Re: How to find the greatest of two numbers without using the comparison operators?



Pete Dashwood wrote:

No, I'll have to disagree with the unfettered speech doctrine where
spammers are concerned.

You make a good point, Jerry.

I am persuaded by the "My Server, my rules" approach.

Anyone runnng a server has the right to control what goes over it.

However, IF you decide to allow your server to be used for PUBLIC
UNMODERATED Newsgroups, then it is wrong to censor posts to those
groups. (I am hopeful that the kind of public spirited person who
would do this, would be righteous and not want to censor posts
anyway, but that is optimism more than reality and certainly can't be
guaranteed.)

Skipping over the notion that censoring implies moderated, again practice
is at variance with purity. Virtually all blogs that allow comments have
to police the posters. There are too many who want to rant about global
warming on a blog devoted to orchids (when everyone knows global warming
is caused by the AIDS Quilt).

It is the right of the Blog owner to monitor posts. If people want to rant
about stuff, that is a decision that the blog owner must take. I don't run a
blog (mainly because I simply don't have time), but if I did I would not
remove rants. If they became repetitious, I'd mail the poster. The point is
that it is up to each individual server/blog runner to decide what they
want.

My contention is that IF you open your server to an unmoderated, public
newsgroup, then you should be prepared to run it as such.

So, I think you'd agree, that off-topic posts simply clutter the
conversation (much like this missive).

(I don't think your post is clutter; it raises some important points.)

I'd like to agree, but I can't :-) If the off topic posts are adding more to
the general value of the forum than the on topic ones, then where's the
problem?

Yes, off-topic posts can be viewed as "clutter", but sometimes the clutter
is more valuable than the posts to the subject under discussion.

The word "value" here varies for each individual. Different people post to
Newsgroups for different reasons; it isn't always to get information on a
particular topic. It can be for a myriad reasons, all of which are
"valuable" to the person posting.

I come here for entertainment and a break from work, to see if I can help
someone who has requested help, to blow off steam, to be amused by some of
the wit that is posted here, to try and pass on experience and to encourage
COBOL people to expand their horizons. (Mostly for fun, in other words). Are
any of those reasons less valuable that a debate about SECTIONs vs
PARAGRAPHs, or whether subscripts are faster than indexes on a Bendix
washing machine with release 7.03a of the Flummox OS running in 2.6KB
without the OO compiler extensions?

Now, if you happen to be programming Bendix washing machines you probably
are much more interested in posts pertaining to that, and you may well be
trying to get questions answered. Fair enough, but the point everyone has to
bear in mind is that, in an UNMODERATED PUBLIC forum you do NOT have a God
given right to expect an answer. It ISN'T a free Help Line and people
answering questions and helping posters (and that includes me, even though I
come here mainly for fun), do so from the goodness of their hearts and not
because they are obliged to.

I WOULD agree that if someone is determined to have a forum that stays
religiously on topic and that is all they want to talk about, then don't
make it an unmoderated public forum.

Maybe alt.cobol.lang could be moderated by volunteers from here. It is a
very underused newsgroup.

Step forward all those prepared to act as moderators? No takers?

OK, then don't whinge about OT posts in a public forum.

Secondly, a group or blog in favor of, say, the wonders of turnip stew,
can harm its own cause by allowing advocates with an anti-social bent
("turnips improve your goat-fucking staying power...") to pervert the
cause. This does not apply to American left-wing, progressive, posts.
There, of course, the most virulent voices get the most play.

They may also improve the number of visits to the blog overall and almost
certainly the entertainment value. Again, it comes down to whether it is
moderated or not.

"The best way to counter hate is more conversation, not less," is a good
rule. But it is best exercised when those with a differing opinion set up
their own site, not pollute my favorite sites with a contrary position.

So you favour sites where everyone is in agreement? That's fair enough, but
it is just one viewpoint. If it is the viewpoint of the person running the
blog or server, then they can enforce it and nobody can reasonably take
issue with them doing so.

For myself, I see dissent as pretty indispensable for examining an issue
comprehensively. How can I ever change my mind if I am unaware of what other
positions are available, or if I have dismissed those positions without
proper investigation?

I think a blog that has arguments going on has to be more valuable than one
where everyone just congratulates themselves for thinking "right".


Sometimes censorship isn't necessary; tx.guns is a remarkably polite
conversation board. We have contributors from everywhere and it's not too
difficult for a member to visit a crank (no matter where he lives) and
shoot his dog. But we don't censor posts.

Lol!
Good for you. Mind you, you would have a right to if it isn't an unmoderated
public group.

The bottom line here is that there is a big difference between an
unmoderated public Usenet forum and a blog, or moderated forum where rules
of conduct can be enforced.

I believe that unmoderated forums (like CLC) are far more valuable than most
people realise. It is precisely because we take our freedoms for granted
that we stand in danger of losing them.

Pete.


.