Pierre, Erik Naggum has violated the netiquette quite a lot
in the last few days. Do we see a comment from you for that,
too?
Thanks,
Rainer Joswig
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
Rainer Joswig <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> writes:
> Pierre, Erik Naggum has violated the netiquette quite a lot
> in the last few days. Do we see a comment from you for that,
> too?
Grow up.
--
Craig Brozefsky <·····@red-bean.com>
In the rich man's house there is nowhere to spit but in his face
-- Diogenes
In article <··············@piracy.red-bean.com>,
Craig Brozefsky <·····@red-bean.com> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> writes:
>
> > Pierre, Erik Naggum has violated the netiquette quite a lot
> > in the last few days. Do we see a comment from you for that,
> > too?
>
> Grow up.
Craig, next time Erik may insult you. Just browse through
last year's dejanews archives of comp.lang.lisp and see
him "discussing" using the same style with quite
a few other people. I'm sure not accepting calling
other people "fucks" and the like. Do you?
What would you do? "Grow up?"
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Refraining from posting a reply to an insulting post is the most effective
way to stop it.
Another (more difficult and less effective) way is to reply in such a way
that demonstrates that you're not offended.
Trying to argue or shout the other person down does no good at all. It only
wastes everybody's time and disk space.
--
Glauber Ribeiro
··········@my-deja.com http://www.myvehiclehistoryreport.com
"Opinions stated are my own and not representative of Experian"
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Rainer Joswig <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> writes:
> Pierre, Erik Naggum has violated the netiquette quite a lot
> in the last few days. Do we see a comment from you for that,
> too?
This post has to be the worst breach of netiquette so far. Seems like
you really are looking for a support group. This isn't it.
-Jason
In article <·············@alum.mit.edu>,
Jason Cornez <·······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> writes:
> > Pierre, Erik Naggum has violated the netiquette quite a lot
> > in the last few days. Do we see a comment from you for that,
> > too?
>
> This post has to be the worst breach of netiquette so far.
Can't be - maybe you were missing a few postings
("fuck", "asshole" - just a few quotes).
> Seems like
> you really are looking for a support group.
I'm not. Thanks, though.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * Rainer Joswig
> | Can't be - maybe you were missing a few postings
> | ("fuck", "asshole" - just a few quotes).
>
> I see. Netiquette to you is merely a selected word count. This explains
> why you don't understand the concept at all, just like that other fellow
> who thinks programming is about counting lines
I suggest you re-read some of my mails and try to come over it that I
may see counting lines as useful. You can think whatever you like
about counting lines, if you state it clearly and make a point why
it's totally useless with other arguments than you used before I will
think about it. You may too be so kind to remind he people on why I'm
going to count lines, but probably that is requested too much.
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
wrote:
> * Friedrich Dominicus
> | I suggest you re-read some of my mails and try to come over it that I
> | may see counting lines as useful. You can think whatever you like
> | about counting lines, if you state it clearly and make a point why
> | it's totally useless with other arguments than you used before I will
> | think about it. You may too be so kind to remind he people on why I'm
> | going to count lines, but probably that is requested too much.
>
> Oh, Christ. Lighten up! You have made a ridiculous fool out of yourself
> by insisting on something that is ridiculously unintelligent, instead of
> taking a hint like a normal person would have done, and now you return
> with the same stupid "if you state it clearly and make a point _why_ it
> is totally useless" [my emphasis] argument that betrays a total lack of
> reading comprehension, which is incredibly annoying and also aggressive
> on your part since you can no longer do it to with good intentions. You
> _know_ that you have been challenged to show why LOC is _useful_, and
> that the argument back in your face is that there is no evidence of that.
> Either you are aggressively retarded, or you are deliberately annoying
> people by repeating a stupid question to which you know the answer. Now
> you have demanding that others humor this ridiculously foolish behavior!
>
> Part of the problem here is that some people are dead set on _feeling_
> attacked and insulted by anything I say, and I do mean _anything_, and
> then work very hard to "defend" themselves, with deliberate attacks and
> insults that are so thoroughly evil and with so much ill will that you
> should be taken out and shot. There's something _wrong_ with people who
> go into a public discussion with the purpose of being insulted and being
> attacked and provoking others to make it happen.
The problem is simply and alone your lack of manners in public
discussion on comp.lang.lisp . Please leave this newsgroup
alone as long as you are not able to follow the usual communication
standards.
> Work to improve your English, and your programming skills will follow
> much faster than you count any lines.
Erik, I'm sure he won't be able to improve his English up to the
level of your mastery. Especially with your knowledge and
usage of "fuck", "prick", "wonderdrug", "retarded", "hardship",
etc.
I'm actually not impressed. It is a waste of talent. I'm
always thinking you may have something to say and then
you manage to blow this with your lack of civilized
communication skills. Why is that? People with differing
opinions don't attack you on a personal level, yet you
manage to stear the discussion always in this direction.
Please take a time out and just think a bit about it.
If you can come back to a relaxed way of discussion, we can
discuss about technical topics - but I cannot communicate
with you and ignore your extremist style.
Rainer Joswig
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
wrote:
> Did you see the other response to the article you didn't read when _your_
> mind blew up at the mere mention of "consumer type"? I wonder if you
> did, because it highlights the difference between you and normal people.
No, the distinction and its application is flawed. This
can be discussed. What I object to is that you are putting
a label (and you give it a negative tone - just look
how you used the word "dislike" in your posting) on
a person without knowing much about it.
> No, you do that with me. You _have_ to understand your own role, here.
> Until and unless you do, _you_ will continue to provoke me with your
> baseless and insane attacks.
Erik, I'm mentioning the style of your way of discussion.
This behaviour is pretty obvious and can be seen from
your postings - this is the base I refer to.
> Figure out why you hate me, then stop it.
This is another wrong assumption. Erik, I don't hate you. I'm
not even thinking in these terms.
> So don't provoke it with _your_ behavior.
You shouldn't be provoked in the first place, you should not
let yourself being provoked and you should not react to
a perceived provocation like you do.
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
In article <················@naggum.net>,
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> * Rainer Joswig <······@corporate-world.lisp.de>
> | You shouldn't be provoked in the first place, you should not let yourself
> | being provoked and you should not react to a perceived provocation like
> | you do.
>
> Well, _this_ is an improvement! It seems that you have actually followed
> by strong advice to seek professional help. The above charming and nice
> and seemingly non-offensive suggestion is not something normal people
> tell each other, it's what trained professionals tell patients. It's a
> text-book example of something that can only be said if you trust the
> person who gives it, because it is so obviously devoid of honest concern
> in and by itself. Rainer is so psychotic that it is clearly intended to
> portray himself better, certainly not give any real advice.
I can't give you any advice and I won't.
> For such advice is really quite amazingly useless. It does not address
> any real concerns or issues
Yes. That's correct. But this is not the place to do that.
> and only tries to pacify a raging lunatic.
> That you should have come upon this on your own is extremely unlikely, so
> the best explanation I can find is that you are under professional care
> at this time.
>
> I applaud this decision, Rainer! It is a good move for you. Perhaps we
> can be relieved of your amazingly counter-productive assaults here while
> you undergo treatment. I'm sure your doctor has also advised that you
> not seek out the "causes" of your antagonistic aggressiveness, such as
> you see them. I will not interfere with your treatment, which I suspect
> may take three to six months given your current state, but if you relapse
> into your hostile, passive-aggressive style
I'm not denying aggressiveness.
Did you ever read Erich Fromm's book "The Anatomy of Human
Destructiveness"?
> wherein you think you are
> such a wonderful guy who never does anything wrong, I will only gently
> remind you to get another appointment and not to drop your anti-psychotic
> drugs even if you feel you are quite normal and don't see any monsters.
>
> Best of luck, Rainer, and my best wishes for a speedy recovery to you.
> (Primarily out of purely egoistic reasons and I wouldn't be caught dead
> having anyone think I meant it seriously, but still, it sounds just as
> nice and charming as Rainer thinks constitutes good netiquette, so he
> won't object to the nice language and the friendly contents, will he?)
You seem to begin to understand.
Rainer
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Rainer Joswig wrote:
> Pierre, Erik Naggum has violated the netiquette quite a lot
> in the last few days. Do we see a comment from you for that,
> too?
Exactly what are you hoping to accomplish by asking Pierre for such a
comment?
If he posted a followup message saying "I accuse thee, Erik Naggum, of
many netiquette violations", how would that help you, or Pierre, or
anyone else?
--
"The big dig might come in handy ... for a few project managers
whom I think would make great landfill." --Elaine Ashton
== seth gordon == ·······@kenan.com == standard disclaimer ==
== documentation group, kenan systems corp., cambridge, ma ==
In article <·················@kenan.com>, Seth Gordon
<·······@kenan.com> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig wrote:
>
> > Pierre, Erik Naggum has violated the netiquette quite a lot
> > in the last few days. Do we see a comment from you for that,
> > too?
>
> Exactly what are you hoping to accomplish by asking Pierre for such a
> comment?
I think this particular topic has been discussed and has died
away - in the original thread.
> If he posted a followup message saying "I accuse thee, Erik Naggum, of
> many netiquette violations", how would that help you, or Pierre, or
> anyone else?
Look, if I make quoting mistake (which I sure do) just
tell me about it - please don't assume that I'm trying to play
any stupid (and also useless) tricks. I can live with
the critizism and I can learn from it, though. Hopefully. ;-)
It is something different (IMHO) if posters on c.l.l are
accusing others the things Erik does (like denying one
to be human). This is something that
affects us all on c.l.l and threatens its quality
as one central discussion point for Lisp users.
We find here a very international crowd of Lisp users,
we have excellent contributions from the various
countries - any nationalistic tone is completely
unnecessary - I for my part am not inferring anything
about other norwegian Lisp users, just because
somebody happens to be from Norway. The experience on
c.l.l has shown that there are quite a lot excellent,
friendly, and helpful Lisp users coming from Norway.
I was very sorry to see people being attacked
especially in the last year - sometimes maybe "deserved",
sometimes not - it actually does not make a difference.
Expressing a notion like "driving the morons out of c.l.l"
(which is not a quote from Erik), shows the dangerous
undertone which creeps into people once they start
to disrespect others - whether these others act annoying
or not. This has happened atleast since 1998.
We better have one discussion now, this makes the positions
very clear and everybody can make up his/her mind
according to his/her preferences.
In my opinion this is very crucial and I was a bit upset
in the first moment about the posting by Pierre, especially
given that I think he usually reacts not that particular
way - but I hope he understands my motives. But as I said,
I hope that we settled this particular issue already.
But feel free to ask.
Everybody (including me, of course)
on c.l.l should keep a few things in mind:
- we are very diverse
- we are an international community
- "Lisp" is a family of languages
- some posters are complete newbies
- some are using Lisp professional since twenty years
- some have been shaping Lisp
- c.l.l is an entry point into the world of Lisp
- students will ask questions and their teachers
might also read c.l.l
- not everybody likes Lisp
- not everybody likes a particular feature of Lisp
- some prefer only "free" software, other don't
- for some topics more special newsgroups are available
(autocad, scheme, functional programming,
mcl, franz, ...)
- c.l.l is not moderated (which is good IMHO)
- it changes over time
IMHO, this diversity is also very attractive and makes
it a lot less boring - it is a challenge, though.
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
Rainer Joswig wrote:
> > If he posted a followup message saying "I accuse thee, Erik Naggum, of
> > many netiquette violations", how would that help you, or Pierre, or
> > anyone else?
>
> Look, if I make quoting mistake (which I sure do) just
> tell me about it - please don't assume that I'm trying to play
> any stupid (and also useless) tricks. I can live with
> the critizism and I can learn from it, though. Hopefully. ;-)
>
> It is something different (IMHO) if posters on c.l.l are
> accusing others the things Erik does (like denying one
> to be human). This is something that
> affects us all on c.l.l and threatens its quality
> as one central discussion point for Lisp users.
If I point out your netiquette violations to you, and don't point out (what
you see as) Erik's netiquette violations to Erik, how does that affect the
quality of c.l.l?
Maybe I don't consider Erik to be violating netiquette. Maybe I haven't
read the postings where he's committed the violations. Maybe I've decided
that my words are more likely to change your behavior than Erik's. Maybe I
just like Erik better than I like you, and therefore are more forgiving of
him.
Everyone on c.l.l can read every author's posts and decide for himself or
herself whether that author is worth reading further. Therefore, *my*
opinion about whether Erik or you or anyone else is violating netiquette
does not have any special value. Therefore, why should you ask me to render
a public judgement on another poster's behavior?
As I see it, the only reasonable responses to "you are violating netiquette"
are either "oops, you're right, sorry about that" or "no, I don't think I
am, and here's why". Saying "why don't you complain about so-and-so who
does something even worse" is a silly diversionary tactic.
--
"The big dig might come in handy ... for a few project managers
whom I think would make great landfill." --Elaine Ashton
== seth gordon == ·······@kenan.com == standard disclaimer ==
== documentation group, kenan systems corp., cambridge, ma ==
In article <·················@kenan.com>, Seth Gordon
<·······@kenan.com> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig wrote:
>
> > > If he posted a followup message saying "I accuse thee, Erik Naggum, of
> > > many netiquette violations", how would that help you, or Pierre, or
> > > anyone else?
> >
> > Look, if I make quoting mistake (which I sure do) just
> > tell me about it - please don't assume that I'm trying to play
> > any stupid (and also useless) tricks. I can live with
> > the critizism and I can learn from it, though. Hopefully. ;-)
> >
> > It is something different (IMHO) if posters on c.l.l are
> > accusing others the things Erik does (like denying one
> > to be human). This is something that
> > affects us all on c.l.l and threatens its quality
> > as one central discussion point for Lisp users.
>
> If I point out your netiquette violations to you, and don't point out (what
> you see as)
As what do **you** see it, calling others "an asshole", saying
they should get a therapy, etc.?
> Erik's netiquette violations to Erik, how does that affect the
> quality of c.l.l?
Because one get's the impression that a mistake is worth mentioning.
Whereas a complete out-of line attack is not worth being mentioned,
thus *could* be seen as an implicit encouragement.
> Maybe I don't consider Erik to be violating netiquette. Maybe I haven't
> read the postings where he's committed the violations. Maybe I've decided
> that my words are more likely to change your behavior than Erik's. Maybe I
> just like Erik better than I like you, and therefore are more forgiving of
> him.
"If"s and "maybe"s. We can ask here and discuss it. Get rid of the
"if"s and "maybe"s. That's what we are doing. That's why I was
asking. If I stop asking, then I don't care anymore. But I do
care about Pierre's opinion.
> Everyone on c.l.l can read every author's posts and decide for himself or
> herself whether that author is worth reading further. Therefore, *my*
> opinion about whether Erik or you or anyone else is violating netiquette
> does not have any special value. Therefore, why should you ask me to render
> a public judgement on another poster's behavior?
Everybody can watch a crime and decide whether he likes the criminal.
But this doesn't help. Saying "yes" and "no" helps. Your opinion
is valuable. In this case the person stepped into a discussion,
thus expressing interest.
> As I see it, the only reasonable responses to "you are violating netiquette"
> are either "oops, you're right, sorry about that" or "no, I don't think I
> am, and here's why".
We did that in another thread, in the meantime.
> Saying "why don't you complain about so-and-so who
> does something even worse" is a silly diversionary tactic.
I don't see it as silly.
I see that we have a civilized tone here as a central concern -
it that is no longer possible, I surely won't be here - you are
free to not care about that. Asking a certain person to clarify
his/her position is a legitimate way.
Will you answer my question, now that we are in a discussion
or are you more interested in the "formal" aspect?
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
Rainer Joswig wrote:
> > If I point out your netiquette violations to you, and don't point out (what
> > you see as) Erik's netiquette violations to Erik, how does that affect the
> > quality of c.l.l?
>
> Because one get's the impression that a mistake is worth mentioning.
> Whereas a complete out-of line attack is not worth being mentioned,
> thus *could* be seen as an implicit encouragement.
I don't think Erik sits down at his keyboard thinking, "Since Seth Gordon approves
of how I'm treating Rainer Joswig, I'll keep at it."
A netnews discussion is not a war in which every attack must be defended against,
and it is not an election in which every citizen has a duty to submit a ballot. A
netnews discussion is an opportunity for people to influence one another by their
words. If I have nothing to say in response to a certain person, it does not mean
that I endorse that person's opinion; it means that I do not see how I could
influence anybody else with my words.
> > Everyone on c.l.l can read every author's posts and decide for himself or
> > herself whether that author is worth reading further. Therefore, *my*
> > opinion about whether Erik or you or anyone else is violating netiquette
> > does not have any special value. Therefore, why should you ask me to render
> > a public judgement on another poster's behavior?
>
> Everybody can watch a crime and decide whether he likes the criminal.
> But this doesn't help. Saying "yes" and "no" helps. Your opinion
> is valuable. In this case the person stepped into a discussion,
> thus expressing interest.
When you observe a person committing a crime, telling that person "no" carries an
implicit threat of force: "Don't do that or I'll call the police." I have not
seen Erik say anything that would justify violent retaliation or punishment, so I
have no reason to threaten force against him.
> > Saying "why don't you complain about so-and-so who
> > does something even worse" is a silly diversionary tactic.
>
> I don't see it as silly.
>
> I see that we have a civilized tone here as a central concern -
> it that is no longer possible, I surely won't be here - you are
> free to not care about that. Asking a certain person to clarify
> his/her position is a legitimate way.
I would like to have a civilized tone on the Net, too. There are a variety of
ways to achieve this goal. Sometimes, it's helpful to point out when someone is
violating netiquette. Sometimes, it's helpful to join a meta-discussion about
netiquette. However, when that behavior is *not* helpful, it's better to remain
silent.
The most helpful thing to do, in my opinion, is to set a good example. If you
want to do that, you don't need to ask anyone else for an endorsement of your
opinion.
--
"The big dig might come in handy ... for a few project managers
whom I think would make great landfill." --Elaine Ashton
== seth gordon == ·······@kenan.com == standard disclaimer ==
== documentation group, kenan systems corp., cambridge, ma ==
In article <·················@kenan.com>, Seth Gordon
<·······@kenan.com> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig wrote:
>
> > > If I point out your netiquette violations to you, and don't point out (what
> > > you see as) Erik's netiquette violations to Erik, how does that affect the
> > > quality of c.l.l?
> >
> > Because one get's the impression that a mistake is worth mentioning.
> > Whereas a complete out-of line attack is not worth being mentioned,
> > thus *could* be seen as an implicit encouragement.
>
> I don't think Erik sits down at his keyboard thinking, "Since Seth Gordon approves
> of how I'm treating Rainer Joswig, I'll keep at it."
>
> A netnews discussion is not a war in which every attack must be defended against,
> and it is not an election in which every citizen has a duty to submit a ballot. A
> netnews discussion is an opportunity for people to influence one another by their
> words. If I have nothing to say in response to a certain person, it does not mean
> that I endorse that person's opinion; it means that I do not see how I could
> influence anybody else with my words.
I *can* be seen as such, though.
> When you observe a person committing a crime, telling that person "no" carries an
> implicit threat of force: "Don't do that or I'll call the police." I have not
> seen Erik say anything that would justify violent retaliation or punishment, so I
> have no reason to threaten force against him.
Look, if somebody undermines your personality in public (by saying
that you *get* medical treatment, need professional help, denies
that you are human, accuses you of a lot of other stuff you
can read in the discussion), this is a crime. It may be much worse
than a physical attack.
> I would like to have a civilized tone on the Net, too. There are a variety of
> ways to achieve this goal. Sometimes, it's helpful to point out when someone is
> violating netiquette. Sometimes, it's helpful to join a meta-discussion about
> netiquette. However, when that behavior is *not* helpful, it's better to remain
> silent.
>
> The most helpful thing to do, in my opinion, is to set a good example. If you
> want to do that, you don't need to ask anyone else for an endorsement of your
> opinion.
I'm tired of this. This is going on for months. With various
different attempts to stop it. It was on mailing lists, it
is on usenet. When does it stop? Your suggestion has not
worked in the past.
You still did not answer my other simple question.
Rainer
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Rainer Joswig wrote:
> I[t?] *can* be seen as such, though.
If certain other people interpret my silence as consent, that is their problem, not mine
-- especially since I have now stated, as clearly as I can, that they should *not*
interpret me in this way.
> Look, if somebody undermines your personality in public (by saying
> that you *get* medical treatment, need professional help, denies
> that you are human, accuses you of a lot of other stuff you
> can read in the discussion), this is a crime. It may be much worse
> than a physical attack.
I don't know anything about libel law in Germany or Norway. If you think that Erik has
committed a crime (or a tort) against you, then one smart-ass Yankee's opinion (or even
the combined opinions of a thousand smart-ass Yankees) isn't going to help you. Go to a
lawyer, the _Bundeskriminalamt_, or the Norwegian Embassy, and take what you consider to
be appropriate action against what you consider to be Erik's crime. Let us know what
response you get.
> > I would like to have a civilized tone on the Net, too. There are a variety of
> > ways to achieve this goal. Sometimes, it's helpful to point out when someone is
> > violating netiquette. Sometimes, it's helpful to join a meta-discussion about
> > netiquette. However, when that behavior is *not* helpful, it's better to remain
> > silent.
> >
> > The most helpful thing to do, in my opinion, is to set a good example. If you
> > want to do that, you don't need to ask anyone else for an endorsement of your
> > opinion.
>
> I'm tired of this. This is going on for months. With various
> different attempts to stop it. It was on mailing lists, it
> is on usenet. When does it stop? Your suggestion has not
> worked in the past.
It never stops.
Unless you are the moderator of a newsgroup, you cannot subtract other people's
foolishness from the Net. You can only add your own wisdom.
> You still did not answer my other simple question.
Which question was that? Why should I answer it?
--
"The big dig might come in handy ... for a few project managers
whom I think would make great landfill." --Elaine Ashton
== seth gordon == ·······@kenan.com == standard disclaimer ==
== documentation group, kenan systems corp., cambridge, ma ==
In article <····························@news.is-europe.net>,
Rainer Joswig <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote:
[...]
>
> I'm tired of this. This is going on for months. With various
> different attempts to stop it. It was on mailing lists, it
> is on usenet. When does it stop? Your suggestion has not
> worked in the past.
[...]
I think if you just let him have the last post, the last word, and ignore it,
it will go away.
--
Glauber Ribeiro
··········@my-deja.com http://www.myvehiclehistoryreport.com
"Opinions stated are my own and not representative of Experian"
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Rainer Joswig <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> writes:
> Pierre, Erik Naggum has violated the netiquette quite a lot
> in the last few days. Do we see a comment from you for that,
> too?
Killfile and move on, man.