No commercial postings, please!

"my-wings" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"my-wings" wrote in message
...

My computer died for a few days, so I never read any of this
thread while it built. It's been entertaining and informative
to read the entire thing as a single piece. There was almost a
justification from fundoc as to why he felt the FAQ rules on sig
lines didn't apply to posts whose only comment was a warning against
spam. That might actually have lead to an interesting discussion,
as the position isn't totally without merit, but apparently
interesting discussion was not the intent. Oh well. I have miles
of email to read before I sleep...


Indeed. Can a reference to a provision in a NewsGroup FAQ which
defines which posts are on-topic, and which posts are not, be itself
regarded as being on-topic for that particular NewsGroup ?

My gut feeling is that anything that refers to the functioning of the
newsgroup would probably be on topic, but then I wasn't around in the
formative days of usenet, and I have the niggling suspicion that such
posts
form a distinct class that probably deserves a special warning word in the
subject line. Not that I've ever seen such a warning word, and most groups
I
frequent seem to go through spates where certain provisions get hauled out
and worked over on a routine basis, so I'm probably wrong about that.


Furthermore, if a specific provision is made in the FAQ to cover
any such eventuality, can a reference to that specific provision
which presumably cannot refer to itself, be regarded as being on
topic for that NewsGroup ?

Or will a further provision be necessary after that ?


Ah ha. You raise an interesting point. Since the FAQ is not the charter,
can
it actually contain provisions not subject to further discussion? After
all,
the FAQ as its name suggests, is essentially the newgroup consensous on
standard answers to frequent questions. If the questions had not been
frequent, they never would have made the FAQ. Does the mere fact that the
standard answers have been recorded and made available to newbies and
oldbies alike mean the questions should no longer be asked or discussed?

Empirically, the answer would appear to be "no", since here we are,
yacking
away.

In fact, I believe I'm in agreement with one of your posts in this long
thread: the one where you indicated "so near and yet so far". That was the
interesting point that might have been developed, but was not, as you
pointed out.

Maybe either Bertrand Russell and\or Kurt Gödel might
have something to say on the matter.


I believe there are a few cross-pond differences in the use of
the subjunctive, but, barring séances and such, surely you meant
"might have had"?


I was hoping more that someone (else) might be able to quote the
relevant passages out of a book.

One of Russell's paradoxes might be expressed as follows-

Can a Provision which governs all the other Provisions
of the NewsGroup charter, be itself be governed by that
Provision ? I think.

Gödel was saying much the same sort of thing. I think.
Whether the Provisions of the NewsGroup charter could
be both internally consistent and complete, although
expressed in more formal terms. So that if we allow
the following Formal Axiomatic system to represent the
Provisions of the NewsGroup Charter we have -

Axiom 1: Aa:~Sa=0
Axiom 2: Aaa+0)=a
Axiom 3: Aa:Aa'a+Sa')=S(a+a')
Axiom 4: Aaa*0)=0
Axiom 5: Aa:Aa'a*Sa')=((a*a')+a)

Which seems to make things that much clearer, as I hope
you'll agree.

And seems to put John in the clear.



michael adams



Yrs in friendship,

Alice

"fundoc" wrote in message
...


PS. You were the first person I ever successfully
trolled Mr Webster.


And quite possibly the last, by the looks of things


Posting doctored photographs, and screeds of self explanation,
when combined with flaming all and sundry, has nothing whatsoever
to do with trolling.



michael adams

....

my-wings wrote:
"michael adams" wrote...

Maybe either Bertrand Russell and\or Kurt Gödel might
have something to say on the matter.


I believe there are a few cross-pond differences in the use of the
subjunctive, but, barring séances and such, surely you meant "might have
had"?


I think Michael's comment can be interpreted as, "Perhaps one could find
something illuminating in Russell's and Gödel's extant writings on
self-referential statements and systems."


--Jon Meyers

"my-wings" wrote in message
...

"fundoc" wrote in message
...


In any event, it was not nice of you to call Ms Turner a yobbo.

Alice: "That might actually have lead to an interesting discussion, as
the position isn't totally without merit."


Just as a point of interest, who is Ms Turner?

Anyone who thinks who Ms Turner is is a point of interest is a boyo. Anyway,
this is Ms Turner:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c...d0d6d39?hl=en&

Isn't that you? Are you morphing your email address? Just when I thought you
couldn't have sunk any lower. You should be ashamed.


Alice Voith
yenta for a day

Tzeitel: Since when are you in a match, Chava? I thought you had your eye on
your books . . . And you have your eye on the Rabbi's son.

Hodel: Well, why not? We have only one Rabbi and he has only one son. Why
shouldn't I want the best?

Tzeitel: Because you're a girl from a poor family. So whatever Yenta brings,
you'll take, right? Of course right!

Acting dumb again, are we?

on Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:25:06 GMT, my-wings stated:


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"my-wings" wrote in message
...

[...] There was almost a
justification from fundoc as to why he felt the FAQ rules on sig
lines didn't apply to posts whose only comment was a warning against
spam. That might actually have lead to an interesting discussion,
[...]

Indeed. Can a reference to a provision in a NewsGroup FAQ which
defines which posts are on-topic, and which posts are not, be itself
regarded as being on-topic for that particular NewsGroup ?

My gut feeling is that anything that refers to the functioning of the
newsgroup would probably be on topic, but then I wasn't around in the
formative days of usenet, and I have the niggling suspicion that such posts
form a distinct class that probably deserves a special warning word in the
subject line. Not that I've ever seen such a warning word, and most groups I
frequent seem to go through spates where certain provisions get hauled out
and worked over on a routine basis, so I'm probably wrong about that.

"Metadiscussion" - a discussion on how you do the discussion.

In another newsgroup I frequent, those once happened fairly
often. Some people thrived on them, and others ignored them.
That group is a bit broader what's on-topic than this one,
but I think the idea still holds. They didn't bother with a
warning in the subject: line, but then, they don't much hold
with keeping the subject line even remotely relevent to what's
in the posts, so that may not be a good example for what we do
here.

In my opinion (worth what you paid for it) metadiscussions are
"on topic" in the sense that they're a necessary, if occasional,
part of how the community that is the newsgroup works, grows,
changes, and continues to work. Stating that we can only talk
about collecting books, and never discuss how we shape our
conversation, wouldn't, IMO, be the best of ideas.


-Allison
on-topic now because I've defined my topic as on-topic. How's
that for Godel-esque?

"Allison Turner-" wrote in message
...
on Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:25:06 GMT, my-wings stated:


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"my-wings" wrote in message
...

[...] There was almost a
justification from fundoc as to why he felt the FAQ rules on sig
lines didn't apply to posts whose only comment was a warning against
spam. That might actually have lead to an interesting discussion,
[...]

Indeed. Can a reference to a provision in a NewsGroup FAQ which
defines which posts are on-topic, and which posts are not, be itself
regarded as being on-topic for that particular NewsGroup ?

My gut feeling is that anything that refers to the functioning of the
newsgroup would probably be on topic, but then I wasn't around in the
formative days of usenet, and I have the niggling suspicion that such
posts
form a distinct class that probably deserves a special warning word in the
subject line. Not that I've ever seen such a warning word, and most groups
I
frequent seem to go through spates where certain provisions get hauled out
and worked over on a routine basis, so I'm probably wrong about that.

"Metadiscussion" - a discussion on how you do the discussion.

In another newsgroup I frequent, those once happened fairly
often. Some people thrived on them, and others ignored them.
That group is a bit broader what's on-topic than this one,
but I think the idea still holds. They didn't bother with a
warning in the subject: line, but then, they don't much hold
with keeping the subject line even remotely relevent to what's
in the posts, so that may not be a good example for what we do
here.

In my opinion (worth what you paid for it) metadiscussions are
"on topic" in the sense that they're a necessary, if occasional,
part of how the community that is the newsgroup works, grows,
changes, and continues to work. Stating that we can only talk
about collecting books, and never discuss how we shape our
conversation, wouldn't, IMO, be the best of ideas.


-Allison
on-topic now because I've defined my topic as on-topic. How's
that for Godel-esque?


Nice job!

And since you've now joined the discussion, perhaps someone better than I am
at reading those pesky headers can confirm for Mr. fundoc that you and I are
not one in the same?

Alice

--
Book collecting terms illustrated. Occasional books for sale.
http://www.mywingsbooks.com/

"fundoc" wrote in message
...

"my-wings" wrote in message
...

"fundoc" wrote in message
...


In any event, it was not nice of you to call Ms Turner a yobbo.

Alice: "That might actually have lead to an interesting discussion, as
the position isn't totally without merit."


Just as a point of interest, who is Ms Turner?

Anyone who thinks who Ms Turner is is a point of interest is a boyo.
Anyway, this is Ms Turner:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c...d0d6d39?hl=en&

Isn't that you? Are you morphing your email address? Just when I thought
you couldn't have sunk any lower. You should be ashamed.




Um....not to put too fine a point on it, but we do spell our first names a
little differently (Alice vs. Allison), and our last names a whole lot
differently (Voith vs. Turner). I can't speak for Allison, of course, but I
like the way this allows people who don't know us well (or even at all) to
tell us apart.

Your serve...
Alice
--
Book collecting terms illustrated. Occasional books for sale.
http://www.mywingsbooks.com/

"Jon Meyers" wrote in message
...
my-wings wrote:
"michael adams" wrote...
Maybe either Bertrand Russell and\or Kurt Gödel might
have something to say on the matter.


I believe there are a few cross-pond differences in the use of the
subjunctive, but, barring séances and such, surely you meant "might have
had"?


I think Michael's comment can be interpreted as, "Perhaps one could find
something illuminating in Russell's and Gödel's extant writings on
self-referential statements and systems."



On reflection, I think you're right, Jon. I forgot that it's always
appropriate to refer to authors in the present tense, however departed they
may be.

Alice

--
Book collecting terms illustrated. Occasional books for sale.
http://www.mywingsbooks.com/

"michael adams" wrote in message
...


Maybe either Bertrand Russell and\or Kurt Gödel might
have something to say on the matter.


I believe there are a few cross-pond differences in the use of
the subjunctive, but, barring séances and such, surely you meant
"might have had"?


I was hoping more that someone (else) might be able to quote the
relevant passages out of a book.

One of Russell's paradoxes might be expressed as follows-

Can a Provision which governs all the other Provisions
of the NewsGroup charter, be itself be governed by that
Provision ? I think.

Gödel was saying much the same sort of thing. I think.
Whether the Provisions of the NewsGroup charter could
be both internally consistent and complete, although
expressed in more formal terms. So that if we allow
the following Formal Axiomatic system to represent the
Provisions of the NewsGroup Charter we have -

Axiom 1: Aa:~Sa=0
Axiom 2: Aaa+0)=a
Axiom 3: Aa:Aa'a+Sa')=S(a+a')
Axiom 4: Aaa*0)=0
Axiom 5: Aa:Aa'a*Sa')=((a*a')+a)

Which seems to make things that much clearer, as I hope
you'll agree.

And seems to put John in the clear.


Michael, I certainly can't disagree. Heck, I can't understand it at all! If
I didn't know better, I would swear those axioms came straight from my high
school algebra text. But how you got into my high school algebra text I'll
never know! At any rate, I'm pleased with any outcome that puts John in the
clear.

Axiomatically yours,

Alice

--
Book collecting terms illustrated. Occasional books for sale.
http://www.mywingsbooks.com/