RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86 
Author Message
 RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86

                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
     moderated group comp.lang.asm.x86 (moderates existing group)

Newsgroup line:
comp.lang.asm.x86       x86 assembly language topics. (Moderated)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to moderate
comp.lang.asm.x86. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you
cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below.

RATIONALE: comp.lang.asm.x86

The current comp.lang.asm.x86 newsgroup has deviated from its original
charter which was the propagation of knowledge regarding lowlevel
programming of the x86 architecture. This newsgroup is now a place
where the masses flame each other. At present it is a battlefield for
an ongoing flamefest. This counter productive behavior is indicative
of those who are opposed to serious discussion of assembly language
related topics. Those who truly wish to learn from or give assistance
to questions posted to the group are hindered by the various flames
and threads that currently consume this newsgroup. It is estimated that
since November 96 traffic posting has increased approximately from 80
to 200 posts per day. Various readers have confirmed that about 85
percent of this is due to off-topic posts. Readers have been hindered
if not totally turned away by the constant barrage of threads and
flames that hold this group captive. Therefore, we propose moderation
of the existing newsgroup in order to promote unfettered communication
between x86 understudies and their community.

-Moderation is proposed to:

  decrease the volume of off-topic posts and/or cross-posted threads

  decrease the number of posts already answered in this newsgroup's FAQ

  increase the significant on-topic content of posts

-to avoid confusion the existing group comp.lang.asm.x86 will be
 moderated as opposed to splitting into several unruly groups. This will
 allow unhindered discussion of x86 assembly programming related topics.

CHARTER: comp.lang.asm.x86

The newly moderated newsgroup comp.lang.asm.x86 will be open to
discussions on all topics related to assembly language and low-level
programming on any machine using an x86 processor or any of its clones.
Appropriate topics would include, but not be limited to,:

 Assembly language code tips, tricks, and techniques.
 MASM, TASM, and other commercial assemblers
 NASM, and other non-commercial assemblers
 Graphics, sound, and other hardware programming
 Assembly language related utilities commercial/share/free-ware
 Linking assembly language with other languages
 Inline x86 programming utilizing assembly emulators in higher
  level languages
 Propagation of non-commercial Internet x86 resources
 Any question/discussion of the direct programming of the x86
 Etc...

Topics that will be filtered are:

 Flames about "{Language X} is {better/worse} than ASM"
 Flames like "{Assembler 1} is {better/worse} than {Assembler 2}"
 Flames, personal attacks, insults, etc.
 HLL code, except when used for low-level hardware programming.
 Product comparisons except when presented in an unbiased fashion.
 Adverti{*filter*}ts unrelated to assembly programming or utilities.
 Posts in languages other than English will be examined for approval
   if any of the moderators can read the language in question. There
   is no guarantee of approval for a post in any language other than
   English.

The newsgroup will be moderated by a Moderation Board, consisting of
a Head Moderator and a pool of Backup Moderators.  The moderation
process will be overseen by the Head Moderator, who may employ
assistants from the pool of Backup Moderators as the need arises.
Only members of the Moderation Board have the power authority to judge
posts.

The current moderation procedures and policies will be described in
an Administrative Statement, that will be maintained by the Head
Moderator, with any changes subject to veto by the Board. The
Statement will be posted to the group whenever it changes, and at
least once per month. It will be available at all times at an address
posted regularly in the group.

All posts to the group may be processed through moderation software
which will take one of the following actions on each article:

   1.  Reject it outright if it meets certain criteria;

   2.  Forward it to a Board member if it meets certain other
       criteria;  or

   3.  Post it immediately.

The criteria being used by either the moderation software or human
moderators will be described in the Administrative Statement. They
will not refer to the source of the articles except that the Head
Moderator may place certain individuals or sites which that repeatedly
try to post off-topic material on a "watch list," which will cause their
articles to be forwarded to a human moderator for review. The Head
Moderator may also declare certain off-topic discussion threads to be
"closed," so that no more articles in that thread will be accepted.

Rejected articles will, if possible, be returned to the sender along
with a letter of explanation. Rejected articles may be appealed to
an address specified in the Administrative Statement and or in any
letter notice of rejection. If an article was rejected by a human
moderator, the appeal will be judged by a different moderator. In
the event of abuse of the appeals process, the Moderation Board will
decide what action will be taken to deal with the abuse.

An article will normally be subject to rejection only at the time it
is submitted. Canceling of articles after they have been posted
("retromoderation") will not be used for general content control.
Cancellations will be permitted only under the following special
circumstances:

  1.  When performed or requested by the original poster or by his or
      her Internet Service Provider;

  2.  When performed by the Head Moderator, to cancel articles with
      forged approvals; or

  3.  When performed by reputable third-party cancelers (as
      determined by the Head Moderator), to cancel articles that are
      widely considered to be undesirable in most of Usenet, e.g.,
      binaries and excessively multi-posted articles ("spam").

  4.  When performed by the Head Moderator, to cancel articles that
      were approved inadvertently, i.e., (to correct "mistakes").

In addition to rejecting inappropriate articles, the moderators may
take measures to discourage users from submitting such articles in
the first place, including:

  1.  Appending short "footers" to all posted articles, informing
      newcomers of the purpose of the newsgroup and providing
      references to more detailed information about the newsgroup,
      the Usenet community, and the Internet in general; and

  2.  E-mailing "welcome"  messages to all first-time posters,
      containing similar information as in (1).

Other than appending a footer or adding headers, the moderators will
not modify the content of a posted article.

The Head Moderator will submit a report to the Moderation Board each
month, providing statistics on the functioning of the group, a
summary of the articles appealed, and a list of any changes to the
Administrative Statement or the moderation software. The Board may
instruct the Head Moderator to eliminate any automatic rejection or
forwarding criterion from the moderation software.

The Board may elect a new Head Moderator if the position becomes
vacant; the Head Moderator or the Board may appoint a Backup
Moderator to fill in for the Head Moderator during short periods of
absence.

The Board also has the power to remove a Head Moderator.  It may
remove a Head Moderator who has been in office for less than six
weeks through a simple majority vote of all members.  A Moderator who
has been in office for more than six weeks may only be removed by a
2/3 majority vote of those who have been on the Board for at least
six weeks.

The Board controls its own membership. It may admit new members with
a simple majority vote, or remove members who have served for less
than six weeks with a simple majority vote. Members who have served
longer than six weeks may only be removed by a 2/3 vote of those who
have been on the Board for at least six weeks. The Board will make a
good-faith effort to maintain a membership of at least three persons.

The working charter for the group may be modified by a 2/3 vote of
those who have been members of the Moderation Board for at least six
weeks.  A copy of the current charter will be available at a location
given in the Administrative Statement.

END CHARTER.

MODERATOR INFO: comp.lang.asm.x86









END MODERATOR INFO.

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this
phase of the process, any potential problems with the proposed
newsgroups should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will
continue for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD
for this proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which
a Call For Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the
discussion warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this
happens.

All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
"How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to
these documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have
any questions about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been distributed to the following newsgroups:

 news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, comp.os.msdos.programmer,
 rec.games.programmer, alt.msdos.programmer, comp.lang.asm.x86,
 alt.lang.asm,
...

read more »



Mon, 25 Oct 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86



Quote:
>                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>     moderated group comp.lang.asm.x86 (moderates existing group)

I don't believe this is necessary. Killfiles work a treat, I haven't
seen sight nor sound of SN and his friends since I set the killfile. The
best weapon though is to simply ignore these errant posts. After a while
SN will go away, or start contributing positively to the ng. Just needs
a bit of willpower!

By using a killfile, I don't think I've missed anything meaningful
relating to x86 asm, and what you don't see you don't miss anyway!
Should moderation go ahead, SN will have won. ONE PERSON will have
succeeded in placing an unnecessary burden on the moderator and his
team, as well as the inevitable slowdown in postings. Is this what we
want? Newsgroups held to ransom by eccentric individuals? Even now, I
can see him sitting in his garret bedroom or wherever, rubbing his hands
in glee at all this fuss and palaver.

Then what about all the other newsgroups his postings get to?, eg,
alt.lang.asm which is equally infected by SN's activities. How long will
the moderation go on for? For ever? Until SN goes away and has stayed
away for 3 months? 6 months? SN also appears in C and C++ and other
newsgroups. Are all these to be moderated too? All because of one
individual, and those who aid and abett him.

Maybe we need a newsgroup especially for SN and his friends, eg, 80x86,
asm,advocacy, where these topics can be aired, and the rest of us can
get back to doing useful work.

--
Peter Hayes



Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86

Quote:



>>                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>     moderated group comp.lang.asm.x86 (moderates existing group)
>I don't believe this is necessary. Killfiles work a treat, I haven't
>seen sight nor sound of SN and his friends since I set the killfile. The
>best weapon though is to simply ignore these errant posts. After a while
>SN will go away, or start contributing positively to the ng. Just needs
>a bit of willpower!

<point>
As I've said before repeatedly, it seems to me that it's you people who
aren't contributing. After all, this IS an asm group, and I think that we
are at least entitlted to have a flew asm bible-bashers without you
C bible-bashers swarming over trying to harass them
</point>

Quote:
>By using a killfile, I don't think I've missed anything meaningful
>relating to x86 asm, and what you don't see you don't miss anyway!
>Should moderation go ahead, SN will have won. ONE PERSON will have
>succeeded in placing an unnecessary burden on the moderator and his
>team, as well as the inevitable slowdown in postings. Is this what we
>want? Newsgroups held to ransom by eccentric individuals? Even now, I
>can see him sitting in his garret bedroom or wherever, rubbing his hands
>in glee at all this fuss and palaver.

That's right. Blame it all on Nudds et all. Since he's in your killfile, you
want see any replies. Did it ever occur to you that it might be the C
bible-bashers who are keeping the threads alive? A moderated group might
be best, actually, just to keep you spammers and thread-keeper-alivers out.

Quote:
>Then what about all the other newsgroups his postings get to?, eg,
>alt.lang.asm which is equally infected by SN's activities. How long will

And what, prey tell, is wrong with that? It IS, after all, an asm group too.
From what I can tell of your postings, you're not an asm lover, so why don't
you get the hell out of this group? [Nicely of course].

Quote:
>the moderation go on for? For ever? Until SN goes away and has stayed
>away for 3 months? 6 months? SN also appears in C and C++ and other

Again, blame it all on Nudds. And what's wrong with a guy posting to the
C/C++ newsgroups. It seems to me you love C/C++ (which I agree is alright
by me), but you still pollute the asm newsgroups with your Anti-Nudd
propoganda. It's you C zealots who are promoting the extension of worn out
old threads.

BTW: I don't agree with all Nudds arguments against C, but I do feel that
he has the right to believe in the superiority of ASM over C without being
attacked and drowned out by C worshippers. You could at least have the
decency, as had at least some other people, to debate in a civilised manner
rather than in "Nudds is satan, he talks crap".

Quote:
>newsgroups. Are all these to be moderated too? All because of one
>individual, and those who aid and abett him.

No. Beecause of one individual, and those who are trying to persecute him.

Quote:
>Maybe we need a newsgroup especially for SN and his friends, eg, 80x86,
>asm,advocacy, where these topics can be aired, and the rest of us can
>get back to doing useful work.

ie. useful work as in spamming to other newsgroups and keeping worn threads
alive? Maybe we should create a comp.lang.anti.asm for you C bible-bashers,
or maybe comp.lang.asm.we.will.flame.you.if.you.dont.worship.C

Quote:
>--
>Peter Hayes

 ^ Our resident C bible-basher and Clu-Klux-Nudd overlord

--

Bach App Sci, Bach Eng | The opinions expressed are my own, all my own, and
Year 4, RMIT Melbourne | as such will contain no references to small {*filter*}
Australia              | creatures from Alpha Centauri.



Sun, 31 Oct 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86


Quote:
> As I've said before repeatedly, it seems to me that it's you people who
> aren't contributing. After all, this IS an asm group, and I think that we
> are at least entitlted to have a flew asm bible-bashers without you
> C bible-bashers swarming over trying to harass them.

It's not just about SN vs the dreaded "C pushers". For some bizarre reason,
discussions seem to have included Microsoft, Unix, file extensions, Canada,
and a whole raft of other trash. Since neither Nudds nor his opponents seem
capable of t{*filter*} newsgroups, the whole laughable farrago has also
appeared in comp.emulators and a load of other, totally unrelated groups.
They're all as daft as each other. And no, I don't want asm bible bashers,
especially not when the original charter of this group specifically states
that "Assembler is better/worse than {Language X}" is off-topic.

Quote:
> You could at least have the
> decency, as had at least some other people, to debate in a civilised manner
> rather than in "Nudds is satan, he talks crap".

But he *is* Satan. Didn't you know?

-Edwin



Sun, 31 Oct 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86

[ ... ]

Quote:
> <point>
> As I've said before repeatedly, it seems to me that it's you people who
> aren't contributing. After all, this IS an asm group, and I think that we
> are at least entitlted to have a flew asm bible-bashers without you
> C bible-bashers swarming over trying to harass them
> </point>

Paul, the threads are not C bible-bashers against asm bible-bashers. The
threads are Scott Nudds against moderate people.
Everyone who argues with Scott has more than once express his/her view
that asm has its merits or that there is something in what Scott says.
If Scott says "You can't write portable programs in C", I say "Yeah,
you're right! But how about using a library to hide the non-portable
stuff?" Every moderate person would accept that and have the thread die,
especially after this long time. Not Scott. He insults and swears and
mis-quotes and quotes out of context. He just _loves_ to throw mud at
people and watch them get angry.

How about you try and get HIM to agree at least a little bit!

[ ... ]

Quote:
> want see any replies. Did it ever occur to you that it might be the C
> bible-bashers who are keeping the threads alive? A moderated group might
> be best, actually, just to keep you spammers and thread-keeper-alivers out.

Get Scott to keep his insults for himself just one week and the thread
will die.

Quote:
> BTW: I don't agree with all Nudds arguments against C, but I do feel that
> he has the right to believe in the superiority of ASM over C without being
> attacked and drowned out by C worshippers. You could at least have the
> decency, as had at least some other people, to debate in a civilised manner
> rather than in "Nudds is satan, he talks crap".

It's not the "C lovers" that attack, it's Scott! You just _have_ to read
his attacks against C while upholding his "assembler" (did you ever read
what HE thinks is an "assembler"? Can you make any sense out of that?)

I agree, it's not a debate about the pros and cons of assembler vs. C,
it's a game to get Scott stuck in some contradiction he can't get out
of. Problem is, when you have one, he ignores you.

Let the game continue!



Sun, 31 Oct 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86

Paul Francis Gilbert:

Quote:
> As I've said before repeatedly, it seems to me that it's you people who
> aren't contributing. After all, this IS an asm group, and I think that we
> are at least entitlted to have a flew asm bible-bashers without you
> C bible-bashers swarming over trying to harass them

  I'm not going to stop suggesting this until somebody tells me why it's a
bad idea (or even just that it just _is_ a bad idea).. Why not set the group
up to be moderated, and then rather than using human filters run it through
a software filter that can strip out things like crossposts to HLL groups?
That way you get a faster response time, and fewer arguments about who or
what should be filtered.

  After all, the real problem is centred around the crossposts, it's just
that certain people tend to disagree too strongly with certain other people
from certain other newsgroups.



Mon, 01 Nov 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86

                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
     moderated group comp.lang.asm.x86 (moderates existing group)

Newsgroup line:
comp.lang.asm.x86       x86 assembly language topics. (Moderated)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to moderate
comp.lang.asm.x86. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you
cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below.

RATIONALE: comp.lang.asm.x86

The current comp.lang.asm.x86 newsgroup has deviated from its original
charter which was the propagation of knowledge regarding lowlevel
programming of the x86 architecture. This newsgroup is now a place
where the masses flame each other. At present it is a battlefield for
an ongoing flamefest. This counter productive behavior is indicative
of those who are opposed to serious discussion of assembly language
related topics. Those who truly wish to learn from or give assistance
to questions posted to the group are hindered by the various flames
and threads that currently consume this newsgroup. It is estimated that
since November 96 traffic posting has increased approximately from 80
to 200 posts per day. Various readers have confirmed that about 85
percent of this is due to off-topic posts. Readers have been hindered
if not totally turned away by the constant barrage of threads and
flames that hold this group captive. Therefore, we propose moderation
of the existing newsgroup in order to promote unfettered communication
between x86 understudies and their community.

-Moderation is proposed to:

  decrease the volume of off-topic posts and/or cross-posted threads

  decrease the number of posts already answered in this newsgroup's FAQ

  increase the significant on-topic content of posts

-to avoid confusion the existing group comp.lang.asm.x86 will be
 moderated as opposed to splitting into several unruly groups. This will
 allow unhindered discussion of x86 assembly programming related topics.

CHARTER: comp.lang.asm.x86

The newly moderated newsgroup comp.lang.asm.x86 will be open to
discussions on all topics related to assembly language and low-level
programming on any machine using an x86 processor or any of its clones.
Appropriate topics would include, but not be limited to,:

 Assembly language code tips, tricks, and techniques.
 MASM, TASM, and other commercial assemblers
 NASM, and other non-commercial assemblers
 Graphics, sound, and other hardware programming
 Assembly language related utilities commercial/share/free-ware
 Linking assembly language with other languages
 Inline x86 programming utilizing assembly emulators in higher
  level languages
 Propagation of non-commercial Internet x86 resources
 Any question/discussion of the direct programming of the x86
 Etc...

Topics that will be filtered are:

 Flames about "{Language X} is {better/worse} than ASM"
 Flames like "{Assembler 1} is {better/worse} than {Assembler 2}"
 Flames, personal attacks, insults, etc.
 HLL code, except when used for low-level hardware programming.
 Product comparisons except when presented in an unbiased fashion.
 Adverti{*filter*}ts unrelated to assembly programming or utilities.
 Posts in languages other than English will be examined for approval
   if any of the moderators can read the language in question. There
   is no guarantee of approval for a post in any language other than
   English.

The newsgroup will be moderated by a Moderation Board, consisting of
a Head Moderator and a pool of Backup Moderators.  The moderation
process will be overseen by the Head Moderator, who may employ
assistants from the pool of Backup Moderators as the need arises.
Only members of the Moderation Board have the power authority to judge
posts.

The current moderation procedures and policies will be described in
an Administrative Statement, that will be maintained by the Head
Moderator, with any changes subject to veto by the Board. The
Statement will be posted to the group whenever it changes, and at
least once per month. It will be available at all times at an address
posted regularly in the group.

All posts to the group may be processed through moderation software
which will take one of the following actions on each article:

   1.  Reject it outright if it meets certain criteria;

   2.  Forward it to a Board member if it meets certain other
       criteria;  or

   3.  Post it immediately.

The criteria being used by either the moderation software or human
moderators will be described in the Administrative Statement. They
will not refer to the source of the articles except that the Head
Moderator may place certain individuals or sites which that repeatedly
try to post off-topic material on a "watch list," which will cause their
articles to be forwarded to a human moderator for review. The Head
Moderator may also declare certain off-topic discussion threads to be
"closed," so that no more articles in that thread will be accepted.

Rejected articles will, if possible, be returned to the sender along
with a letter of explanation. Rejected articles may be appealed to
an address specified in the Administrative Statement and or in any
letter notice of rejection. If an article was rejected by a human
moderator, the appeal will be judged by a different moderator. In
the event of abuse of the appeals process, the Moderation Board will
decide what action will be taken to deal with the abuse.

An article will normally be subject to rejection only at the time it
is submitted. Canceling of articles after they have been posted
("retromoderation") will not be used for general content control.
Cancellations will be permitted only under the following special
circumstances:

  1.  When performed or requested by the original poster or by his or
      her Internet Service Provider;

  2.  When performed by the Head Moderator, to cancel articles with
      forged approvals; or

  3.  When performed by reputable third-party cancelers (as
      determined by the Head Moderator), to cancel articles that are
      widely considered to be undesirable in most of Usenet, e.g.,
      binaries and excessively multi-posted articles ("spam").

  4.  When performed by the Head Moderator, to cancel articles that
      were approved inadvertently, i.e., (to correct "mistakes").

In addition to rejecting inappropriate articles, the moderators may
take measures to discourage users from submitting such articles in
the first place, including:

  1.  Appending short "footers" to all posted articles, informing
      newcomers of the purpose of the newsgroup and providing
      references to more detailed information about the newsgroup,
      the Usenet community, and the Internet in general; and

  2.  E-mailing "welcome"  messages to all first-time posters,
      containing similar information as in (1).

Other than appending a footer or adding headers, the moderators will
not modify the content of a posted article.

The Head Moderator will submit a report to the Moderation Board each
month, providing statistics on the functioning of the group, a
summary of the articles appealed, and a list of any changes to the
Administrative Statement or the moderation software. The Board may
instruct the Head Moderator to eliminate any automatic rejection or
forwarding criterion from the moderation software.

The Board may elect a new Head Moderator if the position becomes
vacant; the Head Moderator or the Board may appoint a Backup
Moderator to fill in for the Head Moderator during short periods of
absence.

The Board also has the power to remove a Head Moderator.  It may
remove a Head Moderator who has been in office for less than six
weeks through a simple majority vote of all members.  A Moderator who
has been in office for more than six weeks may only be removed by a
2/3 majority vote of those who have been on the Board for at least
six weeks.

The Board controls its own membership. It may admit new members with
a simple majority vote, or remove members who have served for less
than six weeks with a simple majority vote. Members who have served
longer than six weeks may only be removed by a 2/3 vote of those who
have been on the Board for at least six weeks. The Board will make a
good-faith effort to maintain a membership of at least three persons.

The working charter for the group may be modified by a 2/3 vote of
those who have been members of the Moderation Board for at least six
weeks.  A copy of the current charter will be available at a location
given in the Administrative Statement.

END CHARTER.

MODERATOR INFO: comp.lang.asm.x86









END MODERATOR INFO.

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this
phase of the process, any potential problems with the proposed
newsgroups should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will
continue for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD
for this proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which
a Call For Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the
discussion warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this
happens.

All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
"How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to
these documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have
any questions about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been distributed to the following newsgroups:

 news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, comp.os.msdos.programmer,
 rec.games.programmer, alt.msdos.programmer, comp.lang.asm.x86,
 alt.lang.asm,
...

read more »



Mon, 01 Nov 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86

Quote:
>   I'm not going to stop suggesting this until somebody tells me why it's
a
> bad idea (or even just that it just _is_ a bad idea).. Why not set the
group
> up to be moderated, and then rather than using human filters run it
through
> a software filter that can strip out things like crossposts to HLL
groups?
> That way you get a faster response time, and fewer arguments about who or
> what should be filtered.

>   After all, the real problem is centred around the crossposts, it's just
> that certain people tend to disagree too strongly with certain other
people
> from certain other newsgroups.

Sometimes crossposts are valid. What about a question on inline assembly in
bc?
That's a valid crosspost. What about asking how I texturemap a polygon in
assembler?
That's a valid crosspost to comp.graphics.misc and r.g.p......

-Josh



Wed, 03 Nov 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86

Quote:

> Sometimes crossposts are valid. What about a question on inline assembly in
> bc?
> That's a valid crosspost. What about asking how I texturemap a polygon in
> assembler?
> That's a valid crosspost to comp.graphics.misc and r.g.p......

Josh,

You are correct.  Below are some excerpts from the RFP:

The newly moderated newsgroup comp.lang.asm.x86 will be open to
discussions on all topics related to assembly language and low-level
programming on any machine using an x86 processor or any of its clones.
Appropriate topics would include, but not be limited to,:

        [some deleted here and throughout]

 Inline x86 programming utilizing assembly emulators in higher
  level languages

 Any question/discussion of the direct programming of the x86
 Etc...

Topics that will be filtered are:

 HLL code, except when used for low-level hardware programming.

From the above, it is clear that crossposts are not outlawed.  If they
deal with assembly language, inline assembler, etc., they are valid and
will be posted.  You are correct.

Ray
=====================================================================
Ray Moon

http://www2.dgsys.com/~raymoon/moonware.html
Home of MoonWare Shareware and the x86 Assembly Language FAQ
Come steal my pages...   Well, not steal but come and see!



Wed, 03 Nov 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86

: Paul, the threads are not C bible-bashers against asm bible-bashers. The
: threads are Scott Nudds against moderate people.

  Josef Moellers characterizes C pushers as moderate people.

  C pushers have been shown to consistently lie.
  C pushers have been shown to engage in massive self deception.
  It has been shown that C pushers will say anything to defend their
  religion.
  C pushers have insist that C is portable yet constantly post
  non-portable code for the solution of the most trivial problems.
  C pushers insist that "long" and "short" implies the concept of integer.
  C pushers insist that "double" implies the concept of float.

  In addition, C pushers have from time to time contacted my relatives
  in an effort to obtain personal information with which to blackmail or
  publicly embarrass me.

  I have received thinly veiled and direct threats from C pushers.
  C pushers have actively promoted a campaign of censorship and
  manufactured disinformation against me.

  These are not the actions of honest, moderate people.

  These are the actions of sick cultists who will say and do anything to
protect their religion.

--
<---->



Wed, 03 Nov 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86


Quote:
>  It has been shown that C pushers will say anything to defend their
>  religion.

If C pushers do have a religion, what have you got? You're shown time and time
again that you will say anything, but what are you defending? A would-be
portable assembler, that will not now nor ever be made? How sad.... I pity
you. I realy do.

Lasse

If you intend to reply by email, remove antispam.
from the email address in the header.
---------------------------
Lasse V?gs?ther Karlsen

http://home.sol.no/lassevk/
---------------------------



Thu, 04 Nov 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86


: If C pushers do have a religion, what have you got?

  Much knowledge, a logical mind, and the ability to use both.

: You're shown time and time
: again that you will say anything, but what are you defending?

  Funny, most people have complained that I keep saying the same things
over and over again.  They are correct.  My statements have not changed,
not in months, not in years.  The truth is like that.

: A would-be portable assembler, that will not now nor ever be made?

  Pogress.  C pushers have pretty much stopped claiming that PASM can not
exist.

  Dispite themselves and their religious convictions, they are being
dragged toward reality.

  It will take years.  We have time.



Fri, 05 Nov 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86


Quote:

> > I would also suggest to Ray Moon that he put explicit instructions on
> > the first page of the ASM fax how to kill the current (at any given
> > point in time) crop of off-topic threads and individuals.  Gee, I've
> > killed Scott Nudds, any post that mentions Scott Nudds, and any post
> > discussing new OSes and that takes care of 75% of the posts to this
> > newsgroup.

> All,

> While naturally hating off-topic posting, I will ask this of c.l.a.x
> readers.  I fear that most users use Netscape or IE which do not have
> this facility to my knowledge.  I could include it for the popular Unix
> text based newsreaders but would that be of value.

> Comments?
> Are most readers point-and-click vice text now days?

Yes, most newsreaders are point and click.  Fortunately, most also have
kill files (at least now they do!)  Netscape 4.0 has a point and click
filtering system which serves the same purpose as kill files.  Netscape
probably had an avalanche of complaints about this in the earlier
browsers which is why they went ahead and did it.  Microsoft probably did
to, but they don't give a rats ass.

Other good newsreaders such as "Gravity" from Anawave, are similarly
featured (point + click as well as kill files.)  I'm, with Randy on this
one.  Put in the FAQ how to filter out off topic or otherwise inane
posting/posters.

You might also like to give one example.  (Any suggestions here?  Geez
... can't think of anyone off hand, I mean to single out a single person
as an example of how to kill file someone, ... who could you possibly
feel fair about singling out for this honor ... that's a tough one ...)

--
Paul Hsieh
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/9498/mailme.html



Sat, 06 Nov 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86

Quote:

> I would also suggest to Ray Moon that he put explicit instructions on
> the first page of the ASM fax how to kill the current (at any given
> point in time) crop of off-topic threads and individuals.  Gee, I've
> killed Scott Nudds, any post that mentions Scott Nudds, and any post
> discussing new OSes and that takes care of 75% of the posts to this
> newsgroup.

All,

While naturally hating off-topic posting, I will ask this of c.l.a.x
readers.  I fear that most users use Netscape or IE which do not have
this facility to my knowledge.  I could include it for the popular Unix
text based newsreaders but would that be of value.

Comments?
Are most readers point-and-click vice text now days?

Please no flames between these two types!

Ray
=====================================================================
Ray Moon

http://www2.dgsys.com/~raymoon/moonware.html
Home of MoonWare Shareware and the x86 Assembly Language FAQ
Come steal my pages...   Well, not steal but come and see!



Sat, 06 Nov 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86

I recently paid a visit to comp.arch after a four-year leave of absence.
I have up on c.a years ago because of the constant flame wars.  That has
finally died down (I don't know when, though) and the number of posts are
 in the range of 10-40 per day, completely managable.

while, in the past, I have been a proponent of a moderated assembly
group, I suspect I would not withdraw my support for a moderated
c.l.a.x86.  I would support a *parallel* moderated newssgroup, but there
have been many posts I would have sent to comp.compilers but didn't
feel it was worth the effort to do so.  C.c is an excellent group, indeed,
it is the epitome of what a moderated group should be like, but most
beginners would rather not bother asking a question rather than deal with
a moderated group.

Personally, I feel that comp.lang.asm.digest would be a better choice.
The moderators could pick the best (and appropriate) posts from c.l.a.x86
and other assembly groups and repost them to c.l.a.d for those who don't
want to read SN et al.

I would also suggest to Ray Moon that he put explicit instructions on
the first page of the ASM fax how to kill the current (at any given
point in time) crop of off-topic threads and individuals.  Gee, I've
killed Scott Nudds, any post that mentions Scott Nudds, and any post
discussing new OSes and that takes care of 75% of the posts to this
newsgroup.

Randy Hyde



Sat, 06 Nov 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 22 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86

2. RFD: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86

3. RFD: comp.lang.asm.x86.numeric moderated

4. RFD: alt.lang.asm.68k, alt.lang.asm.x86, alt.lang

5. RESULT: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86 passes 198:19

6. 2nd CFV: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86

7. CFV: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86

8. comp.lang.asm.x86 moderated

9. comp.lang.asm.x86 moderated

10. Introducing comp.lang.asm.x86 MODERATED

11. RESULT: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86 passes 198:19

12. 2nd CFV: moderate comp.lang.asm.x86

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software