From: peter_douglass
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <GCi59.55239$nF5.13890@sccrnsc02>
Responding to Thaddeus L Olczyk
> I actually can't make up my mind.
> Whether Common Lisp causes the brain to
> rot or whether it just makes
> people into con artists.
Hi Thaddeus,
It isn't using CL that causes the problem. The problem is that the
hostile atmosphere inside of comp.lang.lisp has driven away most CLers who
are neither con artists, nor suffering from mental infirmities. It is a sad
fact that IMHO, comp.lang.lisp is probably ruined beyond repair.
Who would be attracted to participate in a group which discusses such
important items as the following?
Xah Lee's "cock" (36 posts beginning 14 July 2002 in Re: Thomas Bushnell)
Message-ID: ····························@posting.google.com
and...
the alleged bad taste and moral failings of those Norwegians who prefer a
dialect other than Erik Naggum's chosen (20 posts beginning 21 June 2002 in
PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp)
Message-ID: ················@naggum.net
--PeterD
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <3D55BBE1.B37ECAEA@dls.net>
peter_douglass wrote:
> It isn't using CL that causes the problem. The problem is that the
> hostile atmosphere inside of comp.lang.lisp has driven away most CLers who
> are neither con artists, nor suffering from mental infirmities. It is a sad
> fact that IMHO, comp.lang.lisp is probably ruined beyond repair.
Having insulted most everyone on c.l.l, and having demonstrated you
find the group worthless, I suggest you stop posting to c.l.l
and unsubscribe. After all, if the group is ruined beyond repair,
why would you want to do otherwise?
Paul
From: peter_douglass
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <5Wj59.58461$7n5.9889@sccrnsc01>
Responding to Paul F. Dietz ...
> peter_douglass wrote:
> > It isn't using CL that causes the problem. The problem is that the
> > hostile atmosphere inside of comp.lang.lisp has driven away most CLers
who
> > are neither con artists, nor suffering from mental infirmities. It is a
sad
> > fact that IMHO, comp.lang.lisp is probably ruined beyond repair.
> Having insulted most everyone on c.l.l, and having demonstrated you
> find the group worthless, I suggest you stop posting to c.l.l
> and unsubscribe.
Two issues, "stop posting" and "unsubscribe".
First issue. I only post to c.l.l. when responding to a cross-posted
article that appears in a newsgroup to which I regularly post.
Second issue. Unsubscribe? See below.
> After all, if the group is ruined beyond repair,
> why would you want to do otherwise?
I can shut my eyes. That doesn't change reality, it only reduces my
awareness of it. The behavior in c.l.l. are unpleasant to witness.
Nevertheless, I thnk it is better to witness it than to try to pretend it
doesn't exist. I'm sure you would prefer I look the other way...
--PeterD
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <3D55D0BD.B88364F2@dls.net>
peter_douglass wrote:
> I can shut my eyes. That doesn't change reality, it only reduces my
> awareness of it. The behavior in c.l.l. are unpleasant to witness.
> Nevertheless, I thnk it is better to witness it than to try to pretend it
> doesn't exist. I'm sure you would prefer I look the other way...
I think it would be better for you if you did. You are clearly
a sensitive soul, easily traumatized by a newsgroup that, by usenet
standards, is rather mild.
Paul
From: peter_douglass
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <R3l59.56371$UU1.10201@sccrnsc03>
Responding to Paul F. Dietz...
> peter_douglass wrote:
> > I can shut my eyes. That doesn't change reality, it only reduces my
> > awareness of it. The behavior in c.l.l. are unpleasant to witness.
> > Nevertheless, I thnk it is better to witness it than to try to pretend
it
> > doesn't exist. I'm sure you would prefer I look the other way...
> I think it would be better for you if you did. You are clearly
> a sensitive soul, easily traumatized by a newsgroup that, by usenet
> standards, is rather mild.
Hmm. Care to take a sampling of the number of complaints about the hostile
atmosphere in c.l.l and compare it with the number of complaints about the
atmosphere in comp.lang.smalltalk, compl.object or comp.software-eng?
Perhaps you can find newsgroups which will make c.l.l. look welcoming in
comparison. So what? Are those n.g.s healthy?
--PeterD
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <3D55E95A.2BDC2E65@dls.net>
peter_douglass wrote:
> Hmm. Care to take a sampling of the number of complaints about the hostile
> atmosphere in c.l.l and compare it with the number of complaints about the
> atmosphere in comp.lang.smalltalk, compl.object or comp.software-eng?
> Perhaps you can find newsgroups which will make c.l.l. look welcoming in
> comparison. So what? Are those n.g.s healthy?
Well, some people seem to like to complain. I'm not sure what that
says about a newsgroup -- or about those people.
BTW, I find c.l.l to be useful. Perhaps I am not so distracted by
noise. Is it 'welcoming'? I really don't care. This is a newsgroup,
not an emotional support group.
Paul
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <3238063211884969@naggum.no>
* "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net>
| Hmm. Care to take a sampling of the number of complaints about the hostile
| atmosphere in c.l.l and compare it with the number of complaints about the
| atmosphere in comp.lang.smalltalk, compl.object or comp.software-eng?
| Perhaps you can find newsgroups which will make c.l.l. look welcoming in
| comparison. So what? Are those n.g.s healthy?
It has become accepted for losers to whine about comp.lang.lisp. Losers
copy losers. You have whined about the atmosphere and other losers see this
and think it is acceptable to whine about the atmosphere. I am quite sure
you saw some other people whine about the atmosphere and thought it would be
OK for you to complain about it, too. It is the whining losers who destroy
a newsgroup by making it acceptable to whine about the atmosphere. You
should really have realized this by yourself, but apparently you feel exempt
from affecting the atmosphere. Why do you feel "outside" and need to
comment "about" somebody when you are actually posting to a newsgroup?
Do you whine about the atmosphere in real life, too? Do you enter pubs and
restaurants for no other reason than to complain about the atmosphere there
because you have heard negative things about it? Do you travel to other
countries, states, cities you hate only to complain all the time you are
there? I really do not know what to make of you whining losers, but I think
you would be somewhat recalcitrant to engage in this kind of negative
marketing in any other forum than comp.lang.lisp. Hence, it is because
/you/ whine about the atmosphere in comp.lang.lisp that you see a higher
number of such articles. Without /your/ contribution, the number of such
articles would be less. Why do you fail to understand your own role?
Do you have any suggestion for how anyone can do anything to make you stop
whining? That would be constructive. Let us know precisely what you want
to see done, and start doing it yourself. If you do not want to do anything
to improve the atmosphere, why do you want to do something to worsen it?
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: peter_douglass
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <r4w59.63003$nF5.15032@sccrnsc02>
Responding to Erik Naggum ...
> * "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net>
> | Hmm. Care to take a sampling of the number of complaints about the
hostile
> | atmosphere in c.l.l and compare it with the number of complaints about
the
> | atmosphere in comp.lang.smalltalk, compl.object or comp.software-eng?
> | Perhaps you can find newsgroups which will make c.l.l. look welcoming in
> | comparison. So what? Are those n.g.s healthy?
> It has become accepted for losers to whine about
> comp.lang.lisp. Losers copy losers. You have
> whined about the atmosphere and other losers see
> this and think it is acceptable to whine about the
> atmosphere. I am quite sure you saw some other
> people whine about the atmosphere and thought it
> would be OK for you to complain about it, too.
No, I observed the discussions on c.l.l., formed an opinion about it, and at
an appropriate prompt, shared my opinion. I only cite the fact that others
have expressed similar opinions to support the notion that it is perhaps not
due to a defect on my part that I see something wrong with c.l.l. but is
perhaps due to an actual problem within c.l.l.
> It is the whining losers who destroy a newsgroup by
> making it acceptable to whine about the atmosphere.
> You should really have realized this by yourself, but
> apparently you feel exempt from affecting the atmosphere.
> Why do you feel "outside" and need to comment
> "about" somebody when you are actually posting
> to a newsgroup?
Hmm. There are whining losers in many other newsgroups, yet those
newsgroups seem far from destroyed. Further, although there are whining
losers, there seem to be far fewer complaints about a hostile atmosphere.
Why would that be?
As for my contribution to the atmosphere, I hardly see how the .00001
percent of posts that are authored by me will have that significant an
impact. If you are afraid that my posts will help *destroy* c.l.l. then you
must be very pessimistic about the prospects for your newsgroup.
> Do you whine about the atmosphere in real life, too?
> Do you enter pubs and restaurants for no other
> reason than to complain about the atmosphere there
> because you have heard negative things about it?
> Do you travel to other countries, states, cities you
> hate only to complain all the time you are there? I
> really do not know what to make of you whining
> losers, but I think you would be somewhat
> recalcitrant to engage in this kind of negative
> marketing in any other forum than comp.lang.lisp.
No, I don't do these things. Perhaps that should be an indication that
there might be something specific about c.l.l. that attracts complaints.
> Hence, it is because /you/ whine about the atmosphere
> in comp.lang.lisp that you see a higher number of such
> articles. Without /your/ contribution, the number of such
> articles would be less. Why do you fail to understand
> your own role?
If I merely copied others' complaints, then my opinion would be worthless.
However, I did not merely copy others, but formed an independent opinion.
The fact that others share this opinion adds credence to the belief that
perhaps there is something to the criticisms that have been raised.
> Do you have any suggestion for how anyone can do anything to make you
stop
> whining? That would be constructive. Let us know precisely what you
want
> to see done, and start doing it yourself. If you do not want to do
anything
> to improve the atmosphere, why do you want to do something to worsen it?
Yes, I have a suggestion. If you wish this thread to end, don't respond.
As far as wanting to improve the atmosphere in c.l.l. I very much doubt that
I could do so, and do not wish to waste my energy trying. As for desiring
to worsen the atmosphere, we clearly have a difference of opinion on what
makes the atmosphere "worse".
--PeterD
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <3238091419190626@naggum.no>
* "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net>
| No, I observed the discussions on c.l.l., formed an opinion about it, and at
| an appropriate prompt, shared my opinion. I only cite the fact that others
| have expressed similar opinions to support the notion that it is perhaps not
| due to a defect on my part that I see something wrong with c.l.l. but is
| perhaps due to an actual problem within c.l.l.
Why did you decide to "share" your opinion? I hazard a guess that it was
precisely because you have seen others do exactly the same thing. If you
had not seen any other such opinions "shared" you would have shut up.
| As for my contribution to the atmosphere, I hardly see how the .00001
| percent of posts that are authored by me will have that significant an
| impact. If you are afraid that my posts will help *destroy* c.l.l. then you
| must be very pessimistic about the prospects for your newsgroup.
You and all the others who do not understand what you do, have a cumulative
effect that none of you individually understand. Think bigger.
| The fact that others share this opinion adds credence to the belief that
| perhaps there is something to the criticisms that have been raised.
No, it /only/ adds credence to the belief that it is acceptable to post such
negative meta-comments to the newsgroup.
| Yes, I have a suggestion. If you wish this thread to end, don't respond.
This goes to support my suspicion that you posted your negative comment
because others have done so before you, and hence you do not understand what
you do or the effect your article has. This is the root cause of the stream
of negative postings to the newsgroup. It usually happens when there has
been a longer period of calm and quiet that some hostile outsider "needs" to
air his complaints. All these negative comments are self-propelling, self-
reinforcing and self-referential, referring back to other series of negative
comments by unconstructive, hostile outsiders who just have to "share" their
opinion, however useless and destructive this is.
There is nothing wrong with the newsgroup if you take away all the hostile
outsiders who feel that it is acceptable to post hostile meta-comments and
attack people on the newsgroup. All of the wars on comp.lang.lisp have
erupted because some idiot trolling "newbie" succeeds in annoying people,
usually by attacking those who do keep it productive and useful, probably
because they feel excluded. I read several other comp.lang.* newsgroups,
and these trolling idiots just do not post to other newsgroups. The problem
is the likes of Peter Douglas who do not even understand that repeating the
negativity actually worsens it. In particular, his notion that his only
constitute .00001% of the posts is dead wrong. His negative attitude has
accounted for about 5% over the period he has been posting them. That is
what counts. We need no more than a few such people to maintain a constant
5% stream of hostilities from outsiders who do nothing but complain /about/
the newsgroup, meaning: their own bad behavior in it. The complaints have
become circular: they complain about the hostile reactions to all the other
stupid complaints. You do not become "right" in your "opinion" about
something if you have so little understanding of what is going on and refuse
to understand your own role. However, the biggest problem with all the junk
that invades USENET is that they never understand their own role, thinking
that they only constitute .00001% of the volume or somesuch drivel.
There is no desire to /understand/ anything by someone who only gripes about
other people and does not understand that his own griping contributes to the
problem. There is only a desire to pronounce judgment over other people.
This has a bad tendency to piss people off, quite unsurprisingly, actually.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <87u1m13vlz.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> There is nothing wrong with the newsgroup if you take away all the hostile
> outsiders who feel that it is acceptable to post hostile meta-comments and
> attack people on the newsgroup.
The hostile insiders, on the other hand, are just fine.
From: ilias
Subject: very interesting article, for 'language-fighters'
Date:
Message-ID: <3D56E3A3.7090106@pontos.net>
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 01:22:27 +0300, ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote:
>http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
But that was then. I have heard somethings about the way Yahoo
is dealing with this software, both positive and negative. Ask around
and see what is happening with the software now.
As for the project itself, by my estimate any company that makes money
writing programming languages probably has to make at least in the
range of ballpark $1000000 to $10000000 ( think of the amount of
salary you make plus other cost such as health insurance times
the programmers and managers, add in the other workers ie seretaries
and such then office space furniture, heating electricity computers
etc. ) and you see that the cost of running a business is high.
That means that any company that makes language implementations
is going to be selling quite a few seats. That means that you will see
"success stories" like this for most every language which is sold.
In another perspective, the lessons learned are very subjective.
You could for example come away with the lesson that
a company can successfully use Lisp to implement it's software.
OTOH you could come away with the lesson that in order to
for you too successfully develop Lisp software you need to have
at least one programmer on your staff who has written two
seminal works on Lisp, or has been convicted of writing an internet
worm.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: very interesting article, for 'language-fighters'
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3ptwpos4k.fsf@cley.com>
* Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
> That means that any company that makes language implementations
> is going to be selling quite a few seats. That means that you will see
> "success stories" like this for most every language which is sold.
However, Yahoo store was done with clisp, a free implementation.
--tim
From: ilias
Subject: Re: very interesting article, for 'language-fighters'
Date:
Message-ID: <3D56F2D8.6010208@pontos.net>
Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 01:22:27 +0300, ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
>
>
> But that was then. I have heard somethings about the way Yahoo
...
i meant the essence of 'comparing languages' (independent of the languages)
ilias wrote:
> i meant the essence of 'comparing languages' (independent of the
> languages)
>
It is very easy to compare languages (independent of the languages). Just
set up a feature checklist as you have done, weight the features you want
and do some arithmetic. What you get out of this method of 'comparing
languages' is worth the effort you have put into it.
faa
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:16:32 -0700, "Frank A. Adrian"
<·······@ancar.org> wrote:
>ilias wrote:
>
>> i meant the essence of 'comparing languages' (independent of the
>> languages)
>>
>
>It is very easy to compare languages (independent of the languages). Just
>set up a feature checklist as you have done, weight the features you want
>and do some arithmetic. What you get out of this method of 'comparing
>languages' is worth the effort you have put into it.
>
>faa
With one very important caveat. You had better have an expert in the
language you choose, or you will go down in flames.
"Frank A. Adrian" <·······@ancar.org> wrote in message news:<···················@news.uswest.net>...
> It is very easy to compare languages (independent of the languages). Just
> set up a feature checklist as you have done, weight the features you want
> and do some arithmetic. What you get out of this method of 'comparing
> languages' is worth the effort you have put into it.
You have to take into account the synergy of the language. Common
Lisp features work together well. Also the macros are usually
underweighted in comparisons. It's hard for beginners to understand
their true value until they have considerable experience using them.
So a typical comparison equates them to macros in other languages,
which is like equating lions to snails because they're both animals.
Software Scavenger wrote:
> So a typical comparison equates them to macros in other languages,
> which is like equating lions to snails because they're both animals.
As I said, "What you get out of this method of 'comparing
languages' is worth the effort you have put into it."
By that, I meant "Not much."...
faa
From: Coby Beck
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <%tC59.398$2T2.153580@news20.bellglobal.com>
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> * "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net>
> | No, I observed the discussions on c.l.l., formed an opinion about it,
and at
> | an appropriate prompt, shared my opinion. I only cite the fact that
others
> | have expressed similar opinions to support the notion that it is perhaps
not
> | due to a defect on my part that I see something wrong with c.l.l. but is
> | perhaps due to an actual problem within c.l.l.
>
> Why did you decide to "share" your opinion? I hazard a guess that it
was
> precisely because you have seen others do exactly the same thing. If
you
> had not seen any other such opinions "shared" you would have shut up.
I shared a similar opinion for the first time a few years ago but it was for
precisely the opposite reason, I saw no one else saying it. I rarely do so
now because I have been convinced it is useless and even counter productive
to do so. I do still consider it a "problem" in the sense that it is a net
negative effect in terms of "cosmic karma units".
I feel the only constructive action is simply answer people in a friendly
way when you think they may feel attacked or unwelcome. They are free to
choose who to ignore and who to converse with. There are enough choices,
people need to have a bit of a thick skin on usenet. c.l.l. seems to
persevere..
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
From: peter_douglass
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <0XE59.66982$UU1.11953@sccrnsc03>
Responding to Erik Naggum ...
> * "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net>
> | No, I observed the discussions on c.l.l., formed an opinion about it,
and at
> | an appropriate prompt, shared my opinion. I only cite the fact that
others
> | have expressed similar opinions to support the notion that it is perhaps
not
> | due to a defect on my part that I see something wrong with c.l.l. but is
> | perhaps due to an actual problem within c.l.l.
> Why did you decide to "share" your opinion?
I was indirectly requested to do so by Jochen Schmidt
·················@rznews2.rrze.uni-erlangen.de
> I hazard a guess that it was precisely because you
> have seen others do exactly the same thing. If you
> had not seen any other such opinions "shared" you would have shut up.
You are mistaken.
> | As for my contribution to the atmosphere, I hardly see how the .00001
> | percent of posts that are authored by me will have that significant an
> | impact. If you are afraid that my posts will help *destroy* c.l.l. then
you
> | must be very pessimistic about the prospects for your newsgroup.
> You and all the others who do not understand
> what you do, have a cumulative effect that none
> of you individually understand. Think bigger.
I still do not believe I am responsible for the demise of c.l.l.
> | The fact that others share this opinion adds credence to the belief that
> | perhaps there is something to the criticisms that have been raised.
> No, it /only/ adds credence to the belief that it
> is acceptable to post such negative
> meta-comments to the newsgroup.
No, the fact that many other people have complained about the hostile
atmosphere of c.l.l. adds credence to the argument that c.l.l. has a hostile
atmosphere.
> | Yes, I have a suggestion. If you wish this thread to end, don't
respond.
> This goes to support my suspicion that you
> posted your negative comment because others
> have done so before you, and hence you do
> not understand what you do or the effect your
> article has.
If that in some way supports your suspicion, then you and I do not share the
same rules of logic.
> This is the root cause of the stream of negative
> postings to the newsgroup. It usually happens
> when there has been a longer period of calm
> and quiet that some hostile outsider "needs" to
> air his complaints.
But why does it happen to c.l.l. so regularly?
> All these negative comments are self-propelling,
> self-reinforcing and self-referential, referring
> back to other series of negative comments by
> unconstructive, hostile outsiders who just have
> to "share" their opinion, however useless and
> destructive this is.
I have only referred to the complaints of others in response to the
suggestion by Paul F. Dietz that my concern regarding the hostility in c.l.l
was exceptional. I am more than happy to deal with direct instances which I
think demonstrate this hostility rather than referring to comments made by
others, and I have in fact made such direct references.
I'm sure you don't believe it is true, but the fact that you are plagued by
people complaining about the atmosphere in c.l.l. lends credence to the
possibility that you may in fact have such a problem.
> There is nothing wrong with the newsgroup
> if you take away all the hostile outsiders who
> feel that it is acceptable to post hostile
> meta-comments and attack people on the
> newsgroup.
From your point of view, there is nothing wrong. From my point of view
there is, and that is why I choose to remain an "outsider" rather than a
contributor.
> All of the wars on comp.lang.lisp have
> erupted because some idiot trolling "newbie"
> succeeds in annoying people,
Yes, it is always newbies' fault.
> usually by attacking those who do keep it
> productive and useful, probably because they
> feel excluded. I read several other
> comp.lang.* newsgroups, and these trolling idiots
> just do not post to other newsgroups.
Yes, why is that? Why do people keep picking on c.l.l.?
> The problem is the likes of Peter Douglas who
> do not even understand that repeating the
> negativity actually worsens it. In particular, his
> notion that his only constitute .00001% of the
> posts is dead wrong. His negative attitude has
> accounted for about 5% over the period he has
> been posting them. That is what counts.
Let's see. I've posted 5 times to comp.lang.lisp.
Searching for "Naggum group:comp.lang.lisp*" on Google reports
"about 10,400". (and that is almost certainly "threads" and not individual
posts). Yet I am responsible for the negativity.
If you say so.
> We need no more than a few such people to maintain a constant
> 5% stream of hostilities from outsiders who do nothing but complain
/about/
> the newsgroup, meaning: their own bad behavior in it.
No I have complained about the behavior of others. I have given specific
examples, and am willing to supply more if you wish.
> The complaints have become circular: they complain about the hostile
reactions to all the other
> stupid complaints.
You are wrong. I have not complained about hostile reactions to complaints.
> You do not become "right" in your "opinion" about
> something if you have so little understanding of what
> is going on and refuse to understand your own role.
> However, the biggest problem with all the junk that
> invades USENET is that they never understand their
> own role, thinking that they only constitute .00001%
> of the volume or somesuch drivel.
Since you have posted somewhere on the order of 10,400 posts to
comp.lang.lisp, what is your role in the hostility?
> There is no desire to /understand/ anything by
> someone who only gripes about other people
> and does not understand that his own griping
> contributes to the problem.
Does your griping add to the problem?
> There is only a desire to pronounce judgment over other people.
> This has a bad tendency to piss people off, quite unsurprisingly,
actually.
I have many desires quite unrelated to passing judgement over you. The fact
that I have formed an opinion regarding c.l.l. of course pisses you off.
That's life. Learn to live with it.
--PeterD
From: Jochen Schmidt
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <aj78kl$g70$1@rznews2.rrze.uni-erlangen.de>
peter_douglass wrote:
> Responding to Erik Naggum ...
>
>> * "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net>
>> | No, I observed the discussions on c.l.l., formed an opinion about it,
> and at
>> | an appropriate prompt, shared my opinion. I only cite the fact that
> others
>> | have expressed similar opinions to support the notion that it is
>> | perhaps
> not
>> | due to a defect on my part that I see something wrong with c.l.l. but
>> | is perhaps due to an actual problem within c.l.l.
>
>> Why did you decide to "share" your opinion?
>
> I was indirectly requested to do so by Jochen Schmidt
> ·················@rznews2.rrze.uni-erlangen.de
Well - You probably mean me being hostile against Thaddeus L Olczyk?
After weeks of postings of him with attacks against particular people and
whole groups I thought it would be interesting to ask for his agenda.
I do not understand why a person who thinks this forum sucks and who sees
himself as much better than any Lisp programmer still posts regularily to
this newsgroup. His postings tend to lead to flamewars and personal
attacks. The only reason I can think of is that he must have a really bad
life if he has nothing better to do than to spend his time in a forum
annoying people.
He is not only trolling in usenet.
His attitude of *demanding* help and then spitting in the face of those who
helped him is not really rational behaviour.
Be careful who you protect - It was his idea to crosspost the article that
started this flamethread. I think it is a shame that people who could
otherwise discuss in a productive way together (see the other cross c.l.l
c.object thread not long ago) get leaded to fight each other for the
entertainment of a childish troll.
ciao,
Jochen
--
http://www.dataheaven.de
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <3238122656404186@naggum.no>
* "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net>
| I was indirectly requested to do so by Jochen Schmidt
| ·················@rznews2.rrze.uni-erlangen.de
You seem to shirk from accepting responsiblity for your own actions.
| I still do not believe I am responsible for the demise of c.l.l.
Why do you exaggerate to something you would obviously not responsible for
in order to avoid accepting responsiblity for what you have done? You have
made things worse, not better. /Please/ try to understand that you are part
of the problem you complain about.
| > | The fact that others share this opinion adds credence to the belief that
| > | perhaps there is something to the criticisms that have been raised.
|
| > No, it /only/ adds credence to the belief that it is acceptable to post
| > such negative meta-comments to the newsgroup.
|
| No, the fact that many other people have complained about the hostile
| atmosphere of c.l.l. adds credence to the argument that c.l.l. has a hostile
| atmosphere.
Your stubbornness is becoming pathological. You are so certain that you are
right that your mind has shut down and refuses to listen to alternative
models that have more power to explain the phenomenon than yours.
| If that in some way supports your suspicion, then you and I do not share the
| same rules of logic.
Of course we don't. You also think you have been accused of being
responsible for the demise of comp.lang.lisp when you have only been asked
to /think/ about your own role in making things worse, not better.
| But why does it happen to c.l.l. so regularly?
Because people like you are self-propeling negativists who complain about
people who reject your unfair complaints. How many times do you have to be
told this? Will you only shut up when people agree with you and keep going
like the madman you certainly look like until people have caved in to your
hateful, negative weltanschauung?
| II'm sure you don't believe it is true, but the fact that you are plagued by
| people complaining about the atmosphere in c.l.l. lends credence to the
| possibility that you may in fact have such a problem.
No, it does not. It lends credence to the acceptability of whining in
comp.lang.lisp about the atmosphere, which can have multiple causes. That
you choose one cause that is consistent with your prejudice speaks volume
about your ability to reason from your observations, and is consistent with
your negative and prejudicial attitudes.
| From your point of view, there is nothing wrong. From my point of view
| there is, and that is why I choose to remain an "outsider" rather than a
| contributor.
Precisely, you think you are still an outsider even though you post to the
newsgroup. You are not. You cannot be. If you post, you are part of the
newsgroup. You cannot possibly escacpe this, unless, of course, you are
right: You and I do not share the same rules of logic.
| Yes, it is always newbies' fault.
Trivially so: People who stay manage to get along.
| Yes, why is that? Why do people keep picking on c.l.l.?
Because they read negative articles from people like you and infer that it
is acceptable to whine in comp.lang.lisp, while it is not acceptable to
whine in most other newsgroups.
| Let's see. I've posted 5 times to comp.lang.lisp. Searching for "Naggum
| group:comp.lang.lisp*" on Google reports "about 10,400". (and that is
| almost certainly "threads" and not individual posts). Yet I am responsible
| for the negativity. If you say so.
What is wrong with you when you cannot understand that people are not
presented with the entire production of the newsgroup at once? People read
articles that arrive since last time they read news, often daily. You are
responsible for your fraction of the volume these given days. Why are you
so eager to dodge responsibility for your own actions? Is it because you
know that I am right about your destructiveness and bad influence?
| No I have complained about the behavior of others. I have given specific
| examples, and am willing to supply more if you wish.
Oh, great! Let us have examples that nobody has ever seen before that would
shed light that nobody has ever seen before. This is a goddamn public
newsgroup and people observe just the same facts you do. They just do not
think they are equally _important_ as you do. You cannot make people think
your observations are important just by repeating them. Why are you such a
dickweed that you focus on the negative and ignore the positive? Why are
you so dependent on portraying other people as bad when you appear to be
mortally afraid of accepting responsiblity for your own actions? There is
something disturbing in your lack of ability to understand your own role.
| You are wrong. I have not complained about hostile reactions to complaints.
Those are 99.999% of the volume of negative posts to comp.lang.lisp. Using
your stupid metric of total newsgroup volume, which you must approve of,
there is a vanishingly small amount of negative posts that are not part of
some idiotic meta-discussion about the newsgroup.
| Since you have posted somewhere on the order of 10,400 posts to
| comp.lang.lisp, what is your role in the hostility?
Right now, I am trying to defend the newsgroup from yet another unfair
attack, while you are unfairly attacking people based on your "memory" of
the articles. Newsgroup dynamics dictate that you must look at how it
evolves under various influences. Your influence is bad at this time, no
matter who /you/ wish to blame for your own bad behavior. You make things
worse, not better. Why is this so hard for you to accept? Do you depend on
believing yoruself to be good, flawless, perfect? Nobody else does who are
real people.
| Does your griping add to the problem?
Why do you again try to switch the attention away from yourself? Do you
become a better person if you can find somebody else to blame for your own
behavior? I think you become much worse when you cannot accept even a
smidgen of responsiblity for your own actions and influence and role.
| I have many desires quite unrelated to passing judgement over you. The fact
| that I have formed an opinion regarding c.l.l. of course pisses you off.
| That's life. Learn to live with it.
And I have formed an opinion of you as about as intelligent as your average
redneck racist, who also enjoys reinforcing his own demented negative
attitudes about other people based on his "observations" and acting on their
emotions withtout thinking and really enjoys "sharing" them with others. I
do not want retarded racists to succeed in unfairly portraying good people
as bad the way you do, when they are clearly causing the problems. People
like you, however, will never realize that you do something wrong. That is
one of the tragedies of racism and similar mental illnesses. We may have to
live with it, but we do not have to /accept/ people like you or your views.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: peter_douglass
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <1wP59.71452$nF5.17704@sccrnsc02>
Responding to Erik Naggum ...
> * "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net>
> | I was indirectly requested to do so by Jochen Schmidt
> | ·················@rznews2.rrze.uni-erlangen.de
> You seem to shirk from accepting responsiblity for your own actions.
Not at all. If reason leads me to believe that I am responsible for
something, I will acknowledge such.
> | I still do not believe I am responsible for the demise of c.l.l.
> Why do you exaggerate to something you would obviously not responsible
for
> in order to avoid accepting responsiblity for what you have done? You
have
> made things worse, not better. /Please/ try to understand that you are
part
> of the problem you complain about.
I have merely responded to your own comments. Here is what you said.
<< You have whined ... It is the whining losers who destroy a newsgroup by
making it acceptable to whine about the atmosphere.>> If the "whinning
losers" *destroy* a newsgroup, doesn't that mean that they are responsible
for its demise? If they are resopnsible collectively, are they not also
responsible individually? You accuse me of exaggerating, but what I have
done is respond precisely to what is intimated by your post. Nothing more,
nothing less.
> | > | The fact that others share this opinion adds credence to the belief
that
> | > | perhaps there is something to the criticisms that have been raised.
> | > No, it /only/ adds credence to the belief that it is acceptable to
post
> | > such negative meta-comments to the newsgroup.
> | No, the fact that many other people have complained about the hostile
> | atmosphere of c.l.l. adds credence to the argument that c.l.l. has a
hostile
> | atmosphere.
> Your stubbornness is becoming pathological.
At this point, I am merely responding to points that you raise. There is
nothing pathological about that.
> You are so certain that you are right
Are you certain that you are right?
> that your mind has shut down and refuses to listen to
> alternative models that have more power to
> explain the phenomenon than yours.
You have only repeated yourself, and have not provided anything new for my
mind to work with. It is therefore natural that I not change positions
merely based upon repetition.
You claimed that the only problem with c.l.l. lies with "outsiders". Please
indicate whether you believe that the rudeness shown to Ilias, whose company
is a potential customer of Lisp, is a good thing or a bad thing for Lisp.
> | If that in some way supports your suspicion, then you and I do not share
the
> | same rules of logic.
> Of course we don't. You also think you
> have been accused of being responsible for
> the demise of comp.lang.lisp when you have
> only been asked to /think/ about your own
> role in making things worse, not better.
That is incorrect. To quote from you: << You have whined ... It is the
whining losers who destroy a newsgroup by making it acceptable to whine
about the atmosphere. >> Perhaps you are saying that you consider me a
"whiner" rather than a "whining loser". If so, I appreciate the compliment.
Nevertheless, you have accussed me of _contributing_ to the destruction of a
newsgroup. I fail to see how a collectivity may be held responsible, yet an
individual contributor not.
> | But why does it happen to c.l.l. so regularly?
> Because people like you are self-propeling negativists who complain
about
> people who reject your unfair complaints. How many times do you have to
be
> told this? Will you only shut up when people agree with you and keep
going
> like the madman you certainly look like until people have caved in to
your
> hateful, negative weltanschauung?
I guess my question was, why does it happen to c.l.l. as opposed to other
newsgroups? Why don't the same self-propeling negativists congregate on
comp.lang.smalltalk? Why don't they talk about how Ilias was treated rudely
there? To answer this, you need to refer not only to c.l.l. but also to
other newsgroups. In other words, the answer you provide above, doesn't
answer the question of why c.l.l. _as opposed to_ other newgroups.
> | II'm sure you don't believe it is true, but the fact that you are
plagued by
> | people complaining about the atmosphere in c.l.l. lends credence to the
> | possibility that you may in fact have such a problem.
> No, it does not.
Yes, it does lend credence. Look up credence in the dictionary. The fact
that you personally take a different viewpoint does not in any way negate
the fact that it lends credence.
> It lends credence to the acceptability of whining
> in comp.lang.lisp about the atmosphere, which
> can have multiple causes.
Yes, it may lend credence to different things to different people.
> That you choose one cause that is consistent
> with your prejudice speaks volume about your
> ability to reason from your observations, and is
> consistent with your negative and prejudicial attitudes.
I did not arrive at my opinions based upon prejudice, but upon observation.
If you would like, I can relate to you observations that have contributed to
my opinion that c.l.l. has a hostile atmosphere. We have before us a _very_
recent example of such hostility in the case of Ilias. Do you deny that he
was treated rudely? Do you believe that it is appropriate to treat
potential customers rudely when they seek pointers to free literature?
> | From your point of view, there is nothing wrong. From my point of view
> | there is, and that is why I choose to remain an "outsider" rather than a
> | contributor.
> Precisely, you think you are still an outsider
> even though you post to the newsgroup. You
> are not. You cannot be. If you post, you are
> part of the newsgroup. You cannot possibly
> escacpe this, unless, of course, you are right:
> You and I do not share the same rules of logic.
> | Yes, it is always newbies' fault.
> Trivially so: People who stay manage to get along.
Then your aim is not to get along with the outside world, but only amonst
yourselves?
> | Yes, why is that? Why do people keep picking on c.l.l.?
> Because they read negative articles from people like you and infer that
it
> is acceptable to whine in comp.lang.lisp, while it is not acceptable to
> whine in most other newsgroups.
What do you mean by "acceptable". In other newsgroups, whining is often
ignored. Does that mean that it is "acceptable"? On the other hand, in
c.l.l. *some* whining is met with very harsh rhetoric. Does that mean that
whining is not *acceptable* in c.l.l.? But there is *other* whining in
c.l.l. that is extremely voluminous, yet you seem to find very acceptable,
and that is your own whining about others. Someone makes a two line
comment, and you respond with a 3 page diatribe, and you continue to whine
about the same issues over and over, post after post.
> | Let's see. I've posted 5 times to comp.lang.lisp. Searching for
"Naggum
> | group:comp.lang.lisp*" on Google reports "about 10,400". (and that is
> | almost certainly "threads" and not individual posts). Yet I am
responsible
> | for the negativity. If you say so.
> What is wrong with you when you cannot understand that people are not
> presented with the entire production of the newsgroup at once? People
read
> articles that arrive since last time they read news, often daily. You
are
> responsible for your fraction of the volume these given days. Why are
you
> so eager to dodge responsibility for your own actions? Is it because
you
> know that I am right about your destructiveness and bad influence?
I am not dodging responsibility. I am asking you to take responsibility for
your own actions, which are considerably more significant to c.l.l. than my
own.
> | No I have complained about the behavior of others. I have given
specific
> | examples, and am willing to supply more if you wish.
> Oh, great! Let us have examples that nobody has
> ever seen before that would shed light that nobody
> has ever seen before. This is a goddamn public
> newsgroup and people observe just the same facts
> you do. They just do not think they are equally
> _important_ as you do.
You should not assume that you speak for the rest of the world, the rest of
those who may be reading this post, or even the rest of c.l.l.
The comment to which I was resonding, and which you snipped stated
<< We need no more than a few such people to maintain a constant 5% stream
of hostilities from outsiders who do nothing but complain /about/ the
newsgroup, meaning: their own bad behavior in it.>>
and a previous comment stated
<< All these negative comments are self-propelling, self-reinforcing and
self-referential, referring back to other series of negative comments by
unconstructive, hostile outsiders...>>
and a later comment stated
<< The complaints have become circular: they complain about the hostile
reactions to all the other stupid complaints.>>
The question raised by your comment, and to which I resonded, is whether I
have based my opinion of c.l.l. upon observations of unwarranted hostility,
or whether "warranted" hostility. If you are going to accuse me of
mistaking the two, then it seems appropriate for me to respond by supplying
evidence. The fact that others already have access to this evidence is
immaterial. Why should I have to provide examples "that no-one has seen
before"? That is a ridiculous suggestion. If I am accused, I am entitled
to make my case. If you do not want me to make such a case, then don't make
the accusation.
> You cannot make people think your observations
> are important just by repeating them.
>Why are you such a dickweed that
> you focus on the negative and ignore the positive?
I am only responding to your posts, and the posts of others. If you don't
like what I have to say, then don't bother responding. Just ignore me.
Then there will be nothing for me to respond to.
> Why are you so dependent on portraying other
> people as bad when you appear to be mortally
> afraid of accepting responsiblity for your own
> actions? There is something disturbing in your
> lack of ability to understand your own role.
I believe your ability to make psychological judgements is impaired.
> | You are wrong. I have not complained about hostile reactions to
complaints.
> Those are 99.999% of the volume of negative
> posts to comp.lang.lisp. Using your stupid
> metric of total newsgroup volume, which you
> must approve of, there is a vanishingly small
> amount of negative posts that are not part of
> some idiotic meta-discussion about the newsgroup.
Well, we have an example before us, that happened only yesterday and the day
before. What do you say about Ilias. Was he part of some "idiotic
meta-discussion about the newsgroup"? Was he treated rudely, and does it
make sense to treat potential customers rudely?
> | Since you have posted somewhere on the order of 10,400 posts to
> | comp.lang.lisp, what is your role in the hostility?
> Right now, I am trying to defend the newsgroup
> from yet another unfair attack, while you are
> unfairly attacking people based on your "memory"
> of the articles.
The articles are all archived. If it is necessary, we can look them up.
There is no need to rely upon memory.
> Newsgroup dynamics dictate that you must look at
> how it evolves under various influences. Your
> influence is bad at this time, no matter who
> /you/ wish to blame for your own bad behavior.
I don't blame anyone for my behavior. On the other hand, I don't think it
is particularly "bad". We obviously disagree about this.
> You make things worse, not better.
We obviously have differing opinions about what is worse and what is better.
IMHO, you make things worse, not better. By pretending that all hostility
on the part of c.l.l. is merely a justified reaction to provocations, you
close your eyes to the fact that regulars of c.l.l. may in fact be
responsible.
> Why is this so hard for you to accept? Do you
> depend on believing yoruself to be good, flawless,
> perfect?
Not at all. You seem to have a penchant for ignoring issues and instead
making psychological evaluations.
> Nobody else does who are real people.
I agree.
> | Does your griping add to the problem?
> Why do you again try to switch the attention away
> from yourself?
Why do you try to switch attention away from *yourself*. I have answered
all of the issues that you have raised. Please answer the issues I raise.
> Do you become a better person if you can find
> somebody else to blame for your own behavior?
I'm not blaming anyone for my behavior. I asked you a simple question,
which you are apparently unprepared to answer. Does your griping add to the
problem? Yes or no?
> I think you become much worse when you cannot
> accept even a smidgen of responsiblity for your
> own actions and influence and role.
I accept full responsibility for my actions. You seem to want to make
psychological evaluations rather than discuss issues.
> | I have many desires quite unrelated to passing judgement over you. The
fact
> | that I have formed an opinion regarding c.l.l. of course pisses you off.
> | That's life. Learn to live with it.
> And I have formed an opinion of you as about
> as intelligent as your average redneck racist, who
> also enjoys reinforcing his own demented negative
> attitudes about other people based on his
> "observations" and acting on their emotions withtout
> thinking and really enjoys "sharing" them with others.
You may form whatever opinion you wish of me. It doesn't bother me, as I do
not respect your abilities in this area.
> I do not want retarded racists to succeed in unfairly
> portraying good people as bad the way you do,
> when they are clearly causing the problems.
In your previous comment, you only opined that I was *as intellligent as*
your average redneck racist. Here you cross over the line, with the phrase
"the way you do". I can only conclude from this that you are an utterly
unscrupulous debater, who, maliciously injects the specter of racism into a
discussion, for the purpose of smearing an opponent. By using such
McCarthyite, whispering campaign techniques, when you know or should know
the accusation is false, you demonstrate that you care neither for truth,
nor for exposing actual racism.
> People like you, however, will never realize that
> you do something wrong. That is one of the
> tragedies of racism and similar mental illnesses.
>We may have to live with it, but we do not have
> to /accept/ people like you or your views.
People like you who inject the issue of racism into a discussion when they
know or should know that the charge they make is untrue, truly show a lack
of ethical standards.
--PeterD
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <3238159511831086@naggum.no>
* "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net>
| > | I still do not believe I am responsible for the demise of c.l.l.
|
| > Why do you exaggerate to something you would obviously not
| > responsible for in order to avoid accepting responsiblity for
| > what you have done? You have made things worse, not better.
| > /Please/ try to understand that you are part of the problem you
| > complain about.
|
| I have merely responded to your own comments.
This is a strong hint that you have relieved yourself of responsibility for
what you do. It is a pretty classic cop-out at that.
| Here is what you said. �You have whined ... It is the whining losers who
| destroy a newsgroup by making it acceptable to whine about the atmosphere.�
| If the "[whining] losers" *destroy* a newsgroup, doesn't that mean that they
| are responsible for its demise? If they are [responsible] collectively, are
| they not also responsible individually?
No. You have to be pretty insane to think that the cumulative effect of
hundreds of whining losers over many years makes any one whining loser
individually responsible for the demise of a whole newsgroup. So of course
you are able to weasel out of responsibility by arguing that you believe you
are not individually responsible for the demise of the newsgroup, /therefore/
the whining losers are not collectively, cumulatively responsible, either.
It is pretty clear that you are quite intelligent when you can conjure up so
much idiocy and still make it appear to stick together. My hat's off to
your brilliance. You are, however, looking increasingly mentally unstable
because of the distance from your carefully constructed alternate universe
and the real world.
| You accuse me of exaggerating, but what I have done is respond precisely to
| what is intimated by your post.
No. You have added a premise of your own making. Again, you are shirking
from the responsibility of your own additional premise.
| At this point, I am merely responding to points that you raise. There is
| nothing pathological about that.
Dodging responsibility, again.
| > You are so certain that you are right
|
| Are you certain that you are right?
No, but I try to think about things, including what lunatics like you say.
I try to add additional reasons for some phenomenon that appear to have more
power of explanation than your sole reason. I am opposed to your one and
only true reason. That does not mean I have a one and only true reason.
But this is indicative of how you fail to think about what you read and only
consider this is stupid game. In fact, you are proving to be a troll.
| You have only repeated yourself, and have not provided anything new for my
| mind to work with.
I doubt that it would work on anything at this time.
| You claimed that the only problem with c.l.l. lies with "outsiders".
NO, I did not claim that. Please quit introducing your own interpretation.
| Nevertheless, you have accussed me of _contributing_ to the destruction of a
| newsgroup. I fail to see how a collectivity may be held responsible, yet an
| individual contributor not.
I am amazed at your rhetorical skills when you need to avoid responsibility
for your own actions. It is pretty impressive, actually.
You are obviously responsible for your part, but not the whole. Does this
seem unreasonable to you? Would you like to clarify what you mean by not
being responsible for anything you do, only "responding" to other people?
| I guess my question was, why does it happen to c.l.l. as opposed to other
| newsgroups?
Again, and for the umpteenth time: because whining losers find that it is
acceptable to whine in comp.lang.lisp, and they find others who will back
them up, either publicly or by mail, and instead of doing something to
improve the situation, they feel that they can just whine about the behavior
of others. This is part of the public sentiment about comp.lang.lisp that
has formed over many years by people like you who fail to realize their own
role in the development. All of your rhetorics is intended to dodge the
responsibility for your own actions. I find it rather alarming that anyone
can be so dead set on blaming other people for his own actions, but that is
precisely what makes a troll.
| In other words, the answer you provide above, doesn't answer the question of
| why c.l.l. _as opposed to_ other newgroups.
Yes, it does. Think about it.
| I did not arrive at my opinions based upon prejudice, but upon observation.
Not solely. You are the kind of person who focuses on negatives and forms
long-term judgmental opinions about other people based on your
"observations". More sane people will observe the exact same events and
come out with different conclusions. This is what you are unwilling to
accept.
| Do you believe that it is appropriate to treat potential customers rudely
| when they seek pointers to free literature?
This is such a situation. You observe and choose to filter and ignore such
that it leads you to a conclusion that was foretold. It was /not/ because
he asked for "free literature" that was treated the way he was. Yes, he did
that, too, but that did not cause the reactions. His hostility towards
those who tried to help him and his utter disrespect for other people cause
the reactions. Since you are obviously on the "side" of the whining losers,
being one of them, you do not see that whining losers do anything wrong.
> Trivially so: People who stay manage to get along.
| Then your aim is not to get along with the outside world, but only amonst
| yourselves?
No. Please engage your brain and arrive at a more likely conclusion.
| In other newsgroups, whining is often ignored.
That could be a contributory reason. Perhaps oldtimers in comp.lang.lisp
are just more sensitive to the kinds of unfair attacks that the whining
losers levy against them by implication and destructive generalizations.
Also, there is a /lot/ of good free Common Lisp tools and compilers and
environments, yet the whining losers always argue that they cannot even
learn and play with Common Lisp because someone is charging many kilobucks
for development environments. Those of us who know the vendors also know
that they are more than willing to help people with evaluation licenses, but
those who just come to whine never even bother to ask them.
| But there is *other* whining in c.l.l. that is extremely voluminous, yet you
| seem to find very acceptable, and that is your own whining about others.
What is your problem with this? You argue all the time about your own lack
of responsibility because you are only responding to me. So either you
accept responsibility for your own behavior or you give me the right to
"respond" to you and others like you, too.
| Someone makes a two line comment, and you respond with a 3 page diatribe,
| and you continue to whine about the same issues over and over, post after
| post.
You just told me that your power of objective observation is restricted to
what you already believe. Was that intentional on your part?
| I am not dodging responsibility. I am asking you to take responsibility for
| your own actions, which are considerably more significant to c.l.l. than my
| own.
Oh, but I am responsible for my own actions, but that does not mean that I
am responsible for what you want to impute to me. When you are responsible
for your own actions, you do not appreciate the unfair exaggerations that
come from hateful people who believe that other people are just as unwilling
to accept responsibility as they are, and therefore attack others for things
they have not done, just to push harder and try to make someone look evil by
blaming them for things that others do, usually themselves. So, while you
try to blame me for your own actions, I reject that because I much prefer to
be responsible only for myself. You should try to understand this, but I
guess you will be unable to appreciate what false accusations means to
someone who /does/ take responsibility for his own actions and does not
spend all this time dodging it.
| The question raised by your comment, and to which I resonded, is whether I
| have based my opinion of c.l.l. upon observations of unwarranted hostility,
| or whether "warranted" hostility.
You have undoubtedly observed it. Look, is reasoning this difficult for
you? It is not what you have observed that is under scrutiny here. It is
what you have /ignored/, and which would change your conclusions if you
stopped ignoring them and paid attention to information that is readily
available to you, but which you ignore /because/ you want to exonerate the
whining losers and yourself in particular.
| If I am accused, I am entitled to make my case. If you do not want me to
| make such a case, then don't make the accusation.
Well, gee. You are the one accusing people, here. Do you even forget that
you out and /attacked/ people with vague and generalized insults? Are you
so unable to realize your own role that you think /you/ are the victim of
unfair treatment? If so, I am just in /awe/ of your intellect. It takes
serious mental prowess to construct an alternative universe to live in that
maintains sufficient internal consistency not to break down.
| I am only responding to your posts, and the posts of others. If you don't
| like what I have to say, then don't bother responding. Just ignore me.
| Then there will be nothing for me to respond to.
Not responsible for your own actions, again. Blaming the victims of /your/
attacks for responding to you is pretty devious. Congratulations! You must
feel really good about yourself when you think you will succeed in blaming
those you unfairly accuse of doing what /you/ do.
| The articles are all archived. If it is necessary, we can look them up.
| There is no need to rely upon memory.
Heed your own advice.
| I don't blame anyone for my behavior. On the other hand, I don't think it
| is particularly "bad". We obviously disagree about this.
The inability of someone who does wrong to accept that he does wrong is what
causes most of the evil in this world.
| > You make things worse, not better.
|
| We obviously have differing opinions about what is worse and what is better.
| IMHO, you make things worse, not better. By pretending that all hostility
| on the part of c.l.l. is merely a justified reaction to provocations, you
| close your eyes to the fact that regulars of c.l.l. may in fact be
| responsible.
But what /is/ your gripe with this? You pretend that your own hostility and
continued attacks are only justified reactions to what is actually a /defense/
against your false accusations. People have to stop defending themselves
from your unfair attacks before you will stop attacking them further. This
is certainly a behavior that should be treated by psychiatrists.
| Why do you try to switch attention away from *yourself*.
And what, precisely, does this have to do with me? You come here to attack
people and accuse them unfairly of wrongdoing, refuse to listen to the
alternative explanations, refuse to listen to /anything/, in fact, and
require that people stop defending themselves from your unfair attacks
before you stop your unfair attacks. When did this start to be about /me/?
| I have answered all of the issues that you have raised. Please answer the
| issues I raise.
That you believe you have is simply astonishing.
| I accept full responsibility for my actions. You seem to want to make
| psychological evaluations rather than discuss issues.
There is something wrong with your psychology. It clouds the issues.
| You may form whatever opinion you wish of me. It doesn't bother me, as I do
| not respect your abilities in this area.
Of course you don't. Respect for other people is /precisely/ what you lack.
| By using such McCarthyite, whispering campaign techniques, when you know or
| should know the accusation is false, you demonstrate that you care neither
| for truth, nor for exposing actual racism.
And what, precisely, was it that you had against false accusations? Is it
only when others make them against you that you react to them, while you are
allowed to false accuse others of just about anything? Hypocrite!
| People like you who inject the issue of racism into a discussion when they
| know or should know that the charge they make is untrue, truly show a lack
| of ethical standards.
I only showed you how you appear to other people. Deal with it. Perhaps
you should consider your own behavior and modify it so the accusations you
consider false disappear? After all, /you/ think that false accusing other
people of evils they do not commit will cause them to rethink what they do
and change their behavior. Why does this tactic not work on yourself when
you use it against others? Could it be because you are stark raving mad?
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: ilias
Subject: could you all please stop this unfriendly corssposting?
Date:
Message-ID: <3D57DC6D.6080505@pontos.net>
i loose the overview.
From: Hartmann Schaffer
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <3d5839e7@news.sentex.net>
In article <·····················@sccrnsc03>,
"peter_douglass" <······@gis.net> writes:
> ...
> I still do not believe I am responsible for the demise of c.l.l.
the demise of c.l.l? when did that happen?
hs
--
don't use malice as an explanation when stupidity suffices
From: Thaddeus L Olczyk
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <k9ggluga46gres8plbqjqsd0hfe969k13u@4ax.com>
On 12 Aug 2002 18:42:47 -0400, ··@heaven.nirvananet (Hartmann
Schaffer) wrote:
>In article <·····················@sccrnsc03>,
> "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net> writes:
>> ...
>> I still do not believe I am responsible for the demise of c.l.l.
>
>the demise of c.l.l? when did that happen?
>
>hs
Erik seems to think so.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <3238190381781377@naggum.no>
* Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com>
| Erik seems to think so.
Let us be accurate for a change, shall we?
What Peter Douglas tries to tell me or anyone else that I think is useful
mostly to his own rhetorical style and should not be trusted. If I have
said something myself, I probably mean it, but if someone else, especially
someone who has a history of not getting the point tries to tell you I mean
something, do not trust them. USENET is pretty nifty that way: you can
actually go look it up and see if someone who claims someone else said this
or that is lying or not. You should try it. You should also realize that
people do this quite frequently and discover liars and frauds that way.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: Hartmann Schaffer
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <3d59ad6b@news.sentex.net>
In article <··································@4ax.com>,
Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> writes:
> On 12 Aug 2002 18:42:47 -0400, ··@heaven.nirvananet (Hartmann
> Schaffer) wrote:
>
>>In article <·····················@sccrnsc03>,
>> "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net> writes:
>>> ...
>>> I still do not believe I am responsible for the demise of c.l.l.
>>
>>the demise of c.l.l? when did that happen?
> Erik seems to think so.
either you are lying or you can't read: look at the quotations above
hs
--
don't use malice as an explanation when stupidity suffices
From: Alain Picard
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <86d6so1hkp.fsf@gondolin.local.net>
"peter_douglass" <······@gis.net> writes:
> No, the fact that many other people have complained about the hostile
> atmosphere of c.l.l. adds credence to the argument that c.l.l. has a hostile
> atmosphere.
[Responding not to peter in particular, but to all who apparently
share his views. The citation is only because it articulates a
supposedly widely held belief]
A few days ago I posted a question on how to optimize a certain
function in lisp. Withing 36 hours, I had 3 excellent followups,
and 2 private email, all with excellent explanations and suggestions.
No muss, no fuss, only courteous, professional exchange of information.
I see no hostility here. Could the damage be mostly self-inflicted?
[Followups to CLL only, as why the poor smalltalkers should have to
read through this cr*p is beyond me. Oh, and apologies to the
poor CLLers. :-)]
From: Immanuel Litzroth
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <m2vg6g72qd.fsf@enfocus.be>
>>>>> "Alain" == Alain Picard <·······················@optushome.com.au> writes:
Alain> "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net> writes:
>> No, the fact that many other people have complained about the
>> hostile atmosphere of c.l.l. adds credence to the argument that
>> c.l.l. has a hostile atmosphere.
Alain> I see no hostility here. Could the damage be mostly
Alain> self-inflicted?
I see hostility here. And I do not think all damage is
self-inflicted.
Immanuel
From: Daniel Parker
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <CUB59.452$%R5.181925@news20.bellglobal.com>
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> * "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net>
> Do you have any suggestion for how anyone can do anything to make you
stop
> whining?
Somehow I don't think this email is going to do it :-)
Best wishes,
Daniel
From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <aj68rp$c2u$3@luna.vcn.bc.ca>
In article <·················@dls.net>, Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> peter_douglass wrote:
>
>> It isn't using CL that causes the problem. The problem is that the
>> hostile atmosphere inside of comp.lang.lisp has driven away most CLers who
>> are neither con artists, nor suffering from mental infirmities. It is a sad
>> fact that IMHO, comp.lang.lisp is probably ruined beyond repair.
>
> Having insulted most everyone on c.l.l, and having demonstrated you
> find the group worthless, I suggest you stop posting to c.l.l
> and unsubscribe. After all, if the group is ruined beyond repair,
> why would you want to do otherwise?
Because, clearly, he counts himself among the mentally infirm con artist
scoundrels that choose to remain.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <3238032236066558@naggum.no>
* "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net>
| It isn't using CL that causes the problem. The problem is that the hostile
| atmosphere inside of comp.lang.lisp has driven away most CLers who are
| neither con artists, nor suffering from mental infirmities. It is a sad fact
| that IMHO, comp.lang.lisp is probably ruined beyond repair.
You are helping to make it more hostile and less inviting. Why do you do
such a moronic thing? What do you have to offer but gripes about others?
You are the problem if you do not choose to post quality articles.
What actually drives good people away is people like you, who ignore the
quality there is and focus on creating a hostile environment because you are
much more interested in what you hate than what you like. Sadly, such people
flock to attack people who do not do their bidding, who do not bow to their
standards of submissions. In short, you are demanders, not suppliers. When
a demander does not get what he demands, he starts complaining about other
people. /This/ is what the suppliers notice about a forum. When it becomes
a forum for demanders who are never satisfied, the suppliers leave, because
there is no longer anything for /them/ to value there.
Posting to USENET is not some selfless act. It takes time to read and write
good articles. That time has to be repaid and rewarded somehow. When all
you get from people who would never be able to produce a posting worth
reading if their life depended on it, is complaints that it is not /enough/,
you quickly realize that the whiners and losers have taken over the forum.
When people feel they just /have/ to voice their opinion about how badly
somebody else behaves, you know what the whiners and losers are more
interested in than actually contributing to quality articles. I venture that
nothing can be so unrewarding as some hypocritical asshole who thinks that
his view on proper behavior should become the topic of discussion. Either
you know how to behave better and do, or you do neither.
Write something about Common Lisp, Peter Douglas! Show us your insight.
Share your valuable points of view on Common Lisp, and ignore the fact that
you think the forum is ruined. You can help rebuild it with your unique
insight and valuable contributions. Remember, you know what you like, nobody
else does. What you dislike is not nearly as interesting for others to hear
about, no matter how important you think it is to express it publicly.
Look around you and focus on all the broken things, everything that could be
better if somebody else would just do the work. There is no shortage of crap
and low-quality goods. Whine about that. Watch TV and hate every show.
Hate the ads, hate the products advertised, hate the people who buy them so
you get more of the same crappy ads in the same crappy shows that people who
buy the crap watches. In a short time, you will become the worst of the
worst yourself, blaming others for your ever growing misery. Your home or
trailer is probably ruined beyond repair by this time, so there is no point
for you to start fixing anything. Whine some more. Then die in misery.
/Or/ look around you and focus on all the great things that people do. Look
for something to brighten your day every day. Be the first to smile when you
meet people. Comment on things you appreciate to people responsible for it.
Improve on the quality of your surroundings by picking up garbage left by the
uncaring. Repair things that break. Learn the names of your neighbors.
Take charge and organize efforts to keep your environment beautiful. Offer
to help people who get sick. Make your abilities known to others without
bragging or advertising, inquire about what others are good at. Actually
talk to people. Show consideration for others and make your concerns known
without complaining. Listen and try to understand when people are upset
about something you might have done. Do something you find important
regardless of how you think others will rate it. Make sure that you enjoy
being yourself without being sappy or kitsch. Do something constructive
about everything that annoys you. Put substance into all your efforts. Be
good at everything you do. Leave things you cannot do well to others who can
and appreciate them for saving you the trouble. Never whine, just improve.
Voice your frustrations early and often, so you know what to work on and are
not maintaining a fa�ade, but do not bother people who you do not recruit to
help you solve the problems. Learn from your failures and just do better
next time. Give credit where credit is due, pay attention to who actually
does the job, be firm about rewards for your own work. Live long and
prosper.
What comp.lang.lisp does /not/ need is another naysayer who would never be so
happy as when his negative predictions become truth. For some reason, Lisp
is a language it is OK for losers to whine about. It is as if it so good
that people of limited mental prowess cannot figure how to make their mark,
so they prefer to make it by whining about what they miss and cannot create.
It has been this way for years, from long before any of the people you blame
for your own negative attitudes came to the forum. People like you have
soured up the forum for years and have made it unrewarding for the suppliers
to offer anything. Nobody wants to give something to people who keep whining
that nobody gives them anything. So the first order of business is to get
all the naysayers out of the forum. Whoever are left are probably able to
share and work together. What we instead find is that naysayers and idiots
think they have a right to keep posting their negative crap about other
people. No doubt, Peter Douglas will now take offense at my taking offense
to his useless negative bullshit, and will defend himself and make a general
stink here that will prove him right, instead of doing something to improve
the quality of the place.
What prompted /you/ to annoy everyone by posting your negative comment,
Peter Douglas? I would /really/ like to know, because there is something in
addition to your faulty perception that makes you want to portray other
people as bad and negative when in fact you are bad and negative yourself,
and believe you are some sort of bystander looking at other people, when you
are in fact part of the forum and creating the forum with your own attitude.
The failure of some people to understand that it is impossible to remain a
bystander while they post to the forum they pretend to watch from afar is
pretty amazing. The attitude that makes these people fail to realize that
they have an effect on what they post to actually eludes me. How can someone
even think that voicing a negative opinion with no trace of a constructive
purpose will not have an effect on those he blames for these ills, which is
basically everyone /except/ himself?
The problem is perhaps that we have too much tolerance fot the idiots, so
people like Peter Douglas do not understand how unwelcome their crap is.
But try to chase away an idiot, and two more come to his defense, as if being
an idiot is a bigger and better right to fight for than having a good forum.
Well, there is no doubt what the idiots prefer. Fighting idiots is probably
a waste of time, but perhaps it is possible to make them stop flocking to
comp.lang.lisp when their empty lives need to be filled with hatred.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: peter_douglass
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <Syv59.61883$UU1.10086@sccrnsc03>
Responding to Erik Naggum ...
> * "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net>
> | It isn't using CL that causes the problem. The problem is that the
hostile
> | atmosphere inside of comp.lang.lisp has driven away most CLers who are
> | neither con artists, nor suffering from mental infirmities. It is a sad
fact
> | that IMHO, comp.lang.lisp is probably ruined beyond repair.
> You are helping to make it more hostile and less inviting.
Perhaps I am helping others to become aware of the problem.
> Why do you do such a moronic thing?
I do not believe it is moronic.
> What do you have to offer but gripes about others?
I post in forums other than c.l.l. This thread happens to be cross-posted.
I typically post on many things other than the quality of a forum. If you
do not wish to hear my gripes, you can stop posting to comp.object, and you
will not hear from me again.
> You are the problem if you do not choose to post quality articles.
I believe my articles are quality articles.
> What actually drives good people away is people like you,
It is not my intent to drive people away. It has however been the clear and
often stated intent of posters in c.l.l to drive people away.
> who ignore the quality there is and focus on creating a hostile
environment because you are
> much more interested in what you hate than what you like.
Hardly true, but it is a vague enough accusation that it would be pointless
to try to refute. Enjoy that as your opinion if you like.
> Sadly, such people flock to attack people who
> do not do their bidding, who do not bow to their
> standards of submissions.
Perhaps different people see the same reality and react to it in similar
ways.
> In short, you are demanders, not suppliers.
I have never demanded anythingn of you or of c.l.l. , nor do I intend to
demand anything of you, nor of c.l.l.
> When a demander does not get what he demands,
> he starts complaining about other people.
I have never made any demands of you or of c.l.l.
> /This/ is what the suppliers notice about a forum.
> When it becomes a forum for demanders who
> are never satisfied, the suppliers leave, because
> there is no longer anything for /them/ to value there.
I don't disagree that this can cause good posters to leave. However that is
not the only reason why many good posters avoid c.l.l.
> Posting to USENET is not some selfless act.
> It takes time to read and write good articles.
> That time has to be repaid and rewarded somehow.
> When all you get from people who would never be
> able to produce a posting worth reading if their life
> depended on it, is complaints that it is not /enough/,
> you quickly realize that the whiners and losers have
> taken over the forum.
I don't disagree.
> When people feel they just /have/ to voice their
> opinion about how badly somebody else behaves,
> you know what the whiners and losers are more
> interested in than actually contributing to quality articles.
> I venture that nothing can be so unrewarding as some
> hypocritical asshole who thinks that his view on proper
> behavior should become the topic of discussion.
You are entitled to your opinion.
> Either you know how to behave better and do,
> or you do neither.
There is no room for discussing a hostile atmosphere?
> Write something about Common Lisp, Peter Douglas!
Since when did you become my boss? How much are you paying me?
> Show us your insight. Share your valuable points of
> view on Common Lisp, and ignore the fact that
> you think the forum is ruined.
Why would I ignore my own beliefs?
> You can help rebuild it with your unique insight and
> valuable contributions. Remember, you know what
> you like, nobody else does.
Among other things I like the peace of mind that comes from posting in
newsgroups where posters do not suggest murder as a solution to their
disputes.
> What you dislike is not nearly as interesting for others
> to hear about, no matter how important you think it is
> to express it publicly.
I'm sure it is not interesting to you. However, you do not speak for
everyone.
[snip of extended monologue on attitudes towards life]
> What comp.lang.lisp does /not/ need is another
> naysayer who would never be so happy as when
> his negative predictions become truth.
I would be delighted if c.l.l. turned around.
> For some reason, Lisp is a language it
> is OK for losers to whine about.
You are confusing criticism of comp.lang.lisp with criticisim of Lisp the
language.
> It is as if it so good that people of limited mental
> prowess cannot figure how to make their mark,
> so they prefer to make it by whining about what
> they miss and cannot create. It has been this way
> for years, from long before any of the people you
> blame for your own negative attitudes came to the
> forum. People like you have soured up the forum
> for years and have made it unrewarding for the suppliers
> to offer anything.
If people have complained about a hostile atmosphere inside of c.l.l. for
years, perhaps it is because there actually is a hostile atmosphere inside
of c.l.l.
> Nobody wants to give something to people who keep
> whining that nobody gives them anything. So the first
> order of business is to get all the naysayers out of the forum.
In other words, it is your intent to drive people away. Hmm. I thought you
were blaming _me_ for driving people away.
> Whoever are left are probably able
> to share and work together.
I have no doubt of this. However, the people who are left are not
necessarily representative of the lisp community.
> What we instead find is that naysayers and idiots
> think they have a right to keep posting their negative
> crap about other people.
Of course they have that right.
> No doubt, Peter Douglas will now take offense at
> my taking offense to his useless negative bullshit,
> and will defend himself and make a general stink
> here that will prove him right, instead of doing
> something to improve the quality of the place.
I take no offense at your comments. However, since they are directed at me,
I have responded.
> What prompted /you/ to annoy everyone by posting
> your negative comment, Peter Douglas? I would
> /really/ like to know, because there is something in
> addition to your faulty perception that makes you want
> to portray other people as bad and negative when in
> fact you are bad and negative yourself, and believe you
> are some sort of bystander looking at other people, when
> you are in fact part of the forum and creating the forum
> with your own attitude.
I was prompted to comment because a post appeared in a newsgroup which I
read and post to frequently, i.e. comp.object. That post suggested that
using common lisp either rotted the brain, or promoted con-artistry. I
responded that the problem was not common lisp the language, but c.l.l. the
newsgroup. You are entitled to believe that my perception is faulty.
However, as my perception matches that of many others, you must believe that
all of our perceptions are faulty. That's fine. Whatever floats your boat.
> The failure of some people to understand that
> it is impossible to remain a bystander while they
> post to the forum they pretend to watch from afar is
>pretty amazing. The attitude that makes these people
> fail to realize that they have an effect on what they
> post to actually eludes me.
I don't doubt that I have an effect. What I doubt is that my puny effect
will be even noticable in terms of changing the atmosphere of c.l.l.
> How can someone even think that voicing a negative
> opinion with no trace of a constructive purpose will
> not have an effect on those he blames for these ills,
> which is basically everyone /except/ himself?
I have no more belief that I would have a constructive effect upon you, than
you believe I will have _any_ influence upon yourself.
> The problem is perhaps that we have too much
> tolerance fot the idiots, so people like Peter
> Douglas do not understand how unwelcome their
> crap is.
I understand how unwelcome my comments are to you. I would hardly expect
you to agree with me. However, I also understand that you neither own
usenet, nor own c.l.l.
> But try to chase away an idiot, and two more
> come to his defense, as if being an idiot is a bigger
> and better right to fight for than having a good forum.
Perhaps the "idiots" all see a reallity that you don't.
> Well, there is no doubt what the idiots prefer.
> Fighting idiots is probably a waste of time, but
> perhaps it is possible to make them stop flocking
> to comp.lang.lisp when their empty lives need to
> be filled with hatred.
Again, perhaps the "idiots" who "flock" to criticize the atmosphere in
c.l.l. see something you do not.
--PeterD
From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <aj68rq$c2u$4@luna.vcn.bc.ca>
In article <·····················@sccrnsc03>, peter_douglass wrote:
> Responding to Erik Naggum ...
>
>> * "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net>
>> | It isn't using CL that causes the problem. The problem is that the
> hostile
>> | atmosphere inside of comp.lang.lisp has driven away most CLers who are
>> | neither con artists, nor suffering from mental infirmities. It is a sad
> fact
>> | that IMHO, comp.lang.lisp is probably ruined beyond repair.
>
>> You are helping to make it more hostile and less inviting.
>
> Perhaps I am helping others to become aware of the problem.
You may be making others aware of a problem, indeed, but not the problem you
think you are making them aware of.
What is it with people who want others to become aware of problems? Do you
think that other people are too stupid to perceive what you perceive, all by
themselves?
No you know very well that others read exactly the same newsgroup articles that
are available to you, modulo differences in arrival order and localized service
interruptions. Why do you think they need your interpretive assistance?
So when you mean ``aware'' is simply that you want people to accept your
interpretation of the world, rather than their own interpretation. You can't
possibly mean that you want to supply them with raw evidence, because they
already have that.
This is basically what most of the the awareness-raisers of this world want;
their stand is: you either agree with me or you must not be aware aware of
``the problem''. Unless you *are* aware, but are stupid to form the same
perception as I, are so mentally weak that you deny the existence of ``the
problem'' in the face of clear evidence, or else are too heartless, selfish,
greedy, et cetera, to care about it. In fact, you contribute to the problem,
and your refusal to become aware makes it worse, because if everyone was aware,
it would go away!
In other words, the tools of the argument are to attack the subject's esteem of
his own intelligence, perceptiveness and sanity, in combination with guilt
manipulation.
>> What actually drives good people away is people like you,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> It is not my intent to drive people away. It has however been the clear and
> often stated intent of posters in c.l.l to drive people away.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Allow me to help you to become aware of a subtle difference here.
From: peter_douglass
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <20z59.64467$nF5.15029@sccrnsc02>
Responding to Kaz Kylheku ...
> > Perhaps I am helping others to become
> > aware of the problem.
> You may be making others aware of a problem,
> indeed, but not the problem you think you are
> making them aware of.
Entirely possible.
> What is it with people who want others to become
> aware of problems? Do you think that other people
> are too stupid to perceive what you perceive, all by
> themselves?
What is it with people who do not wish to acknowledge problems? A few hours
before I posted my comments to Thaddeus, a poster with the handle ilias
wrote "LISP sounds interesting! Where can i read-in?". Ilias stated that
he was looking for some white papers about Lisp that he could present to his
management. What was the resonse he got? I'll paraphrase.
Ilias: Hi, I'm looking for pointers to white papers about Lisp that I can
present to my managers.
A: If you schmooze with us, we might help you, but since you are dumb
enough to ask a question forthright, I'll ask, are you willing to give us
money?
Ilias: Er, no, I was just hoping someone could point me to some free
literature. You see I was hoping to present something to my managers...
A: Well, if you won't pay, then be satisfied with what you get. Franz has
some papers, but if they don't have what you want, you'll either have to
pay, or do without.
Ilias: Thanks for the pointer to Franz. Don't you think other vendors
might have something I could use as well?
A: You seem to have poor comprehension. Plonk!
B: Why, do you have to create a presentation for idiots, or are you
illiterate?
----------
Now, I would imagine that the Ilias and his managers are contemplating using
Lisp in one or more future projects. Why else would they wish to learn
about it. In other words, this is a potential sale, and potential jobs for
Lisp. _I_ would think one would want to avoid being rude to someone making
such inquiries. Apparently people at c.l.l. don't see it that way. Yes,
they have to drive away the morons. Well I suppose if one's aim is to
scuttle the expansion of Lisp, c.l.l. is pursuing the right strategy...
You ask whether I think
<< that other people are too stupid to perceive
<< what you perceive, all by themselves?
Well I really don't know. Do you think the above interaction, that occurred
only a few hours ago is a sign of a problem? If you do think it is a
problem, why haven't you spoken up?
> No you know very well that others read exactly the same newsgroup articles
that
> are available to you, modulo differences in arrival order and localized
service
> interruptions. Why do you think they need your interpretive assistance?
First of all, not everyone reading this thread reads c.l.l., so it isn't
true that everyone reads the same thing. Second, if we do perceive things
the same way, then perhaps you will tell me whether you agree with me. If
you do not agree, then clearly we do not perceive things the same. And yet
we have the same physical evidence before us. Perhaps we differ on our
interpretations of that evidence.
> So when you mean ``aware'' is simply that you want people to accept your
> interpretation of the world, rather than their own interpretation. You
can't
> possibly mean that you want to supply them with raw evidence, because they
> already have that.
I want people to arrive at their own interpretation. This does not preclude
me from giving my opinion.
> This is basically what most of the the awareness-raisers of this world
want;
> their stand is: you either agree with me or you must not be aware aware of
> ``the problem''. Unless you *are* aware, but are stupid to form the same
> perception as I, are so mentally weak that you deny the existence of ``the
> problem'' in the face of clear evidence, or else are too heartless,
selfish,
> greedy, et cetera, to care about it. In fact, you contribute to the
problem,
> and your refusal to become aware makes it worse, because if everyone was
aware,
> it would go away!
So let me ask a plain question. Does or does not c.l.l. have a problem with
a hostile atmosphere? You are perfectly free to disagree with me, and I
won't accuse you of being evil if you do. But if there is no problem, why
don't you just say. "There is no problem", instead of making personal
attributions of those who say "There is a problem".
> In other words, the tools of the argument are to attack the subject's
esteem of
> his own intelligence, perceptiveness and sanity, in combination with guilt
> manipulation.
No, the tools of the argument are rational discussion. If you wish to have
rational discussion about the topic that is fine. If you wish to accuse
those who raise the issue of hostility in c.l.l. of
"atacking the subject's esteem of his own intelligence, perceptiveness and
sanity, in combination of guilt manipulation", then I doubt we will see eye
to eye.
> >> What actually drives good people away is people like you,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > It is not my intent to drive people away. It has however been the clear
and
> > often stated intent of posters in c.l.l to drive people away.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Again, if people like me are able to drive _good_ people away, then their
allegiance to your newsgroup must be very feeble. But is your point that
people like Ilias are not "good people"?
> Allow me to help you to become aware of a subtle difference here.
Oh, I think I see it very clearly. The people you drive away are not "good"
people. I guess that makes the people in c.l.l. very lucky.
--PeterD
From: Marc Spitzer
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <slrnaldi3r.npu.marc@oscar.eng.cv.net>
followup set to comp.lang.lisp
In article <·····················@sccrnsc02>, peter_douglass wrote:
> Responding to Kaz Kylheku ...
>
>> > Perhaps I am helping others to become
>> > aware of the problem.
>
>> You may be making others aware of a problem,
>> indeed, but not the problem you think you are
>> making them aware of.
>
> Entirely possible.
>
>> What is it with people who want others to become
>> aware of problems? Do you think that other people
>> are too stupid to perceive what you perceive, all by
>> themselves?
>
> What is it with people who do not wish to acknowledge problems? A few hours
> before I posted my comments to Thaddeus, a poster with the handle ilias
> wrote "LISP sounds interesting! Where can i read-in?". Ilias stated that
> he was looking for some white papers about Lisp that he could present to his
> management. What was the resonse he got? I'll paraphrase.
>
> Ilias: Hi, I'm looking for pointers to white papers about Lisp that I can
> present to my managers.
>
> A: If you schmooze with us, we might help you, but since you are dumb
> enough to ask a question forthright, I'll ask, are you willing to give us
> money?
No he was asking for stuff to be custom done for him in just the specific
format he wanted for free. I want it this way was the theme. And this is
offencive behavior in an adult when there is no money put on the table.
>
> Ilias: Er, no, I was just hoping someone could point me to some free
> literature. You see I was hoping to present something to my managers...
>
> A: Well, if you won't pay, then be satisfied with what you get. Franz has
> some papers, but if they don't have what you want, you'll either have to
> pay, or do without.
and how is this unfair? If he realy needed the graphic presentation to
understand lisp he was free to build them or he was free to commission
them to be built. I personaly think that if you realy need pretty
pictures to understand lisp you will have a lot of problems understanding
lisp
>
> Ilias: Thanks for the pointer to Franz. Don't you think other vendors
> might have something I could use as well?
>
> A: You seem to have poor comprehension. Plonk!
Well he did not get the beer analogy, or he decided not to get it.
so by observed behavior he was deemed not worth conversion with.
And a few other brain farts, on his part, also contributed to the issue
>
> B: Why, do you have to create a presentation for idiots, or are you
> illiterate?
>
That is a fair question, although Ilias said the presentation were for him.
That does not exclude his management from looking at the pretty pictures
also, if he finds any.
> ----------
>
> Now, I would imagine that the Ilias and his managers are contemplating using
> Lisp in one or more future projects. Why else would they wish to learn
> about it. In other words, this is a potential sale, and potential jobs for
> Lisp. _I_ would think one would want to avoid being rude to someone making
> such inquiries. Apparently people at c.l.l. don't see it that way. Yes,
> they have to drive away the morons. Well I suppose if one's aim is to
> scuttle the expansion of Lisp, c.l.l. is pursuing the right strategy...
>
> You ask whether I think
>
> << that other people are too stupid to perceive
> << what you perceive, all by themselves?
>
> Well I really don't know. Do you think the above interaction, that occurred
> only a few hours ago is a sign of a problem? If you do think it is a
> problem, why haven't you spoken up?
>
>> No you know very well that others read exactly the same newsgroup articles
> that
>> are available to you, modulo differences in arrival order and localized
> service
>> interruptions. Why do you think they need your interpretive assistance?
>
> First of all, not everyone reading this thread reads c.l.l., so it isn't
> true that everyone reads the same thing. Second, if we do perceive things
> the same way, then perhaps you will tell me whether you agree with me. If
> you do not agree, then clearly we do not perceive things the same. And yet
> we have the same physical evidence before us. Perhaps we differ on our
> interpretations of that evidence.
The orignal questions are Common Lisp specific so I have absolutly no idea
why comp.lang.smalltalk is on the list or anything other then comp.lang.lisp
>
>> So when you mean ``aware'' is simply that you want people to accept your
>> interpretation of the world, rather than their own interpretation. You
> can't
>> possibly mean that you want to supply them with raw evidence, because they
>> already have that.
>
> I want people to arrive at their own interpretation. This does not preclude
> me from giving my opinion.
Well then it is not a problem, but your oppinion that there is a problem.
Well then the real problem is finger pointers who have a desire to tell
the rest of us what the problem is and start a me too cascade amon other
like minded dolts.
>
>> This is basically what most of the the awareness-raisers of this world
> want;
>> their stand is: you either agree with me or you must not be aware aware of
>> ``the problem''. Unless you *are* aware, but are stupid to form the same
>> perception as I, are so mentally weak that you deny the existence of ``the
>> problem'' in the face of clear evidence, or else are too heartless,
> selfish,
>> greedy, et cetera, to care about it. In fact, you contribute to the
> problem,
>> and your refusal to become aware makes it worse, because if everyone was
> aware,
>> it would go away!
>
> So let me ask a plain question. Does or does not c.l.l. have a problem with
> a hostile atmosphere? You are perfectly free to disagree with me, and I
> won't accuse you of being evil if you do. But if there is no problem, why
> don't you just say. "There is no problem", instead of making personal
> attributions of those who say "There is a problem".
Well crossposting this shit to 3 unrelated newsgroups is a hostile act,
to the 3 other news groups involved at least. Well have you considdered
the fact that you might be acting in an evil fashion, deliberately causing
harm to others or violating newsgroup charters or ...?
>
>> In other words, the tools of the argument are to attack the subject's
> esteem of
>> his own intelligence, perceptiveness and sanity, in combination with guilt
>> manipulation.
>
> No, the tools of the argument are rational discussion. If you wish to have
> rational discussion about the topic that is fine. If you wish to accuse
> those who raise the issue of hostility in c.l.l. of
> "atacking the subject's esteem of his own intelligence, perceptiveness and
> sanity, in combination of guilt manipulation", then I doubt we will see eye
> to eye.
>
Ah but have you considered the option that he is right and you are wrong?
Where are your statistics on how hostile CLL is? How did you derive them?
Or do you just feel it?
>> >> What actually drives good people away is people like you,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> > It is not my intent to drive people away. It has however been the clear
> and
>> > often stated intent of posters in c.l.l to drive people away.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Again, if people like me are able to drive _good_ people away, then their
> allegiance to your newsgroup must be very feeble. But is your point that
> people like Ilias are not "good people"?
>
Or you are a very bad person that is incredably toxic to be around.
>> Allow me to help you to become aware of a subtle difference here.
>
> Oh, I think I see it very clearly. The people you drive away are not "good"
> people. I guess that makes the people in c.l.l. very lucky.
>
You have brought nothing to the table but your mouth. You did this
so you could raise awareness about the problem. The next step is to
set up a way to take donations so you can 'fix' the 'problem' for
the 'good' of the 'community'.
oh boy I can hardly wait
marc
> --PeterD
>
>
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <kk9r8h52gta.fsf@glug.org>
"peter_douglass" <······@gis.net> writes:
> If you do not agree, then clearly we do not perceive things the same. And
> yet we have the same physical evidence before us. Perhaps we differ on our
> interpretations of that evidence.
don't forget that agreement is orthogonal to understanding. legislators use
this, for example, to pass laws that exculpate themselves of the treachery
that is their past work. sure, they (and their laws), too, will pass, but
what a rotten time it is for the rest of us in the meanwhile.
do you want to control discourse likewise? please at least offer something
for my /usr/local while you're at it...
thi
From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <aj6o8a$jpj$2@luna.vcn.bc.ca>
In article <·····················@sccrnsc02>, peter_douglass wrote:
> Responding to Kaz Kylheku ...
>
>> > Perhaps I am helping others to become
>> > aware of the problem.
>
>> You may be making others aware of a problem,
>> indeed, but not the problem you think you are
>> making them aware of.
>
> Entirely possible.
>
>> What is it with people who want others to become
>> aware of problems? Do you think that other people
>> are too stupid to perceive what you perceive, all by
>> themselves?
>
> What is it with people who do not wish to acknowledge problems? A few hours
> before I posted my comments to Thaddeus, a poster with the handle ilias
> wrote "LISP sounds interesting! Where can i read-in?". Ilias stated that
> he was looking for some white papers about Lisp that he could present to his
> management. What was the resonse he got? I'll paraphrase.
Paraphrasing is dangerous. Careful!
> Ilias: Hi, I'm looking for pointers to white papers about Lisp that I can
> present to my managers.
But this isn't what was said; I don't recall any mention of managers. Only a
sponge complaining about the *form* of the available information not being to
his liking, namely being a ready-made presentation with graphs, charts and
tables. Whether that is for his own use, or for some management, was not made
clear.
That sponge wasn't treated harshly at first, only when certain aspects of his
character started to come to light. Near the root article of that thread,
things were quite civil.
> A: If you schmooze with us, we might help you, but since you are dumb
> enough to ask a question forthright, I'll ask, are you willing to give us
> money?
I didn't see any mention of schmoozing, so again, you are inventing
words that were not said. That is not the purpose of paraphrasing;
the honest purpose of paraphrasing is brevity and clarity.
In any case, the question is a good response to a sponge who wants others to
create presentations for him out of information that is already available.
I haven't seen any demands any schmoozing. People who accept others based on
schmoozing are pathetic scoundrels whose acceptance is worthless, so that only
other scoundrels seek it.
> Ilias: Er, no, I was just hoping someone could point me to some free
> literature. You see I was hoping to present something to my managers...
``... and the silly bastards actually expect me to do research, and put together
a presentation myself!''
See, there is more than one way to paraphrase, in this manner.
> Now, I would imagine that the Ilias and his managers are contemplating using
> Lisp in one or more future projects. Why else would they wish to learn
> about it. In other words, this is a potential sale, and potential jobs for
> Lisp.
I couldn't care less. I'm programing in C for a living; right now I'm working
on a fileystem module for BSD Unix, which is just as fun as many a Lisp
hacking opportunity.
I don't sell Lisp a implementation, and if I were a vendor, I wouldn't want
users who are idiots; in the long run, they will turn into a liability that far
outweighs the revenue. For instance, they might write bad, failed software,
and then the name of my development tools will come up in rumors about their
failure, if indeed the idiots won't come out and blame those tools openly. Let
those users go to a competitor. Or to Java or Perl or something.
A programming language is not a political movement that requires membership, to
achieve some kind of ``strength in numbers''. If nobody wants to use a
programming language, then let it vanish.
If someone wants to make important decisions, like what programming language to
use, based on the perceived hostility of a Usenet newsgroup, that is his
stupidity. Why give in to it?
> _I_ would think one would want to avoid being rude to someone making
> such inquiries. Apparently people at c.l.l. don't see it that way. Yes,
> they have to drive away the morons. Well I suppose if one's aim is to
> scuttle the expansion of Lisp, c.l.l. is pursuing the right strategy...
What do I know about people's aims? There could be as many aims as there are
participants, for all I know.
What I do know is that I get exactly out of Usenet what I want, because
I accept how it works, and I like it. Part of how it works is that you can't
barge into a newsgroup, demand that people change their behavior, and actually
expect that it will happen! It never will, so if you seriously expect that, you
will be continously frustrated.
I enjoy seeing a stupid troll get a justified roasting. Some people feel the
need to go on a crusade to try to take away that entertainment, wanting
to replace it with a sterilized Usenet that is friendly toward everyone,
regardless of character, a kind of ``service with a smile'', with no
compensation.
Of course, they have no possible hope of success, but once in a while, it's fun
to pretend to take these crusaders seriously and raise counter-objections.
> So let me ask a plain question. Does or does not c.l.l. have a problem with
> a hostile atmosphere?
Not at all. I have found that so far, nearly every behavior from the c.l.l.
regulars has been a fair and just response. In fact, many people err on the
side of being far too easy. The newsgroup has been a valuable source of
useful Common-Lisp-related information to me.
Every decent comp.lang.* newsgroup has a hostile atmosphere toward people who
post misinformation, start off-topic discussions, make demands on other
people's time and effort, or invite participation in academic misconduct.
These are in fact hostile, parasitic behaviors, which call for a hostile
response. If a mosquito lands on you to suck your blood, swatting it is a just,
hostile response.
You know, even paid technical support people sometimes collapse and resort to
hostility; their jobs often are not compesated well enough, so that some of the
compensation has to come from the pleasure of interacting with someone who is
intelligent and inherently help-able.
> No, the tools of the argument are rational discussion. If you wish to have
> rational discussion about the topic that is fine. If you wish to accuse
> those who raise the issue of hostility in c.l.l. of
> "atacking the subject's esteem of his own intelligence, perceptiveness and
> sanity, in combination of guilt manipulation", then I doubt we will see eye
> to eye.
That's right; a reduction in hostility can't be obtained in any other
way. You have no power over anyone's behavior, so at best you can appeal to
their guilt or self esteem by trying to make them *feel* bad for behaving that
way.
There is no rational reason for suppressing just measures of hostility;
so there is nothing to discuss, really.
>> >> What actually drives good people away is people like you,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> > It is not my intent to drive people away. It has however been the clear
> and
>> > often stated intent of posters in c.l.l to drive people away.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Again, if people like me are able to drive _good_ people away, then their
> allegiance to your newsgroup must be very feeble. But is your point that
> people like Ilias are not "good people"?
Newsgroups are not political movements; why talk about allegiance?
One's allegiance should be to one's principles, not to a newsgroup.
And yes, my point is that people like Ilias are not good people. By not good, I
mean unfit for participation in a forum that is based on trading value for
value, rather than on undeserved expectations. He has nothing to offer.
That leads to the question: what can a newbie offer to the experts as a trade
for their discussion? He can offer the experts the pleasure of interacting
with a capable, hard working mind that makes every effort to integrate whatever
information is volunteered, ask only pertinent questions, make no unreasonable
demands, come to sound conclusions, and update incorrect beliefs with correct
information.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <3238095259130566@naggum.no>
* "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net>
| What is it with people who do not wish to acknowledge problems?
The mentally ill, as in the obsessed, frequently have problems that they
think are very real, and spend a large fraction of their time complaining
that others do not "acknowledge" their problems. The more they insist, the
more real the problem is to them and the less real to everybody else.
I think you are nuts, Peter Douglas, because /you/ cannot acknowledge that
the so-called "problem" is of your own making.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: Jochen Schmidt
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <aj6mck$mjn$1@rznews2.rrze.uni-erlangen.de>
I don't understand why this cross-posting "holier than thou" thread must be.
To me it looks as if people did not really talk to each other.
I can believe that Ilias really only wanted some pointers to existing free
presentations about lisp.
I can believe too that Christoper did not really want money from him but
really meant that if he spends some time chatting with the people here then
they will certainly be more open to help him out. This is no customer
support forum - it is a public forum where people meet to talk about their
interests. Nobody can urge anyone to give something for free. And even if
_I_ think Ilias did not demand "gratis support" his question could have
been understood like this.
But lets face it - the real problem in this thread is not any hostileness of
cll or any behaviour of Ilias or Christopher. It is the rude trolls of
Thaddeus L Olczyk in _this_ and several other forums. _He_ did crosspost
his bullshit to c.l.smalltalk, c.l.lisp, c.object and c.software-eng.
Why did he did this? Because he thinks he got insulted in the past now
enjoys to create flames here and there. One interesting fact you should
probably know is that Thaddeus L Olczyk asked for help some time ago -
*got* help from alot of people in this forum but insulted some of the
helpers because their freely offered solutions did not fit his set quality
levels. Since then he regularily posts here and in other forums insulting
the participants of the newsgroup as being dumb and hostile.
Please do not believe the nonsense and hate he spreads - there is no reason
to fight each other here because of the childish behaviour of a moron like
him.
I remember another c.l.l/c.l.object crossposted thread not to long ago which
was a really good discussion.
ciao,
Jochen
--
http://www.dataheaven.de
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:19:28 -0400, "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
wrote:
>
>Thaddeus L Olczyk is a hostile trouble maker and a hypocrite for reading and
>posting in a forum he claims to have only contempt for. ilias is just
>asking questions and handling the ridiculously nasty responses in a very
>calm and entertaining way.
>
>If the questions or attitudes a newcomer displays rub you (editorial you,
>not Kaz you) the wrong way just butt out of the thread. All of this
>self-righteous hand-slapping is really a pain to witness.
>
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:57:00 +0200, Jochen Schmidt <···@dataheaven.de>
wrote:
>
>Why did he did this? Because he thinks he got insulted in the past now
>enjoys to create flames here and there. One interesting fact you should
>probably know is that Thaddeus L Olczyk asked for help some time ago -
>*got* help from alot of people in this forum but insulted some of the
>helpers because their freely offered solutions did not fit his set quality
>levels. Since then he regularily posts here and in other forums insulting
>the participants of the newsgroup as being dumb and hostile.
>
>Please do not believe the nonsense and hate he spreads - there is no reason
>to fight each other here because of the childish behaviour of a moron like
>him.
>
This is a most interesting claim. By my memory, most of the time I
spent in c.l.l has been very sedate. I checked over the posts I made
to google (which anyone else can check over too) to c.l.l. They fall
into several categories.
1) Pre 2000
Occasionally a question about lisp. When not a question, then
usually as a reply to a cross post from another group.
2) 2000 to Dec2001
Occasionally asking some basic question about Lisp.
Things like s there a better reference for MOP than AMOP.
Basically friendly.
3) Dec 2001 to Jun 2002
A bit more intense posting basically looking for more
information on lisp. For the most part friendly, but
occasional sniping. Nastier them some, but friendlier than
many. Standard usenet stuff, but perhaps a bit calmer.
4) Jul 2002
Well you can here. ( Note that for the most part I have not
been contributing that much to these threads. ) I made a post
about an article where Gregor Kiczales seems to say that
MOP ( principally his invention ) was a mistake. I simply asked
for comments.
I asked a question ( not unusual in a newsgroup ). Basically I
asked for suggestions on debugging tools to solve a problem.
Not only did I want to solve the problem but I wanted the tools
to solve it in my toolbox for future use. I also described the
problem in detail on the off chance that someone encountered
if before ( that happened when I went from CLisp to CMUCL
here's what the problem was...). I got help from several people.
One, despite the fact that four times in the post I indicate
something was not the problem ( one example: the problem was that
run-program the equivalent of fork/exec did not return, I pointed
out that the third to last line in the called in the program
printed to a file and was executed ), a person still suggested
that as the problem. Ok. I did not outright say it was not the
problem, I think four hints should be enough. So I got testy with
him, something I usually do with people who give bad advice.
<digression>
About two weeks ago someone asked a question on comp.emacs.
Several people gave bad answers. I was the only one to give a
correct answer ( mod some typos which someone else corrected )
and in the process tweaked a few of the people giving wrong
answers. One person in particular responded by saying that you
should always be nice to people who help. This is a concept which
I seriously disagree with. As one example:
About ten years ago I was playing basketball when one of the
players fell on the knife edge of his foot and literally pulled
the ankle out of the foot socket. One the other players walked
up to him and said it was nothing, while trying to twist the
ankle into the socket. The doctors said that doing this caused
ten times the damage that the original incident did.
Ineptly helping people can cost people time, money, the health of
themselves, friends, and family, and possibly even kill someone.
For this reason I think there is no way that is too hard to come
down on an inept helper.
</digression>
None of the principles in the present thread seem to have been in
that thread. It is a far stretch to say that I carry it as some
sort of grudge against the lisp community. Not only were their
testy posts, but their were several which were quite nice and
helpful, and in the end the problem was resolved ( the program
was ported from Clisp to CMUCL, turns out they handle run-program
slightly differently ). In fact in the contributors to the nasty
part of that thread are not what I consider c.l.l regulars. ( Not
that I am a judge of who regulars are or not, but if I do not
judge these people as regulars then I am not likely to hold what
they say against c.l.l.)
Finally a thread where a person asks if there exists a free Lisp
compiler for Linux and Windows. I bimonthly question that seems
to enrage the Lisp community. I responded with a very tongue in
cheek response about how the poster had chutzpah to even dare
ask such a vicious question. Several c.l.l regulars decided to
take
exception.
There is the whole of my c.l.l posting history. I think it's fairly
clear that I have not for the most part tried to stir up trouble
( as these posts and others have suggested ) but tried to steer clear
of controversy.
Instead this is the manifestation of some other phenomena in c.l.l.
Call it the Commie Lisp Hating Troll bit.
The bozo bit is a phenomena of the business world where when
you say something dumb to a manager or senior programmer
he immediately toggles the bozo bit, even though you've been the best
programmer in the company, or display brilliance in the future.
The only way to deal with it is to leave.
I guess the lisp community has the Commie Lisp hating Troll bit.
The minute you say the slightest negative thing ( Not even a negative
thing, for example just asking about the existence of a free Lisp
compiler toggles it. I suspect that this is because the Lisp community
is no longer up to the task. ) the bit gets toggled. Then suddenly
your past history changes to where every post is a troll even thought
the facts don't support it.
The lisp community can't even accept the fact that someone like Gregor
Kiczales has changed his thinking on MOPs. Instead claiming that he is
under some mystical political pressure.
The true facts about me are this:
I first learned Lisp in 1977-1978 back when it still came with two
modes, eval and eval-quote from a book called "Lets Talk Lisp"
by an author called Siklosky (IIRC). This because of a algebraic
manipulation language called REDUCE that I wan't to use to solve
some General Relativity questions.
For a long time that knowledge went mostly unused but every so often I
got to tweak it and actually use it.
Last year I finally decided to get very serious about Lisp ( and
especially CL ). As a result I came to c.l.l with a few questions.
Contrary to what has been said by some in c.l.l for the most part
I haven't looked for any kind of trouble. Just a few questions
answered.
Furthermore I am not the only one that this has happened to
one you toggle the CLHT bit ( which happens after you finish reading
the CLHS, sorry ), your whole history changes into a lisp hating fiend
who has been looking for trouble from day one.
Sorry to make such a long post, but I felt I had to respond, feeling
that I severely slandered. It is sad to see what the proponents of a
once great language have degenerated into.
Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:19:28 -0400, "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Thaddeus L Olczyk is a hostile trouble maker and a hypocrite for reading
>>and
>>posting in a forum he claims to have only contempt for. ilias is just
>>asking questions and handling the ridiculously nasty responses in a very
>>calm and entertaining way.
>>
>>If the questions or attitudes a newcomer displays rub you (editorial you,
>>not Kaz you) the wrong way just butt out of the thread. All of this
>>self-righteous hand-slapping is really a pain to witness.
>>
>
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:57:00 +0200, Jochen Schmidt <···@dataheaven.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Why did he did this? Because he thinks he got insulted in the past now
>>enjoys to create flames here and there. One interesting fact you should
>>probably know is that Thaddeus L Olczyk asked for help some time ago -
>>*got* help from alot of people in this forum but insulted some of the
>>helpers because their freely offered solutions did not fit his set quality
>>levels. Since then he regularily posts here and in other forums insulting
>>the participants of the newsgroup as being dumb and hostile.
>>
>>Please do not believe the nonsense and hate he spreads - there is no
>>reason to fight each other here because of the childish behaviour of a
>>moron like him.
>>
>
> This is a most interesting claim. By my memory, most of the time I
> spent in c.l.l has been very sedate. I checked over the posts I made
> to google (which anyone else can check over too) to c.l.l. They fall
> into several categories.
>
> 1) Pre 2000
> Occasionally a question about lisp. When not a question, then
> usually as a reply to a cross post from another group.
> 2) 2000 to Dec2001
> Occasionally asking some basic question about Lisp.
> Things like s there a better reference for MOP than AMOP.
> Basically friendly.
> 3) Dec 2001 to Jun 2002
> A bit more intense posting basically looking for more
> information on lisp. For the most part friendly, but
> occasional sniping. Nastier them some, but friendlier than
> many. Standard usenet stuff, but perhaps a bit calmer.
"Standard usenet stuff" like:
"Christopher Stacy: Liar or just plain stupid ( Re: Free Lisp with GUI "
(2002-01-21 22:29:47 PST)
Again a toplevel post namecalling and insulting a person who was as long as
I'm here in c.l.l a very helpful person.
"Cookbook question: How to change a list to a vector?"
2002-02-15 08:14:41 PST
A nice example of a Thaddeus question. You asked a question and got some
answers. Then you come up with:
"For those who lack common sense: I am not talking about
coercing lists to vectors ( allthough that might be needed ).
Simply coercing will make your application slower not faster.
I am talking about changing the "type" of a variable from
a list to a vector ( ie replacing all list operations with
vector/array operations. In case you still don't get it:
replacing all list operations with *efficient* vector/array
operations. )"
Note the nice words like "For those who lack common sense" or "In case you
still don't get it". And this nice words after several people spent their
time solving a problem for you. Well - this example was even a harmless
one...
>
> 4) Jul 2002
"Not from Lisp ( Re: Better habits for programming )"
2002-07-07 11:41:43 PST
Where you insult those people who helped you in an earlier thread and
declare that one does not get better habits for programming from lisp.
> Well you can here. ( Note that for the most part I have not
> been contributing that much to these threads. ) I made a post
> about an article where Gregor Kiczales seems to say that
> MOP ( principally his invention ) was a mistake. I simply asked
> for comments.
>
> I asked a question ( not unusual in a newsgroup ). Basically I
> asked for suggestions on debugging tools to solve a problem.
> Not only did I want to solve the problem but I wanted the tools
> to solve it in my toolbox for future use. I also described the
> problem in detail on the off chance that someone encountered
> if before ( that happened when I went from CLisp to CMUCL
> here's what the problem was...). I got help from several people.
> One, despite the fact that four times in the post I indicate
> something was not the problem ( one example: the problem was that
> run-program the equivalent of fork/exec did not return, I pointed
> out that the third to last line in the called in the program
> printed to a file and was executed ), a person still suggested
> that as the problem. Ok. I did not outright say it was not the
> problem, I think four hints should be enough. So I got testy with
> him, something I usually do with people who give bad advice.
>
> <digression>
> About two weeks ago someone asked a question on comp.emacs.
> Several people gave bad answers. I was the only one to give a
> correct answer ( mod some typos which someone else corrected )
> and in the process tweaked a few of the people giving wrong
> answers. One person in particular responded by saying that you
> should always be nice to people who help. This is a concept which
> I seriously disagree with. As one example:
>
> About ten years ago I was playing basketball when one of the
> players fell on the knife edge of his foot and literally pulled
> the ankle out of the foot socket. One the other players walked
> up to him and said it was nothing, while trying to twist the
> ankle into the socket. The doctors said that doing this caused
> ten times the damage that the original incident did.
>
> Ineptly helping people can cost people time, money, the health of
> themselves, friends, and family, and possibly even kill someone.
> For this reason I think there is no way that is too hard to come
> down on an inept helper.
> </digression>
But there is a huge difference in your basketball story and what happens in
usenet. If someone asks for help in a newsgroup he declares to agree on
getting helped by those who answer. The basketball player of your example
did not ask for help from the player who harmed him. He certainly wanted
_professional_ help. Professional medical help _costs_ . This is actually
the same with professional help with software problems. If there would be a
newsgroup alt.medical-help would you prefer this above real professional
medical help?
> None of the principles in the present thread seem to have been in
> that thread. It is a far stretch to say that I carry it as some
> sort of grudge against the lisp community. Not only were their
> testy posts, but their were several which were quite nice and
> helpful, and in the end the problem was resolved ( the program
> was ported from Clisp to CMUCL, turns out they handle run-program
> slightly differently ). In fact in the contributors to the nasty
> part of that thread are not what I consider c.l.l regulars. ( Not
> that I am a judge of who regulars are or not, but if I do not
> judge these people as regulars then I am not likely to hold what
> they say against c.l.l.)
Well you got help from several persons and decided to spit in their face
again. I consider the persons *you* got "testy" with as regulars of c.l.l.
At the end you got your problem solved - got payed by your employer and
those who tried to help you getting this done got insulted. Not a nice deal
I think...
>
> Finally a thread where a person asks if there exists a free Lisp
> compiler for Linux and Windows. I bimonthly question that seems
> to enrage the Lisp community. I responded with a very tongue in
> cheek response about how the poster had chutzpah to even dare
> ask such a vicious question. Several c.l.l regulars decided to
> take
> exception.
"Free Lisp with GUI"
2002-01-16 08:46:03 PST
Was one of those threads were you participated. If you read this thread you
will see that the people are actually rather polite and helpful. Maybe
there are some posts in this thread I have overseen...
Smalltalkers might be interested that you would "Hate it to promote
Smalltalk" as you said in
"Re: Common Lisp Cookbook - proposal and request for comments"
2002-01-24 15:45:12 PST
And this even _without_ crossposting to c.l.smalltalk. What did you say
about talking bad in the back of someone? But hey - you did the same in
c.l.ml when talking bad about lisp and the lisp-community...
"Re: Why I can't use Lisp. "
2002-08-02 17:25:00 PST
Were *you* are the one starting to flame a newbie asking for Lispsystems
that run on Windows and Linux. Yes you meant it sarcastic - but why do you
wonder to get bad responses if you post such offensive and hostile
bullshit?
> There is the whole of my c.l.l posting history. I think it's fairly
> clear that I have not for the most part tried to stir up trouble
> ( as these posts and others have suggested ) but tried to steer clear
> of controversy.
No it is not clear - the opposite is clear.
> Instead this is the manifestation of some other phenomena in c.l.l.
> Call it the Commie Lisp Hating Troll bit.
???
Did you mean *your* paranoia in the subject line?
Do you see only bad people who want to harm you around you?
> The bozo bit is a phenomena of the business world where when
> you say something dumb to a manager or senior programmer
> he immediately toggles the bozo bit, even though you've been the best
> programmer in the company, or display brilliance in the future.
> The only way to deal with it is to leave.
Oh - you think you get handled unfairly in c.l.l? You _could_ fix that by
actually posting valuable articles instead of creating another insulting
namecalling thread.
> I guess the lisp community has the Commie Lisp hating Troll bit.
> The minute you say the slightest negative thing ( Not even a negative
> thing, for example just asking about the existence of a free Lisp
> compiler toggles it. I suspect that this is because the Lisp community
> is no longer up to the task. ) the bit gets toggled. Then suddenly
> your past history changes to where every post is a troll even thought
> the facts don't support it.
nonsense.
> The lisp community can't even accept the fact that someone like Gregor
> Kiczales has changed his thinking on MOPs. Instead claiming that he is
> under some mystical political pressure.
"The lisp community" - I did hear some individuals claim that he might have
chosen to work on Java because there is were the money is. I heard others
reply that he did a really well job with MOP and there is no reason for a
person to only have one success in his life. You really cannot say that
"The lisp community" says the nonsense you describe above.
> The true facts about me are this:
> I first learned Lisp in 1977-1978 back when it still came with two
> modes, eval and eval-quote from a book called "Lets Talk Lisp"
> by an author called Siklosky (IIRC). This because of a algebraic
> manipulation language called REDUCE that I wan't to use to solve
> some General Relativity questions.
>
> For a long time that knowledge went mostly unused but every so often I
> got to tweak it and actually use it.
>
> Last year I finally decided to get very serious about Lisp ( and
> especially CL ). As a result I came to c.l.l with a few questions.
>
> Contrary to what has been said by some in c.l.l for the most part
> I haven't looked for any kind of trouble. Just a few questions
> answered.
It came over otherwise.
> Furthermore I am not the only one that this has happened to
> one you toggle the CLHT bit ( which happens after you finish reading
> the CLHS, sorry ), your whole history changes into a lisp hating fiend
> who has been looking for trouble from day one.
Well - nobody said you came over looking for trouble from day one - but you
are looking for trouble for quite some time now...
> Sorry to make such a long post, but I felt I had to respond, feeling
> that I severely slandered. It is sad to see what the proponents of a
> once great language have degenerated into.
Why do you again attack the language lisp, the lisp-community or the
participants of comp.lang.lisp for things *I* said to you. Do you think
there is a conspiracy of lisp users against you? Are you unable to
understand that lisp users are individuals too and that they actually can
have differing opinions about something?
As soon as some mere mortal says anything against you, you seem to see a
gigantic conspiracy of a whole group of people working against you. This is
what *I* would call /Paranoia/ ...
ciao,
Jochen
--
http://www.dataheaven.de
* Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com>:
> About two weeks ago someone asked a question on comp.emacs.
> Several people gave bad answers. I was the only one to give a
> correct answer ( mod some typos which someone else corrected )
> and in the process tweaked a few of the people giving wrong
> answers. [SNIP]
"tweaked" means "posted deliberate insults"?
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
peter_douglass wrote:
> Responding to Kaz Kylheku ...
>
>
>>>Perhaps I am helping others to become
>>>aware of the problem.
...
> management. What was the resonse he got? I'll paraphrase.
>
> Ilias: Hi, I'm looking for pointers to white papers about Lisp that I can
> present to my managers.
>
> A: If you schmooze with us, we might help you, but since you are dumb
> enough to ask a question forthright, I'll ask, are you willing to give us
> money?
...
weak humans, driven by ego.
playing around in c.l.l. don't make them rational thinkers.
now i'll eat my chinese food.
then i start reading LISP.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <3238094983236957@naggum.no>
* "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net>
| Perhaps I am helping others to become aware of the problem.
Trust me on this: we do not need more "awareness" of a problem caused almost
entirely by negative comments from people like yourself.
| I believe my articles are quality articles.
Suuure.
| It is not my intent to drive people away. It has however been the clear and
| often stated intent of posters in c.l.l to drive people away.
Wrong. People like you, however, who do nothing but complain and attack
people, are not welcome anywhere. You seem to dislike yourself intensely,
yet keep going on and on about how wrong people who post negative crap to
the newsgroup are. Are you somehow separated from yourself when you make
these comments?
| I have never demanded anythingn of you or of c.l.l. , nor do I intend to
| demand anything of you, nor of c.l.l.
You seem to unaware of your own function.
| There is no room for discussing a hostile atmosphere?
What would the point be with "discussing" it? Either you want to improve
it, or you want to blame other people for your own failure to improve it.
This is no different from anywhere else in real life. People who complain a
lot are invariably those who do the least to improve their situation, no
matter whether they "share" their negative emotions and opinions or not.
| Since when did you become my boss? How much are you paying me?
So why are you complaining about the behavior of other people? Are you /my/
boss? I cannot recall being given orders from you that I have violated.
Who are you, really, to judge other people the way you do when all you do is
worsen the problem you complain about?
| Among other things I like the peace of mind that comes from posting in
| newsgroups where posters do not suggest murder as a solution to their
| disputes.
I like the peace of mind that comes knowing that people like you refrain
from attacking others for past ills that you "remember" and have some
psychological problem that prevents you from getting over.
| I would be delighted if c.l.l. turned around.
So stop posting so much negative drivel to the newsgroup! Quit annoying and
accusing other people just because you are a hateful, negative person who
focus on negative developments and stupidly choose to "share" them.
Clearly, you are not the kind of person to contact if anyone wants to get
anything turned around, but you would be "delighted"" if someone else did it
despite your efforts to dertail their work. How do you know that things
were not improving before you reared your ugly head and had to gripe and
accuse people? (In fact, they were, which is why I get so pissed off by
people like yourself you will never give anyone a break, but have to "share"
your stupid opinions based on your own emotional problems.)
| You are confusing criticism of comp.lang.lisp with criticisim of Lisp the
| language.
So you have clearly not understood anything of what you observe here.
| If people have complained about a hostile atmosphere inside of c.l.l. for
| years, perhaps it is because there actually is a hostile atmosphere inside
| of c.l.l.
No, all the complaints refer to other complaints that people object to very
strongly because they are unfair and untrue of the /signal/. The complaints
are the /noise/ that the complaints are about. It takes actually /reading/
the newsgroup instead of editorializing over it to see this, however.
| > Nobody wants to give something to people who keep whining that nobody
| > gives them anything. So the first order of business is to get all the
| > naysayers out of the forum.
|
| In other words, it is your intent to drive people away. Hmm. I thought you
| were blaming _me_ for driving people away.
Are you insane? I want your breed of negative hatemongerers to get lost so
we can get back to discuss Common Lisp in our small community without having
to deal with negative assholes like yourself all the time. What makes you
think that you are on-topic in /any/ newsgroup with your kind of negative
propaganda /about/ newsgroups. Meta-discussions always lead to hostilities.
People who cannot figure out the difference between an on-topic discussion
and an off-topic meta-discussion are the root cause of the problems on /any/
newsgroup.
| I have no doubt of this. However, the people who are left are not
| necessarily representative of the lisp community.
And why is representativity of the Lisp community interesting or valuable?
Are you one of those anti-elitists that attack comp.lang.lisp because it has
a better breed of people?
| > What we instead find is that naysayers and idiots think they have a right
| > to keep posting their negative crap about other people.
|
| Of course they have that right.
Then you cannot complain about the atmosphere, Peter Douglas. You want it
this way. I am quite surprised that you have not chimed in on previous wars
as they seem to be just what you desire out of USENET. Indeed, it is how
you spend your time now. I am trying to make you realize that the noise
that you complain about comes from people like you who attack a newsgroup
that works perfectly /except/ for the likes of you and your "sharing".
| I take no offense at your comments. However, since they are directed at me,
| I have responded.
So you are not in control of your own posting behavior, but blame other
people even for that. You attacked people here, and then you feel you need
to respond? Quit attacking people you do not know for things you do not
understand! Hostile cretins like you are the cause of the problems you do
not like. Control your own behavior, and things will improve, like magic.
| I was prompted to comment because a post appeared in a newsgroup which I
| read and post to frequently, i.e. comp.object. That post suggested that
| using common lisp either rotted the brain, or promoted con-artistry.
But who did that cross-posting? A known troll and another negative idiot.
Thaddeus L Olczyk has been a pain in the ass in comp.lang.lisp for some
time, because he is just as unwilling to understand his own role as you are.
And imagine responding to a crossp-posted thread with a personal accusation
in the Subject! Of /course/ you are part of the problem, Peter Douglas!
And of /course/ you think you do nothing wrong. Thaddeus L Olczyk also
thinks he does nothing wrong, because he also thinks he only "shares"" his
very negative opinion about one particular person in particular. Why did
you take his bait and sink to his level and attack lots of other people,
too? What is /wrong/ with you think you post "quality articles" like this?
| I don't doubt that I have an effect. What I doubt is that my puny effect
| will be even noticable in terms of changing the atmosphere of c.l.l.
It makes it worse and less rewarding for the duration of your hostile
campaign against the newsgroup. It also means that no matter what anyone
actually does to improve conditions around here, someone like you will
always come around to pretend that nothing has improved, causing yet more
negative morons to "share" their emotional problems and hatred. When you
know that there are lots of people out there who would love to attack people
on the newsgroup at any time, it is not conducive to a peaceful, useful
environment. You know this, I presume, yet you do your best to make things
worse and to accuse people of your stupid "impression" of a forum. What is
your "impression" of blacks and jews? Would you care to "share" that. too?
| I have no more belief that I would have a constructive effect upon you, than
| you believe I will have _any_ influence upon yourself.
I believe you have a destructive influence on people around you. I believe
that you "share" your negativity and cause other people grief and pain in
the course of your life. You do not see this as a problem, obviously.
| I understand how unwelcome my comments are to you. I would hardly expect
| you to agree with me. However, I also understand that you neither own
| usenet, nor own c.l.l.
Well, neither do you, I take it. So why do you think that attacking people
unfairly is better than defending them from your unfair and generalized
attacks? People with their head screwed on right realize that no criticism
will be useful if there is no clear understanding of how to make it go away.
You and your ilk do not go away with your criticism, but keep coming back no
matter what anyone does. This is grossly unfair, but I take it that you are
just the kind of broken personality that consider your opinion more valuable
to "share" than promoting fairness and justice.
| Perhaps the "idiots" all see a reallity that you don't.
Certainly. That is what makes them idiots. So, too, with you, who "see""
things you can hate more easily and clearly than things you can appreciate.
| Again, perhaps the "idiots" who "flock" to criticize the atmosphere in
| c.l.l. see something you do not.
No, it is the other way around. They /only/ see articles they understand,
like yours, and they feel that their emotional and general coping problems
can now be voiced in a newsgroup for a programming language. We have had a
"discussion" about how to cope with depression and several starving people
who think that learning Common Lisp will save them, but only if they can use
a commercial environment without paying for it, and then the Trial or
Personal Editions that cannot build independent executables are unusable.
Why these people come to comp.lang.lisp to complain about their fate is hard
to tell, but it has nothing to do with the programming language, nor with
the forum's qualities. Something quite different is going on, and the more
people think that comp.lang.lisp is the place to go to wax negative about
the universe in general, the more people like you will have something to
write about. And ain't that a bliss. Peter Douglas, consider your own role.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: lisper
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <MPG.17c08fcd265ce798989685@news.supernews.com>
The Zen of Erik Naggum
It was opening night for a much anticipated movie and
a long line had formed waiting for the box office to open.
Minutes before it opened Erik Naggum arrived and seeing this
huge line went right up the front and and pushed his way
into the front of the line, knocking over an old lady.
The people in line were shocked by this rude and brutal act
but said nothing fearing retribution upon themselves.
Finally one one man said: "Hey you can't do that, that's not right".
Erik Naggum turned the man and said: "Rather than criticize
me you should consider your own behavior."
The crowd was enlightened.
From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <aj6unq$m64$1@luna.vcn.bc.ca>
In article <··························@news.supernews.com>, lisper wrote:
>
> The Zen of Erik Naggum
^ ^ ^
I attribute that to coincidence, rather cleverness.
> It was opening night for a much anticipated movie and
> a long line had formed waiting for the box office to open.
> Minutes before it opened Erik Naggum arrived and seeing this
> huge line went right up the front and and pushed his way
> into the front of the line, knocking over an old lady.
You are describing the behavior of someone who helps himself to a place in the
front of a line that he has not earned by being early, and who physically
assaults someone without provocation.
Please establish how this behavior is in way analogous to delivering a
justified verbal rebuke.
You goddamned behind-an-alias-hiding troll, I should add.
> The people in line were shocked by this rude and brutal act
> but said nothing fearing retribution upon themselves.
>
> Finally one one man said: "Hey you can't do that, that's not right".
Don't you see that Erik represents the establishment, which respects
conventions such as lineups based on a first-come-first-served rule in the
absence of any other valid priority criterion, and which abhors unprovoked
violence?
No, a more accurate version of the story would be like this:
It was opening night for a much anticipated movie and a long line had formed
waiting for the box office to open. Minutes before it opened, some twits
arrived, asking to be let in ahead of others for various reasons, or to get
free tickets. ``I'm a bigger fan of this movie than everyone here, and
I can prove it, so I should have priority'', said one. Another said ``I
shouldn't have to pay, because I don't actually consume anything; the light is
reflected from the silver screen and lands onto my retina, that's all. If
I don't capture it, it will be wasted. And hey, I will stand in the back if
someone who was dumb enough to buy a ticket wants my seat, so where is the
harm in letting me in!''
Nobody in the lineup anything, due to having been raised in a suppressive
environment, in which it was forbidden to display any rude behavior. Some even
bought the argument of the fellow wanting free access, and wished they too
would be let in for free.
Then there was Naggum, who yelled at them from his position at the middle of
the line to get the hell to the back of the line, and buy a ticket like
everyone else, or piss off.
The ticker clerk calmly picked up a telephone and called security to have the
vagrants removed. Thus Erik's contribution to the effort wasn't really needed,
but he had a fun-filled evening at the movies.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date:
Message-ID: <3238123295278808@naggum.no>
* lisper <······@yahoo.com>
| The Zen of Erik Naggum
It is always important for the worst scoundrels to hide behind anonymous
accounts with the big underclass-ISP's and then attack me in order to feel
better about themselves. In fact, this has become the best proof of a
deficient human being there is. Sadly, however, this garbage remains
anonymous because they know they are worthless, bad persons.
Got to agree on the cool acronym, though. I may use that.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
[this post is about some netiquette issues. Please forgive.]
Hi all,
peter asked me to delineate some netiquette issues.
I do not feel comfortable in cross-posting multiple online discussions
with tangential topics, but perhaps because of the sincerity and
frequency of its appearance, i thought best to follow new directions
of the community.
Although i have written a few articles on these issues, but i feel
that the best has already been said, among them in netiquette
frequently asked questions popular in midst of 20th century. I thought
it proper to excerpt the best that i've collected below over the
years.
###################################################################
--- cut --- (^_^) --- here --- (^_^) --- cut --- (^_^) --- here ---
On the Philosophies of Netiquette
2000-03, author is autononymous
There are many philosophies towards netiquette. The most common treat
newsgroups as a conversation medium. Thus you see "me too"s and "thank
you"s and a plethora of one-sentence trivia and Question & Answer
slipslops that are valueless and meaningless to practically all except
a few people for a brief duration. As examples, comp.lang.lisp
dwellers [censored] and [censored]'s posts are typical of this
style. Then at the other extreme is the relatively rare Victorian
propensity where each post is a gem of literature carefully crafted
and researched for an entire century of readers to appreciate and
archive. Xah Lee, Erik Naggum, and [censored] posts are exemplary of
this style, to name a few acquaintances like myself.
The conversationalists emphasizes the notions of utility and
community. Utilities can include the exchanging of opinions, getting
questions answered, chatting, bounding a community, and advancing the
group's interests. (and trampling other communities' conflicting
interests. (e.g. "it's categorically unacceptable to bash lisp in
lisp group".)) A good post in the conversationalist's eyes is
basically a post that makes everyone in the group happy. The Rococo
style posters are in general more scholarly and emphasize on quality
and value. The intrinsic quality of a post of the Rococo stylists can
be judged on content and presentation aspects. The presentation part
essentially means the poster's writing skills and effort she put into
posts. This fact is not highbrowism because communication using
newsgroups are mostly done in written form: wrote and read; not spoke
and heard. The criterions for judging a post's content are essentially
the same as that of a scholar's work in science or humanitarian
diciplines, roughly that of correctness, originality, or artistry. In
this school of thought, it is ok for example to bash lisp in
comp.lang.lisp if the post has sound arguments, original ideas,
thought provoking, or otherwise has value (!very funny!). Whether a
post is on-topic is less important here because the focus is on truth
and enduring quality, not sheerly bending over for the group agenda.
The two contrasting model of posters can be realized sharply by
reading a newsgroup archive of a particular poster. Go to a newsgroup
archive such as dejanews.com and search for your favorite poster. If
you find a huge quantity of terse posts that is tiring, boring, has
little content, and in general requires you to carefully follow the
entire thread to understand it, then you know you've bumped into a
conversationalist. On the other hand, if you find posts being usually
lengthy and thoughtful and fairly complete by itself, then you've met
a scholarly mannered poster that is probably skilled at writing as
well. Please note that the conversational mannered posters are not
necessarily lousy writers, uncultured, or unappreciated, but usually
are.
If there must a purpose to this post, then it is that i urge those
conversationalists who insists on their brand of morality of
netiquette to at least double the time they spend on composing
messages so that their posts might have more value in a scholarly
point of view, if they are incapable or otherwise unwilling to broaden
their minds into the philosophies of netiquette. I'm here expanding
their brain from the mundane notion of noise/signal to revolutionary
signal/value idea. You fucking buckets of morons.
###################################################################
--- cut --- (^_^) --- here --- (^_^) --- cut --- (^_^) --- here ---
Killfile Considered Harmful
2000-02, by Xah Lee with acknowledgement to Edsger W. Dijkstra
[1930-2002]
In newsgroups, killfile is a playful word meaning that the poster has
placed someone in a blacklist of authors, where their postings will be
automatically hidden from view in their newsreader. Such functionality
of newsreaders originated in unix. In the early 90s or before, it used
to be referred to as "sending someone into /dev/null", because
'/dev/null' can be used as a way for deleting email program outputs.
The killfile behavior, is simply put: "sweep-under-the-rug",
"bury-head-in-sand" kind of behavior. Imagine that in a gathering
where if everyone totally ignores other's voices except their own
kind, then what cacophony would result? Similarly, if we ignore the
problem of crime by simply using larger locks for our own doors, what
consequence would result?
We are all human beings. Our surroundings are our organs and affects
us dearly. In newsgroups, inevitably there will be certain individuals
with foul breath at times. Killfile mechanism is a very good feature
to battle such annoyances. This is not a reason for falling for the
convenience of blocking your ears from dissenting voices or the
nonconformists.
The worst thing i hate about it, is the broadcasting of someone being
killfiled. Oftentimes the sole content of a message is "You've been
killfiled". WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO TO THE COMMUNITY BY SUCH
ANNOUNCEMENT? Is it a warning system for fellow readers to prepare to
follow suit? Or is it a stupid self-righteous act? In the course of an
unpleasant encountering, the killfilers feel the other party being
unworthy of further response but they don't want to be seen as
chickening out so they had to announce it as if saying: "Hello world:
you don't see a returning 'fuck you' from me because _I_ am _smarter_
and took a step ahead of my antagonist and covered my ears, not
because he is correct or anything like that.". Pride is a human
nature, but unqualified conceit is despicable.
A second motivation for announcing killfile is more explicitly
juvenile. Killfile has several variant names:
"You've been killfiled." (etymology anyone?)
"plonk" (sound of falling object)
"I've send you to /dev/null" (unixism)
and creativity does not seems to cease there, e.g. in comp.lang.lisp:
> (plonk 'xah)
or signatures that reads
"in /dev/null, they can't hear you scream."
The reason of these playful variations is precisely literary
folly. The utterer delights in its use since most are wanting of
genuine literary artistry. This adds to the fashion of killfile and
its broadcasting.
Killfile behavior and broadcasting have another curious trait: No
burden of commitment. One cannot really tell if the person really did
the killfile. The decision to make a killfile cry in public does not
carry any weight of responsibility as compared to making a claim,
stating a "fact", or expression an opinion. It is simply a variation
of "fuck you". This too, contributed to its uncontrolled popularity.
###################################################################
--- cut --- (^_^) --- here --- (^_^) --- cut --- (^_^) --- here ---
How to Summon a Troll
2002-01, by a troll
In Gotham City, where Batman is fighting crimes, there arises the
problem of how do you call the mysterious Batman when the city needs
him. The solution offered is a giant spot-light with a Batman Insignia
silhouette. When the serene night sky floats such a giant Bat, it
indicates that urgent measures must be taken against crime.
and when newsgroup needs Xah to fight unthinkers, all you have to do
is to mention my name!
###################################################################
--- cut --- (^_^) --- here --- (^_^) --- cut --- (^_^) --- here ---
A Troll's Confection
2002-07. by Xah Lee
once in a while, some troll-cryers inject spirit into my abjection. My
disconcerted and alienated life gets a taste of hope, that somebody
somewhere cares about me, thought about me, think of me, to a degree
of gesturing love through public name calling.
###################################################################
--- cut --- (^_^) --- here --- (^_^) --- cut --- (^_^) --- here ---
In _The Land of Oz_, there are two type of witches: the wicked witches
of East and West, and the good witches of North and South. In the land
of newsgroups, there are perhaps also different type of trolls. I
can't say they do good or bad, but i think they are much brainier then
the gazillion ignorant big-mouthing and shit-dropping fishes being
involuntary victims of troll.
###################################################################
--- cut --- (^_^) --- here --- (^_^) --- cut --- (^_^) --- here ---
Once upon a troll...
2001-03-25, by ·······@home.com
published in alt.music.jethro-tull
Once upon a time, in a village far, far away... A big, ugly troll
terrified and harassed the good town of "Broadford." The citizens and
townspeople all feared the troll. They hid from it at all cost. And
instead of bringing the little town to ruins, and moving-on to another
city, the Troll persisted in driving Broadford to the ground, while
making sure to warn any ignorant newcomers with rude, hostile remarks,
that their presence was indeed unwanted.
"I'm the biggest, badest troll in all the land" shouted Troll, "And I
will not sleep until I have exterminated every last one of you!"
And with a gruesome display of might, the troll would rampage the
village, tearing down houses, stomping on babies, and even fornicating
forcefully with the womenfolk.
When the troll was not feeling particularly forceful, he would express
his anger by means of deception. He would imitate the inhabitants of
the town, and create false gossip by emulating the physicality of
respected individuals, and endowing their reputations with alter ego
traits. But after only a few weeks, the Broadfordians became keen to
his methods of defamation, and ignored such attempts of by the troll.
This only enraged the mighty beast further. To achieve breaking the
soul and spirits of the town, he soon realized he would have to spend
every moment of each day, creating havoc. He compensated his
sleepless nature, with large quantities of meth amphetamines.
Occasionally, brave men would step-up to this troll, and engage him
with wise comments, "Troll, have you nothing better to do, than to
spend your entire days and nights terrorizing us in such a brute
fashion?"
"Troll, have you no other daily obligations, that you may devote all
waking moments to pummel our town to ruin?"
"Troll, have you no shame, that you may apply such ruthless behavior
to a town deserving nothing more than a warm embrace?"
Despite the troll being often dumbfounded by these inquiries, he over
time learned to avoid them, by trying to sound wiser than his
contends, and upon completion of such a task, he would drive his horns
into their hearts and fling them across to adjacent cities, with a
grand shaking of his head. And then, usually showing his true nature
of speech, would then begin to use his latest brawl, as a scare tactic
to the remaining few townspeople, "And let that be a lesson to ye all!
I shall have no patience with up-risers! I hate you all, AND your
puny town of Broadford!"
For years and years, his vice on the city halted trade and
communication between it and neighboring lands. He would even taunt
distant villages while Broadford lay in rest; villages such as:
Syrinx, Black Mountain and Crystal Ship.
It seemed as though all hope were lost, until one day, Broadford was
paid a visitor. This visitor was another troll.
"Oh dear God, not another troll," begged the people to their spiritual
guidance, "That's the last thing we need!"
But this troll wasn't any normal troll. She was a very beautiful
troll. A very beautiful troll, in heat.
Feeling inclined to satisfy her growing discontent of sexual pleasure,
she searched out this now infamous, rageful troll. She appeared to
him, as he was on his hourly rampage through town.
"Good troll of Broadford, I beseech thee, aide me in my campaign for
decent health," the lady troll continued, "I have a passion growing
within me; a passion, that I feel, may only be extinguished by a troll
of your character."
With this, the troll of Broadford ceased his assault, and pondered the
visitor's words. He had never experienced any emotions even similarly
related to the concept of "love."
And before the troll could even respond, the female troll hopped on
his naked body, and fucked him over and over. They fucked for hours.
On top of buildings, in green pastures, anywhere imaginable. His most
astounding source of pleasure, came from having his newfound mate
plunge her 12, wide, coarse fingers into his recently expanding anal
cavity.
After 3 months of non-stop sexual activity, the troll stood-up and
screamed, "God damn, it feels good to get laid! I always wondered
what I was missing!!"
And with that, the troll and his lover pranced off into the forest,
never to be heard or seen from again. And Broadford was then allowed
to live in peace and harmony, as it had been before the troll's reign.
###################################################################
--- cut --- (^_^) --- here --- (^_^) --- cut --- (^_^) --- here ---
Coda
2001-11, by yours truly
Brings tears to my eyes. Does it you?
In this troll land, are there beautiful lady troll who needs my
character for decent health, who could pacify my anger, and fuck me
over and over?
When a person's sanity is at balance, when human passion is raging, no
etiquette must get in the way.
-- Xah Lee
for those newbies or kiddies or regulars who have no interest in a
usenet troll phenom or its phenomenon, i offer pornography:
http://www.alsscan.com/brno/brno.html
http://www.alsscan.com/budapest/budapest.html
http://www.alsscan.com/prague/prague.html
one has to marvel at these Euro chicks. Such candor. Such
sincerity. Such ease, naturalness, loveliness. When can the world's
moralists take off their fucking attires? When can when can when can?
I truly thank the internet, for making information of all sorts
readily available for anyone, anywhere, anytime. Such is a core
element in destroying all evil.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
From: "peter_douglass" <······@gis.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.lisp,comp.object,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp
community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Message-ID: <·····················@sccrnsc02>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 00:56:07 GMT
Responding to Thaddeus L Olczyk
> I actually can't make up my mind.
> Whether Common Lisp causes the brain to
> rot or whether it just makes
> people into con artists.
Hi Thaddeus,
It isn't using CL that causes the problem. The problem is that the
hostile atmosphere inside of comp.lang.lisp has driven away most CLers
who
are neither con artists, nor suffering from mental infirmities. It is
a sad
fact that IMHO, comp.lang.lisp is probably ruined beyond repair.
Who would be attracted to participate in a group which discusses
such
important items as the following?
Xah Lee's "cock" (36 posts beginning 14 July 2002 in Re: Thomas
Bushnell)
Message-ID: ····························@posting.google.com
and...
the alleged bad taste and moral failings of those Norwegians who
prefer a
dialect other than Erik Naggum's chosen (20 posts beginning 21 June
2002 in
PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp)
Message-ID: ················@naggum.net
--PeterD