of action can be proposed for a public forum
> such as c.l.f?
>
> Trust me, the only reason certain folks are *not* in my killfile
> is that I feel the need to correct misinformation.
>
Seconded. Unless they are obviously a barking-mad netloon, the confidence of
certain individuals can be mistaken for a patina of genuine authority. Calling
these individuals on their bs is important to maintain the status of c.l.f as a
functional (albeit warty) forum for expert Fortran advice.
Looking back over the TRIM() thread has made me realize that the argument with
Vowels has dominated c.l.f over the past few days. I've taken a large part in
it, and I'm sorry that Gary has felt it has degraded the group. I think he's
probably right, but I also think that the group would be even more degraded if
Vowels' misinformation about TRIM() -- and more recently about NEAREST() -- went
unchallenged.
cheers,
Rich
| |
| Brooks Moses 2005-11-17, 3:57 am |
| Dan Nagle wrote:
> But one value of this newsgroup is that newbies can get
> reliable advice on Fortran problems.
>
> Obviously, misinformation confidently stated and never retracted
> reduces that value.
>
> Other than trying to correct the misinformation,
> what course of action can be proposed for a public forum
> such as c.l.f?
There are two algorithms for correcting misinformation:
(1) Correct information.
Assume readers can decide who is right.
End.
(2) 10: Correct information.
If misinformer does not retract information then GOTO 10.
End.
I would note that, in recent threads, there appears to be experimental
evidence that algorithm 2 can easily be an infinite loop.
Thus, I would strongly recommend algorithm 1. I suspect that most
readers are capable of making the judgements that it requires of them.
If they are not, then they have more serious problems than can be
addressed here.
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
| |
| Richard Maine 2005-11-17, 3:57 am |
| Brooks Moses <bmoses-nospam@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:
> There are two algorithms for correcting misinformation:
>
> (1) Correct information.
> Assume readers can decide who is right.
> End.
>
> (2) 10: Correct information.
> If misinformer does not retract information then GOTO 10.
> End.
>
> I would note that, in recent threads, there appears to be experimental
> evidence that algorithm 2 can easily be an infinite loop.
>
> Thus, I would strongly recommend algorithm 1.
I most emphatically agree. Correct the information. Then stop. Don't get
into arguments. Don't issue challenges. The arguments are unprofessional
and, in the end, detrimental to the objective. Act professionally and
people will be able to tell. Lower yourself to brawling and people won't
be able to tell the difference...perhaps because you are making there be
less of a difference.
I might make comments about becoming a terrorist being the wrong way to
combat terrorism, but this is the wrong forum for that. :-(
I'll add that one of the ways that I recognize professionalism is in
freely admiting when one is wrong (and without trying to hide it in some
attack on the errors of others - just plain and simply admitting to the
error.) When I see that a person readily admits to their mistakes, it
greatly improves my confidence that things they say but don't retract
are probably correct. People who don't think they ever make mistakes....
well... that's their first one, usually of many.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
| |
| Dan Nagle 2005-11-17, 7:57 am |
| Hello,
Richard Maine wrote:
> Brooks Moses <bmoses-nospam@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I most emphatically agree. Correct the information. Then stop. Don't get
> into arguments. Don't issue challenges. The arguments are unprofessional
> and, in the end, detrimental to the objective.
One difficulty here is distinguishing (1) from (2)
when the misinformation continually changes. The recent example
is
You can write an f77-compliant trim().
You can write one, you just can't usefully use it
in an f77 compliant program.
The f77 trim() loop index is undefined outside the loop.
Failure to note that the well-defined loop index may produce
an undefined f77 substring reference.
Just saying "well, actually, no" each time new misinformation
is posted produces a good deal of the length of the thread.
<snip the rest>
I can agree completely that responding more than once
to comments of the form "Which f77 standard?" is detrimental.
But then, going from "conversion intrinsics behave just like
mathematical intrinsics" to "f77 trim()" to "list-directed
formatting can be made to do exactly what you want portably"
to the latest confusion of Fortran nearest() with IEEE nextafter(),
and you have a significant proportion of the deterioration noted.
Thus, there are two aspects here. One is new misinformation
per thread, and the other is new threads with misinformation.
The asynchronous nature of Usenet means that more than one poster
may well respond to each new misinformation.
I will try to be on guard against what I believe
psychologists call "sensitization", where repeated
similar stimuli produce ever-increasing responses.
--
Cheers!
Dan Nagle
Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.
| |
| Kevin G. Rhoads 2005-11-17, 7:57 am |
| >People who don't think they ever make mistakes....
>well... that's their first one, usually of many.
Sort of a Goedel's Theorem for (awareness of, making of) mistakes.
Just in case, on the off chance someone here in not familiar,
Goedel's theorem proves that in a formal axiomatic proof system at least
as complicated as the example used in the proof (formal arithmetic) that
it is possible to construct a statement in that system that claims itelf
as unprovable. If you can prove it, you have an inconsistent system. If
you can't prove it, then you have an existence proof for true but unproveable
theorems in that system. Therefore any system (that meets the requirements)
MUST be either INCOMPLETE or INCONSISTENT. (This has implications for
automatic proof generating systems and attempts (e.g., Alfred North Whitehead
and Bertrand Russel - Principia Mathematica) to put all of mathematics onto
a mechanistically formalized setting. Please to note, Goedel's Th'm does NOT
say you cannot prove all true theorems, just that doing so within the formal
systems where they are stated can not be done consistently. Goedel's proof
is an example of going outside the system in order to prove things.
Seems to me you have just stated (but not proven) an almost equivalent form
applicable to people's awareness of and making of mistakes. But I am having
trouble formulating the exactly analogous theorem.
As for the original topic, anyone who thinks this ain't a problem, please check
out the quality of (unmoderated) alt.lang.asm vs. (moderated) comp.lang.asm.x86
and then consider the nasty forms of self-moderation that are typical of comp.lang.c
or comp.lang.c++.
Presently, comp.lang.fortran is fairly well behaved, on-topic and newbie friendly,
let's not lose that if we can. Now if only we could stop Dave <whats-his-name>
from going over to comp.lang.pl1 and starting flame-wars there that spill back here,
but I don't see a reasonable way to do that.
| |
| Rich Townsend 2005-11-17, 9:57 pm |
| Kevin G. Rhoads wrote:
>
>
> Sort of a Goedel's Theorem for (awareness of, making of) mistakes.
>
> Just in case, on the off chance someone here in not familiar,
> Goedel's theorem proves that in a formal axiomatic proof system at least
> as complicated as the example used in the proof (formal arithmetic) that
> it is possible to construct a statement in that system that claims itelf
> as unprovable. If you can prove it, you have an inconsistent system. If
> you can't prove it, then you have an existence proof for true but unproveable
> theorems in that system. Therefore any system (that meets the requirements)
> MUST be either INCOMPLETE or INCONSISTENT. (This has implications for
> automatic proof generating systems and attempts (e.g., Alfred North Whitehead
> and Bertrand Russel - Principia Mathematica) to put all of mathematics onto
> a mechanistically formalized setting. Please to note, Goedel's Th'm does NOT
> say you cannot prove all true theorems, just that doing so within the formal
> systems where they are stated can not be done consistently. Goedel's proof
> is an example of going outside the system in order to prove things.
A great walk through the whole #! is given in "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas
Hofstadter.
>
> Seems to me you have just stated (but not proven) an almost equivalent form
> applicable to people's awareness of and making of mistakes. But I am having
> trouble formulating the exactly analogous theorem.
There is a study that compared peoples skills in various areas (sense of humour,
grammar, logical reasoning) against their perception of their skill level. It
seems that those at the lower end are hit by a double whammy: because of their
lack of talent, they are unable even to diagnose that they are untalented. IIRC,
the bottom quartile consistently assesed themselves to be well above average.
"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html
>
> As for the original topic, anyone who thinks this ain't a problem, please check
> out the quality of (unmoderated) alt.lang.asm vs. (moderated) comp.lang.asm.x86
> and then consider the nasty forms of self-moderation that are typical of comp.lang.c
> or comp.lang.c++.
>
> Presently, comp.lang.fortran is fairly well behaved, on-topic and newbie friendly,
> let's not lose that if we can. Now if only we could stop Dave <whats-his-name>
> from going over to comp.lang.pl1 and starting flame-wars there that spill back here,
> but I don't see a reasonable way to do that.
Funnily enough, I've developed a lot more sympathy for Dave's comp.lang.pl1
weakness over the past w . I wonder why.
cheers,
Rich
| |
| Richard E Maine 2005-11-17, 9:57 pm |
| Dan Nagle <dannagle@verizon.net> wrote:
> Richard Maine wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
> One difficulty here is distinguishing (1) from (2)
> when the misinformation continually changes....
I disagree. I claim to be able to well the difference pretty well.
Specifically, I claim that there are one or two recent threads where the
application of the infinite loop alogorithm is pretty evident. You don't
actually have to correct every individual error. Attempting to do so is
guaranteed to generate an infinite loop and, as I alluded before, give
an impression of unprofessional petty bickering, which does not further
the stated ends.
The newbies who this is allegedly done to help aren't still going to be
reading that trim thread, for example. If they are reading it, they
won't be being helped, no matter what the ending is. The signal-to-noise
ratio is just too low to get good information through. Regardless of the
stated intent, all I see in that thread now is bickering.
Sometimes the wisest thing to say is nothing. (I'm sure there is a
well-known saying to that effect, probably several, but the exact quotes
ellude me at the moment). But nothing is also sometimes a pretty
difficult thing to say; it takes work. I fail on occasion. If you feel
the necessity (as I sometimes do), make your final statement in a thread
a disclaimer that you decline to continue correcting errors, but that
your subsequent silence does not indicate agreement. That gets the basic
message across in a way much more likely to be respected.
You *CANNOT* raise the level of discussion with some people. It is,
however, all too tempting and easy to lower one's own level. Insert here
the usual comment about the advisability and expected result of
wrestling with pigs.
And having said more than enough on this, I'll now beg out of the rest
of this thread as, even though this one is polite, it too could loop.
I've said what constructive things I have to say on it. :-(
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain| experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
| |
| meek@skyway.usask.ca 2005-11-17, 9:57 pm |
| In a previous article, nospam@see.signature (Richard E Maine) wrote:
>Dan Nagle <dannagle@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>Sometimes the wisest thing to say is nothing. (I'm sure there is a
>well-known saying to that effect, probably several, but the exact quotes
" Silence is golden" for one;,
Chris
| |
| Gib Bogle 2005-11-17, 9:57 pm |
| Rich Townsend wrote:
> Kevin G. Rhoads wrote:
>
>
>
> A great walk through the whole #! is given in "Godel, Escher, Bach" by
> Douglas Hofstadter.
>
>
>
> There is a study that compared peoples skills in various areas (sense of
> humour, grammar, logical reasoning) against their perception of their
> skill level. It seems that those at the lower end are hit by a double
> whammy: because of their lack of talent, they are unable even to
> diagnose that they are untalented. IIRC, the bottom quartile
> consistently assesed themselves to be well above average.
>
> "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
> Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
>
> http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html
Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull summed up the corollary thus:
The wise men don't know how it feels
To be thick as a brick.
| |
| Surendar Jeyadev 2005-11-18, 7:01 pm |
| In article <dli3k4$5ia$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>,
Rich Townsend <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>
>"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
>Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
>
>http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html
Actually, anyone who intends to invest (which is, in one way or another,
all of us, these days) would do good reading it -- unless he/she wants
to learn it the hard way :-)
--
Surendar Jeyadev jeyadev1@wrc.xerox.com
The 1 in the email address is fake
| |
| Ken Plotkin 2005-11-21, 3:58 am |
| On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:18:40 -0800, nospam@see.signature (Richard E
Maine) wrote:
[snip]
>ratio is just too low to get good information through. Regardless of the
>stated intent, all I see in that thread now is bickering.
[snip]
I'm joining this a little late, but I've been away from a usenet
connection for a few days.
As a particpant in that thread, I've got to comment that I did not see
bickering. What I saw was one person who made an incorrect assertion,
and kept sticking to it no matter how many of us told him he was
wrong.
I had not noticed prior posts by that person, so I can't judge if he
was genuinely thick or just having his jollies with well established
trolling techniques. Either way, it's one of those unfortunate things
that happens from time to time. Presumably this one will run its
course and fade away. I wouldn't take it as a sign of deterioriation.
Ken Plotkin
| |
| Andy Spragg 2005-11-21, 7:57 am |
| On 17 NOV 05 17:36:16 GMT, m@skyway.usask.ca wrote:
>In a previous article, nospam@see.signature (Richard E Maine) wrote:
[color=darkred]
>" Silence is golden" for one;,
"Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove
all doubt", for another. Though not in Richard's case, obviously.
Andy
|
|
|
|
|