I am half joking and half serious here:
perhaps it is time to split comp.lang.lisp into two groups
comp.lang.lisp.naggum - reserved to sterile or out of lisp topic
discussions between Erik Naggum and the rest of the planet.
comp.lang.lisp.no-naggum - reserved to lisp discussions without Erik Naggum
I am joking because I know that it is useless (and against Usenet
habits) to define a newsgroup relatively to posting individuals.
I am not joking because I am really tired of Erik Naggum's posting and
other replies to his messages. I believe that the most positive
attitude is to silently ignore Eric Naggum's messages. I acknlowledge
that by posting this I am not very positive :-) but Naggum's messages
and other's replies to him really annoys me. Please let us all try to
ignore Erik Naggum!
Another solution would be a moderated comp.lang.lisp (but I am not
candidating to moderate it).
If anyone have elisp code for GNU/emacs mode to kill or suppress Erik
Naggum's message I would be interested.
PS. beware of antispam device in reply address
N.B. Any opinions expressed here are only mine, and not of my organization.
N.B. Les opinions exprimees ici me sont personnelles et n engagent pas le CEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Basile STARYNKEVITCH ---- Commissariat � l Energie Atomique
DTA/LETI/DEIN/SLA * CEA/Saclay b.528 (p111f) * 91191 GIF/YVETTE CEDEX * France
phone: 1,69.08.60.55; fax: 1.69.08.83.95 home: 1,46.65.45.53
email: Basile point Starynkevitch at cea point fr
web perso: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/starynkevitch/basile/
Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
>
> I am not joking because I am really tired of Erik Naggum's posting and
> other replies to his messages.
Then stop reading them.
> If anyone have elisp code for GNU/emacs mode to kill or suppress Erik
> Naggum's message I would be interested.
Gosh - you mean some sort of "killfile" technology? Excellent
idea! I wonder why no-one ever thought of that before....
> PS. beware of antispam device in reply address
...and beware of children posting peanut butter sandwiches into VCRs
Ian Wild wrote:
>
> Then stop reading them.
No no, then we would miss the finale of this serial.
> > If anyone have elisp code for GNU/emacs mode to kill or suppress Erik
> > Naggum's message I would be interested.
> Gosh - you mean some sort of "killfile" technology? Excellent
> idea! I wonder why no-one ever thought of that before....
See the IDE argumentation in the same thread as this. A 'lockout' menu
button to click in Emacs would make it simpler.
>>>>"LL" == Lars Lundb�ck schrieb am Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:24:56 +0100:
>> Gosh - you mean some sort of "killfile" technology? Excellent
>> idea! I wonder why no-one ever thought of that before....
LL> See the IDE argumentation in the same thread as this. A 'lockout'
LL> menu button to click in Emacs would make it simpler.
That's really starting to getting similar silly to the flamewar.
There *IS* a button (a menu entry), not only to kill, but also to
lower/increase score. Of course, what is not there is a fancyful
graphical editor for writing complicated regular kill-or-score
expressions like the one presented in another reply.
Holger
Followup-To: poster, because it's off-topic.
--
--- http://www.coling.uni-freiburg.de/~schauer/ ---
"Und ja, es ist September im Netz." "Du meinst, es fallen wieder die
Luser vom Baum^W^Waus dem Usenet?" "Nee, eher in's Usenet - und dann
gleich `ein'. Aber es ist ja immer September im Netz."
-- A.Barth und J.Luster in de.alt.sysadmin.recovery
Basile STARYNKEVITCH <·························@cea.fr.SPAM.invalid> writes:
> I am half joking and half serious here:
>
> perhaps it is time to split comp.lang.lisp into two groups
>
> comp.lang.lisp.naggum - reserved to sterile or out of lisp topic
> discussions between Erik Naggum and the rest of the planet.
>
> comp.lang.lisp.no-naggum - reserved to lisp discussions without Erik Naggum
>
> I am joking because I know that it is useless (and against Usenet
> habits) to define a newsgroup relatively to posting individuals.
>
> I am not joking because I am really tired of Erik Naggum's posting and
> other replies to his messages. I believe that the most positive
> attitude is to silently ignore Eric Naggum's messages. I acknlowledge
> that by posting this I am not very positive :-) but Naggum's messages
> and other's replies to him really annoys me. Please let us all try to
> ignore Erik Naggum!
>
> Another solution would be a moderated comp.lang.lisp (but I am not
> candidating to moderate it).
>
> If anyone have elisp code for GNU/emacs mode to kill or suppress Erik
> Naggum's message I would be interested.
since you are using gnus, let me sketch a plan of attack. i assume
you think that usually erik is very good in the beginning of a thread
and a thread loses value the more erik vs whomever are posting. thus
it'd make sense to score on "reply to erik" and apply more negative
scores to more replies.
in my score file, this keeps track of replies to me
("references"
("<m2[0-9a-z]+\\.fsf\\(_-_\\)·@\\(sophia\\|euler\\)\\.axel\\.nom>"
+1000 nil R)
("<u[0-9a-z]+\\.fsf\\(_-_\\)·@ne\\.mediaone\\.net>"
+1000 nil R))
this does a progressive punishment
("xref"
;; the more cross posting, the exponentially worse the article
("^xref: \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+" -1 nil r)
("^xref: \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+" -2 nil r)
("^xref: \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+" -4 nil r)
("^xref: \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+" -8 nil r)
("^xref: \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+" -16 nil r)
("^xref: \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+" -32 nil r)
("^xref: \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+" -64 nil
r)
("^xref: \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+" -1
28 nil r)
("^xref: \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S
-+" -256 nil r)
("^xref: \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S-+ \\S
-+ \\S-+" -512 nil r))
now, combine the reply tracker, suitably modified to apply to erik,
with the progressive scheme and there you go. hope this helps.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[········@ne.mediaone.net]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
Johan Kullstam <········@ne.mediaone.net> writes:
>
> now, combine the reply tracker, suitably modified to apply to erik,
> with the progressive scheme and there you go. hope this helps.
And now anyone can see how technical oriented we are ;-)
Thanks for that (partly?) humourous suggestion. Let's talk about
creativity :))))
Great message
Friedrich
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> | PS. beware of antispam device in reply address
> | N.B. Any opinions expressed here are only mine, and not of my organization.
> | N.B. Les opinions exprimees ici me sont personnelles et n engagent pas le CEA.
>
> Oh, you're French. Are there more of you at home?
Yes. Why?
Christophe
--
Jesus College, Cambridge, CB5 8BL +44 1223 524 842
(FORMAT T "(·@{~w ········@{~w~^ ~})" 'FORMAT T "(·@{~w ········@{~w~^ ~})")
Basile STARYNKEVITCH <·························@cea.fr.SPAM.invalid> writes:
> I am not joking because I am really tired of Erik Naggum's posting and
> other replies to his messages. I believe that the most positive
> attitude is to silently ignore Eric Naggum's messages.
I had agrred some days before, but please use dejanews for recent
flame feasts, just look for whom was involved and than decide yourself
what you're going to do.
I made up my mind, it's not my business to support Erics behaviar by
silently ignoring it. If someone is not fast enough out of it's way
he gets attacked for whatever reason Erics things is appropriate. He
does not show any sign of beeing more moderat or staying away from
personal attacks. I think it's not my business to support that too.
>
> Another solution would be a moderated comp.lang.lisp (but I am not
> candidating to moderate it).
I would vote for it. But of course imagine what happened if I would be
the moderator >;(
>
> If anyone have elisp code for GNU/emacs mode to kill or suppress Erik
> Naggum's message I would be interested.
This is quite easy if you use Gnus. I hope you do;-) Please see the
info pages.
Regards
Friedrich
> I made up my mind, it's not my business to support Erics behaviar by
> silently ignoring it. If someone is not fast enough out of it's way
> he gets attacked for whatever reason Erics things is appropriate. He
> does not show any sign of beeing more moderat or staying away from
> personal attacks. I think it's not my business to support that too.
>
That is not the way I see it. This current discussion, which I think
started with a LOC question, typically seems to follow a pattern. For the
LOC discussion, it was
1) Someone asks how to count lines of code in LISP
2) A few people answer with practical suggestions, others ask why the person
wants to count.
3) Erik asks why the person wants to count code when to his knowledge it is
not a good metric, and perhaps could come up "quantitative" evidence be
produced that supports the "quantitative" LOC metric.
4) Erik gets attacked for questioning underlying assumptions and the attack
is cloaked as a personal attack.
I think Erik wants the discussion to be at a deeper level and this
questioning "disturbs" underlying assumptions (and security). I appreciate
Erik's frankness and I believe he his trying to get at the "truth" of the
matter.
I do not think I ever saw an attempt by anyone (who supports quantitative
methods) to provide quantitative data supporting LOC.
For those people that are expressing anger at Erik. Eirk is the messenger.
Its the message that is getting you angry.
Wade
"Wade Humeniuk" <········@cadvision.com> writes:
> > I made up my mind, it's not my business to support Erics behaviar by
> > silently ignoring it. If someone is not fast enough out of it's way
> > he gets attacked for whatever reason Erics things is appropriate. He
> > does not show any sign of beeing more moderat or staying away from
> > personal attacks. I think it's not my business to support that too.
> >
>
> That is not the way I see it. This current discussion, which I think
> started with a LOC question, typically seems to follow a pattern. For the
> LOC discussion, it was
Ok, we obviously disagree. So just one question
>
> 4) Erik gets attacked for questioning underlying assumptions and the attack
> is cloaked as a personal attack.
Please point out where Eric is attacked first. If you can't find that
you may re-check your point of view.
>
> I think Erik wants the discussion to be at a deeper level and this
> questioning "disturbs" underlying assumptions (and security). I appreciate
> Erik's frankness and I believe he his trying to get at the "truth" of the
> matter.
I can't follow here, what is the "truth" in this area.
>
> I do not think I ever saw an attempt by anyone (who supports quantitative
> methods) to provide quantitative data supporting LOC.
Now some results of a report were cited. As Defect/LOC and simular,
one were pointed out to some figures. It was too pointed out more than
once for what the LOC will be used. So please reread the thread and
comments.
>
> For those people that are expressing anger at Erik. Eirk is the messenger.
> Its the message that is getting you angry.
I guess you're confusing something. We do not attack Erik for saying
LOC is useless or whatever we attack him because of his words like
"asshole and simular" I would appreciate if you would get that right.
Please try to find out how many people expressed their anger you won't
tell that it's all because of Erics true messages
Friedrich
Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
> Now some results of a report were cited. As Defect/LOC and simular,
> one were pointed out to some figures. It was too pointed out more than
> once for what the LOC will be used. So please reread the thread and
> comments.
If you're talking about the report that I posted a link to, it was not a report
that justified LOC-based metrics. It was a report that used LOC-based metrics to
justify the Personal Software Process.
--
"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 ==
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: LOC (was Re: splitting comp.lang.lisp :-))
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3vgr373pn.fsf_-_@cley.com>
* Seth Gordon wrote:
> If you're talking about the report that I posted a link to, it was
> not a report that justified LOC-based metrics. It was a report that
> used LOC-based metrics to justify the Personal Software Process.
I think this is one of the classic problems that human beings have --
misunderstanding causality. If you have some thing you can measure
which you think is x and it correlates with some other thing -- not x
-- which you *also* think correlates with x then you treat this as
stronger evidence that the first thing correlates with x, whereas in
fact it's no evidence at all, especially if the second thing is
something you made up. There is a wonderful book on IQ measurement
(IQ is kind of the LOC of psychology) and phrenology and stuff like
that which makes this point really well, and many times. It made me
cringe to read it.
--tim
In article <··················@cley.com>, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> ...
>(IQ is kind of the LOC of psychology) and phrenology and stuff like
"the mismeasurement of man"?
>that which makes this point really well, and many times. It made me
>cringe to read it.
hs
··@paradise.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) writes:
> In article <··················@cley.com>, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> > ...
> >(IQ is kind of the LOC of psychology) and phrenology and stuff like
>
> "the mismeasurement of man"?
Look up Winston Rushton, professor at University of Western Ontario.
He did some [understandably!] controversial research surrounding the
thesis that both intelligence and propensity to criminality is
correlated with genitalia size.
When people started protesting "racism" when this was used to indicate
that "caucasoids" (Whites) were smarter/less-criminal than folks of
"negroid" (Black skin) descent, he of course pointed out that those of
"mongoloid" ("asian") descent would be the smartest/most-law-abiding
of all.
At which point pretty much _nobody_ wanted anything to do with him.
The "Identity Movement" folks were unhappy that Asians got billed as
"smartest," and anyone that disapproved of bigotry was pretty much
outraged.
Takes "mismeasurement of man" to a new, lower extreme...
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@acm.org")
http://vip.hyperusa.com/~cbbrowne/languages.html
The *Worst* Things to Say to a Police Officer: Hey, is that a 9 mm?
That's nothing compared to this .44 magnum.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LOC (was Re: splitting comp.lang.lisp :-))
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3n1cf6wy5.fsf@cley.com>
* I wrote:
> I think this is one of the classic problems that human beings have --
> misunderstanding causality. If you have some thing you can measure
> which you think is x and it correlates with some other thing -- not x
`which you think correlates with x'.
Sorry
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> something you made up. There is a wonderful book on IQ measurement
> (IQ is kind of the LOC of psychology) and phrenology and stuff like
> that which makes this point really well, and many times. It made me
> cringe to read it.
What's the name of the book, please?
From: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: LOC (was Re: splitting comp.lang.lisp :-))
Date:
Message-ID: <3A753DD5.7080704@pindar.com>
Peter Wood wrote:
> What's the name of the book, please?
I am sure this is not the book that tim is talking about -- since
it deals more as a rebuttal of the whole Dawkin-esque reductive
determanistic selfish gene thing -- however 'Not in Our Genes:
Biology, Ideology and Human Nature' by R. Lewontin, S. Rose,
Steven and L. J. Kamin is a excellent book with essays dealing
with IQ and intelligence racial categorisation and a whole load
of other stuff.
:)will
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LOC (was Re: splitting comp.lang.lisp :-))
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3snm16gif.fsf@cley.com>
* Peter Wood wrote:
> What's the name of the book, please?
I think it's the mismeasure of man, as quoted by other people here.
--tim
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * Friedrich Dominicus <·····@q-software-solutions.com>
> | Please point out where Eric is attacked first. If you can't find that
> | you may re-check your point of view.
>
> That you feel under attack does not mean that anyone else does or even
> understands why you are.
Ok than you are not under attack too. So don't take this as an attack
You are an .......
Fill in what you like
Sincerly yours
Friedrich
"Friedrich Dominicus" <·····@q-software-solutions.com> wrote in message
···················@frown.here...
> "Wade Humeniuk" <········@cadvision.com> writes:
> Please point out where Eric is attacked first. If you can't find that
> you may re-check your point of view.
>
I have re-read the LOC thread between you and Erik and I have some more
comments.
Here is a snippet of your dialog. I am sure you can figure out who is who.
From message:
http://x58.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?thitnum=7&AN=717452431.1&mhitnum=34&CONT
EXT=980522317.808321046
| > | What may be a metrics which can help improving yourself to improve on
| > | developing software. Maybe you don't bother, but I do.
| >
| > Christ, dude, just because you have found the Holy fucking Grail
| > doesn't mean those who think you found a toilet roll wouldn't also
| > like to find some Holy Grail of their own, but don't insult people
| > just because they think Lines of Code has been lacking in usefulness
| > over many years.
|
| Nowhere did I insult anyone. I did not claim anywhere that I found a
| solution. So please come back to the subject.
The off hand remark "Maybe you don't bother, but I do." is an insult, a
put-down, an implication that the author is better than the reader. This is
not an intellectual argument but intellectual coercian. The way you are
making your case is to belittle your listener and appeal to authoratative
sources. Maybe it was not meant as such, but what is the reader to think?
One could argue, "It is such a little remark", but I think it goes to your
view of other people. A suggestion would be to be less defensive and to be
less dogmatic in your thinking.
> I can't follow here, what is the "truth" in this area.
In this case your intellectual method.
> Please try to find out how many people expressed their anger you won't
> tell that it's all because of Erics true messages
Yes, there are some people angry at Erik, I am not one of them. I hardly
get angry anymore, it just makes things worse.
Wade
"Wade Humeniuk" <········@cadvision.com> writes:
>
> | > | What may be a metrics which can help improving yourself to improve on
> | > | developing software. Maybe you don't bother, but I do.
> | >
> | > Christ, dude, just because you have found the Holy fucking Grail
> | > doesn't mean those who think you found a toilet roll wouldn't also
> | > like to find some Holy Grail of their own, but don't insult people
> | > just because they think Lines of Code has been lacking in usefulness
> | > over many years.
> |
> | Nowhere did I insult anyone. I did not claim anywhere that I found a
> | solution. So please come back to the subject.
>
> The off hand remark "Maybe you don't bother, but I do." is an insult, a
> put-down, an implication that the author is better than the reader.
You are right Wade and I have to apologizse for that sentence. You
kindly post the "context" so the only I was obviously angry. Sorry
for that.
> This is
> not an intellectual argument but intellectual coercian. The way you are
> making your case is to belittle your listener and appeal to authoratative
> sources. Maybe it was not meant as such, but what is the reader to think?
> One could argue, "It is such a little remark", but I think it goes to your
> view of other people. A suggestion would be to be less defensive and to be
> less dogmatic in your thinking.
I just can repeat. You're rigth. And this sentence should not have
slipped through.
Regards
Friedrich
Wade Humeniuk wrote:
>The off hand remark "Maybe you don't bother, but I do." is an insult, a
>put-down, an implication that the author is better than the reader.
>This is
>not an intellectual argument but intellectual coercian. The way you are
>making your case is to belittle your listener and appeal to authoratative
>sources. Maybe it was not meant as such, but what is the reader to think?
>One could argue, "It is such a little remark", but I think it goes to your
>view of other people. A suggestion would be to be less defensive and to be
>less dogmatic in your thinking. wrote:
Hm this seems similar to replying simply with "that is trivialism!" or
perhaps "that is redundant!" to an argument. The nice way to say it would
be something like "that is almost true...!" ;-)
Regards,
Jochen
In article <············@news3.cadvision.com>, "Wade Humeniuk"
<········@cadvision.com> wrote:
> > I made up my mind, it's not my business to support Erics behaviar by
> > silently ignoring it. If someone is not fast enough out of it's way
> > he gets attacked for whatever reason Erics things is appropriate. He
> > does not show any sign of beeing more moderat or staying away from
> > personal attacks. I think it's not my business to support that too.
> >
>
> That is not the way I see it. This current discussion, which I think
> started with a LOC question, typically seems to follow a pattern. For the
> LOC discussion, it was
>
> 1) Someone asks how to count lines of code in LISP
>
> 2) A few people answer with practical suggestions, others ask why the person
> wants to count.
>
> 3) Erik asks why the person wants to count code when to his knowledge it is
> not a good metric, and perhaps could come up "quantitative" evidence be
> produced that supports the "quantitative" LOC metric.
>
> 4) Erik gets attacked for questioning underlying assumptions and the attack
> is cloaked as a personal attack.
>
> I think Erik wants the discussion to be at a deeper level and this
> questioning "disturbs" underlying assumptions (and security). I appreciate
> Erik's frankness and I believe he his trying to get at the "truth" of the
> matter.
>
> I do not think I ever saw an attempt by anyone (who supports quantitative
> methods) to provide quantitative data supporting LOC.
>
> For those people that are expressing anger at Erik. Eirk is the messenger.
> Its the message that is getting you angry.
Wade, exactly this is not true. I can tell somebody that LOC
is useful or not (or maybe partly useful) - but this is not the
point.
Telling him that he needs a therapy, should take drugs,
is an asshole, should kill himself (should I look up the message
for you?), question his existence as a human being, etc.
is way beyond any standards of communication.
If you are accepting this, then c.l.l eventually will be a place for
"morons". Not a place for me.
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
"Rainer Joswig" <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote in message
·································@news.is-europe.net...
>
> Telling him that he needs a therapy, should take drugs,
> is an asshole, should kill himself (should I look up the message
> for you?), question his existence as a human being, etc.
> is way beyond any standards of communication.
>
> If you are accepting this, then c.l.l eventually will be a place for
> "morons". Not a place for me.
I know the messages that you refer to. Taken alone I agree with your
statements. However with your last statement "If you are accepting of this
..." you are drawing a line in the sand which I am unwilling to acknowledge.
Also in your last statement the reference to "morons", are you refering to
Erik or are your just trying to make a point about Erik's language?
I do not personally know Erik or you at all. What has gone on between you
over the years is a big blank for me. All I know for sure is the messages
go back and forth. It also seems that the conversation starts out civilly.
Since this is a message from you can I ask how you contribute to this? Do
you?
As for Erik's language, words alone are not enough to convince me of a
person's character. Insults and intellectual coercion can hide behind a
facade of civility and a sweet tongue.
Wade
In article <············@news3.cadvision.com>, "Wade Humeniuk"
<········@cadvision.com> wrote:
> "Rainer Joswig" <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote in message
> ·································@news.is-europe.net...
> >
> > Telling him that he needs a therapy, should take drugs,
> > is an asshole, should kill himself (should I look up the message
> > for you?), question his existence as a human being, etc.
> > is way beyond any standards of communication.
> >
> > If you are accepting this, then c.l.l eventually will be a place for
> > "morons". Not a place for me.
>
> I know the messages that you refer to. Taken alone I agree with your
> statements. However with your last statement "If you are accepting of this
> ..." you are drawing a line in the sand which I am unwilling to acknowledge.
In my opinion a certain line has been crossed (many times) when
stuff like what I mentioned comes up. I don't what to be part
of it.
> Also in your last statement the reference to "morons", are you refering to
> Erik or are your just trying to make a point about Erik's language?
I'm referring to the word "moron" which has been used by somebody else
(not Erik) - something about asking whether Erik will (sadly) stop
driving the "morons" out of c.l.l.
If one starts talking about "driving out morons", if one accepts
a language like that, then one might be on the best way to *be* one.
I have no interest in being in company with people who are
"driving out morons".
> I do not personally know Erik or you at all. What has gone on between you
> over the years is a big blank for me. All I know for sure is the messages
> go back and forth. It also seems that the conversation starts out civilly.
It always starts somehow.
It is not just between me and Erik. It is between several people and Erik.
You just have to look at some of last years conversations where
I was not involved (I'm not mentioning any names - I don't
want to drag names into the discussion, but a quick
search on dejanews finds the references).
> Since this is a message from you can I ask how you contribute to this? Do
> you?
I contribute to this, just by being on c.l.l and having a different
idea of how people should talk to each other. I could easily
use my killfile or ignore the postings. But I don't want that.
Especially if it is from somebody who is so exposed (because
of his quality, because of him being a board member of the Association
of Lisp Users, because of him trying (I don't know the actual
status now) to be on the ANSI CL commitee) - I expect a different
presence on c.l.l . This adds to attacks to people I respect
and attacks to me (which I just take as an example).
> As for Erik's language, words alone are not enough to convince me of a
> person's character.
Agreed. This is the reason I'm not questioning anything else than
the way people are being attacked. I don't say anything about
a character (which is much more complex) or similar things.
All I can depend on is a history of several years of postings
and mails (and a short personal encounter) - which is more
than a single isolated posting - but still not enough to
say anything about the person in general.
> Insults and intellectual coercion can hide behind a
> facade of civility and a sweet tongue.
Also agreed. (boy, I learn new english words in this discussion)
Rainer Joswig
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
"Rainer Joswig" <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote in message
·································@news.is-europe.net...
> > Since this is a message from you can I ask how you contribute to this?
Do
> > you?
>
> I contribute to this, just by being on c.l.l and having a different
> idea of how people should talk to each other. I could easily
> use my killfile or ignore the postings. But I don't want that.
> Especially if it is from somebody who is so exposed (because
> of his quality, because of him being a board member of the Association
> of Lisp Users, because of him trying (I don't know the actual
> status now) to be on the ANSI CL commitee) - I expect a different
> presence on c.l.l . This adds to attacks to people I respect
> and attacks to me (which I just take as an example).
>
So you expect Erik to act differently and you are peeved that he doesn't and
you are willing to battle over it. Its a heroic image to defend against
evil but maybe its time to drop the sword and armor.
I stayed for a summer in Dallas, Texas (I hope I never have to go back). I
found the place distressing because many people were rude and selfish. I
thought "I will remedy the situation by standing up to their abuse (by being
righteous)" but I found out that by doing that I was acting just like them.
And even more revealing was finding out they were acting badly for the very
reason that I started. I just decided to not let their behaviour affect me
any longer and just be happy.
You are just fighting yourself. And with the best possible meaning, lighten
up! :)
Wade
In article <············@news3.cadvision.com>,
"Wade Humeniuk" <········@cadvision.com> wrote:
>
> "Rainer Joswig" <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote in message
> ·································@news.is-europe.net...
> > > Since this is a message from you can I ask how you contribute to this?
> Do
> > > you?
> >
> > I contribute to this, just by being on c.l.l and having a different
> > idea of how people should talk to each other. I could easily
> > use my killfile or ignore the postings. But I don't want that.
> > Especially if it is from somebody who is so exposed (because
> > of his quality, because of him being a board member of the Association
> > of Lisp Users, because of him trying (I don't know the actual
> > status now) to be on the ANSI CL commitee) - I expect a different
> > presence on c.l.l . This adds to attacks to people I respect
> > and attacks to me (which I just take as an example).
> >
>
> So you expect Erik to act differently and you are peeved that he doesn't and
> you are willing to battle over it.
I don't want to see persons called assholes, needing therapy,
taking drugs, being non-human, and all that crap.
Is it that hard to understand?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
<······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote in message
·················@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I don't want to see persons called assholes, needing therapy,
> taking drugs, being non-human, and all that crap.
>
> Is it that hard to understand?
When you say persons you mean yourself, right? Sure I understand, I would
not like it. There are lots of things I do not like to hear from other
people. Some true, some not. Irrespective of what others say you can still
learn from everyone if you lower your defenses.
Say you get your way and Eirk stops it, then what?
Wade
"Wade Humeniuk" <········@cadvision.com> writes:
> <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote in message
> ·················@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I don't want to see persons called assholes, needing therapy,
> > taking drugs, being non-human, and all that crap.
> >
> > Is it that hard to understand?
>
> When you say persons you mean yourself, right? Sure I understand, I
> would not like it. There are lots of things I do not like to hear
> from other people. Some true, some not. Irrespective of what
> others say you can still learn from everyone if you lower your
> defenses.
Is it completely impossible for you to understand that some of
us dislike seeing people being treated like this?
--
Raymond Wiker
·············@fast.no
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Raymond Wiker <·············@fast.no>
> | Is it completely impossible for you to understand that some of us
> | dislike seeing people being treated like this?
>
> As long as those who claim that they dislike it are _worse_ than what
> they say they dislike, yes, that is completely impossible to understand.
> Nor should anyone try, because it is sheer lunacy. If you don't like
> something, you certainly don't do it yourself. It really is that
And here we are with Kant again ;-)
Regards,
Jochen
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Jochen Schmidt <···@dataheaven.de>
> | And here we are with Kant again ;-)
>
> Just because you have behaved stupidly once doesn't mean you have to
> continue. Prejudiced people don't give people a new chance. I do. I
> expect that they use it, too. Drop the silly grin, think, and move on.
Hm...
1) It was a joke - I thought you would understand it...
2) What you said in the post I've replied to seemed to me very similar to
Kant's "Kategorischer Imperativ" and so it was some form of agreeing with
your point here.
I don't know why you felt attacked - it was not meant in a bad way.
It's nice that you are a person that gives peoble new chances, but this is
IMHO the normal behavior I expect. People that don't give others a chance
are not worth anything.
It seems to me that your experiences with me have made you a little bit
paranoid to my responses.
Maybe I have to be more careful when trying to do fun with you...
Maybe it's better to do no fun at all... :-(
Sorry for any inconvenience!
Regards,
Jochen
> #:Erik
> --
> Performance is the last refuge of the miserable programmer.
>
I become more and more the impression that the only prejudical
no-chance-giving moron here. You seem to think *YOU* know people?
Hah _this_ is really _inferior thinking. You can't stand it do be handled
in a good way and you can't stand it to be handled in a bad way. You enjoy
using all what you think can hurt other people for your strange perverse
form of pleasure. Sometimes if someone really seems to take something
serious you let him think that SUDDENLY all is meant in another way only to
throw this topic in when you think it could give you a better position. It
seems to me more and more that you're a bitter old man without a live that
has no other pleasure to insult other people. If someone shows some clear
understanding of the topic and makes some good points, you begin to make
his english-capabilities bad. You're right _I_ don't know *YOU* but you're
so inferior to think that *YOU* know _me_. I have *NO* problems of being
called a "German" I have problems if someone concludes to know that I must
be a prejudical asshole _because_ I'm a German. You are so full of
prejudical behaviors on nationality and so much other ridiculos
generalizations that it's no wonder that you get so often attacked. You say
you express your opinions in a clear way - NO all real statements of you
are so fuzzy that you always find a way to wind out if someone may try to
use it later against you. Everytime we had any differences _I_ have given
up trying to correct possible errors on my side BUT you have _never_
realized when _you_ made any errors at all! I don't think this is a good
thing for someone who calls itself a programmer!
I think it's time to end this "public problem". It's time that people begin
to realize that it's not a sign of geniality to call others assholes,
morons or to try to get them commit suicide. I don't know if you would say
such things when standin face to face with people as Rainer suggests. Maybe
you would.
Now you can try to write another of your perfect english articles -
twisting my words as long as they fit into your strange try to battle this
out. But some people will remember that _I_ tried it the good way tried to
give *YOU* a chance!
Jochen Schmidt
>>>>"EN" == Erik Naggum schrieb am 28 Jan 2001 09:39:41 +0000:
JS> | I have *NO* problems of being called a "German" I have problems
JS> if | someone concludes to know that I must be a prejudical
JS> asshole _because_ | I'm a German.
EN> Well, nobody did that, so you can relax now. I made an opinion
EN> on the rather unique kind of prejudice that prejudiced Germans
EN> harbor from, that is, when a German is prejudiced, it has a
EN> special quality to it that is more dangerous than prejudice in
EN> most other countries and cultures.
Excuse me, Erik, but this is just nonsensical. I would agree with you
if we would be talking about *nationalistic* prejudices, but currently
we are not - at least, I hope that you agree that no one, especially
not the German readers/writers here, made reference to you being
Norwegian when attacking you.
More generally speaking, I believe that everybody has some prejudices,
I certainly have some --- hey, and I'm German, does that make me
somehow more dangerous or what? compared to some other people from
other countries that have prejudices, too? It doesn't, because
although my prejudices may lead me to some false conclusions in some
cases, I don't take them to be facts that can't be proven wrong. And
that's *certainly* true of most Germans nowadays, I can assure you
(although, of course, I can't be objective on this judgement). So I
don't think there is any reason to be more careful with prejudical
Germans as long as we're not talking about some racial or
nationalistic prejudices --- but also one should always be very
careful who make judgments based on these kinds of prejudices, no
matter whether (s)he's German or whatever. So, can't we stop talking
about /German prejudices/ now?
EN> This is not a statement on non-prejudiced Germans, nor an
EN> expectation that Germans be prejudiced.
I hope I made clear that I understood that.
EN> I don't have _any_ prejudice towards nations at all. I have
EN> strong opinions on some qualities of cultures. A culture is
EN> something you decide to belong to if you're smart, and a waste of
EN> space if you only hang onto by default.
You have argued in other postings that people usually live in their
culture and stick to it. And also you argued, that one should be
careful with respect to prejudiced *Germans* (because of their
history), so at least you seem to have a prejudice wrt. prejudiced
Germans which leads you to this warning. However, you make no clear
statement what you warn exactly about and I wouldn't even want to
guess about the conclusions you might want to draw.
EN> Pull yourself together and take charge of your own reactions!
Erik, I think that at least several people have trouble just really
sticking to the content of your messages and not to feel attacked by
your style. You say that this is really their problem, and to some
extent, I would agree with that judgment. However, regardless whose
fault it ultimately may be, it is a fact that quite often your
messages initate flame-wars like this one (everybody please note the
distinction between "initiate" and "cause"). And this despite your
claim that you take extra-care when writing your postings. Which leads
me to the conclusion (which more an abduction really) that you are
either not taking enough care (to avoid the start of flame-wars), or
your english is ultimately not as good as it should be or you know
that your postings can be seen as attacks which might start such
flame-feasts and you don't care. So, to me, *you* are ultimately
*responsible* for these flame-wars, regardless of whether you are
morally right or wrong. See, I don't know whether you really would
like to avoid similar flame-feasts in the future, but in case you
would, I think you need to take more "charge of your own reactions"
_first_ (because your reactions often start these flames).
Just my 2c,
Holger
--
--- http://www.coling.uni-freiburg.de/~schauer/ ---
"I don't do drugs or windows."
"You need the one to do the other :-)"
-- Steve Baur and Adrian Aichner on xemacs-beta
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
wrote:
[...lot's of stuff...]
> I could make this more explicit, but you'll be _surprised_ at how sick
> people like the Rainer Joswigs of the world will respond to that.
There we have the full turn. You did not understand anything that
has been mentioned in the threads, did you? Instead you move on
from "therapy" to "sick" - where on the way you have embarrassed
yourself with kindergarten actions like forging postings.
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
In article <················@naggum.net> on <················@naggum.net>,
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> This is certainly true. The problem is that they react not to the
> message at all, but to the From header and what they associate with
> it, leading them to get hostile long before they have read a single
> word I have written.
People who have never heard of you already have prejudices against you?
Why don't I believe that? This sounds like some sort of ludicrous
conspiracy theory to me.
Erik, please stop trying to defend your actions by blaming them on
others. You're no better than the people whom you attack when you do
this. And please keep the psychoanalysis off c.l.l. You have enough
Lisp-related insights that you don't need to pad your postings with
trying to delve into the psyche of the posters to whom you reply.
--
-> -/- - Rahul Jain - -\- <-
-> -\- http://linux.rice.edu/~rahul -=- ·················@usa.net -/- <-
-> -/- "I never could get the hang of Thursdays." - HHGTTG by DNA -\- <-
|--|--------|--------------|----|-------------|------|---------|-----|-|
Version 11.423.999.220020101.23.50110101.042
(c)1996-2000, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.net> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.net...
> If you think I could have done something specifically different that
> would have caused Rainer to snap out of it, I'd be interested to hear
> what you think that might have been.
I think there's plenty you could have done, if you're prepared to hear a
stranger's views.
From what I've seen of this thread, people in c.l.l. have one of two
attitudes toward these threads:
1. Erik's manner is unacceptably offensive to us, therefore we don't intend
to look at the content unless or until he delivers it more politely.
2. We think the people who are offended by Erik's tone and manner should get
over their emotional reactions, listen to what Erik has to say, and maybe
learn from it.
I agree that (1) is an insidiously corrupt form of communication (but in
newsgroups it's no big deal).
The assumption in (2) is that "Erik" is usually saying something quite
insightful, if you can get past his harsh and abrasive style of delivery.
Sure, that's often the case, but in this series of threads, I think it's
utter crap. There has been very little insightful content here, just a whole
series of blunders, miscomprehensions, insults, innuendo and extreme
overreactions to trivial personal slights.
FWIW, this is - as I understand it - what you could have done to avoid it.
(I'm glad you asked. It provides a chance to express an opinion without
joining in a gang attack).
You split the world of programmers into two neat categories -
"infrastructure types" and "consumer types". You assigned Rainer Joswig to
the latter. Your initial premise was - in Rainer's opinion - false? /
incomplete? / self-serving? / demeaning? / arrogant? / irrelevant? / a
concrete expression of whatever abstract bug was up your arse that day? /
all of the above? - whatever. But not _correct_. So why would he indulge you
by responding to anything _based_ on this false assumption? You started this
by attributing characteristics to Rainer that he didn't agree with.
Rainer had two choices at that point:
No Erik, I'm not what you call a "consumer type" because ... .
Or: Bite me, you condescending cretin.
So he disagreed with your first premise, and didn't bother with the rest.
You took that as "prejudice". You needn't have. You might have seen it as
Rainer deciding, after the fact, that you had judged him wrongly. That's the
way I saw it. Not "prejudice" but a reaction to what you had already done.
What followed was really silly. You responded to Rainer's denial by implying
that denial indicates guilt - and supported it with nothing better than a
lame bookshop browser metaphor. (Yep, he's a consumer type, folks. That's
exactly what consumer types do. They deny it!). Your failure to look beyond
your categories and see a real human being who might actually be right in
saying he doesn't belong to the category you assigned him - and who might
actually know that better than you do - played a big part in this whole
farce. You had a choice there, too, Erik. Nothing clockwork about it.
Big deal about the label, eh? I'm not suggesting a label should hurt, or
that Rainer shouldn't have quickly passed over it, or even that he's not a
"consumer type" for that matter - whatever that actually means. But if you'd
had second thoughts about your categories, it might have made further
discussion possible. Instead, you took his rejection of the rest of your
posting as "prejudice" - which led to a whole series of worse absurdities,
each of which depended on the first.
If there was any real prejudice involved here, I think your decision to
think of Rainer as a particular type - and to take further communications
from him as evidence of being of that type - fits the description of
prejudice _much_ better than anything Rainer has done here. Either I've
misunderstood this, or this is sheer hypocrisy on your part.
Next you wrote about German culture, it's philosophical underpinnings, and
its relationship to prejudice. We were treated to variations on the theme
that prejudice (which is assumed to already exist in Rainer Joswig) is
especially dangerous when found in a German. Lots of dirty little crumbs
between the lines here. Assuming prejudice to exist, then attributing it to
someone else whose nationality, you claim, predisposes him to express it in
it's most horrifying form is - IMO - a very disturbing kind of prejudice
itself. (It seems the only chance you gave Rainer to prove he's a "good
German" was to lie face down, bite hard on his pillow, and take what's
coming his way until you're good and finished with him. Hardly surprising he
rejected that offer).
FWIW, I really believe you have been largely at fault throughout this
argument. Not because you have been "impolite", but because your _content_
has been peppered with bullshit throughout. (As I implied at the start, I
often find your discourses entertaining and interesting - much more than I
find your manner offputting - but here in this series of threads - I see
little but crap).
This is not personal. It's about content.
<but to your imitators and toadies - this _is_ personal>
What's much uglier than seeing Erik fanging into people is seeing other
people licking at his arsehole while he's doing it. Really. I've never seen
a sadder bunch of creeping sycophants anywhere than in this newsgroup.
Ever seen someone being blamed and berated for being beaten up? Not a pretty
sight, but it's what you get from people who blame the victim because they
fear the perpetrator.
Hope your insurance is worth it, you pricks.
In article <····················@ozemail.com.au>, "Patrick W"
<······@my-deja.com> wrote:
> The assumption in (2) is that "Erik" is usually saying something quite
> insightful, if you can get past his harsh and abrasive style of delivery.
> Sure, that's often the case, but in this series of threads, I think it's
> utter crap. There has been very little insightful content here, just a whole
> series of blunders, miscomprehensions, insults, innuendo and extreme
> overreactions to trivial personal slights.
>
> FWIW, this is - as I understand it - what you could have done to avoid it.
> (I'm glad you asked. It provides a chance to express an opinion without
> joining in a gang attack).
>
> You split the world of programmers into two neat categories -
> "infrastructure types" and "consumer types". You assigned Rainer Joswig to
> the latter. Your initial premise was - in Rainer's opinion - false? /
> incomplete? / self-serving? / demeaning? / arrogant? / irrelevant? / a
> concrete expression of whatever abstract bug was up your arse that day? /
> all of the above? - whatever. But not _correct_. So why would he indulge you
> by responding to anything _based_ on this false assumption? You started this
> by attributing characteristics to Rainer that he didn't agree with.
I read the original posting like this:
- let's divide people into two categories
- define catchy labels for them: foo and bar
- foo is actually cool, it's keeps the world going
- I'm in foo
- bar is low life
- I have distaste for certain people in bar
- you are in bar
- ...
and mixing it with insults of various kinds.
[...]
Your whole post is a pretty sharp analysis.
Rainer Joswig
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
wrote:
> * Rainer Joswig
> | and mixing it with insults of various kinds.
>
> I'd like you to point out those insults in that first article. _All_ of
> them, please.
"You'll never understand that your 10-cent click-through advertising
income is based on trillions of dollars of investments spanning
all oceans and continents,"
Why should I *never* understand it? This implies that I'm too
stupid/unwilling/... to understand such stuff, doesn't it?
Despite me having worked for an infrastructure company
(ISION Internet AG) providing such
services (dial up, backbone, data centers, payment, ...)
and I was selling and building these services (together
with many others)? Despite me talking
to many such people the whole of last year?
I was working exactly in this business.
What are you talking about? "Prejudice"? It's you Erik.
Erik, you know next to nothing about me - but you are
putting a label on me that is as wrong as possible.
Not that I even agree with you on the labels. The
whole idea of it is poor analysis.
What is *my* relationship to "10-cent click-through advertising income"?
What do you think?
"want to use it for a short-term personal benefit".
You accuse me of something, then you link it
to "short-term personal benefit". This is not at all
related to me.
"However, I recognize that we need both of us, and you don't."
Why don't I recognize it? How do you know? This implies
that I am not able to recognize something you define based
on whatever reason you are not giving.
"Let's just say that I have a very strong distaste
"Distaste", thank you.
for consumer types who
aren't smart enough to recognize the existence of infrastructure types,
but despite the existence and number of idiots
"Idiot", thank you.
on the consumer side who
have an aversion to growing clues, infrastructure types still go on to
provide them with the infrastructure they need to complain about them. I
think this is the ultimate generosity, because only by letting those
dolts
"dolts", thank you.
whine and complain (and pay for the privilege :), can we get the
price of warm and comfortable houses for infrastructure types cheap, too."
This whole paragraph is poor. "Distaste", "Idiots", "dolts" - but
*you* are so generous. Funny that I'm in this group.
""users" who could do nothing for me except whine
and complain in exchange for far too few dollars each"
Remember, you have put me in this category. Again even then this
is just looking down from your giant-like position, down to
whiners and complainers.
I would call it providing "customer service". It was the customer
that was paying me and it was my job to make him satisfied.
> You keep asking others for evidence and proof of their assertions as a
> means of argumentative intimidation, so you _can_ give us a straight
> answer to this request, right?
See above.
> My point with this exercise is to show that you see insults where there
> are none. Your cooperation in showing this will be highly appreciated.
You are so "sweet".
Rainer Joswig
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
wrote:
> * Rainer Joswig <······@corporate-world.lisp.de>
> > > You keep asking others for evidence and proof of their assertions as a
> > > means of argumentative intimidation, so you _can_ give us a straight
> > > answer to this request, right?
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > > My point with this exercise is to show that you see insults where there
> > > are none. Your cooperation in showing this will be highly appreciated.
> >
> > You are so "sweet".
>
> Thank you for the demonstration of exactly what I was saying. You took
> all of those _general_ expressions personally, and as _insults_ applying
> to yourself, which they weren't. I'm quite amazed that this is possible.
But you'are a "consumer" kind of guy,
So, *I* am you say. (Which already is crap, btw.).
and I'm an "infrastructure" kind of
guy, and I don't think we'll ever manage to see the same world and come
out with opinions on much anything that are similar enough that anyone
will think we saw the same world. E.g., when a consumer type looks at
here you talk about "a consumer type" - a general form
[...]
time he blinks. What do we have to talk about?
So it's "we" - since we are talking.
You'll never understand
Now it's me, again.
that your 10-cent click-through advertising income is based on trillions
of dollars of investments spanning all oceans and continents, and you'll
especially because above "you" is me again, because we are
talking and it's only me that can "accuse" not some abstract
general "somebody".
accuse me of not thinking of how your billions of 10-cent click-through
advertising schemes have paid for it all.
And so on.
> usual hostile reactions, anyway. I thought you wanted super-polite, but
> that is wrong, too.
Erik, because you *chose* your formulation the way you did,
you got an answer for me on this particular topic. This
is a *huge* improvement from your side. On this base we can *start*
to have a conversation - not with the "therapy" crap way of
discussion. It was not wrong, it was exactly the way it should have
been from the start.
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
wrote:
> * Rainer Joswig <······@corporate-world.lisp.de>
> > Erik, because you *chose* your formulation the way you did,
> > you got an answer for me on this particular topic.
>
> If you _prefer_ deceptive politeness, you really _are_ sick, and there's
> no way I'm going to decend to the terribly low level of human existence
> that such disgraceful deception requires. I'm sorry you need that kind
> of deception to feel OK, though. I really am. I can never comply with
> your need to feel OK through such means. You'll just have to live with
> honest, frank expression of opinion, and I'll just have to live with your
Honesty? Who? You? It's prejudice and insults you base your
argumentation on, in a very boldly way.
> deception and trickery and general dishonesty.
From your normal, hard to bear, rant, the discussion
went straight downwards through your all-time lows.
All we see from you is decay: lower personal standards,
low-standard forgery and lower intellectual standards.
The latter is expecially bitter, since you are boasting
about your capabilities all the time - "giant" - still you are
not able to change your Real Name when posting a
poorly written weak piece of made up nonsense -
G I Gunmaker. I'm definitely not impressed. Not at all.
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
wrote:
> * Rainer Joswig
> > Honesty? Who? You? It's prejudice and insults you base your
> > argumentation on, in a very boldly way.
>
> This kind of response is the best evidence you seriously need therapy,
> and I have elided the most embarrassing part of it for your benefit.
You have embarrassed yourself, or was it the incredible
clever "g i gunmaker"?
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
In article <············@news3.cadvision.com>,
"Wade Humeniuk" <········@cadvision.com> wrote:
>
> <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote in message
> ·················@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I don't want to see persons called assholes, needing therapy,
> > taking drugs, being non-human, and all that crap.
> >
> > Is it that hard to understand?
>
> When you say persons you mean yourself, right?
If you browse the archives of c.l.l you see a whole bunch of people,
being attacked, right? Should I send you the references
to the threads, do you want quotes, or what?
> Say you get your way and Eirk stops it, then what?
My way? Is a c.l.l without "therapy", "kill yourself",
"asshole" my way? Isn't it yours, too?
"Then what?"? We would have less usage of kill-files for
example.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
······@corporate-world.lisp.de writes:
> In article <············@news3.cadvision.com>,
> "Wade Humeniuk" <········@cadvision.com> wrote:
>> Say you get your way and Erik stops it, then what?
> My way? Is a c.l.l without "therapy", "kill yourself",
> "asshole" my way? Isn't it yours, too?
No, ``your way'' is _not_ everybody's way. I prefer Erik's way
of expressing his opinions very much over the way this is usually
done in German newsgroups or university discussions. Sure,
``educated'' Germans don't use those invectives you appear to be
hating so much, but is the German way so much better? Always
playing Mr. Nice and insulting people between the lines instead?
Such that you never know whether you can believe that the other
guy actually means what he says or is rather trying to belittle
or ridicule you, all the way smiling and being extremely polite?
No thanks, I _hate_ German newsgroups, and I'd really like it if
c.l.l. and other international groups stay the way they are,
instead of becoming more German. Strange, at first, when I read
Erik's remark about Germans, I felt a little insulted, but the
more I think about it, the more I come to believe that there is
some truth in it. After all, is it a coincidence that the two
people who hate him most are Germans? Probably not.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>,
Nils Goesche <······@t-online.de> wrote:
> ······@corporate-world.lisp.de writes:
>
> > In article <············@news3.cadvision.com>,
> > "Wade Humeniuk" <········@cadvision.com> wrote:
>
> >> Say you get your way and Erik stops it, then what?
>
> > My way? Is a c.l.l without "therapy", "kill yourself",
> > "asshole" my way? Isn't it yours, too?
>
> No, ``your way'' is _not_ everybody's way. I prefer Erik's way
> of expressing his opinions very much over the way this is usually
> done in German newsgroups or university discussions.
I wouldn't even think about telling somebody to kill
himself (should I show you the postings or will you
find them yourself?). I'm sure that this has nothing to do with
whether one is a German or not.
[...]
> instead of becoming more German. Strange, at first, when I read
> Erik's remark about Germans, I felt a little insulted, but the
> more I think about it, the more I come to believe that there is
> some truth in it. After all, is it a coincidence that the two
> people who hate him most are Germans? Probably not.
I do not hate anybody here on c.l.l. You are bringing this
into the discussion.
Second, you seem to have made a representative
study on this - interesting. Maybe you should just browse
some discussions in the years 1998-2000 and then come back.
Third: do it face to face.
Go to a Lisp user conference (I have been to several), any
other larger gathering of Lisp people (I have co-organized
three such events) and ***talk*** to people personally.
Tell them FACE TO FACE that they are an asshole.
Tell them that they are stupid.
Tell them that they should get a therapy.
Then come back here and tell how nice it is to
flame and ridicule people.
You are a theoretician, posting from your warm chair -
I have met many people who are posting here personally.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
······@corporate-world.lisp.de writes:
> In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>,
> Nils Goesche <······@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> > No, ``your way'' is _not_ everybody's way. I prefer Erik's way
> > of expressing his opinions very much over the way this is usually
> > done in German newsgroups or university discussions.
>
> I wouldn't even think about telling somebody to kill himself
> (should I show you the postings or will you find them
> yourself?).
No thanks, I've already read them.
> I'm sure that this has nothing to do with whether one is a
> German or not.
You are sure? Ah. Okay.
> > instead of becoming more German. Strange, at first, when I read
> > Erik's remark about Germans, I felt a little insulted, but the
> > more I think about it, the more I come to believe that there is
> > some truth in it. After all, is it a coincidence that the two
> > people who hate him most are Germans? Probably not.
>
> I do not hate anybody here on c.l.l. You are bringing this
> into the discussion.
>
> Second, you seem to have made a representative
> study on this - interesting.
I completely fail to understand what you are trying to say here.
> Maybe you should just browse some discussions in the years
> 1998-2000 and then come back.
I already read them. Why should I read them again?
> Third: do it face to face.
>
> Go to a Lisp user conference (I have been to several), any
> other larger gathering of Lisp people (I have co-organized
> three such events) and ***talk*** to people personally.
Why does it have to be a Lisp user conference? Since I have
never been on a Lisp user conference, whether organized by you or
by somebody else, I can hardly tell if there are any other rules
on Lisp user conferences than anywhere else.
> Tell them FACE TO FACE that they are an asshole.
> Tell them that they are stupid.
> Tell them that they should get a therapy.
When I think somebody deserves it, I might actually do that. And
I don't mind if anybody else does so, too. I prefer frank people
over these overpolite but outright evil people you so often meet
at German universities. That's why I left the university after
my (math) degree and feel very comfortable in the industry now.
Nice people there who tell you (by calling you an idiot) when you
say something stupid but who are not so much into schemes and
conspiracies. (OTOH, it is pretty hard to convince those C
hackers that there is a life after C :-)
> Then come back here and tell how nice it is to flame and
> ridicule people.
I don't understand what you are trying to tell me and how it
relates to my previous posting.
> You are a theoretician, posting from your warm chair -
My IKEA chair is not warm. But it's wooden, if that is of any
interest. Do you write your postings standing?
> I have met many people who are posting here personally.
Aha. I wish I had, too. But what difference would it make? Did
you meet Erik, too? Did you try to teach him smiling at people
and uttering sentences like ``Oh, what an interesting thought!''?
I wish I had seen that :-)
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>,
Nils Goesche <······@t-online.de> wrote:
> > > instead of becoming more German. Strange, at first, when I read
> > > Erik's remark about Germans, I felt a little insulted, but the
> > > more I think about it, the more I come to believe that there is
> > > some truth in it. After all, is it a coincidence that the two
> > > people who hate him most are Germans? Probably not.
> >
> > I do not hate anybody here on c.l.l. You are bringing this
> > into the discussion.
> >
> > Second, you seem to have made a representative
> > study on this - interesting.
>
> I completely fail to understand what you are trying to say here.
You said: "is it a coincidence that the two people who hate him most are
Germans?"
You sure can back that up with facts, do you?
> > Third: do it face to face.
> >
> > Go to a Lisp user conference (I have been to several), any
> > other larger gathering of Lisp people (I have co-organized
> > three such events) and ***talk*** to people personally.
>
> Why does it have to be a Lisp user conference?
Because there you can meet many people who are on c.l.l
personally.
> > Tell them FACE TO FACE that they are an asshole.
> > Tell them that they are stupid.
> > Tell them that they should get a therapy.
>
> When I think somebody deserves it, I might actually do that.
How comes that there is a particular local maximum
of hate posts in c.l.l?
> > Then come back here and tell how nice it is to flame and
> > ridicule people.
>
> I don't understand what you are trying to tell me and how it
> relates to my previous posting.
Because it is easy to say such things to people on Usenet.
Without really knowing the other. By not knowing
who else is reading that and what conclusions he draws
from that.
> > You are a theoretician, posting from your warm chair -
>
> My IKEA chair is not warm. But it's wooden, if that is of any
> interest. Do you write your postings standing?
Why?
> > I have met many people who are posting here personally.
>
> Aha. I wish I had, too. But what difference would it make? Did
> you meet Erik, too?
Yes, why?
> Did you try to teach him smiling at people
> and uttering sentences like ``Oh, what an interesting thought!''?
Why should I do that?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
>>>>"NG" == Nils Goesche schrieb am 27 Jan 2001 21:28:48 +0100:
NG> No, ``your way'' is _not_ everybody's way. I prefer Erik's way
NG> of expressing his opinions very much over the way this is usually
NG> done in German newsgroups or university discussions. Sure,
NG> ``educated'' Germans don't use those invectives you appear to be
NG> hating so much, but is the German way so much better? Always
NG> playing Mr. Nice and insulting people between the lines instead?
I don�t know what German newsgroups you are reading, but I can assure
you that at least the German newsgroups on unix are no kindergarden,
either - and yes, there are flame-feasts and discussions like this one
time and again. But perhaps "trying to play Mr. Nice and to insult
people between the line" is also in the eye of the beholder.
There is no "German way".
NG> After all, is it a coincidence that the two people who hate him
NG> most are Germans? Probably not.
I don't think anybody hates anybody here. Come back when you know what
you are talking about.
Holger
--
--- http://www.coling.uni-freiburg.de/~schauer/ ---
"Und ja, es ist September im Netz." "Du meinst, es fallen wieder die
Luser vom Baum^W^Waus dem Usenet?" "Nee, eher in's Usenet - und dann
gleich `ein'. Aber es ist ja immer September im Netz."
-- A.Barth und J.Luster in de.alt.sysadmin.recovery
From: Xah Lee
Subject: Naggum -- the final solution [was Re: splitting comp.lang.lisp :-)]
Date:
Message-ID: <B699E792.5493%xah@xahlee.org>
Form flecked his lips as he spoke these words interspersed with revolting
oaths and blasphemies. The hand, which had been prying open the shrine he
seemed to want to attack, now strayed over all the adjacent parts; he
scratched them, he did as much to my breast, he clawed me so badly I was not
to get over the pain for a forthnight. Next, he placed me on the edge of the
couch, rubbed alcohol upon that mossy tonsure with which Nature ornaments
the altar wherein our species finds regeneration; he set it afire and burned
it. His fingers closed upon the fleshy protuberance which surmounts this
same altar, he snatched at it and scraped roughly, then he inserted his
fingers within and his nails ripped the membrane which lines it. Losing all
control over himself, he told me that, since he had me in his lair, I might
just as well not leave it, for that would spare him the nuisance of bringing
me back down again; I fell t my knees and dared remind him again of what I
had done in his behalf.... I observed I but further excited him by harping
again upon the rights to his pity I fancies were mine; he told me to be
silent, bringing up his knee and giving me a tremendous blow in the pit of
the stomach which sent me sprawling on the flagstones. He seize a handful of
my hair and jerked me erect.
"Very well!" he said, "come now! prepare yourself; it is a certainty, I am
going to kill you...."
"Oh, Monsieur!"
"No, no, you've got to die; I do not want t hear you reproach me with your
good little deeds; I don't like owing anything to anybody, others have got
to rely upon me for everything.... You're going to perish, I tell you, get
into that coffin, let's see if it fits."
He lifts me, thrusts me into it and shuts it, then quits the cavern and
gives me the impression I have been left there. Never had I thought myself
so near to death; alas! it was nonetheless to be presented to me under a yet
more real aspect. Roland returns, he fetches me out of the coffin.
"You'll be well off in there," says he, "one would say 'twas made for you;
but to let you finish peacefully in that box would be a death too sweet; I'm
going to expose you to one of a different variety which, all the same, will
have its agreeable qualities; so implore your God, whore, pray to him to
come posthaste and avenge you if he really has it in him...."
I cast myself down upon the prie-dieu, and while aloud I open my heart to
the Eternal, Roland in a still crueler manner intensifies, upon the
hindquarters I expose to him, his vexations and his torments; with all his
strength he flogs those parts with a steel tipped martinet, each blow draws
a gush of blood which springs to the walls.
"Why," he continued with a curse, "he doesn't much aid you, your God, does
he? and thus he allows unhappy virtue to suffer, he abandons it to
villainy's hands; ah! what a bloody fine God you've got there, Therese, what
a superb God he is! Come," he says, "come here, whore, your prayer should be
done," and at the same time he places me upon the divan at the back of that
cell; "I told you Therese, you have got to die!"
He seizes my arms, binds them to my side, then he slips a black silken noose
about my neck; he holds both ends of the cord and, by tightening, he can
strangle and dispatch me to the other world either quickly or slowly,
depending upon his pleasure.
"This torture is sweeter than you may imagine, "Therese," say Roland; "you
will only approach death by way of unspeakably pleasurable sensations; the
pressure this noose will bring to bear upon your nervous system will set
fire to the organs of voluptuousness; the effect is certain; were all the
people who are condemned to this torture to know in what an intoxication of
joy it makes one die, less terrified by this retribution for their crimes,
they would commit them more often and with much greater self-assurance; this
delicious operation, Therese, by causing, as well, the contraction of the
locale in which I am going to fit myself," he added as he presented himself
to a criminal avenue so worthy of such a villain, "is also going to double
my pleasure."
dear Rainer Joswig and my fellow sightless puppets,
broaden your minds, you pitiful whining creatures of comp.lang.lisp. There
are more invigorating, rejoicing, and history-changing writings than Erik
Naggum's. Just consider his writings as a reminder of your ignorance. The
real world is bigger, livelier, and un-cut than your well-bottom dweller's
sky.
Was it not unanimous that Erik's technical posts possess answers and Lisp
insights? When in non-tech digression, his writings for good or bad, often
contain original ideas. The literal quality of his writings is top-notch, to
boost. For whatever Erik's ills, you could be smart, be aloof, and ignore
and forgive him. Give yourself a breath of courage, and stop being driven
into living puppets. In terms of newsgroup assholes on the net, there are a
bundle of worthless types some of which causes harm to society. Take your
leisureliness and bug them instead. You can start by scanning alt groups, or
even sci.math. Or, join your local psychopath unearth club. Or, stop _your_
_worthless_ retributions and start your own comp.lang.lisp.moderated
forthwith.
and, btw, Rainer, i find some recent anti-Naggum posts funny. Reminds me of
breast suckling infants crying out for justice. (mmm... breast...smooth and
firm, soft to the touch, bouncy, quality food source, ... btw, i haven't
suck on breasts for a long time.)
Best regards, my 2 cents. (^_~)
Marquis de Sade (!let no one smart unearth discover my forgery!)
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> | He does not show any sign of beeing more moderat or staying away from
> | personal attacks.
>
> You are not a credible judge of either facts or people, so just
shut up.
It's a nice think on usenet that noone can prevent anyone from saying
what one likes. You take this right for yourself I did for me. So I
suggest too that you just shut up.
>
> | I think it's not my business to support that too.
>
> I think it is your business to improve your English skills first, then to
> improve your methodology so that you become aware of your unintelligent
> tendency to use single experiences to support universal conclusions and
> then stop doing that. Just because you have a computer does not mean you
> have anything to post that is useful to others. Just because you are so
> amazingly sphinxter-challenged that you have to make your personal
> problems the business of others does not mean that this is a good
>thing.
Again a clear sign that you did not read what I've written. You pick
out things you like and add you personal feelings. It's you way of
doing things and I do not like them.
>
> I can do this politely if you want, but you will hate it much more than
> if I do it in a way that makes you realize I intended it to hurt.
That would be a new thing so have a try.
> I also
> think it is dishonest to be harsh to people with kind words, but if this
> is what it takes to placate that psychotic Rainer Joswig and you,
> maybe I
> can have guys like you _beg_ me to use stronger language.
:-)
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> | That would be a new thing so have a try.
>
> I am so pleased that you appreciate my humble efforts to please you and
> trust that you will applaud my every effort to hail your superior being
> with this new and highly improved way to tell you what I think of you,
> just as you have requested.
Quit nice from you so nice words. I'm positivly suprised. So you can
even be sarcastic and humorous. I feel taken much more serious than
before ;)
Friedrich
In article <··············@frown.here>, Friedrich Dominicus
<·····@q-software-solutions.com> wrote:
> It's a nice think on usenet that noone can prevent anyone from saying
> what one likes. You take this right for yourself I did for me. So I
> suggest too that you just shut up.
Oh come on! Not that old sh*t. You have the _right_ to be clever, but
you abstain. Why?
You have the _right_ to kill yourself, but you just survive. What gives?
_right_ is just that thing used by lawyers to get rich with.
_right_ has never built anything, produced any good, or defended the
weak against the strong. Quite the opposite.
So maybe we should use "decency" instead ? Or "self preservation" ?
Or "sense of the ridicule" ? Whatever.
If you were using some form of restraint in exposing your weakest points
for all to see, then you wouldn't find yourself pinned down on the wall,
with every kid out there throwing rocks at you.
That's what was meant by the above "shut up", and I guess your
misunderstanding of the situation you are in, explains probably why
you get back tu such non-sense as "right" when that "right", when
exercised, is definitely not in your favor.
__|__
--
--
JFB
verec <·····@secms.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <··············@frown.here>, Friedrich Dominicus
> <·····@q-software-solutions.com> wrote:
>
> > It's a nice think on usenet that noone can prevent anyone from saying
> > what one likes. You take this right for yourself I did for me. So I
> > suggest too that you just shut up.
>
> Oh come on! Not that old sh*t. You have the _right_ to be clever, but
> you abstain. Why?
YAEA
Yet another Eric around
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>
> Why did you think the world needed that comment, in particular?
Wise words, why do you think yoiu have to cover up on time as Eric one
time as vecer and one time as gun-maker. I could not care less about
it, but it's simple so bizarre that I can help myself not to answer.
Can't remember anytime that someone posted the such a shit under
different names. It's quite amazing to see your faciltities.
upon rereading my post, i fear it may be misconstrued as a broadcast insult
to all people arguing on this thread. It was meant as advice for all those
annoyed at anyone else's style of respones.
(hint: don't give anything to respond to)
"Coby Beck" <····@memetrics.com> wrote in message
·························@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> the best way to get rid of an infestation of vermin is to remove its food
> source. and we seem to have a major feeding frenzy going on here.....
>
> Coby
>
>
[Please direct followups to one ng or the other. I'm defaulting to
cll on the belief that this is actually a lull in a cll flamewar]
Basile STARYNKEVITCH <·························@cea.fr.SPAM.invalid> writes:
> If anyone have elisp code for GNU/emacs mode to kill or suppress Erik
> Naggum's message I would be interested.
Quick intro to gnus killfiles. Killfiling takes a few steps in gnus,
because it's so powerful. Put point on a line with his message, then
type "Laep" and RET. Then type "Ve", which edits your gnus scorefile.
Add at the end (expunge -500). It should look like:
(("from"
("Erik...")
...other names...)
(expunge -500))
Then they will be expunged before you ever see them.
--
Tom Breton, http://world.std.com/~tob
Some vocal people in cll make frequent, hasty personal attacks, but if
you killfile them cll becomes usable.
* Deepak Goel wrote:
> Perhaps we could split it to
> comp.lang.lisp(.moderated)
> and
> comp.lang.lisp.unmoderated
Who will moderate it -- who has the *time*? My guess is whoever does
will do it sufficiently slowly that the unmoderated group gets all the
traffic.
Seth Gordon <·······@kenan.com> writes:
> Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
>
> > Now some results of a report were cited. As Defect/LOC and simular,
> > one were pointed out to some figures. It was too pointed out more than
> > once for what the LOC will be used. So please reread the thread and
> > comments.
>
> If you're talking about the report that I posted a link to,
> it was not a report
> that justified LOC-based metrics. It was a report that used
> LOC-based metrics to
> justify the Personal Software Process.
You are right. Thanks for correcting that. But you pointed out too
that the count Defects/LOC etc. So for having that you have to count
LOC too. I won't argue now pro or contra LOC just it seems to make a
sense to me to count defects categorize them and keep a timelog on how
long it took to fix a bug. Now Defects per se seem to be a valuable
measurement, it would be even more valuable IMHO if you could relate
it to the size of the Project. I would dare to say ten errors in a
project of ten lines is terrible, ten errors in a project of hundreds
of lines seems to be quite good.
I will not deny the fact that errors often manifest in small pieces of
a large system. So ten errors in ten lines of a thousands of lines
seems to be another story again.
Now why I do think it makes sense to see what "category" you defects
belong to, if you "know" that you do a special error over and over
again than you may learn to be very cautious if you find yourself in a
situation where this error is likely to occur again.
Now back to the original intend.
- Object loc are a base for esimates in the PSP
- it's just for personal use
So to follow the PSP closely means accepting Object loc as
useful. That is just for the excercises and it's there to follow a
more "disciplined" way of programming. I can't tell if that is the
right way to go, but it has some appealing consequences. To find out
if you really gain from it you have to try. So I see it as an
"personal" experiment.
All this more "discplined" are base of any larger scale model for
software development. And it's not just one author that strongly
argues pro a more "disciplined" software development process. How this
discipline looks like is quite different.
Just look at the XP stuff. Where a lot of things are thrown over board
but anyway the suggest some disciplined way of working. I guess one
have to work some time in each of this styles to find out what one
suits best. Maybe for me it's the PSP, maybe not. Maybe for you it's
whatever but maybe you are on your search too.
Regards
Friedrich
"Basile STARYNKEVITCH" <·························@cea.fr.SPAM.invalid> wrote
in message ···················@cea.fr...
>
> I am half joking and half serious here:
>
> perhaps it is time to split comp.lang.lisp into two groups
>
> comp.lang.lisp.naggum - reserved to sterile or out of lisp topic
> discussions between Erik Naggum and the rest of the planet.
Wow! This is really weird.
You mean he's still here? I haven't seen any of his posts it what seems like
a long time. I thought he just decided he was sick and tired of the whiners
and left.
In fact it was occuring to me that "Gee, Eriks been really quiet recently".
Must be my news server.
I don't have any filters set up in my news reader.
But I even browsed through the LOC thread (which I punted on reading), and
didn't notice any references to his (alleged missing) posts.
Nope, I just looked again...according to my newsreader, Erik has simply
vanished. And there are several threads that I can see him chiming in on.
Particularly the "Commercial vs. Free" thread.
Wow....Weird.
He's all over Deja News, and he's in replies...but, nope...no Pure Erik.
Just the edited versions.
That just won't do.
I seriously thought that he just took a hiatus from the group like Kent did
a while ago, and I respected that enough that I didn't write him off line
asking why.
Hey Erik, its sounds like someone in a Higher Place is filtering you
messages...
It'll be amusing when I call them up and tell them I'd appreciate it if they
carried Eriks messages.
Regards,
Will Hartung
(·····@msoft.com)
"Will Hartung" <·····@msoft.com> wrote in message
··················@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Wow....Weird.
>
> He's all over Deja News, and he's in replies...but, nope...no Pure Erik.
> Just the edited versions.
>
> That just won't do.
>
> I seriously thought that he just took a hiatus from the group like Kent
did
> a while ago, and I respected that enough that I didn't write him off line
> asking why.
>
> Hey Erik, its sounds like someone in a Higher Place is filtering you
> messages...
>
> It'll be amusing when I call them up and tell them I'd appreciate it if
they
> carried Eriks messages.
>
> Regards,
>
> Will Hartung
> (·····@msoft.com)
>
Weird is right. It's nice to know someone else has
the same problem.
I'm just not sure where the filter is, if there
really is one. Neither of the two news servers I
use show any of Erik's posts since about the 7th
of January. I've been going to Deja to view the threads.
Geoff
Geoff Summerhayes wrote:
>
> "Will Hartung" <·····@msoft.com> wrote in message
> ··················@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> Wow....Weird.
>>
>> He's all over Deja News, and he's in replies...but, nope...no Pure Erik.
>> Just the edited versions.
>>
>> That just won't do.
>>
>> I seriously thought that he just took a hiatus from the group like Kent
> did
>> a while ago, and I respected that enough that I didn't write him off line
>> asking why.
>>
>> Hey Erik, its sounds like someone in a Higher Place is filtering you
>> messages...
>>
>> It'll be amusing when I call them up and tell them I'd appreciate it if
> they
>> carried Eriks messages.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Will Hartung
>> (·····@msoft.com)
>>
>
> Weird is right. It's nice to know someone else has
> the same problem.
> I'm just not sure where the filter is, if there
> really is one. Neither of the two news servers I
> use show any of Erik's posts since about the 7th
> of January. I've been going to Deja to view the threads.
I use the news-server of the "DFN" (Deutsches Forschungs Netz - German
Research Net) and there seems to be no problems with Erik's posts.
What news servers are you using?
Perhaps it's simply a bad connection way between the server(s) Erik uses
and that you use?
Regards,
Jochen
"Jochen Schmidt" <···@dataheaven.de> wrote in message
···················@ID-22205.news.dfncis.de...
> Geoff Summerhayes wrote:
> > Weird is right. It's nice to know someone else has
> > the same problem.
> > I'm just not sure where the filter is, if there
> > really is one. Neither of the two news servers I
> > use show any of Erik's posts since about the 7th
> > of January. I've been going to Deja to view the threads.
>
> I use the news-server of the "DFN" (Deutsches Forschungs Netz - German
> Research Net) and there seems to be no problems with Erik's posts.
>
> What news servers are you using?
> Perhaps it's simply a bad connection way between the server(s) Erik uses
> and that you use?
It's our providers news server.
One insidious thought broached by a co-worker is a news Cancel 'bot hunting
out Eriks messages. Some news server ignore them, but some don't. So, who
knows.
Regards,
Will Hartung
(·····@msoft.com)
In article <··············@corp.supernews.com>, "Will Hartung"
<·····@msoft.com> wrote:
> "Jochen Schmidt" <···@dataheaven.de> wrote in message
> ···················@ID-22205.news.dfncis.de...
> > Geoff Summerhayes wrote:
> > > Weird is right. It's nice to know someone else has
> > > the same problem.
> > > I'm just not sure where the filter is, if there
> > > really is one. Neither of the two news servers I
> > > use show any of Erik's posts since about the 7th
> > > of January. I've been going to Deja to view the threads.
> >
> > I use the news-server of the "DFN" (Deutsches Forschungs Netz - German
> > Research Net) and there seems to be no problems with Erik's posts.
> >
> > What news servers are you using?
> > Perhaps it's simply a bad connection way between the server(s) Erik uses
> > and that you use?
>
> It's our providers news server.
>
> One insidious thought broached by a co-worker is a news Cancel 'bot hunting
> out Eriks messages. Some news server ignore them, but some don't. So, who
> knows.
>
> Regards,
>
> Will Hartung
> (·····@msoft.com)
(No Joke:)
I'm seeing on my side some flaky news service since some time
(a few weeks). It is not only Erik's messages, that don't
appear here - there seems to be somewhere a newsfeed problem.
My messages seem to arrive to Dejanews - but I don't
get everything that Dejanews shows.
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
* Will Hartung wrote:
> One insidious thought broached by a co-worker is a news Cancel 'bot hunting
> out Eriks messages. Some news server ignore them, but some don't. So, who
> knows.
This doesn't seem right -- the server I use (our ISP's with leafnode
this side of it) honours cancels -- at least it's honoured mine in the
past, and I see Erik's articles. Of course it might just be better at
detecting forgeries.
I seriously hope no one *is* cancelling stuff.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> * Will Hartung wrote:
> > One insidious thought broached by a co-worker is a news Cancel 'bot hunting
> > out Eriks messages. Some news server ignore them, but some don't. So, who
> > knows.
>
> This doesn't seem right -- the server I use (our ISP's with leafnode
> this side of it) honours cancels -- at least it's honoured mine in the
> past, and I see Erik's articles. Of course it might just be better at
> detecting forgeries.
>
> I seriously hope no one *is* cancelling stuff.
I pulled up Deja News last night and did a search for 3 popular foul words
in Erik's posts. I found only a couple of posts in the last several months
that initiated such language, and usually in response to an off-topic remark.
By contrast, the number of posts containing such language once one of
our local "helpful" folk takes him on is huge.
Newsgroups contain no mechanism for stopping someone from posting in certain
styles, even were it desirable.
[ http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/usenet-freedom.html ]
However, my crude estimate based on the visual data of how many replies to
replies filled my screen is that we could get a 95% reduction in the
visibility of these posts if the "helpful" people would just ignore the one
or two isolated offensive posts and instead just send a private message to
anyone that gets such a post saying "don't worry about him, it's not typical
of the group" and perhaps explaining killfiles. By replying, and spawning
whole new threads to discuss the problem, the visibility of this isolated
problem is magnified about 10 or 20-fold, it looks to me like.
I believe the primary problem, if this newsgroup has one, is people's desire
to impose standards on the group, not the underlying problem, which as nearly
as I can tell from Deja News, is nearly invisible before amplified by zillions
of offended people blowing it to epic proportions.
I am sorry to have contributed to this off-topic discussion. I don't
think a discussion of newsgroup standards is appropriate here. I
don't think newsgroups should have standards because said standards
cannot, in practice, be meaningfully enforced, and any discussion of what
one cannot act upon is merely wasted. I won't be posting here
again until after Valentine's Day because all this whining about such
a small problem makes me sick, and I feel bad for having been once
again suckered into contributing to the noise.
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
>
> ...if the "helpful" people would just ignore the one or two isolated
> offensive posts and instead just send a private message to anyone
> that gets such a post saying "don't worry about him, it's not
> typical of the group" and perhaps explaining killfiles.
This is by far the best advice one can give to deal with the
situation. Unfortunately, it takes only a small number of people,
sometimes one individual, who can't manage to control their emotion
and the damage is done. Therefore, I have little hope that we will be
spared these disgusting threads anytime soon. It takes a lot of
self-control to not respond when provoked.
> I believe the primary problem, if this newsgroup has one, is
> people's desire to impose standards on the group, not the underlying
> problem, which as nearly as I can tell from Deja News, is nearly
> invisible before amplified by zillions of offended people blowing it
> to epic proportions.
You are right in the sense that the problem would go largely unnoticed
if *everybody* ignored the initial provocations. In practice, chances
are nil that we'll achieve this, hence I'll have to disagree with your
analysis. I have seen similar problems in other newsgroups, although
never quite as extreme as this particular saga. There is almost always
a striking similarity between the instigators. They are usually
reasonably knowledgeable about the group's subject, and always try to
justify their offensive behaviour by pointing out that others are
incompentent and, therefore, deserve what they got.
Generally, these flame fests only ever stop if and when the original
instigators loose interest in the group and move on. This is unlikely to
save us here. :)
The kind of advise you give sometimes helps temporarily to cool things
off, but this never lasts. There are always new people joining or
briefly lurking, and even those who should know better sometimes
forget themselves. I think there is no way around the conclusion that
the 'primary' responsibility for the problem rests with the original
provocateur.
Unfortunately, when the primary problem cannot be solved, all the
group can do is try to reduce the extent of the problem by appealing
to everybody else to keep their cool. Let us all try to to our best.
Joachim
--
work: ········@realtimeint.com (http://www.realtimeint.com)
private: ·······@kraut.bc.ca (http://www.kraut.bc.ca)
Joachim Achtzehnter <·······@kraut.ca> writes:
> This is by far the best advice one can give to deal with the
> situation. Unfortunately, it takes only a small number of people,
Driving away Kent Pitman for the second time in a short interval might
justify splitting comp.lang.lisp into:
comp.lang.lisp
comp.lang.lisp.offtopic
Then it would be up to everyone to set the follow-up to
comp.lang.lisp.offtopic if they're not replying to a lisp issue per se.
From what I've seen of these threads I think the participants would
respect that.
Dear Rene Kyllingstad stud:
> Driving away Kent Pitman for the second time in a short interval might
> justify splitting comp.lang.lisp into:
>
> comp.lang.lisp
> comp.lang.lisp.offtopic
why don't you post to comp.lang.lisp.offtopic instead?
do you need an electric jolt in the ass?
some other day i'll have Kent ululate for his penchant of broaching his
dotage and hike schedule as if sky would fall without his presence. Jesus...
But for now, i becha ass he'd stick around if asses like you aren't around.
> From: Rene Kyllingstad <······@hamspam.stud.ntnu.no>
> Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETHZ)
Stud, eh? specialize in copulating hen or cow? I find that many stupid
voices are from students. (like, the Linux lot.) By the way, are you a
sophomore? I recall unforgettably that when I was a stud, a particular
schizophrenic English teacher told us rather derogatively that the etymology
of sophomore is wise-moron.
--
... We can't really blame students really. They young things, are on one
hand the force of ridding rotten precepts and norms in society, but on the
other, utterly oblivious and ignorant. Like, in the China's Cultural
Revolution, they have this Red Guards -- kids trained by communist to *wipe
out* traditional thoughts, and that they did. (many recent films from China
illustrates this well. e.g. _farewell my concubine_, _To Live_.)
here's a site i just found:
http://www.culturalbridge.com/cnadd.htm
and don't forget britanica:
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,64545+1+62942,00.html?que
ry=red%20guards
well i digress to trivial matters, now back to our important topic of
discussion... i'd like to vote for one more news groupie:
comp.lang.lissspy.xah
I think we all need it. I'll volunteer to moderate it.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
> From: Rene Kyllingstad <······@hamspam.stud.ntnu.no>
> Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETHZ)
> Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
> Date: 03 Feb 2001 18:36:57 +0100
> Subject: Re: splitting comp.lang.lisp :-)
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
wrote:
> * Rene Kyllingstad
> > From what I've seen of these threads I think the participants would
> > respect that.
>
> Hardly the case. Those who are obsessing about the netiquette of others,
> only, respect nothing and nobody, as opposed to those who are concerned
> about their own behavior, who don't post or boast about it. What needs
> to stop is people acquiring the seriously misguided belief that talking
> about netiquette is productive or constructive -- it is neither. Either
> you follow your own advice and behave well, or you don't have any advice
> worth sharing. In either case, you don't share that advice in public.
> Nike got it right: Just do it.
It seems that you are still not understanding, that the people
you are attacking don't want your prejudice, rudeness and
extreme disrespect. Instead you are presenting more
and more evidence about your "giant mind", King Maugre. ;-)
(possibly the weirdest posting to c.l.l in a decade).
> Splitting a newsgroup to curtail obsessive-compulse netiquette bozos is
> not a solution. If you have read no.nettvett at all, Rene, you should
> know that the _worst_ kooks on USENET are concerned about such things,
> and they don't get _anywhere_ because misbehaving is part of how they
> think _they_ can solve world problems, being on a holy mission and all.
> Just like the netiquette kooks have shown us here that they are.
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
In article <················@naggum.net>,
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> If you actually _want_ this newsgroup to be about Lisp, talk about Lisp,
> Rainer Joswig.
You were posting this stuff. And the stuff about "infrastructure".
And the stuff of "G I Gunmaker". Nobody called about for
your "infrastructure/consumer" explanations.
> I urge people to write Rainer Joswig _private_ mail and tell him to stop
> his abuse of this newsgroup for venting his personal problems. He won't
> stop talking about me and what he thinks about me if he does not receive
> a strong and forceful rejection of that practice from _many_ people.
If you would stick to the Lisp content this would be a big benefit.
If you don't I just respond to your uncalled rants.
Rainer Joswig
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
In article <················@naggum.net>,
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> * Rainer Joswig
> > If you would stick to the Lisp content this would be a big benefit.
> > If you don't I just respond to your uncalled rants.
>
> Your need to control this forum is the primary reason it is hostile.
All that is hostile are your violent attacks.
> _Nobody_ is interested in hearing your repetitive personal opinions about
> me or about what you think I'm doing or not.
I'm interested in your personal attacks on me. That's enough for me.
> Just _can_ it. Learn to
> deal with disagreement and diversity.
I just don't want to be accused of needing "therapy", and all this
other crap - don't you get it?
> I have to live with people like
> you, for crying out loud. Help the forum survive by keeping quiet about
> your personal hangups. And get the point, already! Shut up!
How about you?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
wrote:
[...]
> I hate you, Rainer, and I wish I could kill you, I really do,
See the difference? I'm not thinking or saying that about you.
Not even remotely. Neither do I hate you, nor do I wish to kill you.
[...]
> I stop when whatever I object to stops. Right now, I want Rainer Joswig
> to stop posting vilifying and hostile crap about _me_. Can you do that?
Sounds like I want the same from you.
[...]
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
In article <················@naggum.net>,
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> * Rainer Joswig <······@corporate-world.lisp.de>
> > See the difference?
>
> Yeah, you just _had_ to make _another_ stab at me.
Poor guy. I'm feeling very sorry for you.
> *SIGH*
If you continue to post your attacks...
> > Sounds like I want the same from you.
>
> Will you settle for this, then? Will you SHUT UP any time soon?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
wrote:
> * Reiner Joswig
> > Poor guy. I'm feeling very sorry for you.
>
> I consider this another attack from you.
You are considering it what you want in your reality distortion.
> Please STOP your attacks!
>
> > If you continue to post your attacks...
>
> *SIGH* I'm not posting any attacks at you at all, Rainer.
No? Who was posting this therapy crap and who wishes he could
kill me? It wasn't me that posted this shit - it was you.
> your part and quit attacking me. No more fake concern and silly "poor
> guy" or anything like that. Let it be. Leave it alone. Shut up. OK?
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Rainer Joswig <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> writes:
> In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
> wrote:
>
> > * Reiner Joswig
> > > Poor guy. I'm feeling very sorry for you.
> >
> > I consider this another attack from you.
>
> You are considering it what you want in your reality distortion.
True colors, Rainer. You're starting to show yours, and you're
shedding that veneer of niceness you used to expound on. Enough's
enough. This has been going on too long, and clearly you seem to have
been hurt here, and now you're provoking further hostility.
It's really a losing battle, but that's hard to see on Usenet, when
your face is anonymous, and there are no flesh wounds. But really,
you keep trying to stick one insult here, one there, and it's now long
over. It has nothing to do with right and wrong anymore. It's about
winning and losing. When you admit defeat and decide to move on,
things really arn't so bad. Just walk away. It's like sports and
politics: even the loosing side had its fans, and there were certainly
people who were leaning on your side, and saw where you _were_ going.
But you clearly turned into what you originally claimed to objected
to. You succumbed to weaknesses that you hinted you had and
epitomized hypocrisy.
From reading your posts about lawyers and such, I have to wonder.
I've always hated assholes, but I hate lawyers and police _more_, and
wanting to bring them in, whether figurative or literal, is
questionable for what is supposed to be a Lisp newsgroup. Get off
your cross already.
> > Please STOP your attacks!
> >
> > > If you continue to post your attacks...
> >
> > *SIGH* I'm not posting any attacks at you at all, Rainer.
>
> No? Who was posting this therapy crap and who wishes he could
> kill me? It wasn't me that posted this shit - it was you.
This therepy business is something I wonder about. I think that with
enough trauma we'd all probably need some therepy. So what that some
people's limits are less profound? If you, Rainer, think Erik's are
as close or closer than yours, then at least realize that he wouldn't
be seeking therepy because of _you_. On the other hand, if you went
in, the conversation might start like, "It started when this guy named
Erik said...". Bring it out, deal with it, heal, but please, as far
as this newsgroup is concerned, let it go and walk away.
By the same token, Erik probably noticed this about you and decided
recently to stop driving you further, and seems to be stepping it down
a lot. So if getting through this is a combined effort on both your
parts, and he's easing up, then it might not be a bad idea for you to
ease up too.
dave
> One insidious thought broached by a co-worker is a news Cancel 'bot hunting
> out Eriks messages.
'tis a not bad idea.
As technology hurtles us forward, pitting brains to the back seat, i also
foresee that one day we shall invent a speech cancel bot, so that
disagreeable speeches will be canceled in mid air before they reach any
ears. The next step should be people cancel bot, so that outlandish folks
can be automatically killed before they can grow up.
systematically, wordy asses like Erik are effectively stopped in two ways:
preventative and categorical. Preventative measures should start with a
nationwide educational programme. Categorical is done by a mass execution
infrastructure. I think that some communist countries have achieved certain
success at these. (though i think "fuck you" can still be said without going
to jail.) Supreme human ideology such as communism certainly isn't to be
ruined by nature's egoistic autonomy. With USSR down, i think China is our
last hope for a human utopia.
speaking of China, i heard that they are building a kinky internet
superhighway of one great firewall, so that all communication from the
outside are filtered. I think they should just write powerful cancel bots
and let them fly around.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
In article <··············@cea.fr>, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> ...
>If anyone have elisp code for GNU/emacs mode to kill or suppress Erik
>Naggum's message I would be interested.
you probably would lose something if you did it. just kill the threads that
develop into this direction, check out his first posts in each thread (they
technical contents tend to be very use- and helpful), and when he starts
getting grouchy just add the thread to your killfile.
hs
··@paradise.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) writes:
> In article <··············@cea.fr>, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> > ...
> >If anyone have elisp code for GNU/emacs mode to kill or suppress Erik
> >Naggum's message I would be interested.
>
> you probably would lose something if you did it. just kill the threads that
> develop into this direction, check out his first posts in each thread (they
> technical contents tend to be very use- and helpful), and when he starts
> getting grouchy just add the thread to your killfile.
Don't think so a few messages would surely pass ;-)
Regards
Friedrich