Walter Bright Wrote:

> Lars Ivar Douchegesund wrote:
> > My post was deleted.
> 
> I will restore it if you request, and this goes for anyone else in this thread. I apologize if I offended you by deleting this thread.
> 
> Your post http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.d.phobos/359 remains.

Lars Ivar Igesund is not this person.  I can only assume by the tone of his mock-name that his posts probably didn't add much to the discussion, so I'm not sure it matters.

I'm confused why you removed your original post, which I found very well written and objective.

This whole topic has probably run out of useful discussion, all that is left is name-calling and hate.  I think we should just accept things are not changing, and try to get some work done.

-Steve

On Sun, 02 May 2010 18:25:07 -0400, Jeff Nowakowski <jeff@dilacero.org> wrote:
> 
> On 05/02/2010 05:01 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> >
> > Yes, this is the one and only time I did that. Maybe it was a really bad idea, and something we can point to in the future as why it shouldn't be done again.
> >
> > What do you think?
> 
> I suppose you're asking "you" to the community, but anyways: Yes, it was a really bad idea. You should restore the posts of others without them having to "opt-out" of having their posts deleted. Yes, it is a good example of why it shouldn't be done again. Note that the post from Lars you deleted shed lots of light and no heat on the matter.
> 
> The subject of moderation has been discussed many times. I believe open discussion and free speech is worth dealing with the occasional heated discussions. I don't see what changed in this instance to make you reverse your policy, except for your personal involvement.

That wasn't the real Lars, nor his actual post. It was blatant trolling; just look at the name.

== Quote from Justin Spahr-Summers (Justin.SpahrSummers@gmail.com)'s article
> On Sun, 02 May 2010 18:25:07 -0400, Jeff Nowakowski <jeff@dilacero.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 05/02/2010 05:01 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, this is the one and only time I did that. Maybe it was a really bad idea, and something we can point to in the future as why it shouldn't be done again.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > I suppose you're asking "you" to the community, but anyways: Yes, it was a really bad idea. You should restore the posts of others without them having to "opt-out" of having their posts deleted. Yes, it is a good example of why it shouldn't be done again. Note that the post from Lars you deleted shed lots of light and no heat on the matter.
> >
> > The subject of moderation has been discussed many times. I believe open discussion and free speech is worth dealing with the occasional heated discussions. I don't see what changed in this instance to make you reverse your policy, except for your personal involvement.
> That wasn't the real Lars, nor his actual post. It was blatant trolling; just look at the name.

What if my name really is Douchegesund? Does that make it illegal for me to post?

--
Lars Ivar Douchegesund

Lars Ivar Douchegesund wrote:
> What if my name really is Douchegesund? Does that make it illegal for me to post?

No. Use whatever name you please.

Walter Bright wrote:
[...]

Clearly it is not possible to unring a bell, and bad manners to try. I apologize.

"Justin Spahr-Summers" <Justin.SpahrSummers@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.26479be5b58cc3f9989694@news.digitalmars.com...
> On Sun, 02 May 2010 18:25:07 -0400, Jeff Nowakowski <jeff@dilacero.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 05/02/2010 05:01 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, this is the one and only time I did that. Maybe it was a really
>> > bad
>> > idea, and something we can point to in the future as why it shouldn't
>> > be
>> > done again.
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>>
>> I suppose you're asking "you" to the community, but anyways: Yes, it was a really bad idea. You should restore the posts of others without them having to "opt-out" of having their posts deleted. Yes, it is a good example of why it shouldn't be done again. Note that the post from Lars you deleted shed lots of light and no heat on the matter.
>>
>> The subject of moderation has been discussed many times. I believe open discussion and free speech is worth dealing with the occasional heated discussions. I don't see what changed in this instance to make you reverse your policy, except for your personal involvement.
>
> That wasn't the real Lars, nor his actual post. It was blatant trolling; just look at the name.

I think we're all talking about three different posts and getting them all confused with each other:

- This one: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.d.phobos/359  (Posted by a Lars *Igesund*)

- A post elsewhere in this very thread that took the post above, replaced all the words with the word "blah" and changed the last name to "Douchegesund".

- A post on the Tango Forums, that used to be here: http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/forums/topic/878 but is now gone. This one was made by me reposting Walter's original post in this thread, at the suggestion of Jason House and Walter (FWIW, we were just trying to be helpful. Not that I'm taking it personally or anything).

"Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:hrkp7r$30fp$1@digitalmars.com...
> Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
>> It looks like you finally broke down and violated your own stated principles by deleting the posts of others (aside from spam) without asking. As a reader of this newsgroup, I'm not so much offended as surprised and disappointed. How many years has this newsgroup survived without such moderation?
>
> Yes, this is the one and only time I did that. Maybe it was a really bad idea, and something we can point to in the future as why it shouldn't be done again.
>
> What do you think?

I think anarchy doesn't work. The squeeky wheel gets the grease, and on and on with the cliches. Think about it analytically. Start from the perspective of complete control of product design by one person and at the other extreme, er, um, GNU? (I couldn't resist that!). At the other extreme, I was about to say, is complete "homogenization". That is, "designed by everyone". Somewhere in-between is "design by committee". Of course, such a curt view of things doesn't even scratch the surface of all the different aspects that are important in product creation and development.

I know you are discussing post removal, but the above is relevant, though maybe a parallel track. Not that the above is the the climax of this post. Let me be blunt: "To filter or not to filter, that is the question!" (from the Latin, meaning: green eggs and Ham legs). Sure. Go ahead. <insert 10 second pause> Ah, but there is the rub. Torn between philosophy and knighthood be you? I've noted that the "noise" in your groups is minimal. Hence, leaving those posts inline, seems appropriate. Oh, but wait (insert de-emphasized exclamation mark here). Any and all posts that "cross the line", should be immediately removed.

Your group. Your line. No generality of whether "to be or not to be" applies (always and in all cases, I theorize). Or are you worried about being "graded" for it? Don't sweat it, if it's not a job for you, don't fake it. Doesn't it suck, Walter, that every little decision you have to make becomes cumbersome? If so, I can only offer this (but it is not advice, of course): move your locks (from concurrent programming techniques 101) to a higher level. "Pffft!" you say, because that is "not efficient", not "close to the machine"... blah blah. There is only so much you can do with primitives. Everything is not an int.

(This commercial message brought to you by: "I've been on the wagon for a week, and I have hayfever! Yeah, I've tried drugs, but nothing works. OK, actifed does sometimes, sudafed sucks, but this allergy is quite specific and the ONLY thing that helps is what's in resveratrol, but the lab version DOES NOT WORK!! Trust me, I know. So I HAVE TO get the pure form or I could die. "Pfft!" you say? Pfft, as if you were a witch doctor! Which doctor are you? PhD from ... OK, I have GPS. In which gothic building did you matriculize? ).

Not to be mired in theories of conspirity or undulationalism(ality), (and the neccessity of the parens of the preceding should be obvious, even to the casual affectionato), and all humour bones aside, and speaking entirely seriously, of course, and with great libations and pursuits of poppies noted, but not "necessarily" sought (that was a joke), there is only one (obvious, ... well I told her to wear the red dr... nevermind) thing left to say: I did not have, nor am I having now, nor to I plan to ever again have (aside: <pretend loss of thought to avoid the tedium of explaining the relevance or lack thereof> but the important part does distract (me), can I place a personal ad in this "news"group? I will assume YES so here it is: SWM ISO F! <-- See! I can't even post a personal ad without those ancient thinkers "chiming" in. </tangent(?)(you decide) off>

To be or not to be... was that a question? Get thee to a Wikipedia-for-the-Soul! Where there will be soup. Soup is good. Chips are great to. Do you like chips? They are "bad" for you, ya know (;), ;)). OK, they may be if you have a chip fetish. It's really so hard to post anything because everything seems to be intertwined and all attempts (I'm being facetious, no one has attempted such) at unificamorphicating, have failed (Bartender! Reason to celebrate! Drinks are ... on HER! And YES, I AM BUYING!!!). See, now I have "said it": and those pesky feminaz..ATIONALs (yeah, that's the tickey!) are going to flood your "news" (news? what news? An elephant walks into a bar. A jackass seated at the bar asks the elephant: "have you heard the news?" The elephant "listens" to the jackass, sit's concernedly down next to jackass and combobulates: "Oh man, I heard the news today.. oh boy. Hi sweety, I'll have a gin and tonic, easy on the lime").

OK, OK, OK, I wouldn't want to be classified (Yowza! Sounds SEXY!! "Yeah baby, I'm 'classified'. I have outlook, and I'm NOT saying Microsoftism. I kinda like you right away, ya know, and ya know I know you know I do, and I just wanted you to know that I am not who I appear to be. Not that I assert (Assert(vixen) ;) (?)(YOU, do not decide, asshats. :P Do not pass 'goet' (yes, do that search on google right now!))) you are gazing at my <see later in this sentence>, unbeknownst to others, oops, but it is apparently gathering quick attention by the cute american foxes that I am  a  WILD AND CRAZY GUY(!!!) and they love my plaid pants and especially my buldg.. er, um, my.. BULLDOG(!), (yeah, that's the tickey) ) a troll (downza :( ). I posted the above incompletionism (ref: "icompletionism", 20historical wiki (can you find it? And you call yourself (not you Mr. Walden) a programmer?!)

*** <-- my own invention (use it, or lose it)

So, now we've come full circle. I'm so glad to have this time together.
Just to share a laugh or sing a song.
(
For those of you still figuring out the important parentheses, ask the
owner of this group because I don't even know what is appropriate here.
Hehe, apparently, he doesn't either!
    (
        and no, that is not a "climax". I don't even have 3D glasses, so
curb yourself
            (
                you know who you are
            )
    )

)

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1@digitalmars.com)'s article
> Gurney Halleck wrote:
> > Srsly?!? Its better to censor Walters informative post because the Tango Komintern has no good retort?
> >
> > The dimwits tried to rewrite history once. They edited the title of Dons bug report. They failed to explain that too. This time the truth is out there. Tango leadership deserves no respect.
> It was my suggestion to do this. Please do not blame anyone but me. Emotions are running high, mine included, and I worry that that impairs good judgment. If there is a solution, I want to be able to find it without anyone feeling that they must lose face.

Apologies for misrepresenting the situation.

--
Gurney Halleck

On Sunday, 2 May 2010 at 18:16:59 UTC, Bane wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
>> Bane wrote:
>> > I meant on topic removal from DM newsgroup. I guess Walther did it, as he is
>> > the one administering it, right? I support his decision for a reason I wrote
>> > above.
>> 
>> Yes, I did it, it was my idea to do so. I did it for the reason you suggest (not the Stalin one!) but the one about letting our hot tempers cool a bit so hopefully we can find the best solution for D, not an ego-driven one.
>> 
>
> As I said, this Stalin thing is joke on efficiency and speed of action was taken. Comparing Walther to Staling was not my intention.