On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:54:24 AM UTC-5, Howerd wrote:
> cf2022 has a colour-blind mode - just press F4.
> The code can then be read without the use of colour.
If you're colour-blind, you are already reading the code without colour. So what's
the use of F4 :)
--
me

Am 08/04/2022 um 10:10 schrieb Paul Rubin:
> dxforth <dxforth@gmail.com> writes:
>> Few of us are trained or employed as technical writers but find
>> ourselves having to document. The main criteria being it can be
>> understood by our peers.
>
> RMS told me how he writes documentation. I don't follow the method
> exactly, but keep something like it in mind, and I find that it helps.
>
> Basically he writes a sentence of documentation, then sits back and
> re-reads it, and asks himself what the next thing is that the user will
> want to know after reading that sentence. That tells him what sentence
> to write next. Repeat until all topics for the document are covered.
>
> Then, print out the resulting document and circulate it to a few people
> for comments. Implement the suggestions and circulate again. Two or so
> iterations of that is usually enough to get a serviceable document.
Hi Paul,

I feel I should know who RMS is, but I don't, his suggestions look good
though.

My approach to the documentation for cf2022 is to :
1. Explain the reason, rationale, philosophy etc. in a human friendly
"chatty" style.
2. To explain details of the code, design strategies etc. in as few
words as possible, in the code.
3. To supply a "How To" document to ameliorate the painful learning
curve as much as possible.

Maybe I need a fourth section that follows RMS's guidelines more
closely, or re-structure the woledocument into fewer sections...

Thanks for the input :-)

Cheers,
Howerd

Am 07/04/2022 um 23:42 schrieb myronp...@gmail.com:
> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:44:03 PM UTC-4, Howerd wrote:
>> Hi Forthers,
>>
>> I am pleased to announce an updated version of colorForth : cf2022.
>>
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/colorforth/
>> https://github.com/Howerd/colorForth
>> or from my website:
>> https://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/
>>
>> Documentation is here :
>> http://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/cf2022_colorForth.pdf
>>
>> Readme is here :
>> https://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/readme.txt
>>
>> The main difference between cf2019 and cf2022 is that cf2022 has an
>> ASCII font, even though it still uses Shannon-Fano encoding for the cf
>> token names.
>> This is step in the direction of the rest of the programming world.
>>
>> It occurred to me while I was updating cf2022 that I like colorForth
>> because it is as close to the metal as you can get - I see a connection
>> between colorForth and this video : https://youtu.be/gNRnrn5DE58
>> colorForth is the equivalent of the Surface Plate that everything else
>> can be referenced too. Just my 2c worth.
>>
>> Enjoy!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Howerd
>
> Dear Howerd,
>
> I too, like getting as close to the metal as I can. So I've been exploring how to design stack computers in Verilog for FPGAs, and their requisite assemblers in whatever language gets the job done (gforth, Common Lisp, Guile, Python3).
>
> I suggest that you provide a "System Requirements" section in cf2022_colorForth.pdf near the beginning that makes it clear that colorForth requires a legacy i386 box/BIOS. Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting the "Under the Hood" section.
>
> Many moons ago, I was running a main/backup pair of colorForth floppys on a i386 box, and made a bit of progress "getting it". But other i386 boxes failed due (I thought) to incompatible video hardware.
>
> I admire your tenacity.
>
> Respectfully,
> Myron Plichota
Hi Myron,

> I suggest that you provide a "System Requirements" section
> in cf2022_colorForth.pdf
Good idea, off the top of my head :
1. x86 architecture processor ( 386 or higher)
2. 32 Mbytes or more RAM
3. PC BIOS that allows booting from a USB drive
4. VESA compatible video card
5. USB port

> Many moons ago, I was running a main/backup pair of colorForth
> floppys on a i386 box, and made a bit of progress "getting it".
It is a steep learning curve...

> But other i386 boxes failed due (I thought) to incompatible
> video hardware.
There were issues originally with incompatible floppy disk hardware.
cf2022 uses VESA calls to configure the video hardware - I've not
noticed any problems on any PCs / laptops that I have tried it on.

The biggest issue at the moment seems to be the difficulty of persuading
the PC to boot from a USB drive...
This will only get worse, so UEFI support is planned for cf202x.

I can run cf2022 on my Windows 10 laptop, which is not quite "legacy
hardware" yet :-)

> I admire your tenacity
Thanks! But the difference between tenacity and stubborness is not
always well defined ;-)

Cheers,
Howerd

Am 08/04/2022 um 20:39 schrieb Jurgen Pitaske:
> On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 18:57:24 UTC+1, Myron Plichota wrote:
>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:46:42 PM UTC-4, Myron Plichota wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:22:47 PM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:
>>>> How does one spell yia, yia!?
>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 7:30:33 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
>>>>>> It certainly has a negative vibe to it.
>
> I find it funny, that most of the posts here have nothing to do with
>
> ANN: colorForth cf2022 257 views
>
> But this seems to be the essence of Forth ....
Hi Jurgen,

clf does seems to produce a wealth of differing opinions.
Thank you for coming to my defence, against comments with a negative vibe.

But do not worry - the folks here have presented what I interpret as
constructive criticism, and mostly I agree with them!

To be my own devil's advocate, some brutally blunt Q and A's :

Q. Why would a seemingly intelligent guy like Howerd waste his time on a
programming language that nobody else uses?
A. Because I like colorForth. I love the way colorForth is complete -
when you run cf2022 you can see everything, you can change everything
and you can understand everything (theoretically, at least).

Q. Isn't it really about idolising Chuck Moore?
A. No, I like and respect Chuck, and I only idolise Chuck's ideas.

Q. Is this about making colorForth a religion, with a heirarchy of
priests and demi-gods?
A. Absolutely - I can show you the way to enlightenment for a small fee.
Alternatively you can just read the documentation and give it a try ;-)

Q. What about ANS Forth?
A. Jeff Fox hated ANS Forth, Chuck thinks it is not good. I love it
because it makes Forth respectable in the corporate workplace because it
has an ISO number : ISO/IEC 15145. cf2022 is not ANS compatible.

Q. colorForth uses a difficult "keypad" user interface, Shannon-Fano
encoding, and blocks instead of files - couldn't you just use ASCII
files and a normal keyboard?
A. No.

Q. What about colour-blind people?
A. Press F4.

I'm still feeling very motivated!

;-)

Cheers,
Howerd

Am 09/04/2022 um 16:06 schrieb Andy Valencia:
> Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:
>>> The number of Forthers is reducing
>>> so the ones left take over.
>> What you'd expect? The ones who have left taking over?
>> Weird way of reasoning..
>
> I kinda sorta "left". But I keep an eye, because Forth is an unusual
> technology, and sometimes that's the catalyst for something interesting and
> new.
>
> Sometimes.
>
> Andy Valencia
> Home page: https://www.vsta.org/andy/
> To contact me: https://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
Hi Andy,

Welcome back :-)

> Forth is an unusual technology, and sometimes that's the catalyst for
> something interesting and new.
Indeed.

> Sometimes.
Other times it is just following a dead end.
Ants can show us the way here ;-)
Or maybe monkeys on typewriters...
What is certain though, is that following the same road as everyone else
will get you to the same place as everyone else.
Let's not lose our sense of adventure :-)

Cheers,
Howerd

On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 15:15:08 UTC+1, Howerd wrote:
> Am 08/04/2022 um 20:39 schrieb Jurgen Pitaske:
> > On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 18:57:24 UTC+1, Myron Plichota wrote:
> >> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:46:42 PM UTC-4, Myron Plichota wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:22:47 PM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:
> >>>> How does one spell yia, yia!?
> >>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 7:30:33 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> >>>>>> It certainly has a negative vibe to it.
> >
> > I find it funny, that most of the posts here have nothing to do with
> >
> > ANN: colorForth cf2022 257 views
> >
> > But this seems to be the essence of Forth ....
> Hi Jurgen,
>
> clf does seems to produce a wealth of differing opinions.
> Thank you for coming to my defence, against comments with a negative vibe.
>
> But do not worry - the folks here have presented what I interpret as
> constructive criticism, and mostly I agree with them!
>
> To be my own devil's advocate, some brutally blunt Q and A's :
>
> Q. Why would a seemingly intelligent guy like Howerd waste his time on a
> programming language that nobody else uses?
> A. Because I like colorForth. I love the way colorForth is complete -
> when you run cf2022 you can see everything, you can change everything
> and you can understand everything (theoretically, at least).
>
> Q. Isn't it really about idolising Chuck Moore?
> A. No, I like and respect Chuck, and I only idolise Chuck's ideas.
>
> Q. Is this about making colorForth a religion, with a heirarchy of
> priests and demi-gods?
> A. Absolutely - I can show you the way to enlightenment for a small fee.
> Alternatively you can just read the documentation and give it a try ;-)
>
> Q. What about ANS Forth?
> A. Jeff Fox hated ANS Forth, Chuck thinks it is not good. I love it
> because it makes Forth respectable in the corporate workplace because it
> has an ISO number : ISO/IEC 15145. cf2022 is not ANS compatible.
>
> Q. colorForth uses a difficult "keypad" user interface, Shannon-Fano
> encoding, and blocks instead of files - couldn't you just use ASCII
> files and a normal keyboard?
> A. No.
>
> Q. What about colour-blind people?
> A. Press F4.
>
> I'm still feeling very motivated!
>
> ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Howerd

Sorry Howard,
when I appreciated your post, I did not expect what I triggered.
But this is CLF.

I must say, that you should move into politics ....

Am 10/04/2022 um 15:11 schrieb S Jack:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:54:24 AM UTC-5, Howerd wrote:
>> cf2022 has a colour-blind mode - just press F4.
>> The code can then be read without the use of colour.
> If you're colour-blind, you are already reading the code without colour. So what's
> the use of F4 :)
> --
> me
Hi me,

I see there is an ambiguity in what I wrote...
Pressing F4 converts a "red" token to a ':', and similarly for the other
colours, so the code looks more like conventional Forth.

If you are of a Windows persuasion, just run cf2022 and press F4. It
really is that simple :-)

Cheers,
Howerd

Am 10/04/2022 um 16:39 schrieb Jurgen Pitaske:
> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 15:15:08 UTC+1, Howerd wrote:
>> Am 08/04/2022 um 20:39 schrieb Jurgen Pitaske:
>>> On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 18:57:24 UTC+1, Myron Plichota wrote:
>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:46:42 PM UTC-4, Myron Plichota wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:22:47 PM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:
>>>>>> How does one spell yia, yia!?
>>>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 7:30:33 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
>>>>>>>> It certainly has a negative vibe to it.
>>>
>>> I find it funny, that most of the posts here have nothing to do with
>>>
>>> ANN: colorForth cf2022 257 views
>>>
>>> But this seems to be the essence of Forth ....
>> Hi Jurgen,
>>
>> clf does seems to produce a wealth of differing opinions.
>> Thank you for coming to my defence, against comments with a negative vibe.
>>
>> But do not worry - the folks here have presented what I interpret as
>> constructive criticism, and mostly I agree with them!
>>
>> To be my own devil's advocate, some brutally blunt Q and A's :
>>
>> Q. Why would a seemingly intelligent guy like Howerd waste his time on a
>> programming language that nobody else uses?
>> A. Because I like colorForth. I love the way colorForth is complete -
>> when you run cf2022 you can see everything, you can change everything
>> and you can understand everything (theoretically, at least).
>>
>> Q. Isn't it really about idolising Chuck Moore?
>> A. No, I like and respect Chuck, and I only idolise Chuck's ideas.
>>
>> Q. Is this about making colorForth a religion, with a heirarchy of
>> priests and demi-gods?
>> A. Absolutely - I can show you the way to enlightenment for a small fee.
>> Alternatively you can just read the documentation and give it a try ;-)
>>
>> Q. What about ANS Forth?
>> A. Jeff Fox hated ANS Forth, Chuck thinks it is not good. I love it
>> because it makes Forth respectable in the corporate workplace because it
>> has an ISO number : ISO/IEC 15145. cf2022 is not ANS compatible.
>>
>> Q. colorForth uses a difficult "keypad" user interface, Shannon-Fano
>> encoding, and blocks instead of files - couldn't you just use ASCII
>> files and a normal keyboard?
>> A. No.
>>
>> Q. What about colour-blind people?
>> A. Press F4.
>>
>> I'm still feeling very motivated!
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Howerd
>
> Sorry Howard,
> when I appreciated your post, I did not expect what I triggered.
> But this is CLF.
>
> I must say, that you should move into politics ....
Hi Jurgen,

I am feeling particularly mellow at the moment, recovering from a mild
Corona virus attack.

I did expect some negative reactions - there seems to be a basic human
instinct to attack anyone who stands out as different - the child in the
kindergarten with glasses, Forth programmers, people who refuse to use
files etc. etc.

But I found the comments on clf overwhelmingly positive :-)
And yes, there is a lot of room for improvement.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Howerd

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:31:31 AM UTC-4, Howerd wrote:
> Am 07/04/2022 um 23:42 schrieb myronp...@gmail.com:
> > On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:44:03 PM UTC-4, Howerd wrote:
> >> Hi Forthers,
> >>
> >> I am pleased to announce an updated version of colorForth : cf2022.
> >>
> >> https://sourceforge.net/projects/colorforth/
> >> https://github.com/Howerd/colorForth
> >> or from my website:
> >> https://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/
> >>
> >> Documentation is here :
> >> http://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/cf2022_colorForth.pdf
> >>
> >> Readme is here :
> >> https://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/readme.txt
> >>
> >> The main difference between cf2019 and cf2022 is that cf2022 has an
> >> ASCII font, even though it still uses Shannon-Fano encoding for the cf
> >> token names.
> >> This is step in the direction of the rest of the programming world.
> >>
> >> It occurred to me while I was updating cf2022 that I like colorForth
> >> because it is as close to the metal as you can get - I see a connection
> >> between colorForth and this video : https://youtu.be/gNRnrn5DE58
> >> colorForth is the equivalent of the Surface Plate that everything else
> >> can be referenced too. Just my 2c worth.
> >>
> >> Enjoy!
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Howerd
> >
> > Dear Howerd,
> >
> > I too, like getting as close to the metal as I can. So I've been exploring how to design stack computers in Verilog for FPGAs, and their requisite assemblers in whatever language gets the job done (gforth, Common Lisp, Guile, Python3).
> >
> > I suggest that you provide a "System Requirements" section in cf2022_colorForth.pdf near the beginning that makes it clear that colorForth requires a legacy i386 box/BIOS. Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting the "Under the Hood" section.
> >
> > Many moons ago, I was running a main/backup pair of colorForth floppys on a i386 box, and made a bit of progress "getting it". But other i386 boxes failed due (I thought) to incompatible video hardware.
> >
> > I admire your tenacity.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > Myron Plichota
> Hi Myron,
>
> > I suggest that you provide a "System Requirements" section
> > in cf2022_colorForth.pdf
> Good idea, off the top of my head :
> 1. x86 architecture processor ( 386 or higher)
> 2. 32 Mbytes or more RAM
> 3. PC BIOS that allows booting from a USB drive
> 4. VESA compatible video card
> 5. USB port
>
> > Many moons ago, I was running a main/backup pair of colorForth
> > floppys on a i386 box, and made a bit of progress "getting it".
> It is a steep learning curve...
>
> > But other i386 boxes failed due (I thought) to incompatible
> > video hardware.
> There were issues originally with incompatible floppy disk hardware.
> cf2022 uses VESA calls to configure the video hardware - I've not
> noticed any problems on any PCs / laptops that I have tried it on.
>
> The biggest issue at the moment seems to be the difficulty of persuading
> the PC to boot from a USB drive...
> This will only get worse, so UEFI support is planned for cf202x.
>
> I can run cf2022 on my Windows 10 laptop, which is not quite "legacy
> hardware" yet :-)
>
> > I admire your tenacity
> Thanks! But the difference between tenacity and stubborness is not
> always well defined ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Howerd

Nil illegitimus carborundum (don't let the bastards grind you down).

> I can run cf2022 on my Windows 10 laptop, which is not quite "legacy
> hardware" yet :-)

I've lost track of x86 16/32/64-bit generational compatability. In Appendix B of cf2022_colorForth.pdf, I note the NASM directives [BITS 16] and [BITS 32] (but no [BITS 64]).

I think I have learned:
1) amd64 boxes continue to boot in 16-bit real mode to this day.
2) amd64 boxes can run 32-bit apps with no further ado.

- Myron

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 2:22:00 PM UTC+2, Howerd wrote:
> I hope to get my cf documentation up to the standard of your 4th docs
> eventually, and I take your criticism in a positive way.
Howard, thanks for reacting. Note I was reacting to a claim which was NOT
posed by you. So I really have no beef with you! ;-)

And yes, you should. If you need any advise there, you'll find contact information
scattered around 4tH. I'll be happy to be of assistance.
> > because the rest is just a lazy code dump?
> You miss the point here. 99% of my documentation effort can be found in
> the code dumps.
Is the code itself not included in the package?
> BTW I love the fact that 4tH is different. I am thinking of adding
> command line to cf202x, and it will probably get compiled on-the-fly,
> just like 4th :-)
4tH was intended to be different - if I had found a Forth that was to my liking
I'd saved myself a lot of time!

That was also one of the two reasons it was never released with a significant
body of documentation - since I've barely seen a Forth that came with decent
documentation. To give you an idea what my first experience with Forth was:

https://worldofspectrum.org//pub/sinclair/games-info/s/SpectrumForth(UserManual).pdf

So - getting when I am now cost me hundreds of dollars in (virtually all) incompatible books.
Add to that, the attitude "If the code isn't clear enough and you can't understand a glossary
you're lost to the world"

And you got the reasons why I put the bar a bit higher where 4tH and its documentation
is concerned. As I stated earlier - it was highly influenced by the Borland manuals and
Unix documentation.

So, the offer stands. I wish you success with this endeavor!

Hans Bezemer

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:33:45 PM UTC+2, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 14:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
> Very minor point: It's Lego blocks (or maybe bricks), in UKE, not Lego stones.
> Bah, and indeed Humbug.

But it has been picked up and corrected! v3.64.1 will use the correct term! Thank you!
It's been in there for a little shy of 30 years years, but - who's counting ;-)

Hans Bezemer

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 3:29:40 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 6:22:47 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > Well that's a bit of an inferior way to out it, to jump to the thoughts of others for defence. Just wait, seen some Steve Jobs videos, maybe he has something to apply here, rather than me figuring out what to say. Yes, politely put, a bit of a negative vibe, to back up others, is perfectly alright.
> No, it's not. It is a very useful sieve to shift the distractions from actual, valid arguments.
> Steve Jobs may be a lot, but certainly not an expert in this area. So that is another fallacy,

It wasn't meant to be literal, it was a negative example of what not to do, vield in sarcasm, on those who rely on others, but are still blind.

> "call to authority". I will disregard your other "tone argument" fallacy.

Is it? You don't seem to be able to see what's wrong. I'm forgetting what's wrong already, it's been a bit too long and I can't retain the memory.

> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument

If you say so.

> > ? A $10 book spread over tens of thousands of sales, makes it worth it, and if your writing
> is do good that it gets hundreds of thousands of new people on board, you have proven your point.

> It's a free project, so that doesn't apply. I don't do things to prove my point. That's a waste of

"> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument"

> energy. A friend of mine joined the Army just to prove his dad he was a real man. After four
> years of hell he returned home and said to his dad "I told you I can do it!" - on which his father
> responded "I was in the Navy. The Army is for losers!"

Lol. That's great. Suppose he didn't tell him, he was joining the Marines.

> > Exactly! Now you are getting it. Around here a lot has been sunk into the ocean,
> with a lot of crusty seasoned forth sailors left, who only need the basics of the spec
> and how to use it.

> Not exactly. A lot of people are put off by this elitist view that permeates in Forth circles. They

My point was, as much as they have destroyed Forth's chances, and I would have preferred to see it done differently, like the way you are doing it, it's the present reality. So, a lot of little miss hay, personal projects, going on, that only need what I said as a minimum. But, I see life as the broader picture, including novices, but with a practical cut off point. I've helped fellow students, taught programming development at University, sadly, there are people that just don't get it, despite hand holding, it's not worth accommodating in such a complex language abstraction, and those who will never be particularly good, and are not worth hiring. A lot of people just do and see what they want. However, your story comes from the other end, and you ight nit see that there is a practical limit to how simply to write about complex forths. We write down, but people must also read upwards, to learn. I'll give you a revelatory example. They did a study on the complexity of language in publications. I forget what the score was for the weekend paper, maybe 3, but normal science magazines were rather high complexity, but New Scientist, was written closer the the complexity of the news paper (I think). Very useful, but New Scientist kept a level of quality, and didn't go too low. I'm sorry if my language is a bit mushy, I've had brain damage, and it's really late as usual. Before the brain damage I could take most arguments successfully, while trying not to fall asleep, or being severely sleep deprived or sick.

Forth is a bit of an elitest language, simply because it is not a simple concepts.

> can't get any help and throw it off as soon as they can and go to more useful languages like
> Python and Lua, which DO have plenty of understandable and consistent resources - and compilers
> that don't blow up in your face when you make a slight error (although there has been improvement).
>
> And then the Forth community wonders why their propaganda does not lead to more Forth programmers.

Thier behaviour certainly doesn't. That's what getting at, coming along with too mi h of a sharp edge,. An put developers and potential users off.

> Well, I'll tell you. It's the Waynes in this world which tell them "You can drown as far as I am concerned.

You are making a presumption, again. I've already illustrated this is not my attitude except for people wasting their and people's time. If I was doing a commercial forth, then I would be looking at making better documentation for lower end people. In my OS approach, I identified multiple levels of programmers, and where they should be targeted too, to reduce damage, with simple web page scripting down the bottom, but that was more a productivity effort, to get the better programmers to develop the infrastructure, making the mistakes of worse programmers less affecting.

> If you're not a crusty, seasoned Forth sailor you don't even have the right to live".
>
> The consequence of this mentality is that Forth itself has fallen from the raft and has now sunk
> so deep in the "Most used programming languages" list, that it needs a bathyscaphe to find it.
>
> > But seriously, it's not worth getting negative unless it's negative people starting fights all the time.
> A comment is not a fight. The response could also have been "What do you mean, what is lacking?"

Was I talking about you being a bit negative, or was it about others starting fights, I don't remember.

> However, this person chose to ask for my documentation. So he got it.

> > I could wax lyrical about a lot of stuff, but that's probably just going be a waste of time.

> I too. If people would refrain from logical fallacies and state their arguments, that could be
> quite fruitful.

Be more sophisticated, rather than relying on formulas wrongly, (I can't remember the term, rote learning?). You misconstrue a few things and it gets hard at 2;28am to decipher wherever you are misconstruing, or having a point.

> > You tell them, discuss or explain, and move on.
> I told them. They chose an "ad hominem" logical fallacy. They could have chosen another approach.
> > Which is this case, is not about the documentation, but about the tone!
> It is about the documentation and returning to a logical fallacy is hardly useful. Do you people
> never learn?

Maybe you don't. Again, T O N E! You could approach and say things differently. Look, there is a lot of stuff around here like that, but at least you are much better, and listen.

>
> > ANS could do an open source compiler, toolset, code routine base, and documentation.
> It's a standardization committee - not a development team.

These things need to be standardised. Documentation for such, means that people can develop open source code to well. The code could also be done as part of the standard.

>
> Hans Bezemer

Wayne.

In article <87lewg2dx2.fsf@nightsong.com>,
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>dxforth <dxforth@gmail.com> writes:
>> Few of us are trained or employed as technical writers but find
>> ourselves having to document. The main criteria being it can be
>> understood by our peers.
>
>RMS told me how he writes documentation. I don't follow the method
>exactly, but keep something like it in mind, and I find that it helps.
>
>Basically he writes a sentence of documentation, then sits back and
>re-reads it, and asks himself what the next thing is that the user will
>want to know after reading that sentence. That tells him what sentence
>to write next. Repeat until all topics for the document are covered.
>
>Then, print out the resulting document and circulate it to a few people
>for comments. Implement the suggestions and circulate again. Two or so
>iterations of that is usually enough to get a serviceable document.

Getting to read a printed document? That happens only in academic
circles.
I almost do the same thing as RMS. I type in an item that belongs
in the documentation. Then I read the previous sentence and the new
one, and decide that it follows logically, or that the previous
sentence is made unclear with what follow, or that the train of
thought may go astray.
A mathematical mind is handy, be aware of what you have told the
audience, and build upon that.

I actually enjoy reading some of my documentation.
They has gone on so many iterations, that it is nearing perfection.

Groetjes Albert
--
"in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
die from Covid 19 lol" duc ha
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 6:39:15 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > "call to authority". I will disregard your other "tone argument" fallacy.
> Is it? You don't seem to be able to see what's wrong. I'm forgetting what's wrong already, it's been a bit too long and I can't retain the memory.
Well, may be it is because I'm a Dutchie - known to be the most frank people in the world,
considered by some to be rude and inconsiderate. Adding Graham in the equation doesn't
help. But it has one bonus - it's absolutely clear what the message is. It not like the
Anglophone "With the greatest respect, it's quite good and I almost agree" which tends to
mean "This is not even stupid: it's bloody awful and you have to kill me before I would EVER
agree to that".
> > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument
> If you say so.
Not really. It's all over the net, in numerous books and if you want to discuss it, because you
don't agree, feel free. I still find it a good sieve to filter out all the nonsense that doesn't
contribute to a fruitful discussion.

> My point was, as much as they have destroyed Forth's chances, and I would have preferred to
> see it done differently, like the way you are doing it, it's the present reality.
I tend to reject reality and substitute my own thing.

> Sadly, there are people that just don't get it, despite hand holding.
No discussion here. I've been trying to educate my own girlfriend into programming for the last
20 years. My father never "got it" and I've contemplated a lot over the years WHY. That's
why I've put up pages like:
https://sourceforge.net/p/forth-4th/wiki/The%20Way%20of%20Forth/
https://sourceforge.net/p/forth-4th/wiki/This%20is%20Forth/
https://sourceforge.net/p/forth-4th/wiki/Understand%20your%20algorithm/

That having said: if Brodie had NEVER taken the time to contemplate and write a book
like "Thinking Forth" I'd probably never gotten the rules either. Since I've been
saved from damnation, I thought it would be part of my redemption to go even deeper.

> It's not worth accommodating in such a complex language abstraction, and those who
> will never be particularly good, and are not worth hiring. A lot of people just do and see
> what they want.
It's the same logic that my dad applied when he told me to "stop playing with these games",
since "there would never come anything fruitful from it", because "I was a marginal mathematics
student" and "these stupid machines would prove to be a whim in some years" and "I'd rather
study for a decent profession".

The world - and even an individual - does not thrive from such an attitude.

> However, your story comes from the other end, and you might not see that there is a practical
> limit to how simply to write about complex Forths.
> Forth is a bit of an elitest language, simply because it is not a simple concepts.
Forth's are not complex. You can explain it to a three year old by the "3 simple rules paradigm".
It's the very consequence of this reduction in complexity that quickly becomes mindboggling.

> Be more sophisticated, rather than relying on formulas wrongly.
KNOWING the formulas BY HEART is "rote learning". Correctly applying them is not. Read a bit
of what Feynman said about all that. He's really good at getting the concepts correct.

> You misconstrue a few things and it gets hard at 2:28am to decipher wherever you are
> misconstruing, or having a point.
Don't do that. It's really counter productive. I put it off 'till this afternoon as well. In the usual
debate it's not common to call these fallacies by name - but experienced debaters have their
own set of tricks to counter them. After all, it's a spectator sport. ;-)

But I'm not the kind of guy who scores points by faking clever come backs. I simply call them
out. I'm not misconstruing anything. Google "logical fallacies" and you'll get dozens of hits.

> Maybe you don't. Again, T O N E! You could approach and say things differently. Look, there
> is a lot of stuff around here like that, but at least you are much better, and listen.
Yeah, "Diplomacy is the art of wishing someone to hell in such a way that he looks forward to
the journey". But that is neither my strength, nor my style. Take it or leave it, it doesn't change
my life. Consider it a "public service announcement".

> > > ANS could do an open source compiler, toolset, code routine base, and documentation.
> > It's a standardization committee - not a development team.
> These things need to be standardized. Documentation for such, means that people can develop
> open source code to well. The code could also be done as part of the standard.
There have already been introduced wordsets in Forth 200x which I would NEVER have considered
to be "of general interest". Yes, I do applaud some of the efforts that have been made to
create repositories of general use code - like the FSL. And some of these I have adopted as well.

However, I consider some wordsets to be lacking, badly defined (containing words that IMHO
shouldn't have been there) and the WORST of it all - as one of the few languages, ANS-Forth is NOT
a language standard, but an architecture standard. You could make a compliant C that is an
interpreter.

And yes, if the committee would do all that development stuff, it could be cool. It could be devastating,
killing all development. But their first and foremost goal in life is to DOCUMENT THE LANGUAGE.
Nothing more, nothing less.

There are IMHO really good things in ANS. I think the concept of "wordsets" fits a modular language
like Forth very well. I also liked the CATCH/THROW concept (and implementation). But including
double words in the core, outside the DOUBLE wordset? Lacking PLACE and +PLACE? The horrible
C-isms like the FILE wordset? I don't think so..

Hans Bezemer

Hans Bezemer

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 3:46:42 AM UTC+10, Myron Plichota wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:22:47 PM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > How does one spell yia, yia!?
> > On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 7:30:33 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > It certainly has a negative vibe to it.
> > > Nagging aboout "the tone": lack of arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg
> > Well that's a bit of an inferior way to out it, to jump to the thoughts of others for defence. Just wait, seen some Steve Jobs videos, maybe he has something to apply here, rather than me figuring out what to say. Yes, politely put, a bit of a negative vibe, to back up others, is perfectly alright.
> > > > You got to remember, it's only free personal stuff
> > > I already addressed that one.
> > That was part of the backing up of the others.
> > > > as long as the documentation covers the functionality correctly
> > > If it is incorrect - agreed, that's worse.
> > Useful Minimalism.
> > > > Some people around here seem insanely jealous of people sticking theirs heads up, chest out, or neck out. It's nuts.
> > > Weasel speak. Which people - be specific.
> > Incredible. They know who they are. No use trying to start FWx,by being too direct. I've been around since the 1990's, if seen a lot of stuff here..
> > > > Though, you should be able to do it in not many pages.
> > > I'd genuinely like to see that. But if I take the best documentation I ever viewed (Unix manuals and Borland manuals) and the ones I threw out of the window in frustration, I'm somewhat skeptical.
> > The lesson is, you shouldn' t expect too much, and piss on people so much. There are often going be somebody with better standards or talents.
> > > > So, you could rewrite your documentation for color fourth the, and charge $10 for the effort. I certainly would think it's interesting. But, you could do this for many languages you think are deficient, as a sort of programming guide system.
> > > FYI: I already published a Forth manual under FDL. They're free to use it. Others have done it - and I'm happy to provide a link: https://thebeez.home.xs4all.nl/ForthPrimer/
> > > And you can't have me for a mere $10 ;-) That's not a fee, that's change.
> > ? A $10 book spread over tens of thousands of sales, makes it worth it, and if your writing is do good that it gets hundreds of thousands of new people on board, you have proven your point.
> > > > Howard is right, to keep going, you are right, that documentation standards should be more, but not many are good at that, and around here, not many seem to need more than the basics.
> > > How do you know?! Do you measure it by the number of survivors or the ones that silently sank to the bottom of the ocean
> > Exactly! Now you are getting it. Around here a lot has been sunk into the ocean, with a lot of crusty seasoned forth sailors left, who only need the basics of the spec and how to use it.
> > > > So, you night like to collaborate with other Forth language writers, on a format for writing documentation to replace Starting Forth + manual approach.
> > > I've started "And so Forth.." in the last century, because people complained that my manual had errors, because the code didn't work.
> > > It proved to be they were applying the lessons to their own Forth variant - and that was not what the manual was all about. So I wrote
> > > this vanilla thing, asked if somebody wanted to participate, nobody came - and in the meanwhile I've lost just about every interest.
> > As part of an ANS standardisation project! They are some of the more proactive people around.
> >
> > But seriously, it's not worth getting negative unless it's negative people starting fights all the time, or trying to stone people right up. I could wax lyrical about a lot of stuff, but that's probably just going be a waste of time. If they can take good advice ok, if they want to keep wrongly throwing it month after month, year after year no. You tell them, discuss or explain, and move on. Which is this case, is not about the documentation, but about the tone!
> >
> > Have a good day Hans. Thanks for the link to your forth primer, that's a useful thing to have, but maybe ANS could do an open source compiler, toolset, code routine base, and documentation, in easy to use and read style, commercial companies could freely adjust and use to base their Forth's on, without capture licensing. That might progress things a bit. But really, they should adopt one of chicks forths, as above, as a Micro-Forth sub standard within ANS. Controlled by ANS to be a dime version for embedded, educational and personal. But then again, maybe it wouldn't work! I think Jeff would see the use in that. If he was still around, working the micro side of Forth (I use h as an example, because he did the most extensive work related to machine and color forth like concepts).
> >
> >
> > Wayne.
> I'd like to see Forthers agree that there are 2+ mutually-exclusive forks to keeping Forth alive today and in the future.
>
> 1) Maintain the gforth 32 and 64 bit desktop *nix environments.
> 1a) Cut a Win10 amd64 gforth executable.
> 2) Support novel snake-in-the-grass embedded computers that have 2 stacks and fast calls/returns.
>
> Jimbo is not James Bond.
>
> - Myron

Something similar, open infrastructure and documentation, for a customisable base. Routine library, with compatibility words sets, for code built for different forths to run in a new system variation (good in theory). Then complex (like and) and simple forth (like colorforth). But maybe also a seperate embedded forth, or embedded features set for ans and some forth. But, I sti think it useful to have Colorforth incorporated as a simple subset of and, with a embedded subset too. You end up with a full ANS and one or two subset versions. But, in this view, it might be useful to have a simple and complex embedded subset that can be used with the some and complex forth versions, just, more or less, so every body is covered but nobody is happy, sort of situation :). But, no these three subsets, wouldn't be much additional work after abstracted out, as they would be just part of ANS proper.

It looks complex, but complex decisions is what can happen when you simplify things in the foreground.

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 4:46:29 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
...
> > Thanks for your valuable insight! I appreciate it.
> It'd be interesting to know whether Brodie did any of that. Those who
> can put themselves in the shoes of their audience may not need feedback;

+1

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 12:07:31 AM UTC+10, Andy Valencia wrote:
...
> I kinda sorta "left". But I keep an eye, because Forth is an unusual
> technology, and sometimes that's the catalyst for something interesting and
> new.
>

+1

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 11:49:34 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 6:39:15 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > "call to authority". I will disregard your other "tone argument" fallacy.
> > Is it? You don't seem to be able to see what's wrong. I'm forgetting what's wrong already, it's been a bit too long and I can't retain the memory.
> Well, may be it is because I'm a Dutchie - known to be the most frank people in the world,
> considered by some to be rude and inconsiderate. Adding Graham in the equation doesn't
> help. But it has one bonus - it's absolutely clear what the message is. It not like the
> Anglophone "With the greatest respect, it's quite good and I almost agree" which tends to
> mean "This is not even stupid: it's bloody awful and you have to kill me before I would EVER
> agree to that".

? A bit too under the weather for this.

> > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument
> > If you say so.
> Not really. It's all over the net, in numerous books and if you want to discuss it, because you
> don't agree, feel free. I still find it a good sieve to filter out all the nonsense that doesn't
> contribute to a fruitful discussion.

Most people rely on crutches, because they don't know what a fruitful discussion is. 90% of people out there posting I'm places like this, should start listening. As they are a bit oblivious to good architecture and design. It is like a big day care centre gone rouge,Ike when children try to tell you what to do, abz rule your life. (We speaking generalities here).

> > My point was, as much as they have destroyed Forth's chances, and I would have preferred to
> > see it done differently, like the way you are doing it, it's the present reality.
> I tend to reject reality and substitute my own thing.

Yes, but the way things work here, that tends to be the audience left over.

>
> > Sadly, there are people that just don't get it, despite hand holding.
> No discussion here. I've been trying to educate my own girlfriend into programming for the last
> 20 years. My father never "got it" and I've contemplated a lot over the years WHY. That's
> why I've put up pages like:
> https://sourceforge.net/p/forth-4th/wiki/The%20Way%20of%20Forth/
> https://sourceforge.net/p/forth-4th/wiki/This%20is%20Forth/
> https://sourceforge.net/p/forth-4th/wiki/Understand%20your%20algorithm/

I'm not up to Reding stbthe no.ebt ("I'm not up to reading at the moment" correcting typos is enough. :). But, I just thought of a block like method. Where you say you can do sums? And after that answer, say add 1+2, =, now imagine you could put that answer somewhere and use it So, say, on a piece of paper goes in pile labelled "a" (for variable programming system). We could the write 1+2=3, the a result=1+2. Now imagine if you could use the number in "a". If a equal 3 then say: "it's three". Maybe we could say "Hello world, its three. And so forth on like this, to teach programming concepts in common language. You could then say imagine if the 1 and 2, were replaced by car trip b and car trip C, and you say: distance a = car trip b + car trip C. If distance "a" is more than 500 kilometres (or miles, if that is what you use locally) then fill petrol tank. And so forth.. Little discrete blocks of information. But. If they aren't interested at all in that sort of thing, it's probably not going to gel.

> That having said: if Brodie had NEVER taken the time to contemplate and write a book
> like "Thinking Forth" I'd probably never gotten the rules either. Since I've been
> saved from damnation, I thought it would be part of my redemption to go even deeper.
>
> > It's not worth accommodating in such a complex language abstraction, and those who
> > will never be particularly good, and are not worth hiring. A lot of people just do and see
> > what they want.
> It's the same logic that my dad applied when he told me to "stop playing with these games",
> since "there would never come anything fruitful from it", because "I was a marginal mathematics
> student" and "these stupid machines would prove to be a whim in some years" and "I'd rather
> study for a decent profession".
>
> The world - and even an individual - does not thrive from such an attitude.

This is not kindy garden, it's a professional language, there are simply those unhelpful to teach. They are more natural in other areas.

> > However, your story comes from the other end, and you might not see that there is a practical
> > limit to how simply to write about complex Forths.
> > Forth is a bit of an elitest language, simply because it is not a simple concepts.
> Forth's are not complex. You can explain it to a three year old by the "3 simple rules paradigm".
> It's the very consequence of this reduction in complexity that quickly becomes mindboggling.

No, they are, they are abstractions that don't mirror how we do things as closely, as basic. It requires some mental gymnastics, and I thought ANS, was still big?

>
> > Be more sophisticated, rather than relying on formulas wrongly.
> KNOWING the formulas BY HEART is "rote learning". Correctly applying them is not...

Yes.

> > You misconstrue a few things and it gets hard at 2:28am to decipher wherever you are
> > misconstruing, or having a point.
> Don't do that. It's really counter productive. I put it off 'till this afternoon as well. In the usual
> debate it's not common to call these fallacies by name - but experienced debaters have their
> own set of tricks to counter them. After all, it's a spectator sport. ;-)

??

> But I'm not the kind of guy who scores points by faking clever come backs.. I simply call them
> out. I'm not misconstruing anything. Google "logical fallacies" and you'll get dozens of hits.

You are.

> > Maybe you don't. Again, T O N E! You could approach and say things differently. Look, there
> > is a lot of stuff around here like that, but at least you are much better, and listen.
> Yeah, "Diplomacy is the art of wishing someone to hell in such a way that he looks forward to
> the journey"...

Bad diplomacy.

...

>
> And yes, if the committee would do all that development stuff, it could be cool. It could be devastating,
> killing all development. ..
That's why it would be open, do people can optionally use and customise the tools to their liken. When I say open. I don't mean under licensed where what your customisation code goes back into the open code base, only what you volunteer to put there.

> There are IMHO really good things in ANS. I think the concept of "wordsets" fits a modular language
> like Forth very well. I also liked the CATCH/THROW concept (and implementation). But including
> double words in the core, outside the DOUBLE wordset? Lacking PLACE and +PLACE? The horrible
> C-isms like the FILE wordset? I don't think so..

How did we get onto wordsets. Was it me suggesting a mechanism to include colorforth language into ANS, by making a sort of word set mechanism and implementing it there?

>
> Hans Bezemer
>
> Hans Bezemer

Thanks Hans.

Who was Graham you mentioned above, I don't think I mentioned somebody. Y that name?

Thanks again.

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 4:55:11 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> Most people rely on crutches, because they don't know what a fruitful discussion is.
Basically, it is in the "eye of the beholder". But if you can convince someone you are right -
that's a win, because they learned something. If you get defeated and learned something,
that's your win.

There is not much more to it. If you remain convinced of your point - for whatever reason -
you got nothing from it. If you failed to convince me - that's your loss as well. That's not
fruitful in my definition.

> No, they are, they are abstractions that don't mirror how we do things as closely, as basic.
> It requires some mental gymnastics, and I thought ANS, was still big?
Rules - however unnatural - can be followed by a disciplined mind. The first one who told
me the "3 rules of Forth" make me understand the language much more profoundly. I don't
think I could have ventured into 4tH without applying them. As a matter of fact, you still see
them in the source code of 4tH.

> That's why it would be open, do people can optionally use and customise the tools to their
> liken. When I say open. I don't mean under licensed where what your customisation code
> goes back into the open code base, only what you volunteer to put there.
You're not listening. "I don't care whether you're a good programmer. You're hired to do
Service Management. It's not your job".

> Who was Graham you mentioned above, I don't think I mentioned somebody. Y that name?
Paul Graham, the one who designed the "Grahams triangle of disagreement".
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

I can't seem to get it across. Your opinion means NOTHING without arguments to support it.
If those are lacking - what is there to learn? Yeah, you think it's negative. You think it's tone.
But there are close to 8 billion people on this world. What makes your particular opinion so
relevant?

I'll tell you. Arguments. If those are lacking, what is it you actually have to tell?

Thanks for willing to go into the subject matter anyways ;-)

Hans Bezemer

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 12:50:56 PM UTC+2, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 4:55:11 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
BTW, if you don't know what "the 3 rules of Forth" are, here they are from line 30-39:
https://sourceforge.net/p/forth-4th/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/4th.src/apps/basic/tinyrpn.bas#l30

HB

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:50:56 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 4:55:11 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > Most people rely on crutches, because they don't know what a fruitful discussion is.
> Basically, it is in the "eye of the beholder". But if you can convince someone you are right -
> that's a win, because they learned something. If you get defeated and learned something,
> that's your win.
>
> There is not much more to it. If you remain convinced of your point - for whatever reason -
> you got nothing from it. If you failed to convince me - that's your loss as well. That's not
> fruitful in my definition.

If you don't listen, but rely on others to validate missing the point..

> > No, they are, they are abstractions that don't mirror how we do things as closely, as basic.
> > It requires some mental gymnastics, and I thought ANS, was still big?
> Rules - however unnatural - can be followed by a disciplined mind.

That was a point, in the general public, there are not many of those in programming, it's also a struggle.
...

> > Who was Graham you mentioned above, I don't think I mentioned somebody. Y that name?
> Paul Graham, the one who designed the "Grahams triangle of disagreement".
> http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
>
> I can't seem to get it across. Your opinion means NOTHING without arguments to support it.

Your opinion means nothing if you can't see the evidence that contradicts it.

> If those are lacking - what is there to learn? Yeah, you think it's negative. You think it's tone.
> But there are close to 8 billion people on this world. What makes your particular opinion so
> relevant?

Good judgement, rather than a page of other people's judgement misapplied. Hitting with the crutch to avoid the issue brought up.

>
> I'll tell you. Arguments. If those are lacking, what is it you actually have to tell?

I can not remember, are all this wandering, except tone and negativity, which were covered somewhat.

Don't be so respectful of others published opinions, rather than contemplate the opinions of those In front of you, independently, that is a sure way to eventually miss the point of what is happening right in front of you. Unfortunately for you, you should probably listen to the person here more than Graham.

>
> Thanks

Thanks.

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 2:14:15 PM UTC+1, Howerd wrote:
> Am 08/04/2022 um 10:10 schrieb Paul Rubin:
> > dxforth <dxf...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> Few of us are trained or employed as technical writers but find
> >> ourselves having to document. The main criteria being it can be
> >> understood by our peers.
> >
> > RMS told me how he writes documentation. I don't follow the method
> > exactly, but keep something like it in mind, and I find that it helps.
> >
> > Basically he writes a sentence of documentation, then sits back and
> > re-reads it, and asks himself what the next thing is that the user will
> > want to know after reading that sentence. That tells him what sentence
> > to write next. Repeat until all topics for the document are covered.
> >
> > Then, print out the resulting document and circulate it to a few people
> > for comments. Implement the suggestions and circulate again. Two or so
> > iterations of that is usually enough to get a serviceable document.
> Hi Paul,
>
> I feel I should know who RMS is, but I don't, his suggestions look good
> though.
>

RMS == Richard (M) Stallman

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:24:47 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> If you don't listen, but rely on others to validate missing the point..
I don't rely on "others", I rely on widely accepted rules and principles. Some centuries old.

> Good judgement, rather than a page of other people's judgement misapplied. Hitting
> with the crutch to avoid the issue brought up.
Says who. By which principles? Without that, you're just adding opinion to opinion.
Unfounded on unfounded.

> I can not remember, are all this wandering, except tone and negativity, which were covered somewhat.
Well, that one was dismissed - not only by Graham, by by logic principles itself.
That bullet has been fired, missed, find yourself another one.

> Don't be so respectful of others published opinions, rather than contemplate the opinions of those
> In front of you, independently, that is a sure way to eventually miss the point of what is happening
> right in front of you. Unfortunately for you, you should probably listen to the person here more
> than Graham.
Why? There were no arguments there. As a matter of fact, he didn't even ask me to elaborate. I mean,
basically all I said, everything was a bit "thin". Instead, he tried a "thought terminating cliche"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 - if you don't apply these standards
yourself, your argument is NULL and VOID.

Bad call - I do. Even his "thought terminating cliche" goes up in smoke. Stupid move.

And that is all to it. I LITERALLY play by the rules - if you don't, there is not much common ground.

Hans Bezemer

On 15/04/2022 01:32, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:24:47 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
>> If you don't listen, but rely on others to validate missing the point..
> I don't rely on "others", I rely on widely accepted rules and principles. Some centuries old.
>
>> Good judgement, rather than a page of other people's judgement misapplied. Hitting
>> with the crutch to avoid the issue brought up.
> Says who. By which principles? Without that, you're just adding opinion to opinion.
> Unfounded on unfounded.
>
>> I can not remember, are all this wandering, except tone and negativity, which were covered somewhat.
> Well, that one was dismissed - not only by Graham, by by logic principles itself.
> That bullet has been fired, missed, find yourself another one.
>
>> Don't be so respectful of others published opinions, rather than contemplate the opinions of those
>> In front of you, independently, that is a sure way to eventually miss the point of what is happening
>> right in front of you. Unfortunately for you, you should probably listen to the person here more
>> than Graham.
> Why? There were no arguments there. As a matter of fact, he didn't even ask me to elaborate. I mean,
> basically all I said, everything was a bit "thin". Instead, he tried a "thought terminating cliche"
> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 - if you don't apply these standards
> yourself, your argument is NULL and VOID.
>
> Bad call - I do. Even his "thought terminating cliche" goes up in smoke. Stupid move.
>
> And that is all to it. I LITERALLY play by the rules - if you don't, there is not much common ground.

Not sure there is much common ground - just folks making rules and offering inducements
as to why one should follow them. Those who fail to respond in the desired manner are
labelled 'uncooperative' or 'negative'.

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 1:32:49 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:24:47 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > If you don't listen, but rely on others to validate missing the point..
> I don't rely on "others", I rely on widely accepted rules and principles. Some centuries old.

Others!

> > Good judgement, rather than a page of other people's judgement misapplied. Hitting
> > with the crutch to avoid the issue brought up.
> Says who. By which principles? Without that, you're just adding opinion to opinion.
> Unfounded on unfounded.
> > I can not remember, are all this wandering, except tone and negativity, which were covered somewhat.
> Well, that one was dismissed - not only by Graham, by by logic principles itself.

Never mind. When truth becomes lies, and lies about truth become truth.

> That bullet has been fired, missed, find yourself another one.

I thought you were doing that one. You have not really proven anything, just made misassertions. It's really been your interpretation that's been the issue, where you are faultering. The original discussion on how you stress others finished a while back. I don't have much of an issue, I know that after the vaccine my brain is progressively becoming parallelisef, so I can't go through all this stuff with you let I normally world with people, but my logic has been pretty good, and not with imaginary mistakes. The issue with rules and systems, is they are often mistaken and don't go deep enough to be objectively true and pure. Hence, when somebody depends on these opinions of others, and makes false assertions about good logic, something's wring somewhere in that tool chain, wouldn't you agree? As I can't even remember things, and coming here to talk, got confused opened the wring app, and started on YouTube, I'm not in a fit state to get into it about past things said. But, consider others. It's not good to discourage people doing good work for free. Look what I do, encourage you in your work. I could probably find things in it to discourage you about, bit dim.g that only means you are likely to have less people wanting to try to do these things for the community in the future.

> > Don't be so respectful of others published opinions, rather than contemplate the opinions of those
> > In front of you, independently, that is a sure way to eventually miss the point of what is happening
> > right in front of you. Unfortunately for you, you should probably listen to the person here more
> > than Graham.
> Why? There were no arguments there. As a matter of fact, he didn't even ask me to elaborate. I mean,

I meant me, about addressing people. I'm not the best myself, but I know that and try. And unfortunately normally attract others who don't try. And try in reverse. A lot of these generalisations, are not really about you. but about the general trend in some things.

> basically all I said, everything was a bit "thin". Instead, he tried a "thought terminating cliche"
> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 - if you don't apply these standards
> yourself, your argument is NULL and VOID.

Nope. You just keep picking up the wrong argument then. I say one thing. You go on about something else, I bring it back on point, you talk about somethimg else I have to address, and my argument is the one null and void?
>
> Bad call - I do. Even his "thought terminating cliche" goes up in smoke. Stupid move.
>
> And that is all to it. I LITERALLY play by the rules - if you don't, there is not much common ground.

You don't know the more advanced rules. You are just a follower of flawed people, and I thought I sounded like I'm in denial while I'm too sick to debate this, but what you just wrote, is a puff of smoke. If you were more aware, you would have worked out what I was saying, but you can't. Please, enough. At least you are more ethical and relevant than another person that comes here and gets into it, and I actually do appreciate that. But, I'm in no condition to cross your t's and for your i's at the moment. Normally, I could go through the rule system you are relying on and pick it apart logically (presuming it's not a misapplication of the rules). I find flaws in such things, as that's my level, to write such things and, in the past, do it much better. My description on logic and reasoning, is rather convoluted, as it is in real life. As what might look right at the start (like irrelevant misconceived rules) looks wring after further consideration, and the process of reconsidering based on further analysis and evidence goes on until you reach a final solution. That conclusion, might be on some different way, the first thing you thought actually turns out right. If you are good at it, you can do it on the fly even in seconds. All the steps inbetween the first thing you thought as a conclusion, and your eventual destination, wherever that may be, is like the more advanced rules. It requires mental flexibility, not tripping out on a simplistic mechanistic rules based order. There is a reason that the legal judgement system is so big, there are just so many ways to do things, and so many exceptions. The mechanistic rules based thinking of the technically librarian like class, is a major mental deficiency. I know, I have it, and used to think more like that, until I realised just how wrong I was, and changed to a much more productive firm of thinking able to handle newer much more complex and intricately interacting situations. It's like tonight, I went with a friend and her daughter to a restaurant, and the young lady, somewhere between 12 and 15 maybe go5 confused about the change, and it took a while, until I opened my mouth and says the amount and the change. My friend got delayed too, but noticed she undercharged another group, and before I could say something to stop her. She then says to the girl that she under charged before and they should pay the balance, in front of the other table of people. I was a bit shocked, she would not have done that before the vaccine them covid. I explained to her outside, that she is only.lesrnimh, that could be her first night, and doing that (that way) might ruin her confidence and cause her to give up. That it was her bosses place to speak to her. I found it inconvenient myself, but it was malice intended and I don't want to wreck her job. Next week she could be fine. The thing is that the girl was important, it was only the start, and there could be opportunity for it all to be good, rather than making her look bad in public over honest mistakes on her first night. That's more logical, then what my friend was lining up, which look more clinically rules based. But, the more important rule was to give her fair time, to over come the small things at her start, and not shame her. More advanced rules. When you look t it that way. It makes more sense. It's not a program instruction which has only one meaning and range of actions, it's a wider range of things.

>
> Hans Bezemer