On Feb 9, 5:58 pm, Slobodan Blazeski
> As we all know common lisp doesn't have it's own group but instead
> uses generic comp.lang.lisp that belongs to the whole family of lisp
> languages. This brings a lot of problems reagarding a tone and
> discussion in comp.lang.lisp, confusing new users unaccustomed to
> generality of comp.lang.lisp and its mostly common lisp population.It
> also fuels flame wars between common lispers and users of the other
> dialects. The latest example is thread What kind of Lisp should I
> learn if I want to start programing with Lisp?
> I propose a creation of new usenet group comp.lang.common-lisp aimed
> at discussion for common lisp only, while comp.lang.lisp should be
> left as general purpose group.
> Considering the guidelines for creating new usenet grouphttp://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/
> AFTER the waiting period, and if there were no serious objections
> that might invalidate the vote, and if 100 more valid YES/create
> votes are received than NO/don't create AND at least 2/3 of the
> total number of valid votes received are in favor of creation, a
> newgroup control message may be sent out. If the 100 vote margin
> or 2/3 percentage is not met, the group should not be created.
> For creation of new newsgroup we need at least 100 more Yes votes
> than No votes, and 2/3 of all votes to be in favour of creating the
> new newsgroup. If you are interested in creating a new usenet group
> dedicated to common lisp please post in this thread about your
> approval or disapproval. If there is at least 100 interested people
> we will start the procedure of creating the new newsgroup
> Slobodan Blazeski
On Feb 10, 4:34 am, Aatu Koskensilta
> Slobodan Blazeski
> > For creation of new newsgroup we need at least 100 more Yes votes
> > than No votes, and 2/3 of all votes to be in favour of creating the
> > new newsgroup. If you are interested in creating a new usenet group
> > dedicated to common lisp please post in this thread about your
> > approval or disapproval. If there is at least 100 interested people
> > we will start the procedure of creating the new newsgroup
> > comp.lang.common-lisp
> The document you quote is out of date. For the current procedure, see
> (I have added news.groups to the newsgroups line.)
I vote Yes!
let me describe my feelings on this.
Initially, i just LOL'd. I didn't believe some common lisper actually would propose this, because my gut feelings from how i've observed online forum social groups (including newsgroup) in the past 10 years, made me think that the newly created comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp would be pretty much empty, while comp.lang.lisp would remain active as it is. Thus, on the political front, when i see some Common Lisping fanatics throwing their fucking sneering remarks about emacs lisp or NewLisp, i can tell them fuckheads to go home, with a sword of righteousness!
i don't quite know how comp.lang.scheme got created (it was before my time in newsgroup), but i sure am personally familiar, how Common Lisping fuckheads always sneer, jibe, fuck the Scheme Language and Scheme lisp people, especially around 1998-2002. ('was when Nagg'em is still around, but it's not just him. Kent Pitman is among the major abuser, but wearing a mask)
But then, some lingering love for human animal in me says no, that i should just vote No. In the general aspect of ethology of human animals, such schism, division, faction creation, are not good for the whole. (some, such as the common lisper named viper-2 aka agt here, has expressed similar sentiment in this thread, for example.)
and again, there's not really much certainty what would happen if comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp is created. Maybe, as some say, most traffic will move there (san or sans trolls), but i seriously doubt it... (you have my assurance here, that if comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp is created, i will not put a foot on it, unless there are *explicit* written invitation or begging, or that i actually started to code in Common Lisp (i have no such plan whatsoever in the next few years).)
overall, the whole shebang is quite silly. You see these lonely males, old, retired, or student, who's got nothing to do all day but drivel and piss fight among their peers, with deadpan faces writ with morality, thinking that newsgroup is still some important conduit of communication for scientists and professionals, whereas in reality it is more like a staged wrestling platform of themselfs. (certain guy named namekuseijin expressed similar sentiment recently in another thread, and the in-house troll Kenneth Tilton certainly espouses this school of thought)
So, i wasn't much decided. I think i'd vote no. However, scanning thru this thread, it appears certain common lispers, namely at least the 2 Pascals (Costanza & Bourguignon), voted Yes. This made me thinking. Technically, this is a logical proposal. After all, its quite logical to have a newsgroup dedicated to a specialized lisp, just as there are comp.lang.lisp.franz, comp.lang.lisp.mcl, comp.lang.lisp.x, comp.lang.scheme.scsh,.lang.scheme.c. So, why not a comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp?
speaking of the 2 Pascals here... let me talk a bit about my impression of them. First of all, both of them are common lisp fanatics. However, their newsgroup demeanor are not bad. Sometimes, in some lisp criticism i made, they would say things that seem to me quite idiotic. But, they are not like some common lisp fanatics here, that are completely motherfucking idiotic, aggressive, or almost devoid of any merit (e.g. one who's name start with “T” and has “a” and “m” in it, one who's name start with D and has 3 letters and end in “n”, and few others). (in fact, i'd place the 2 Pascals's newsgroup persona to be higher than that of Kent Pitman) For another example, Rainer, George Neuner, and quite few others, are all regular, common lisp fanatics. The Rainer seems to me the most aggressive the way a gonad-strong socially-ignorant juvenile 15-years old male is. (but i think me & Rainer have come to certain semi-peaceful mutual understanding)
... sorry i digressed. Now back to the subject proper... so, i was thinking the proposal is not without a logical rationale. Thus i put forth yes above. But actually, i take it back. I yield my voting right to one Kenny Tilton, who, are connected with me thru a platonic friendship. It is my belief that Kenny'll do the Right Thing.