Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond!diamond
From: diamond@diamond.csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Eiffel vs. C++
Message-ID: <10392@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET>
Date: 19 Jun 89 06:28:42 GMT
References: <2689@ssc-vax.UUCP> <151@eiffel.UUCP> <9438@alice.UUCP> <5027@wiley.UUCP> <1265@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@csl.sony.JUNET
Reply-To: diamond@csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 50

In article <9438@alice.UUCP> bs@alice.UUCP (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes:

>>>Bertrand Meyer, president of Interactive Software Engineering, the
>>>supplier of Eiffel, is correct on one point:  I did refuse to appear on
>>>a panel with him.  My reasons are personal.  He has insulted my friends

In article <5027@wiley.UUCP> simpson@poseidon.UUCP (Scott Simpson) writes:

>>This is censorship and this sucks.

>>I would have kicked you [Stroustrup] off the panel.

In article <1265@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdaniel@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (Tim McDaniel) writes:

>What nonsense!  Too often, people think "censorship" means "the
>organizers/owners didn't let me give my point of view".  Censorship
>involves a GOVERNMENT official who has the power to PENALIZE speech
>(etc.).  The capitalized words are the important ones.

>it's OOPSLA's show, and they have the final right to say who will speak and how.

Time to poll the dictionaries on the precise meaning of "censorship" eh?
Maybe we need an approximate synonym to describe what is happening.  We
aren't arguing semantics here because we all agree on what happened; but
we're arguing the syntax of how to designate it.  Anyway...

Surely there are more people besides Bjarne Stroustrup who, having been
offended by Bertrand Meyer's personality, would opt to kick themselves
off a panel.  They should be permitted to kick themselves off a panel.

No one else should do the kicking.  No one should have kicked Bertrand
Meyer off the panel either.  A professional, non-profit (tax assisted,
indirectly), educationally oriented institution proposed a technical
discussion for the edification of all.  The proposed panelists all have
some technical contributions and could (potentially) participate without
degenerating into egotism or mudslinging.  OOPSLA should not have kicked
anyone off the panel *a priori*.  When a participant exceeds the bounds
of fair technical debate, it would be appropriate to remove him or her
at that time.  Each participant can decide whether, in order to avoid
such embarrassment, to perhaps not participate.

There are many reasons why possible participants might choose to exclude
themselves.  Unfortunately OOPSLA has chosen to take sides, display
prejudice, and tar itself.

--
Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.jp@relay.cs.net)
 The above opinions are claimed by your machine's init process (pid 1), after
 being disowned and orphaned.  However, if you see this at Waterloo, Stanford,
 or Anterior, then their administrators must have approved of these opinions.