The Icon Bar: General: What measure is RISC OS news?
| |
What measure is RISC OS news? |
| |
This is a long thread. Click here to view the threaded list. |
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #114345, posted by swirlythingy at 10:44, 8/5/2010 |
Posts: 460
|
I am rather annoyed.
A couple of days ago, I posted a news item to riscos.info concerning this interview with Steve Furber in the New Scientist, which I reasoned would probably be of interest to the RISC OS community (especially after the interview he gave at ROUGOL last November, which was very popular), not all (or even most) of whom may read the magazine.
And, apparently, somebody (who refused to even identify themselves) has arbitrarily decided that it is not worthy of inclusion in today's main source of RISC OS news.
Why not, exactly?
I mean, it's not as if other stuff on that website couldn't be censored for exactly the same (or similar) reasons.
Now I'm wondering just how much news I've been missing... |
| |
 |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #114346, posted by filecore at 12:10, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114345 |
Posts: 3867
|
I mean, it's not as if other stuff on that website couldn't be censored for exactly the same (or similar) reasons. Well, since you forced me to trawl through several links to see what you were even complaining about, I can see their point - a post about something which is a potential candidate to have RISC OS actually ported to it (the author, Bhtooefr, if one of the Beagleboard enthusiasts) while your post is about somebody who used to be part of the RISC OS scene, but now isn't, doing something totally unrelated to RISC OS. Yes, it's a fine line, but you can see where they're coming from.
As for who your mystery lover might be, I dunno why it's anonymous but it's a very Naullsian comment. |
| |
|
| |
|
Eric Rucker |
Message #114347, posted by bhtooefr at 12:16, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114346 |
Member
Posts: 337
|
Pretty sure Chocky's the only one who even CAN make those edits - last time I tried to edit a new article (my OWN post, I typoed,) it failed, and I've even got admin privs there. |
| |
|
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #114348, posted by Phlamethrower at 12:24, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114347 |
 Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
And, apparently, somebody (who refused to even identify themselves) has arbitrarily decided that it is not worthy of inclusion in today's main source of RISC OS news. Looks like it's a slight usability failing of the wiki extension. If you look at your account's user: page then you can see that it's Chocky who left that comment.
http://www.riscos.info/index.php?title=User:Swirlythingy&action=history
[Edited by Phlamethrower at 12:27, 8/5/2010] |
| |
|
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #114349, posted by swirlythingy at 13:04, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114348 |
Posts: 460
|
Looks like it's a slight usability failing of the wiki extension. If you look at your account's user: page then you can see that it's Chocky who left that comment.
http://www.riscos.info/index.php?title=User:Swirlythingy&action=history Where did you find that? I couldn't! (And still can't.) |
| |
|
| |
|
Eric Rucker |
Message #114350, posted by bhtooefr at 13:10, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114349 |
Member
Posts: 337
|
He edited your user page, which displays as your forum profile.
Chocky - this is why you use ~~~~ |
| |
|
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #114351, posted by swirlythingy at 13:19, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114347 |
Posts: 460
|
Pretty sure Chocky's the only one who even CAN make those edits - last time I tried to edit a new article (my OWN post, I typoed,) it failed, and I've even got admin privs there. Judging by Chocky's profile, I think John Tytgat can probably do it as well, but I can't see why it shouldn't be the privilege of any administrator - in fact, isn't that what admin privs are for?
Another thing I didn't get is why he wrote it on my profile page, and not my discussion page. Isn't the profile page meant to have content generated by me written on it? (EDIT: Apparently there are two separate talk pages, one of which displays as the profile. As Jeffrey said, the forum extension seems to be pretty poorly integrated.)
Getting back on topic, I think that for admins there's a fine line between keeping debates and news friendly and on-topic, and being a control freak. Certainly a lot of the stuff Drobe used to post (like this) could be said to be only of circumstantial interest.
And like I said, this does also raise the issue of just how many times this has happened before, without anybody complaining.
[Edited by swirlythingy at 13:25, 8/5/2010] |
| |
|
| |
|
Eric Rucker |
Message #114352, posted by bhtooefr at 13:34, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114351 |
Member
Posts: 337
|
I do think the way it's handled currently, where a user can post directly to the front page, and it has to be deleted if it's deemed unimportant, isn't good.
I'd like to see a forum where people can post news items, and then threads can be moved to the front page's forum if they're deemed newsworthy.
[Edited by bhtooefr at 13:35, 8/5/2010] |
| |
|
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #114353, posted by filecore at 13:56, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114352 |
Posts: 3867
|
1) MediaWiki's default forum extension is utter pants
2) stop thinking in binary. There aren't "admin privs" and "no admin privs", you can set each and every aspect of privelege seperately in the config stuff, and create an infinite number of almost-identical-but-slightly-different admin accounts.
3) "deemed newsworthy" is the key point here - at the end of the day, it's still a private site, and accountable to nobody. You web 2.0 freetard types seem to keep forgetting that. Just because it's online, doesn't mean that it's right or sensible that anybody can do anything. Somebody has to take charge, take responsibility and make those calls, otherwise we'd be swamped with opinion pieces and rabid blogs. It's a guaranteed that somebody will take exception to something each time. Sour lemons.
OT: I'm glad I was right about it being Chocky, though. He does have a very distinctive style, which makes his comments fairly easy to spot. |
| |
|
| |
|
Eric Rucker |
Message #114354, posted by bhtooefr at 14:08, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114353 |
Member
Posts: 337
|
Well, there is an "Administrator" group, which I am a member of. 
I suspect it's only the "Bureaucrat" group, which I'm not a member of, that can do forum mod tasks, though. (There's groups specifically for forum mod, but Chocky could've modified the Bureaucrat group's abilities when installing the AWC forum.)
[Edited by bhtooefr at 14:09, 8/5/2010] |
| |
|
| |
|
Peter Naulls |
Message #114355, posted by pnaulls at 14:30, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114345 |
Member
Posts: 317
|
Now I'm wondering just how much news I've been missing...
Probably not much. After all, you'd expect major items to also appear on TIB/csa, yes?
Yes, I made a judgment call about it not being RISC OS news - the item itself said "it was almost RISC OS news", which suggests it shouldn't have been posted in the first place. Yes, I did leave a message, although the tie-in of the forums vs wiki isn't brilliant.
The focus of riscos.info is RISC OS news. An item Theo M. posted was borderline (by his agreement) being BBC-related, although I let that one stad. TIB has a much broader subject base, which it is welcome to, and would be silly for me to argue against.
For the record (and apart from items I've revised with the author's consent) I've only deleted on other item, which was an ARM/Apple thing the author noted was off-topic by the time I even saw it.
Yes, making decisions about what is and isn't news is always going to annoy someone. That's probably unavoidable - I suspect Chris W. has rather more to say on that topic.
Of course, Martin B. could have contacted me directly about this. Ho hum. |
| |
|
| |
|
Chris Williams |
Message #114356, posted by diodesign at 14:37, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114345 |
 The Opposition
Posts: 269
|
A couple of days ago, I posted a news item to riscos.info concerning this interview with Steve Furber in the New Scientist, which I reasoned would probably be of interest to the RISC OS community.
Somebody (who refused to even identify themselves) has arbitrarily decided that it is not worthy of inclusion in today's main source of RISC OS news. Why not, exactly? I have nothing to do editorially with riscos.info but as a paid-up hack, I'll tell you this: your submission wasn't used because it wasn't newsworthy enough for either the site's editor or one of his appointed assistants. And that's just the way it is: any editor who is willing to turn away material because it's not good enough is on the way to ensuring the publication's quality isn't trash.
Don't take it too hard, it happens. If someone sent you a patch for your backdrop chooser program that allowed it to edit the tags on MP3s, you'd probably reject it, right?
I'm sure Prof Furber has done and said a lot of things, most of them have very little to do with RISC OS. So random links to New Scientist isn't going to be newsworthy. If he made some quip about RISC OS or just anything relevant to riscos.info's readership, then you'd be closer to the money. You didn't have a RISC OS angle.
And just because riscos.info is wiki-based doesn't mean it's a complete free for all with no standards. I'm glad Peter (or his handful of admins) are making editorial judgements.
In the past I've turned away features for drobe or asked for a rethink because they've been so loosely related to RISC OS - and taken a gamble on some of them (one piece that springs immediately to mind was the one about using an online document converter with NetSurf seemed worthy because ROS users are finding themselves more and more incompatible with the world's latest file formats). I've knocked back stuff at work to reporters when they've tried to file stuff that has nothing to do with a title's readership.
Now I'm wondering just how much news I've been missing... This gem of an argument goes round and round a lot and it's ridiculous. There's censorship (which is A Bad Thing) and then there's applying editorial standards (which is A Good Thing). You go to a news outlet because you figure that news outlet's team have their heads screwed on and can give you the information you ought to get - but demanding they tell you /everything/ happening is ridiculous because then the producers of this content would be forced to swamp you with mostly irrelevant stuff and the quality would fall through the floor.
Would you sit down at a restaurant, note that it's not serving a particular meal that another place serves, and worry about all the other food you're missing out on? Or realise you went to an Italian place and figure it serves Italian and not Chinese? Of course, there's the argument that if a particular restaurant always provides what you like, you'll go back to them. You'll trust their quality. You can see the parallels here.
People go to riscos.info for RISC OS news, not anything and everything to do with semiconductors and ex-Acorn staff. I'm quietly told that riscos.info has only knocked back a handful of submissions. It's not full blown censorship, it's just that your link wasn't cool enough. Sorry 
[edited for typos, tsk]
C.
[Edited by diodesign at 14:42, 8/5/2010] |
| |
|
| |
|
Chris Williams |
Message #114357, posted by diodesign at 14:47, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114352 |
The Opposition
Posts: 269
|
I'd like to see a forum where people can post news items, and then threads can be moved to the front page's forum if they're deemed newsworthy. Well, yes, I agree but I understand Peter's decision to extend the wiki (which has worked well on riscos.info) to the news section. If there were more people with time to spare to admin the site, all news could be posted to a forum and then an admin could move good posts to the front page. That way everyone can see all news if they really want to or just the best posts - like indymedia. |
| |
|
| |
|
Eric Rucker |
Message #114361, posted by bhtooefr at 15:37, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114357 |
Member
Posts: 337
|
Although it's really just a forum, not a wiki, that everything's going into.
Only a Bureaucrat (I believe) can edit the forum posts, not just anyone, so it's hardly wiki format, other than that it uses MediaWiki markup.
And, my post was a suggestion.
[Edited by bhtooefr at 15:37, 8/5/2010] |
| |
|
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #114363, posted by swirlythingy at 16:16, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114355 |
Posts: 460
|
The focus of riscos.info is RISC OS news. An item Theo M. posted was borderline (by his agreement) being BBC-related, although I let that one stand. TIB has a much broader subject base, which it is welcome to, and would be silly for me to argue against. There are probably two separate categories we are talking about here - "RISC OS news" and "news of interest to the RISC OS community", of which my post fell into the latter. All other news sources past and present have a history of including both (some more so than others - only about one-third of Archive is directly relevant to RISC OS these days), and I made the reasonable assumption that your site, which, as you have previously remarked yourself, has assumed the mantle of the main RISC OS news source, would be no different. Evidently one or other of us has misunderstood the concept of a news source, a wiki, or both.
Yes, making decisions about what is and isn't news is always going to annoy someone. That's probably unavoidable - I suspect Chris W. has rather more to say on that topic. It would be less annoying if it were consistent.
Of course, Martin B. could have contacted me directly about this. Ho hum. Hmm, yes, see Eric's comment above concerning use of ~~~~. |
| |
|
| |
|
Peter Naulls |
Message #114364, posted by pnaulls at 16:39, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114363 |
Member
Posts: 317
|
There are probably two separate categories we are talking about here - "RISC OS news" and "news of interest to the RISC OS community", of which my post fell into the latter. All other news sources past and present have a history of including both (some more so than others - only about one-third of Archive is directly relevant to RISC OS these days), and I made the reasonable assumption that your site, which, as you have previously remarked yourself, has assumed the mantle of the main RISC OS news source, would be no different. Evidently one or other of us has misunderstood the concept of a news source, a wiki, or both.
Note how many assumptions you've made. None of them wrong or bad, but assumptions still. Everyone has a different idea of what's "news", and I can name plenty of failings with the current setup. Certainly the use of forums as news items was always a compromise of features vs integration. TIB's setup really is a lot better, but of course it isn't a wiki.
If you think you can do better, then you're welcome to write better/extensive guidelines as to what's suitable, or indeed help manage such postings yourself.
It would be less annoying if it were consistent.
I believe it is consistent as it can be without putting a lot more effort in myself. Feel free to disagree, but getting annoyed/upset/whatever isn't going to help anyone.
Or you can post items elsewhere - MyRISCOS is looking pretty lonely these days ;-) |
| |
|
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #114365, posted by swirlythingy at 17:02, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114356 |
Posts: 460
|
I have nothing to do editorially with riscos.info but as a paid-up hack, I'll tell you this: your submission wasn't used because it wasn't newsworthy enough for either the site's editor or one of his appointed assistants. And that's just the way it is: any editor who is willing to turn away material because it's not good enough is on the way to ensuring the publication's quality isn't trash. Indeed, for a professional paid-for publication, editors have a duty to ensure that it reflects their views and what his readers are likely to be willing to pay for. But I think you're confusing the, for want of a better term, business models. A story which readers may not find interesting (and personally I think that Peter is probably mistaken, or at least needlessly subjective, in believing that people who read riscos.info would be uninterested in such an article, particularly as the professor in question spoke on the same subject at a RISC OS user group meeting a few months ago) may be easily ignored. Nobody's forcing you to click the links, and you can hardly claim they were a waste of money and/or paper either. For what it's worth, I find a lot of the stories in RISC OS-oriented magazines and websites uninteresting, but I don't write complaints to the editors about each one.
You have a choice between running a professional news site, or administrating a spare-time collaborative one. Standards of one cannot be applied to the other.
Don't take it too hard, it happens. If someone sent you a patch for your backdrop chooser program that allowed it to edit the tags on MP3s, you'd probably reject it, right? (1) Said program is not released under any pretense of accepting submissions from anyone, or being a collaborative project (as opposed to having one guy sitting at the top making all the decisions) in any way.
(2) Said program is licensed under the GPLv3, which, as I'm sure you're aware, means that if someone decided to release a patched version with MP3-editing capability, there wouldn't be much I could do to stop them. An edit to my software does not necessarily have to gain my approval unless the editor insists on it becoming a part of the main distribution.
(3) Should anyone then want a combined backdrop chooser and MP3 tag editor, they could then go and download one without anybody complaining that they weren't the right sort of user.
(4) Said program has a far narrower remit than "RISC OS News".
I'm sure Prof Furber has done and said a lot of things, most of them have very little to do with RISC OS. So random links to New Scientist isn't going to be newsworthy. If he made some quip about RISC OS or just anything relevant to riscos.info's readership, then you'd be closer to the money. You didn't have a RISC OS angle. Naturally, I can't prove it because it's been deleted, but I did have a RISC OS angle (which was, in fact, the inspiration for posting the item in the first place), in which I drew attention to the paragraphs in the article which gave a hack's view of the early history of the ARM chip, which specifically mentioned (although not by name) the Archimedes.
And just because riscos.info is wiki-based doesn't mean it's a complete free for all with no standards. I'm glad Peter (or his handful of admins) are making editorial judgements. As mentioned previously, there's a fine line between 'standards' and 'control freakery'.
(snipped - see first reply above)
People go to riscos.info for RISC OS news, not anything and everything to do with semiconductors and ex-Acorn staff. I'm quietly told that riscos.info has only knocked back a handful of submissions. It's not full blown censorship, it's just that your link wasn't cool enough. Sorry Perhaps a definition of 'cool' from Mr. Naulls would be helpful here. As I mentioned in my reply to him, riscos.info obviously does not operate on the same standards as those of other news sites, and it would be nice to know exactly where the line should be drawn. I could have posted the item in the Icon Bar forums, but I made a conscious decision to submit it to riscos.info on the basis that I figured it would have been of interest to past or present RISC OS users who didn't take such a proactive role in the community - and Peter, apparently, made a conscious decision that it would not. It's his site, and I accept that, when push comes to shove, his baseless opinion trumps mine, but it does raise questions over the point of running a community-driven news portal if borderline cases can be arbitrarily deleted without warning on the basis of somebody's opinion of 'relevance'.
100th post, woo!  |
| |
|
| |
|
Andrew Poole |
Message #114366, posted by andypoole at 17:02, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114364 |
Posts: 5558
|
Or you can post items elsewhere - MyRISCOS is looking pretty lonely these days ;-) MyRISCOS has looked lonely since it was first launched  |
| |
|
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #114368, posted by Stoppers at 17:16, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114365 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
I drew attention to the paragraphs in the article which gave a hack's view of the early history of the ARM chip, which specifically mentioned (although not by name) the Archimedes. You mean "Although the chip was made for a follow-up computer that flopped"?  |
| |
|
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #114369, posted by swirlythingy at 17:21, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114368 |
Posts: 460
|
I drew attention to the paragraphs in the article which gave a hack's view of the early history of the ARM chip, which specifically mentioned (although not by name) the Archimedes. You mean "Although the chip was made for a follow-up computer that flopped"?
Which is probably more honestly than most of us would put it. |
| |
|
| |
|
Chris Williams |
Message #114370, posted by diodesign at 17:43, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114365 |
The Opposition
Posts: 269
|
Any editor who is willing to turn away material because it's not good enough is on the way to ensuring the publication's quality isn't trash. Indeed, for a professional paid-for publication... But I think you're confusing the, for want of a better term, business models.
Disagree. Fundamental principles like accuracy, balance and having a clear understanding of what you're supposed to be covering should be upheld if you're a blog, free-to-read online-only, paid-for print etc.
Nobody's forcing you to click the links And riscos.info isn't forced to accept your submission.
If someone sent you a patch for your backdrop chooser program that allowed it to edit the tags on MP3s, you'd probably reject it, right? (1) Said program is not released under any pretense of accepting submissions from anyone
Uh well, surely you get my point, though? Take /someone/ who has written a backdrop chooser program where the source is available and patches are welcome, and they get a patch for something they deem isn't relevant - they're not obliged to accept the patch. Right? If you can't see that then this discussion is going to get even more tedious.
You didn't have a RISC OS angle. I did have a RISC OS angle
So why did you write that it was 'almost' RISC OS news?
As mentioned previously, there's a fine line between 'standards' and 'control freakery'. Demanding that your link is used when the site's owner declines is control freakery.
I figured it would have been of interest to past or present RISC OS users who didn't take such a proactive role in the community - and Peter, apparently, made a conscious decision that it would not. It's his site, and I accept that You appear to be struggling with this acceptance.
His baseless opinion trumps mine, but it does raise questions over the point of running a community-driven news portal if borderline cases can be arbitrarily deleted without warning on the basis of somebody's opinion of 'relevance'. So in summary: you submitted something mildly irrelevant to a website that isn't yours, and the owner removed it. There was even a note to explain why. You cannot win this argument.
If you don't like the decision, fine, but you should really get over it. If this means it's put you off submitting to riscos.info then that's not really your problem. There are greater injustices in life. |
| |
|
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #114371, posted by filecore at 17:49, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114370 |
Posts: 3867
|
What makes me laugh - here, and on CSA - is that arguments of this sort so often degenerate into the uninteresting (and quite often irrelevant) minuitae of things like licenses, community-sourced content, the nature of a wiki (even if it's only the underlying technology powering the site, not the actual nature of the site) and the underlying assumption that if it's not Open, it's Evil. This is not some utopian socialist dream where things are decided by the group mind; it's one guy's news site and that guy, and his appointed assistants, get to decide what's published and what isn't. This is no different from the model that's prevailed for thousands of years. Your freetarded dreams of openness and communal acceptance don't apply. As a wise man once wrote, just a couple of posts back, "It's his site". End of story. |
| |
|
| |
|
Eric Rucker |
Message #114372, posted by bhtooefr at 18:12, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114365 |
Member
Posts: 337
|
(2) Said program is licensed under the GPLv3, which, as I'm sure you're aware, means that if someone decided to release a patched version with MP3-editing capability, there wouldn't be much I could do to stop them. An edit to my software does not necessarily have to gain my approval unless the editor insists on it becoming a part of the main distribution.
(3) Should anyone then want a combined backdrop chooser and MP3 tag editor, they could then go and download one without anybody complaining that they weren't the right sort of user.
(4) Said program has a far narrower remit than "RISC OS News". Then launch your own RISC OS news site based on riscos.info's content, but with your content added. riscos.info's content is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5, so you just have to say who wrote it. |
| |
|
| |
|
Peter Naulls |
Message #114373, posted by pnaulls at 18:32, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114372 |
Member
Posts: 317
|
Then launch your own RISC OS news site based on riscos.info's content, but with your content added. riscos.info's content is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5, so you just have to say who wrote it.
There's obviously lots I could say here, but it would be silly. There are two final ironies here, and I'll leave this thread alone (unless someone directs some questions at me):
1. If MB had put the amount of effort into a more RO-oriented news story that he's put into this thread, we wouldn't have this situation at all, and there'd have been no reason to remove it.
2. MB's backdrop changer was quite deliberately enhanced to add features that were in one that was co-authored by myself. (I don't have any objection to that, it's just an observation)
Edit - sorry, MB vs CB.
[Edited by pnaulls at 18:35, 8/5/2010] |
| |
|
| |
|
Eric Rucker |
Message #114374, posted by bhtooefr at 19:31, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114373 |
Member
Posts: 337
|
Oh, I know, I was just turning his argument back around on itself. |
| |
|
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #114375, posted by swirlythingy at 19:32, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114370 |
Posts: 460
|
Disagree. Fundamental principles like accuracy, balance and having a clear understanding of what you're supposed to be covering should be upheld if you're a blog, free-to-read online-only, paid-for print etc. Hrm? You appear to be agreeing.
Nobody's forcing you to click the links And riscos.info isn't forced to accept your submission.
Indeed not, but if we were to take that statement to its logical extreme then it begins to defy the point of a wiki-based (well, forum-based) news site.
(snip more unpleasantness)
You appear to be misunderstanding my point. I have never denied Peter's right to regulate his content however he likes. I am merely observing that in this case I believe he made a misjudgement, and griping about the fact he was not initially open and honest about doing so. Calm down, Chris, this ain't csa.misc.
You didn't have a RISC OS angle. I did have a RISC OS angle
So why did you write that it was 'almost' RISC OS news?
I thought you were the headline writer around here...
As mentioned previously, there's a fine line between 'standards' and 'control freakery'. Demanding that your link is used when the site's owner declines is control freakery.
'Demanding'? Complaining, maybe. As above: calm down. Think nice thoughts about fluffy sheep and sleeping kittens, and let's have a mature and adult discussion without resorting to personal belittlement.
I figured it would have been of interest to past or present RISC OS users who didn't take such a proactive role in the community - and Peter, apparently, made a conscious decision that it would not. It's his site, and I accept that You appear to be struggling with this acceptance.
(snip yet more unpleasantness)
Just because one does not question the truth of something does not mean one may necessarily be happy about it. The Tories won in my constituency last night, incidentally. I'm not happy about that, either, but I can hardly 'demand' of the Electoral Comission that they declare the Lib Dems the winner instead. Won't stop me complaining about it, though.
I think you're the one overreacting, here. |
| |
|
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #114376, posted by swirlythingy at 19:37, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114374 |
Posts: 460
|
Oh, I know, I was just turning his argument back around on itself. I can appreciate your point, but I think everyone's overestimating the importance I place on the story in question. It was hardly a piece of groundbreaking new hardware news, just a piece of trivia which I thought people might find interesting, and which I consider it slightly unreasonable to delete without warning.
All I wanted was a place to gripe, and Jason and Chris have hijacked the thread and tried to turn it into a good ol' fashioned Usenet flamewar. It feels just like the old days. |
| |
|
| |
|
Andrew Rawnsley |
Message #114377, posted by arawnsley at 22:22, 8/5/2010, in reply to message #114345 |
R-Comp chap
Posts: 594
|
Off topic slightly, but relevant to Martin's original post, this month's PC Pro has interview segments with Chris Curry, Steve Furber, Herman Hauser etc. That said, it wasn't overly insightful and didn't touch on RISC OS / Arch era. |
| |
|
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #114380, posted by filecore at 08:13, 9/5/2010, in reply to message #114376 |
Posts: 3867
|
All I wanted was a place to gripe, and Jason and Chris have hijacked the thread and tried to turn it into a good ol' fashioned Usenet flamewar. You don't see the irony, do you? If you complain that somebody running a wiki-based site doesn't accept your submission, then you have no right to get upset when your grumble posted to a public forum attracts replies. You can't have it both ways. |
| |
|
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #114382, posted by swirlythingy at 11:23, 9/5/2010, in reply to message #114380 |
Posts: 460
|
You don't see the irony, do you? If you complain that somebody running a wiki-based site doesn't accept your submission, then you have no right to get upset when your grumble posted to a public forum attracts replies. You can't have it both ways. ...What?
I'm sorry, is this like one of those logic puzzles in the tabloid game pages, where the question is "What is the connection between these two statements"? I never was any good at those. |
| |
|
| |
| Pages (2): 1
> >|
|
The Icon Bar: General: What measure is RISC OS news? |
|
