Re: spinoza programming language status report (or, disruptive technology is always late)

On May 15, 3:16 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
spinoza1111said:

On May 12, 9:46 am, Mike <m.fee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

You _thought_ the professor was encouraging you...but maybe the ***
was just setting you up!

Perhaps. If that's the case, if there are no adults at wikipedia (and
this may be the case),

Case in point: they listened to some bozo about Schildt, as a result of
which the page on him is now very misleading.

Schildt was given a page inappropriately. My editor at Apress started
two companies and has written several well-received books, but Dan
Appleman isn't profiled in wikipedia, although he's mentioned in the
article on Apress...because nobody wanted to target him. He was
"slashdotted", so it's not as if he doesn't have enemies.

The page is now locked owing to edit warring (without discussion on
the Talk page) that continually reinserted the "Criticism" despite the
fact that I took it out...with an explanation...each time.



then it needs to be shut down.

Which bit of "freedom of speech" were you struggling with, Mr
Everyone-Else-Is-A-Fascist?

No committment to freedom of speech has to support "speech" with the
intent to so act as to destroy free speech!

Schildt was exercising "freedom of speech" under the Constitution of
the United States and your own constitution. Correspondingly, others
had a perfect right to criticise his ideas. But under libel law, their
speech becomes action when they turn to calling Herb names that call
into question his standing on the job and in his community.

If people without resources couldn't publish letters to the editors or
computer books without concern that their job might be endangered,
eventually, "freedom of speech" would disappear in fact.

Imagine as a thought-experiment a world in which everybody had both
100% freedom of speech, and a gun, and were free to murder people at-
will. Of course, there would be no "freedom of speech" in this world.
It would be Hobbesian, because as soon as you used the right to free
speech, you'd probably be shot by your opponent.

Wikipedia has become a cybernetic model of this society, and it's the
fault of people who use a symbolic gun: the ability to officially
label a person with a name such as "troll" as if this word were not
ill-defined.

You're the Fascist, and you don't even understand why.



--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

.