Re: Response to the trolls (responsorum pumilius pumilio)
From: Edward G. Nilges (spinoza1111_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/09/04
- Next message: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: struct question - C Programming"
- Previous message: Jörn W. Janneck: "Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP and memory management"
- In reply to: Malcolm: "Re: Response to the trolls (responsorum pumilius pumilio)"
- Next in thread: Programmer Dude: "Re: Response to the trolls (responsorum pumilius pumilio)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 8 Jul 2004 20:38:48 -0700
"Malcolm" <malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cck4oi$6j8$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> "Calum" <calum.bulk@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >
> > I guarantee that if you stick to technical discussions, no matter how
> > many mistakes you make, past differences won't matter.
> >
> The problem is that Edward Nilges is of the opinion that technical issues
> very often conceal underlying political issues. There is a perfectly
> respectable school of left-wing thought that thinks this. Unfortunately his
> post irritate those who don't share the politics, and also tend to spark
> discussion on subjects which are quite definitely off-topic, by any
> reasonable definition. For instance a discussion about formal methods turns
> into a discussion about equal rights philosophy, which Edward would argue
> has a lot to do with how formal methods are imposed, but then it leads to a
> mention of abortion rights. Now I'm happy to talk all day about abortion and
> the way constitutions are interpreted and women's rights and liberalism, but
> comp.programming isn't the place for it.
I agree insofar as the discussion trails off, but not if it returns to
the central concerns, and I have at least tried to ensure that it
does.
For example, I note in my teaching ways in which members of minority
groups since the end of "welfare as we know it" under Clinton have
been encouraged to "learn about computers".
But when they are actually taught to program, the institutions doing
the teaching seem almost systematically to teach skills guaranteed to
be out of date, and to encourage intellectual curiosity.
Therefore we can peer OUTSIDE the concerns of the ng and then return,
I think, in a responsible fashion. And as I have pointed out this
newsgroup, being the most general newsgroup about "programming", is
the most appropriate venue for this.
I think the "off topic" charge is disingenuous. The fact seems to be
that many American techies enter technology for the same reason many
scientists and mathematicians entered their field in the former Soviet
Union: to escape the corruption of politics and law by the Communist
party. In America, of course, the corruption is more diffuse, but it's
real as witness Bush (exhibit A, for me and many others) and even as
witness the preselection of Kerry, a nonentity who will pursue Bush's
mistakes in Iraq, to the bitter end.
As a result, I violate the commandment that "in this field, thou shalt
be apolitical" and I remark that it doesn't apply to other fields; for
example, doctors speak out on politics when it affects their mission
of care.
> >
> > It's not a battle of egos, it's about helping each other, exchanging ideas
> > and updating your opinions based on what other people have to say.
> >
> It's a bit naive to think that you can discuss technical issues
> dispassionately, without jockying to see who has the highest social status.
> Of course this is half the problem with dissusions involving Edward Nilges.
Then, I'm naive. The attraction of real discussion of this sort is
that jockeys stay out of it but here they continually introduce the
(genuinely off topic) matter of their interlocutor's global
competence.
> >
> > If you don't need help, want to give help, or respect what other people
> > have to say, this probably isn't the right place for you.
> >
> The forum is for discussing programming. I think that what Edward Nilges has
> to say is to an extent legitimate, but it cannot be the core focus of the
> group.
I am not asking that it be the core focus of this group, only one such
focus.
- Next message: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: struct question - C Programming"
- Previous message: Jörn W. Janneck: "Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP and memory management"
- In reply to: Malcolm: "Re: Response to the trolls (responsorum pumilius pumilio)"
- Next in thread: Programmer Dude: "Re: Response to the trolls (responsorum pumilius pumilio)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|