Re: Topicality: Who really cares? (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###)

On 20/05/2024 19:45, Kenny McCormack wrote:

In article <v2fujf$v0$1@news.muc.de>, Alan Mackenzie  <acm@muc.de> wrote:
...

Rest of post deleted, because it is wrong on so many levels, starting with
the legal opinions expressed therein.  Do not have time to go through it
point-by-point, but clearly, do not rely on this guy for legal (or any
other kind of) advice.

>
One thing David got right is that allegations of criminal activity do not
belong in either of the two newsgroups cross-posted to.  They're
off-topic, whatever else they may be.

 That much I will agree with you on, but I think the topicality ship has
sailed.  It's kind of a lost cause arguing about it, and, for that matter,
I don't really think it is now (if it ever was) the magic bullet that those
who hurl it think it is.
 

Every thread olcott has started or cross-posted in c.l.c and c.l.c++ has been off-topic for those groups, and lead to massive and mostly moronic and repetitive threads.  I agree that trying to stop these "what is the definition of H?" pantomime sub-threads is a lost cause.
But that is not what I was arguing against.

Ever since Keith the Enforcer stopped worrying about it, it has pretty much
ceased to be an issue in this NG.
 

Some regulars in c.l.c. (and neighbouring c.l.c++) are happy with a wider range of topics, some want it more focused.  Personally, I think it's better to have a bit more variety and some off-topic discussions than for the group to be too empty.  But some types of post are always inappropriate.