Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!xmission!nnrp.xmission!.POSTED.shell.xmission.com!not-for-mail
From: gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 19:54:51 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: The official candy of the new Millennium
Message-ID: <vqng2b$79r7$1@news.xmission.com>
References: <vqmi1p$f1f$1@reader1.panix.com> <vqmt6a$abj$2@reader1.panix.com> <vqn04q$6vsu$1@news.xmission.com> <vqn19h$qai$1@reader1.panix.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 19:54:51 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.xmission.com; posting-host="shell.xmission.com:166.70.8.4";
	logging-data="239463"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@xmission.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
Bytes: 3579
Lines: 61

In article <vqn19h$qai$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>In article <vqn04q$6vsu$1@news.xmission.com>,
>Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>In article <vqmt6a$abj$2@reader1.panix.com>,
>>Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>>In article <vqmofm$6r9q$1@news.xmission.com>,
>>>[snip]
>>>Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>>>Keith will tell you that it is off-topic here.
>>>
>>>Topicality is part of the reason the Big-8 guidance for
>>>introducing these discussions recommends cross-posting to groups
>>>where the topic comes up semi-regularly, but setting follow ups
>>>to news.groups.proposals, as I had done, and have done again
>>>here.  ;-)
>>
>>Note that I did not say: Your post is off-topic.
>
>I did not say that said that you did?  ;-)

Touche.  I will avoid doing the possible infinite regress...

>>I said: Keith will tell you that it is off-topic here.
>
>Noted.  My post was meant to explain that I chose to implement
>the guidance from the Big-8 process on new group creation, which
>encourages posting to groups where interested parties may be
>reading for discovery, but with follow-ups set to n.g.p to
>discourage off-topic drift and fragmented discussion.

Indeed you did.

>Given that the guidance is coming directly from Big-8,
>complaints about topicality, from Keith or anyone else, seem
>misplaced.

Keith (and other so-called "CLC regulars") have a long history of
hi-jacking (cross-posted) threads and making them all about whether or not
it is topical in CLC.  The recent "Python recompile" thread is a good
example (except note that that thread ended up also going in lots of other
directions as well).

>So far, as near as I can tell, the only person who's actually
>engaged with the proposal was Tim Rentsch, who responded in
>in comp.programming that he was in favor of comp.lang.rust.

When you get right down to it, it is hard to imagine anyone posting to the
effect that they are against it.  For the most part, anyone not interested
in the topic, will just ignore the thread. (*)

For the most part...

(*) Although at least one poster expressed skepticism as to whether or not
the proposed group would be successful or not (but didn't directly express
an opinion as to whether or not creating it was per se a good idea).

-- 
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out from demanding more
flag burning laws, more abortion  laws, more drug laws, more obscenity
laws, and more police authority  to make warrantless arrests to remind
us that we need to "get the government off our backs".