Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: X3J14 Goals
Message-ID: <2249.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 20 Jan 91 15:25:27 GMT
Organization: (n.) to be organized.  But that's not important right now.
Lines: 44

Category 10,  Topic 39
Message 16        Fri Jan 18, 1991
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 21:08 EST
 
I'm beginning to wonder how much of this material I should save up for my
upcoming RTC....but I should keep the discussion flowing:

a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) writes:
 > I was also at one meeting.... Just because everyone didn't agree
 > with your arguments doesn't mean that you weren't listened to.

Much of what didn't get listened to were proposals from others which I hand-
carried to Detroit, but which I couldn't argue for.  Comments of the type "oh,
another proposal from so-and-so" (spoken with disdain), or "we don't need to
raise this again" (before reading the arguments) do not encourage me.  My one
shame from the Detroit meeting is that I tacitly allowed this treatment of
these proposals to proceed.  I am deeply ashamed that I did not protest this
at the time -- I feel I have done a disservice to my fellow Ontario Forthers,
who went to a lot of trouble to send those proposals with me.

As for my own proposals, on at least two occasions an attempt was made to kill
a proposal without any consideration at all, based on matters of form or
legalistic technicalities.  This seems to be an acceptable "tactic" during TC
deliberations.  To give credit where credit is due, a few TC members protested
this action, and my proposals were heard.

But it frightens me to contemplate what takes place when I (and other
submitters) aren't there to watch.  It's a moot question whether anyone agrees
with the arguments, when the TC evades listening to the arguments.

> If you feel very strongly about changing some part of the standard,
 > dig up enough proof to support your argument...

One of my major discoveries from attending a TC meeting is that there are NO
objective standards of "proof."  The BASIS is totally, 100%, SUBJECTIVE, a
reflection of the likes and dislikes of the TC members.  How can I "prove" to
you (or anyone) that liver tastes good and tomatoes taste bad?

- Brad
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You cannot Reply to the author
using email.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp