From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <ey3ofan32aa.fsf@cley.com>
I had a look on our news server just now.  We have comp.lang.lisp
articles going back to 28-Aug-2002 (normally we keep them much longer,
but out upstream server changed in a way with which leafnode couldn't
cope earlier in Aug and I blew away our whole news spool...).  I think
our feed is quite complete and relatively clean (most of the awfuller
spam seems to get filtered).

We have 3531 articles in this time.

Of these: 320, or about 9% are by Ilias, and 659, or about 19% have a
References line which has an ilias message ID at the start.  Combining
these and removing duplicates, there are 838 articles in threads
started by Ilias, or about 24% of the total.

This was all done with (e)grep, cat and sort so I may have fouled up
some stuff.

But the results are fairly clear, I think: about 1/4 of the traffic in
cll is a result of one troll.

If I remove articles posted to more than two newsgroups (393 articles)
as unlikely to be interesting then I get ~ 27% of noise arising from
Ilias alone.

--tim

From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D9087EC.1020807@nyc.rr.com>
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> But the results are fairly clear, I think: about 1/4 of the traffic in
> cll is a result of one troll.

What is the sound of one troll posting? My take on this has been that 
ilias is plain entertaining. Or is he an itch we can resist scratching?

Anyway, we who respond to ilias cannot escape our responsibility for the 
traffic. How about a breakdown by correspondent? We cannot change ilias 
(lord knows we tried) but we can change our own behavior.

While you are at it, in the "no good deed goes unpunished" category, I 
would be interested in how many articles thanked quasi for his efforts, 
and how many others attacked him for same. You do not have to actually 
read all the articles; IIANM, no one thanked him.

kenny
clinisys
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3241891325635597@naggum.no>
* Kenny Tilton
| While you are at it, in the "no good deed goes unpunished" category, I would
| be interested in how many articles thanked quasi for his efforts, and how
| many others attacked him for same. You do not have to actually read all the
| articles; IIANM, no one thanked him.

  I get a handful of thank-you notes in the mail every week.  It is one of the
  reasons I keep using a repliable mail address when I post.  If the people who
  take the time to respond thus positively had to post it, I very much doubt
  that they would bother.  If I cannot figure out the spam-protection mechanism
  of some poster or I get a rejection slip from some mailer daemon, there goes
  my positive response to them, as well.  I doubt that anyone who has been on
  Usenet for more than a week would fail to understand that "me too" articles
  receive harsh treatment.  It is not that a barrage of thank-you notes would
  receive harsh treatment, but it is a private response, not a public response.

  Do you write thank-you notes to individual people you read about in the
  newspaper or do you send them to the newspaper?  If the latter, do they get
  published?  More importantly, if they were published, and people got into the
  habit of making their individual appreciation of individual achievements
  publically known, what would that do with the way we /read/ newspapers?
  Newspapers with a circulation of only 100,000 copies would likely have to use
  numerous pages every single day on thank-you notes.  Would that actually do
  as much good as the thank-you notes by sms, fax, postcards, letters, flowers,
  etc?  Why not publish your Christmas greetings in the newspaper and be done
  with it instead of sending them out personally?  I think the picture emerges.

-- 
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: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D911E6A.2010409@nyc.rr.com>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Kenny Tilton
> | While you are at it, in the "no good deed goes unpunished" category, I would
> | be interested in how many articles thanked quasi for his efforts, and how
> | many others attacked him for same. You do not have to actually read all the
> | articles; IIANM, no one thanked him.
> 
>   I get a handful of thank-you notes in the mail every week.

well if someone helps me in particular with a question i have, a 
"thanks, joe" article /does/ feel a little bandwidth wasteful. not that 
i would feel too bad about such a post; given the pathetic usenet 
signal-noise ratio, a public acknowledgment of help given ranks pretty 
high on the relative worthiness scale.

c.l.l. is a community, one beleagured almost daily by denunciations as 
"unpopular". now comes quasi with a little positive press for CL and... 
kablam!!!

I am reminded of the partition/split-sequence fiasco. A contrib is met 
with nothing (and again I do not think I exaggerate) -- nothing but a 
lambasting of the contributor over the /name/.

In both cases we did not even see "neat work, but...". This might fit 
with what someone wrote today about the ilias volume being a 
top/bottom-dog thing. Folks seem moved to take up pen only when they see 
a chance to grandstand their perceived superiority.

kenny
clinisys
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3241948202565451@naggum.no>
* Kenny Tilton
| now comes quasi with a little positive press for CL and... kablam!!!

  Are you for real?  How much do you want to tolerate if someone flashes his
  "good intentions" badge?  It was not because of his positive press that
  anything happened, it was because of the way he took other contributors for
  granted, and then did not back down.

| I am reminded of the partition/split-sequence fiasco.  A contrib is met with
| nothing (and again I do not think I exaggerate) -- nothing but a lambasting
| of the contributor over the /name/.

  You exaggerate.

| In both cases we did not even see "neat work, but...".

  Where were you?

| This might fit with what someone wrote today about the ilias volume being a
| top/bottom-dog thing. Folks seem moved to take up pen only when they see a
| chance to grandstand their perceived superiority.

  Well, the only thing interesting to you should be: Do you?
  
-- 
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: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D91CD9F.5070304@nyc.rr.com>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Kenny Tilton
> | now comes quasi with a little positive press for CL and... kablam!!!
> 
>   Are you for real?  

no, i is complex.

k,c
From: quasi
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <6824pugaro3vm415rqk3do7mbmvj4lqg71@4ax.com>
On 25 Sep 2002 13:10:02 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
>  Are you for real?  How much do you want to tolerate if someone flashes his
>  "good intentions" badge?  It was not because of his positive press that
>  anything happened, it was because of the way he took other contributors for
>  granted, and then did not back down.

	Incorrect.  Please reread the thread, if you must.  I
immediately agreed about that matter and since have asked for and been
given permission by the relevant people.
	I protested to the uncalled for unfriendliness & "thou art a
noise maker & copycat" tone.  Whatever justification I gave was to
explain myself and my actions.  If you call /that/ as not backing down
from the original point, then you did not get the point.  At all.

the "whining dimwit"
--

Think.
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <amrcec$8eku9$1@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de>
In the last exciting episode, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote::
> Anyway, we who respond to ilias cannot escape our responsibility for
> the traffic. How about a breakdown by correspondent? We cannot change
> ilias (lord knows we tried) but we can change our own behavior.

I'm adding in comp.lang.lisp to the set of newsgroups for which I
collect/post stats.  It may not have my name on it, but you know whom
to blame :-). 
-- 
(concatenate 'string "aa454" ·@freenet.carleton.ca")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linux.html
WARNING - the content of this message may be erroneous, misspelled and
perhaps even flammable.  It also contains small parts that could cause
asphyxiation.  NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN UNDER 3 YEARS OF AGE
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D907716.1070304@web.de>
Tim Bradshaw wrote:

[...]

> But the results are fairly clear, I think: about 1/4 of the traffic in
> cll is a result of one troll.
> 
> If I remove articles posted to more than two newsgroups (393 articles)
> as unlikely to be interesting then I get ~ 27% of noise arising from
> Ilias alone.

He has just started to post disinformation directly addressed at 
newbies. Is there something we can do about it, other than just keeping 
quiet? The current situation is a bit frustrating.

Are there any successful patterns how to deal with trolls, perhaps from 
other newsgroups?

Pascal

-- 
Pascal Costanza               University of Bonn
···············@web.de        Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de  R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <ampvea$855vl$1@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de>
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> transmitted:
> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> But the results are fairly clear, I think: about 1/4 of the traffic in
>> cll is a result of one troll.
>> If I remove articles posted to more than two newsgroups (393
>> articles)
>> as unlikely to be interesting then I get ~ 27% of noise arising from
>> Ilias alone.
>
> He has just started to post disinformation directly addressed at
> newbies. Is there something we can do about it, other than just
> keeping quiet? The current situation is a bit frustrating.
>
> Are there any successful patterns how to deal with trolls, perhaps
> from other newsgroups?

<http://makeashorterlink.com/?A130148B1>  Timothy Rue FAQ

"Ahhh, the time-honored question.  Sooner or later, something has to be
done before Timmy entirely takes over Usenet.

- Fire with fire.

  The first and most satisfying solution is to simply flame the hell
  out of him at every turn.  When he opens his mouth, flame him.  When
  he calls someone such as Gary Peake a liar and a thief, flame him.
  If he whines about profit or children or something else, flame him.

  It's fun, it's easy, and it doesn't cost much.

  However, as tempting as it may be, this isn't the recommended course
  of action.  First off, it's often like kicking a wet bag of
  sand. He'll respond with something totally unrelated, and you'll
  wonder why you even bothered.  Second, Timmy's cardinal sin is
  killing scarce bandwidth.  The last thing needed is to encourage him
  to dump yet more drivel into our haven.

- Passive aggression.

  Although not as immediately gratifying, a long-term approach is
  certain to be more effective at ending this nonsense.


 * Add "Timothy Rue" ·········@earthlink.net to your newreader's
   killfile.  This is the /surest way to reclaim our turf./ If
   everyone in these groups were to immediately and permanently ignore
   Timmy's postings, he would be gone within a month.

 * Since someone or another is bound to reply to him, thereby
   encouraging him to continue, spread the word to new users you
   encounter.  When you see a reply with his name in the header, send
   this FAQ or your own explanation to the user.  Remember, he can't
   keep burning without fuel!

 * Forward particularly slanderous postings to
   ··········@earthlink.net.  Don't get carried away here!  This is a
   last-ditch effort if you've clearly been lied about!

The key rule, though, is to /JUST IGNORE HIM/.  Don't talk to him.
Don't trade e-mail.  Don't acknowledge his existence.

Together, we can win."
-- 
(reverse (concatenate 'string ··········@" "enworbbc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/news.html#NETKOOKS
Rules of  the Evil Overlord #139. "If  I'm sitting in my  camp, hear a
twig  snap, start  to  investigate, then  encounter  a small  woodland
creature, I  will send out some scouts  anyway just to be  on the safe
side. (If they disappear into the foliage, I will not send out another
patrol; I will break out napalm and Agent Orange.)"
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
From: ilias
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <amq2c0$1i8$1@usenet.otenet.gr>
Christopher Browne wrote:
...
> <http://makeashorterlink.com/?A130148B1>  Timothy Rue FAQ
...

this is very funny!

"makeashorterlink.com"

looks very short.

should be (e.g.) :

http://masl.com/?A130148B1

this is short!
From: Raymond Wiker
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <86vg4v1m71.fsf@raw.grenland.fast.no>
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:

> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > But the results are fairly clear, I think: about 1/4 of the traffic in
> > cll is a result of one troll.
> > If I remove articles posted to more than two newsgroups (393
> > articles)
> 
> > as unlikely to be interesting then I get ~ 27% of noise arising from
> > Ilias alone.
> 
> He has just started to post disinformation directly addressed at
> newbies. Is there something we can do about it, other than just
> keeping quiet? The current situation is a bit frustrating.
> 
> 
> Are there any successful patterns how to deal with trolls, perhaps
> from other newsgroups?

        Maybe an ilias.faq?

        Actually, it might be an idea to have a FAQ for this
newsgroup, and have this posted regularly. It needn't even be a big
FAQ; just a few pointers to the HyperSpec, the ALU, CLOCC, cliki, and
kill-file patterns for ilias.

-- 
Raymond Wiker                        Mail:  ·············@fast.no
Senior Software Engineer             Web:   http://www.fast.no/
Fast Search & Transfer ASA           Phone: +47 23 01 11 60
P.O. Box 1677 Vika                   Fax:   +47 35 54 87 99
NO-0120 Oslo, NORWAY                 Mob:   +47 48 01 11 60

Try FAST Search: http://alltheweb.com/
From: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <ampv3t$q13$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net>
Raymond Wiker wrote:
>         Actually, it might be an idea to have a FAQ for this
> newsgroup, and have this posted regularly. It needn't even be a big
> FAQ;
There *is* one. I believe in part due to excellent work by Barry 
Margolin. However, it hasn't been maintained for a while, although I 
again believe valiant efforts were being made by Christophe Rhodes.

:)w
From: Christophe Rhodes
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <sqofae7elc.fsf@lambda.jcn.srcf.net>
Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> writes:

> Raymond Wiker wrote:
> >         Actually, it might be an idea to have a FAQ for this
> > newsgroup, and have this posted regularly. It needn't even be a big
> > FAQ;
> There *is* one. I believe in part due to excellent work by Barry
> Margolin. However, it hasn't been maintained for a while, although I
> again believe valiant efforts were being made by Christophe Rhodes.

I'm happy to carry on integrating contributions, though my time for
writing new material is limited, I'm afraid.

I'd be reluctant to post it in its current form as a canonical FAQ (or
even as half of one); I'm tempted to agree with Raymond that smaller
is probably better...

Christophe
-- 
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/       +44 1223 510 299/+44 7729 383 757
(set-pprint-dispatch 'number (lambda (s o) (declare (special b)) (format s b)))
(defvar b "~&Just another Lisp hacker~%")    (pprint #36rJesusCollegeCambridge)
From: Peyed Peyeper
Subject: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <7acbdcd3.0209241822.31aa5cd2@posting.google.com>
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote in message news:<················@web.de>...
> He has just started to post disinformation directly addressed at 
> newbies. Is there something we can do about it, other than just keeping 
> quiet? The current situation is a bit frustrating.

THE PIED PIPER OF HAMLIN:
http://www.indiana.edu/~librcsd/etext/piper/text.html

I.

1   Oh lads (and lass) of comp.lang.lisp,
2   I cannot help but hear your call -
3   You long for conversation crisp
4   As 'fore the troll had tolled you all.
5   Aye, I can rid you - by my eye -
6   With charm-ed pipe and poison stream:
7   And to this task, I will apply
8   That very function - will funcall
9   What e'er it takes - though truth be told,
10  'Twill not be hard, with charmed text.
11  For I exterminate by trade
12  Across the dregs of all usenet,
13  A trail of waste behind me laid,
14  I rid the land for he who hollers.
15  Is it worth a thousand dollars?
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3241890381047542@naggum.no>
* Pascal Costanza
| Are there any successful patterns how to deal with trolls, perhaps from
| other newsgroups?

  Stop responding to them.

  I get much more pissed off by the people who cannot understand that ilias is
  literally completely hopeless than by ilias, as I have made an exception to
  my general principle not to kill-file people but listen to what a person has
  to say regardless of his record, but ilias stood out as hopeless from day 1.
  He wore a sign on his forehead telling everyone that he is a useless specimen
  of the human race when he walked in the door.  There is no point whatsoever
  in responding to him, as he gave every evidence of being learning-impaired
  and worse from the outset.  Yet even people I have deemed really smart keep
  responding to him, keeping him alive, evidently believing that the community
  is somehow helped by it, at least by refuting his misinformation.  It is not.

  This breed of untermensch lives for the response they get from real people.
  Unlike reasonably social human beings who attach importance to what they say
  and do not need a response, this breed of untermensch attaches importance to
  how people respond to what they say, and only their responses.  If they have
  to pester and annoy others to elicit a response from them, so be it.  If they
  have to break laws and regulations to cause others to notice them, so be it.
  If they have to deface buildings with spray cans, so be it.

  When the Internet became a public resource, criminals had to come with it.
  We have spammers, Nigerian 419 scams, trolls on newsgroups, etc, just like we
  have criminals in the real world.  The difference is that our governments sit
  on their hands and refuse to deal with them.  ilias' ISP behaves exactly as
  stupidly as every other ISP and refuses to do anything about him.  There is
  no way to stop the criminals.  They even have anti-social defense lawyers on
  the Net to "protect" them from criticism, in our community exemplified by
  Coby Beck, who attack those who criticize the untermensch and want them to
  have free reign of the newsgroups while ordinary, decent people are left with
  no choice but to stop reading newsgroups that are taken over by untermensch.

  If it had helped to kill-file ilias, the problem would have been gone by now.
  The problem is all the people who think that /anyone/ in the known universe
  would believe anything that he produces.  The crucial point when it comes to
  deciding whether to refute some claim or not is to decide whether anybody had
  reason to believe it to begin with.  If not, and you refute it, you gave it
  credibility it did not deserve.  If somebody did believe it, and you did not
  refute it, were you responsible for their confusion, for how long it took
  them to unconfuse themselves, for their spreading more confusion?

  Now, I have to ask all the people who respond to ilias: Who the hell do you
  think you are helping?  Who could /possibly/ believe something he writes?
  Even if such people might exist, /why/ would you care about those people?  It
  should take less time to think about what he writes than to read a refutation
  to realize that he is totally, irrovocably hopeless.

  Previously, kill-filing people was based on their annoying opinions and their
  tendency to stir up conflicts and flame wars.  There is real danger in being
  insulated from "unwelcome" information with this practice, meaning that which
  tests your convictions, but if there is anything the Internet can offer us
  that the offline world could not, it is the free flow of counter-information,
  which is routinely suppressed by the formal publishing channels.  However, if
  you listen to people who believe weird things, you realize very quickly that
  they will more likely than not be crackpots, which is why other people ignore
  them.  It is your task, then, to be able to discern a crackpot from someone
  who has an valuable alternative view, and actually /listen/ to what people
  are saying, which sometimes require that you be much smarter than they are,
  or think much more about it than they have.  People who protect themselves
  from alternative views therefore tend to be unable to distinguish crackpots
  in time, as well.  When presented with an unfiltered medium like the Internet
  and Usenet newsgroups, those who have grown up on the filtered media will of
  necessity feel bewildered and confused.  In very many cases, it helps to poke
  them with a cattle-prod and yell "THINK!" at them or treat them harshly as
  long as they do not engage their brain.  Few cases are literally hopeless,
  but when one comes along, it /should/ be easy to detect because you know how
  to sort an ignorant from an opinionated asshole and a person who believes in
  some faulty premises from an actual retard or nutcase.

  I am puzzled by the fact that people who have lent no benevolence to people
  who have held intelligent views differing from their own, lend benevolence to
  ilias and his ilk.  It is as if they cannot deal with intelligent rejection
  of their beliefs, but have no problems with misbehaving children.  If people
  think and manage to enunciate their arguments instead of defending themselves
  personally and attacking their critics, their contributions may be still hard
  to deal with because it is intellectually demanding, but if you argue and
  listen with them, you may learn something valuable that changes the way you
  deal with the world around you.  Now, this is what I cannot figure out: What
  could anyone possibly gain from converting ilias to his way of thinking?

  /Please/ do not respond to ilias.

-- 
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 F. Burdick
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <xcvofam287d.fsf@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:

>   I am puzzled by the fact that people who have lent no benevolence to people
>   who have held intelligent views differing from their own, lend benevolence to
>   ilias and his ilk.  It is as if they cannot deal with intelligent rejection
>   of their beliefs, but have no problems with misbehaving children.

You may have got it right with the misbehaving child thing.  If you're
dealing with an adult who's spouting nonsense, or who you disagree
with, or who pisses you off; you might argue back, you might be rude,
you might ignore them.  Anything in the normal spectrum of adult-adult
interactions will happen.

Adult-child interactions are different, though.  It is *not* okay to
quietly ignore a misbehaving child.  In the real world, if a child is
shouting and running around and being a jerk, you chide, or correct,
or punish, the child.  You don't ignore it.  If Ilias really is
causing people to react as though they were confronted by a
misbehaving child, maybe that's why he is being engaged.  If people
thought of him as a competant adult, they might feel it was okay to
ignore him.

-- 
           /|_     .-----------------------.                        
         ,'  .\  / | No to Imperialist war |                        
     ,--'    _,'   | Wage class war!       |                        
    /       /      `-----------------------'                        
   (   -.  |                               
   |     ) |                               
  (`-.  '--.)                              
   `. )----'                               
From: Aleksandr Skobelev
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <m34rce4ioq.fsf@list.ru>
···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:

> Adult-child interactions are different, though.  It is *not* okay to
> quietly ignore a misbehaving child.  In the real world, if a child is
> shouting and running around and being a jerk, you chide, or correct,
> or punish, the child.  You don't ignore it. 

AFAIK, they ignore children misbehaviours in Japan. At least, until age 5
years. :)
 
From: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <amqnbd$o4f$1@paris.btinternet.com>
I would like to thank you for this excellent article.

Erik Naggum wrote:
>   /Please/ do not respond to ilias.
Yes.

will
From: Mr. Poster
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <qP5k9.390780$v53.18225042@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>
Erik Naggum wrote:

[snip]

>   /Please/ do not respond to ilias.

Yes, he's toxic (as was, previously, that complete idiot who was 
consistently on your case for no good reason), and one hopes that no 
response means that he'll go away. He just might be nutty enough to keep 
posting regardless.
From: Mr. Poster
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <uR5k9.407102$Ag2.17617919@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
Mr. Poster wrote:
> Erik Naggum wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>   /Please/ do not respond to ilias.
> 
> 
> Yes, he's toxic (as was, previously, that complete idiot who was 
> consistently on your case for no good reason), and one hopes that no 
> response means that he'll go away. He just might be nutty enough to keep 
> posting regardless.
> 
> 
On your (meaning on E. Naggum's)... etc.
From: Wade Humeniuk
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <DC7k9.46232$Zk4.1521056@news2.telusplanet.net>
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
>   I am puzzled by the fact that people who have lent no benevolence to people
>   who have held intelligent views differing from their own, lend benevolence
to
>   ilias and his ilk.  It is as if they cannot deal with intelligent rejection
>   of their beliefs, but have no problems with misbehaving children.  If people
>   think and manage to enunciate their arguments instead of defending
themselves
>   personally and attacking their critics, their contributions may be still
hard
>   to deal with because it is intellectually demanding, but if you argue and
>   listen with them, you may learn something valuable that changes the way you
>   deal with the world around you.  Now, this is what I cannot figure out: What
>   could anyone possibly gain from converting ilias to his way of thinking?

It might not be benevolence that it lent to ilias and his ilk, but a type of
"top dog" behavior.  As human beings we still have desires to be the "top dog",
to be the perceived winner/superior/smarter person in a situation.  Thus we
might put up with a "lower dogs" behavior because it keeps us on top, no matter
what the "lower dogs" views and behavior might be.  In fact the more absurd (and
thus obviously inferior) the "lower dogs" behavior may be, the better.  This may
not just be our primal behaviors, but also to protect a person from their fears
and secret thoughts that they really are not that smart.  Engaging in public
communication with people as smart or obviously smarter, breaks all that down
and may threaten some.  It takes a honest, courageous and humble person (or
psychologically healthy person) to face all that.

People may not be trying to convert ilias but are just pissing on the "lower
dog".

Wade
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3241944909892877@naggum.no>
* Wade Humeniuk
| It might not be benevolence that it lent to ilias and his ilk, but a type of
| "top dog" behavior.

  I have to admit that while I do not start to play this game, I also do not
  yield when someone wants to be "top dog", so I recognize the mechanism.
  Still, anyone can be better than ilias without any effort.

| As human beings we still have desires to be the "top dog", to be the
| perceived winner/superior/smarter person in a situation.

  I think it is bit more complex than that.  I believe only a relatively small
  group of people engage in this anti-social competitive game-playing, but when
  they do, others not only do not want to yield their position to them, it is a
  self-protective necessity to prevent competitive people from "rising" in the
  hierarchy of a group.  I consider competitiveness to be a mental disease when
  it causes people to attach more importance to their personal position than
  the good of the group they fight to take over and I believe that people who
  feel the need to challenge whoever they think is the "top dog" for no other
  reason than their own personal satisfaction to be mentally diseased as well.
  This anti-social behavior causes nothing but conflict, but not /only/ because
  we are human when we also refuse to let people like that win, the group that
  yields to mentally diseased leaders would soon perish.  There is therefore an
  element of self- preservation in fighting the mentally diseased, obsessively
  competetive whenever and wherever they try to take control.  (Part of my
  great distaste for the entire field of competitive sports is that regardless
  of whether these morons "win" or not, they have abused their physical health
  to the point of being crippled, and it is more a testament to the advanced
  state of modern medicine that these guys can walk at all.  Sports-related
  health care costs are /enormous/ and keep growing without bounds.  It is,
  however, entirely possible that giving the anti-socially competitive an
  outlet in a field where their fighting has no bearing whatsoever on the rest
  of society is a good thing.  Sports may therefore provide people who would
  have become criminals and soldiers looking for a war a place to fight amongst
  themselves.)

| Thus we might put up with a "lower dogs" behavior because it keeps us on top,
| no matter what the "lower dogs" views and behavior might be.  In fact the
| more absurd (and thus obviously inferior) the "lower dogs" behavior may be,
| the better.

  But winning over the "lowest dog" only means that you are the next lowest
  dog.  That should not be particularly rewarding, should it?

| Engaging in public communication with people as smart or obviously smarter,
| breaks all that down and may threaten some.  It takes a honest, courageous
| and humble person (or psychologically healthy person) to face all that.

  Then why do so many who cannot take it engage precisely in public discourse?

| People may not be trying to convert ilias but are just pissing on the "lower
| dog".

  Even so, they should find a more worthy target.

-- 
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: Wade Humeniuk
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <4lkk9.49921$Zk4.1619349@news2.telusplanet.net>
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message ·····················@naggum.no...
> * Wade Humeniuk
> | It might not be benevolence that it lent to ilias and his ilk, but a type of
> | "top dog" behavior.
> 
>   I have to admit that while I do not start to play this game, I also do not
>   yield when someone wants to be "top dog", so I recognize the mechanism.
>   Still, anyone can be better than ilias without any effort.
> 

This may be a reason that trolls can elicit so much discorse.  Part of
a troll's attack may be to attempt to be "top dog" and get to people to fight
that.  But also appearing completely helpless the troll gets people
to exercise their "top dog" skills.  I have found ilias's threads to be
very strange, his insistence on being an expert in an area but presenting
it in a totally inane way.  Even when other's point out the problems ilias
just continues on.  Its like he has pasted a "kick me" sign on his back.

> | As human beings we still have desires to be the "top dog", to be the
> | perceived winner/superior/smarter person in a situation.
> 
>   I think it is bit more complex than that.  I believe only a relatively small
>   group of people engage in this anti-social competitive game-playing, but when
>   they do, others not only do not want to yield their position to them, it is a
>   self-protective necessity to prevent competitive people from "rising" in the
>   hierarchy of a group.  I consider competitiveness to be a mental disease when
>   it causes people to attach more importance to their personal position than
>   the good of the group they fight to take over and I believe that people who
>   feel the need to challenge whoever they think is the "top dog" for no other
>   reason than their own personal satisfaction to be mentally diseased as well.
>   This anti-social behavior causes nothing but conflict, but not /only/ because
>   we are human when we also refuse to let people like that win, the group that
>   yields to mentally diseased leaders would soon perish.

For the last few years I have wondered if there are societal controls
against destructive "top dog" behaviour.  Does this mean there are
opposite societal forces that helps cooperative and humble people
rise in a group?  I certainly am a believer in the power of humility.

>  There is therefore an
>   element of self- preservation in fighting the mentally diseased, obsessively
>   competetive whenever and wherever they try to take control.  (Part of my
>   great distaste for the entire field of competitive sports is that regardless
>   of whether these morons "win" or not, they have abused their physical health
>   to the point of being crippled, and it is more a testament to the advanced
>   state of modern medicine that these guys can walk at all.  Sports-related
>   health care costs are /enormous/ and keep growing without bounds.  It is,
>   however, entirely possible that giving the anti-socially competitive an
>   outlet in a field where their fighting has no bearing whatsoever on the rest
>   of society is a good thing.  Sports may therefore provide people who would
>   have become criminals and soldiers looking for a war a place to fight amongst
>   themselves.)
> 
> | Thus we might put up with a "lower dogs" behavior because it keeps us on top,
> | no matter what the "lower dogs" views and behavior might be.  In fact the
> | more absurd (and thus obviously inferior) the "lower dogs" behavior may be,
> | the better.
> 
>   But winning over the "lowest dog" only means that you are the next lowest
>   dog.  That should not be particularly rewarding, should it?
> 

It might be pleasurable for a few minutes, then one moves onto the next
target.

> | Engaging in public communication with people as smart or obviously smarter,
> | breaks all that down and may threaten some.  It takes a honest, courageous
> | and humble person (or psychologically healthy person) to face all that.
> 
>   Then why do so many who cannot take it engage precisely in public discourse?
> 

It is like anything, you have to use it to develop it, especially if one has lost
in on the way to becoming an adult.  If a person is psychollogically unhealthy
it just means the person's mind is divided or unbalanced, the good parts
are still there and just striving to be expressed.  The person may be in conflict
doing it, but it can still be good for them.

> | People may not be trying to convert ilias but are just pissing on the "lower
> | dog".
> 
>   Even so, they should find a more worthy target.
> 
> -- 
> 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.

Wade
From: Matthew Danish
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <20020925212805.K10389@lain.res.cmu.edu>
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 12:41:07AM +0000, Wade Humeniuk wrote:
> "top dog" behavior.  As human beings we still have desires to be the "top dog"

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be "top cat" than "top dog".
Cats are sure of their superiority, and don't need constant
reinforcement from their peers, or from pesky humans.

=)

-- 
; Matthew Danish <·······@andrew.cmu.edu>
; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
; Signed or encrypted mail welcome.
; "There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all dark."
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <znu6i4tc.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:

>   Now, I have to ask all the people who respond to ilias: Who the hell do you
>   think you are helping?  Who could /possibly/ believe something he writes?
>   Even if such people might exist, /why/ would you care about those people?  It
>   should take less time to think about what he writes than to read a refutation
>   to realize that he is totally, irrovocably hopeless.
> 
>   /Please/ do not respond to ilias.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
From: Rolf Wester
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D9163CE.95C4A177@ilt.fhg.de>
Erik Naggum wrote:

> * Pascal Costanza
> | Are there any successful patterns how to deal with trolls, perhaps from
> | other newsgroups?
>
>   Stop responding to them.
>

The best one can do.

>
>   This breed of untermensch

No human beeing is an "untermensch". I'm German and I'm highly sensitive concerning

this kind of  words. This word amoung others has been used by the most terrible
criminals
in world history to legitimate mass murder. Call ilias a troll or an idiot but
whatever he does
nothing will turn him to be an "untermensch".

Rolf Wester
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3241945050586549@naggum.no>
* Rolf Wester
| I'm German and I'm highly sensitive concerning this kind of words.

  Not my problem.

-- 
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: Espen Vestre
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <kw4rcexjq2.fsf@merced.netfonds.no>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:

> * Rolf Wester
> | I'm German and I'm highly sensitive concerning this kind of words.
> 
>   Not my problem.

Please note that "Untermensch" is a more dangerous expression than
"�bermensch" (Nietsche never used the former, btw!). You didn't want
Godwin's Law to be applied, did you?
-- 
  (espen)
From: ilias
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <an1s2p$pb$1@usenet.otenet.gr>
Espen Vestre wrote:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> 
> 
>>* Rolf Wester
>>| I'm German and I'm highly sensitive concerning this kind of words.
>>
>>  Not my problem.
> 
> 
> Please note that "Untermensch" is a more dangerous expression than
> "�bermensch" (Nietsche never used the former, btw!). You didn't want
> Godwin's Law to be applied, did you?

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/Godwin's-Law.html
"
Godwin's Law prov.

[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a 
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a 
tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, 
and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument 
was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence 
of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is 
also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of 
Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be 
unsuccessful.
"
From: ilias
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <an4oka$slm$1@usenet.otenet.gr>
Espen Vestre wrote:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> 
> 
>>* Rolf Wester
>>| I'm German and I'm highly sensitive concerning this kind of words.
>>
>>  Not my problem.
> 
> 
> Please note that "Untermensch" is a more dangerous expression than
> "�bermensch" (Nietsche never used the former, btw!). 

The 'defense' of Nietsche.

> You didn't want Godwin's Law to be applied, did you?

Asking for applying a Law.

'Diplomatic Immunity'.
From: Rolf Wester
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D91BC3C.AE4F4EF3@ilt.fhg.de>
Erik Naggum wrote:

> * Rolf Wester
> | I'm German and I'm highly sensitive concerning this kind of words.
>
>   Not my problem.
>

No surprise, I expected that answer.

Rolf Wester
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3241981885643363@naggum.no>
* Rolf Wester
| No surprise, I expected that answer.

  I am Norwegian and I am very sensitive to people from the Wehrmacht telling
  Norwegians what to do or not to do.  You tried that once and it left serious
  scars in the Norwegian soul.  Will you pay attention to my sensitivity or
  consider it my problem?  I think you should do the latter and that it is
  obscene to bring up personal sensitivities because of one's /nationality/.

  So your nationally induced sensitivity is your problem.  Keep it to yourself.
  If you do not, you very strongly communicate that your sensitivities are more
  important than every other sensitivity to which the author has already paid
  due respect.  Such egoistic behavior is typical of people who want others to
  feel bad because they perceive themselves as victims.  Cut it out.

  The whole world is well aware of the guilt-ridden German psyche, but I have
  one piece of /really/ good advice for you: Get the hell over it.

  "Untermensch" is defined by Oxford's excellent dictionaries of the English
  Language this way

    a person considered racially or socially inferior.

  Of course it is a strong term that should elicit emotions, but the arrogance
  and haughtiness of Germans who think their personal sensitivities should
  cause other people to curb their language and the things they can talk about
  is one of the most appalling cases of emotional blackmail and censorship
  around.  (Another most appalling case of same is how the Jews /milk/ their
  tragedy more than 50 years later.)  People who prey on the guilt that they
  want other people to feel should receive no sympathy whatsoever.

-- 
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: Rolf Wester
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D92B6E1.36603CBB@ilt.fhg.de>
Erik Naggum wrote:

> * Rolf Wester
> | No surprise, I expected that answer.
>
>   I am Norwegian and I am very sensitive to people from the Wehrmacht telling
>   Norwegians what to do or not to do.  You tried that once and it left serious
>   scars in the Norwegian soul.  Will you pay attention to my sensitivity or
>   consider it my problem?  I think you should do the latter and that it is
>   obscene to bring up personal sensitivities because of one's /nationality/.

You are right. I will keep that in mind.

>   So your nationally induced sensitivity is your problem.  Keep it to yourself.
>   If you do not, you very strongly communicate that your sensitivities are more
>   important than every other sensitivity to which the author has already paid
>   due respect.  Such egoistic behavior is typical of people who want others to
>   feel bad because they perceive themselves as victims.  Cut it out.
>
>   The whole world is well aware of the guilt-ridden German psyche, but I have
>   one piece of /really/ good advice for you: Get the hell over it.

>
>   "Untermensch" is defined by Oxford's excellent dictionaries of the English
>   Language this way
>
>     a person considered racially or socially inferior.
>
>   Of course it is a strong term that should elicit emotions,

Do you know who first used that word and how it was meant then?
In my perception this word is meant to refer to a whole group not a single person
which makes a great difference of course.

>  but the arrogance
>   and haughtiness of Germans who think their personal sensitivities should
>   cause other people to curb their language and the things they can talk about
>   is one of the most appalling cases of emotional blackmail and censorship
>   around.

You are right again. I take back my first post.

>  (Another most appalling case of same is how the Jews /milk/ their
>   tragedy more than 50 years later.)  People who prey on the guilt that they
>   want other people to feel should receive no sympathy whatsoever.

Rolf Wester
From: ilias
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <amvp4k$cmv$1@usenet.otenet.gr>
Rolf Wester wrote:
> 
> Erik Naggum wrote:
> 
> 
>>* Rolf Wester
>>| No surprise, I expected that answer.
>>
>>  I am Norwegian and I am very sensitive to people from the Wehrmacht telling
>>  Norwegians what to do or not to do.  You tried that once and it left serious
>>  scars in the Norwegian soul.  Will you pay attention to my sensitivity or
>>  consider it my problem?  I think you should do the latter and that it is
>>  obscene to bring up personal sensitivities because of one's /nationality/.
> 
> 
> You are right. I will keep that in mind.

the poster is not right.

he makes a faulty generalization.

-

additionally:

decouple motivation from action.

you have reacted to a trigger-word.

*maybe* due to a 'wrong' motivation.

but your reaction was correct.

gain the essence of the post [1].

your intuition acts, immediately.

you *maybe* choose your words 'wrong'.

-

subconscious, preconscious, conscious.

-

> 
> 
>>  So your nationally induced sensitivity is your problem.  Keep it to yourself.
>>  If you do not, you very strongly communicate that your sensitivities are more
>>  important than every other sensitivity to which the author has already paid
>>  due respect.  Such egoistic behavior is typical of people who want others to
>>  feel bad because they perceive themselves as victims.  Cut it out.
>>
>>  The whole world is well aware of the guilt-ridden German psyche, but I have
>>  one piece of /really/ good advice for you: Get the hell over it.

yes, get over it.

over the *unhealthy* part of the guilt.

*guilt* protects.

*healthy* 'guilt'.

be *proud* of your nationality.

but *never* forget.

*watch* - Germans, Norwegians, Greeks, Americans...!

*watch* *humans*.

the 'Uebermensch' [4], is between us.

> 
> 
>>  "Untermensch" is defined by Oxford's excellent dictionaries of the English
>>  Language this way
>>
>>    a person considered racially or socially inferior.
>>
>>  Of course it is a strong term that should elicit emotions,

I thought that "Untermensch" [5] is a german word.

Can Oxford's (excellent or not) dictionaries of the English Language
supersede a nations language? Especially a word with such a deep 
historical meaning?

I don't know.

I'm undereducated.

-

But it doesn't even matter.

View "Untermensch" - "a person considered racially or socially
inferior." ...

...in the context it was used: [1]

You'll get the 'german' 'definition' [2].

View "Untermensch" - "a person considered racially or socially 
inferior." ...

...isolated.

analyze it.

"a person considered racially or socially inferior."

?

> 
> 
> Do you know who first used that word and how it was meant then?
> In my perception this word is meant to refer to a whole group not a single person
> which makes a great difference of course.

there is *no* difference.

there *is* no difference.

there *is* *no* *difference*.

> 
> 
>> but the arrogance
>>  and haughtiness of Germans who think their personal sensitivities should
>>  cause other people to curb their language and the things they can talk about
>>  is one of the most appalling cases of emotional blackmail and censorship
>>  around.
> 
> 
> You are right again. I take back my first post.

this sounds like "Der Kluegere gibt nach" [3]

But i must take care.

How is "Der Kluegere gibt nach" defined in Oxford's excellent dictionaries?

> 
> 
>> (Another most appalling case of same is how the Jews /milk/ their
>>  tragedy more than 50 years later.)  People who prey on the guilt that they
>>  want other people to feel should receive no sympathy whatsoever.

*healthy* 'guilt'.

> 
> 
> Rolf Wester
> 

i'm happy that the new pizza-taxi i've tried has good pizza.

headache is better now.

i'm so tired.

time is running away.

and i'm still not ready.

today it looks like this.

-

-----------------------------------------------------------------
[5] Subhuman
       ^
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[4] Suphuman (Superior human being)
       ^
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[3] The smarter give on {free translation)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
[2]

Norwegian:
http://www.museumsnett.no/perspektivet/utstillinger/

English:
http://www.museumsnett.no/perspektivet/utstillinger/index-en.html


-----------------------------------------------------------------
[1]

a summary:

·················································@usenet.otenet.gr

"literally completely hopeless"

"hopeless from day 1"

"useless specimen of the human race"

"learning-impaired"

"worse"

"breed of untermensch"

"breed of untermensch"

introducing: "criminal".

"criminal"

"Coby Beck, the collaborationist of untermensch"

"taken over by untermensch"

"writings not believable"

"People who believe writings, don't care about them"

"totally, irrovocably hopeless"

"believe weird things"

"literally hopeless"

"opinionated asshole"

"who believes in some faulty premises"
From: Coby Beck
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <an0g2j$tsm$1@otis.netspace.net.au>
"ilias" and others wrote
> "Coby Beck, the collaborationist of untermensch"

I can see my name coming up in some very strange future google
searches...But I would guess I have worse public perception issues than that
over all this...
:o/


--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3241981977659147@naggum.no>
* Brian Palmer <·····@invalid.dom>
| That's the community spirit!

  But "sharing" his sensitivities /is/ part of the community spirit?  Where is
  your respect for /my/ sensitivities?  Do they not count?  What if I am hurt
  by your ridicule?  Should I be able to silence you and turn the community
  against you?  You have chosen a very dangerous path.

-- 
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: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3242003653519845@naggum.no>
* Brian Palmer
| To me, communication between people isn't as black and white as you appear
| to be advocating.

  Are you at all aware of the insult you have just hurled my way?  Damn you.

| It's not the case where it's either "appeal to everyone's sensitivities" or
| "don't appeal to any sensitivities".

  I asked whether /my/ sensitivities did not count.  Could you please answer
  that question and leave the armchair philosophizing to some later time, like
  perhaps never?  Your selectivity is under question here, not some moronic
  universality argument that is so easy to argue against that it is incredibly
  hostile of you to assume such a fantastically idiotic argument on my part.

  How do you determine whose sensitivity to respect and whose to ignore?

-- 
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: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3242086418619229@naggum.no>
* Brian Palmer
| Wow, you really take things seriously.

  My intention is to make people think about things they tend not to think
  about.  This means taking things seriously.  You appear not to be used to be
  taken seriously and consider your flippant comments harmless because of your
  harmless intent.  Such is the opposite of sensitivity.  However, it appears
  that you do not have a well-developed concept of public vs private, so I hope
  to show you how differently one would think and react with such a developed
  concept.

| It seems we have somewhat of a misunderstanding here -- shall we try again
| rather than bringing out the verbal nukes?

  There are no verbal nukes.  I am frankly puzzled by the need for people to
  liken words to physical threats.  The images you conjure up from a word are
  your own responsibility, even when emotive words are used.  However, it
  appears that you need to imagine your opponent instead of reading and trying
  to understand what he says and then prefer the more emotional images to the
  more reasonable.  Such is consistent with taking sides.

  Why would we need to try again?  Just when did you imagine that I had
  finalized my judgment of you?  Or is it that you arrived at /your/ jugdment
  prematurely (again consistent with taking sides) and therefore are willing to
  re-open /your/ case?  Just trust me when I say this: I judge quickly whether
  someone thinks or not, but slowly about what they think about.  You will find
  me fantastically hostile to non-thinkers if you are used to throwing flippant
  comments around and not used to be taken seriously, but also find me patient
  with people who actually express ideas and reason well.

| If it's someone I have a certain amount of respect for, my tolerance for
| their sensitivities goes up.

  That is, if you do not like people, you can treat them any way you want.
  This is a pretty common way for people to interact in real life and the cause
  of almost all the idiotic fights and wars that people get themselves into, as
  well as the fundamental cause of the need for legal systems to ensure that
  proper procedure is followed when society takes over the function of exacting
  revenge for wrong-doing from the people who were quite happy to take revenge
  on a personal level in their "natural", i.e., uncivilized state.

  Letting your treatment of others depend on how much you "like" them is the
  very antithesis of ethical and just behavior.  The whole point of having laws
  in addition to ethics in a society is to ensure that those who suffer from
  selective empathy do not hurt people they do not respect or like.  The need
  for this is alarming -- many people actually believe that they do not need to
  act morally if they can believe they are taking revenge for something the
  other guy did.  However, revengeful people tend not to listen to what the
  other guy has to say, because they neither respect his sensitivities nor his
  word, so whether he did it or not is immaterial.  This kind of lynch mobs is
  the most base, most evil form of the human group psychology, an undeveloped
  stage that one would have hoped evolution would have taken care of, but our
  advanced societies are still so young that such primitive properties remain.

  To the primitive pre-intelligent human, "us vs them" is a question of rights.
  "We" have rights, "you" have none, and so "we" can murder and destroy "you"
  if it serves our purposes.  Mistreatment of those who land in the "them"
  category is legion the world over, and the very ability to understand human
  rights and the concept of justice appears to be unavailable to people whose
  selective empathy is not curtailed by education and serious training in how
  to cope with the unpleasant.  Non-thinking people take sides based on fickle
  emotional responses and feel no compunctions about mistreating those on the
  other side.  Thinking people realize that taking sides is a primitive tendency
  that predates reason and ethics and rights, dating back to primordial times
  when one's survival was intimately tied to the group's.  This is no longer the
  case, and especially so on the Internet and on Usenet, where we can all assume
  that all possible fundamental needs are satisfied and secured for the future
  -- or people would presumably be out there in the real world catering to such
  needs.  Therefore, no one is under threat when they participate in discussions
  on the Net and there is no group survival at stake, either.  Continuing to use
  the primitive survival-directed emotional responses is counter-productive and
  inexpedient, and the reasons to think in terms of proper procedure and rights
  of those who make unpopular and unpleasant arguments or appearances are very
  good -- "survival" on the Net is a question of intelligence and intellect in
  action much more than it is in the real world, and it is much more personal.
  Your physical ability to intimidate and ward off an intruder increases with a
  group to back you, but appealing to your group decreases the value of your
  arguments, meaning that it could not and would not stand on its own.  Most
  things that work well in near-physical combat do not work at all intellectual
  battles.  Some people appear not to figure this out at all, and think they are
  in physical combat on the Net and have to be defeated on such terms before
  they figure out what is going on.

| It's fairly easy in a local community where people often share similar values
| and sensitivities.

  The group agreement on sensitivities is simply an agreement not to "offend"
  one's peers with information or arguments that is known to be historically
  hurtful in that community.  For instance, Germans who are reminded of the
  atrocities of WW II tend to become defensive in counter-productive ways and
  Common Lispers tend to get annoyed with the repetitive nonsense from Schemers.
  However, the "similiar values" part can be seen from two vantage points: There
  are those who have attractions in common and those who have avoidances in
  common.  People congregate because they are all for or all against something,
  but that agreement is actually quite precarious.  The best reason to respect
  people's sensitivities in real life is that you do not want in-fights in your
  group; divisive elements get thrown out of the group, without which they are
  much less able to achieve their goals, so it makes good sense for individuals
  to abide by the sensitivities of others in order to keep the group alive.

  However, when groups of people meet with much less interpersonal contact,
  call it the size of the area of interface, the group survival issue vanishes
  and it becomes a question of the individual's value to the group as opposed
  to the group's value to the individual.  A member of a group who presents his
  sensitivities for others to respect when there is no group survival at stake,
  is the divisive element -- quite the opposite situation from real life.

  The core principle we respect when the group's survival is at stake is that
  the group would feel the loss of the individual member.  However, this
  presupposes that the group is the individual's primary protector.  This is
  true of social groups and small physical communities.  It is not the case for
  professional groups and public fora.  Some people have no concept of the
  public as different from the private (see �The Fall of Public Man� by Richard
  Sennett, 1992 paperback edition ISBN 0-393-30879-0), and therefore lack the
  professional dimension to their interaction with other people, leading them
  to inject and interject personal matters into their public discourse.

  Now, we all have emotions, and getting rid of them is a bad suggestion, but
  there is the question of whether you feel personally or professionally about
  something.  I am not threatened personally by misinformation, but I want to
  protect my profession from misinformation.  I want to help people learn and
  understand, not because I want to take part in their personal lives, but
  because I want better professionals around me in my carreer.  Chances are
  pretty high that I would like people from other professions better personally
  than fellow programmers, just as I would expect to socialize with people
  because I bring something of social value, not my programming prowess, to
  parties and dinners and the like.  Therefore, personal questions should not
  interfere with professional conduct in professional fora.

| How this scales to communicating in a forum such as this, where there are
| many different nationalities and backgrounds interacting, I don't have all
| the answers on that one.

  I do.  Leave your personal issues at home when you enter professional fora.
  If you want somebody to heed to your personal issues, write them personally.
  If you make such issues public, you not only flaunt your personal life, you
  invade that of others with your personal concerns, as well.

| What are your views?

  In general, I think people need to rediscover the role of public man and
  learn to totally avoid personal issues in public.  That does not preclude
  personal warmth, of course, but asking people in public to take part in one's
  emotional life is incredibly insensitive to others.  I firmly believe that
  people need to have their house in order before they venture into the public
  space.  If they seek to satisfy or fulfill personal needs in public places,
  they feed off of other people's unwillingness to be harsh in return.  I think
  of people who take their personal problems public as demanding beggars.

-- 
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: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <f34a0f4f.0209252113.642fea68@posting.google.com>
Rolf Wester <······@ilt.fhg.de> wrote in message news:<·················@ilt.fhg.de>...
[...]
> the most terrible criminals in world history

Not counting a certain other regime farther east...

---Vassil.
From: Rolf Wester
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D92B94E.A3BA8476@ilt.fhg.de>
Vassil Nikolov schrieb:

> Rolf Wester <······@ilt.fhg.de> wrote in message news:<·················@ilt.fhg.de>...
> [...]
> > the most terrible criminals in world history
>
> Not counting a certain other regime farther east...
>

Some years ago we had a discussion in Germany whether Stalin was as evel
as Hitler or not. Not playing down Stalin's crimes I think that the Nazi regime
was singular in history.

Rolf Wester
From: Len Charest
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <amsqvk$6in$1@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov>
Erik Naggum wrote:
>   ilias' ISP behaves exactly as
>   stupidly as every other ISP and refuses to do anything about him.  There is
>   no way to stop the criminals.  

Er, ilias is certainly an idiot, but how is he a criminal?
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3241980912223077@naggum.no>
* Len Charest
| Er, ilias is certainly an idiot, but how is he a criminal?

  Breaker of what little laws and regulations that keep this society working.
  If you wish to quibble over the formality of the laws and regulations or the
  conviction of criminals under the rule of law, feel free to post a lengthy
  harangue on the topic.

-- 
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: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <ey3znu61l6u.fsf@cley.com>
* Erik Naggum wrote:

>   Now, I have to ask all the people who respond to ilias: Who the hell do you
>   think you are helping?  Who could /possibly/ believe something he writes?
>   Even if such people might exist, /why/ would you care about those people?  It
>   should take less time to think about what he writes than to read a refutation
>   to realize that he is totally, irrovocably hopeless.

> [...]

>   /Please/ do not respond to ilias.

I apologise for my part in this.  Very early on I did mistakenly think
that he could be deconfused, but I am afraid to say that more recently
I have been taking a certain evil pleasure in merely baiting him.
This is both cruel - it's pretty much bullying - and a misuse of cll.

Someone else remarked that this might be territorial pissing, but I
don't think it is - certainly not on my part, and as far as I can tell
all the other people who have been responding have been genuinely - if
mistakenly - trying to help.

--tim
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D91B2B6.857A5A11@dls.net>
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
 
> I apologise for my part in this.  Very early on I did mistakenly think
> that he could be deconfused, but I am afraid to say that more recently
> I have been taking a certain evil pleasure in merely baiting him.
> This is both cruel - it's pretty much bullying - and a misuse of cll.

It's easy to fall into this trap.  Just remember that a non-negligible
fraction of the population is mentally ill, and some fraction of those
will have access to the internet.  The obviously disturbed trolls, while
very annoying, in the end deserve our pity.  Their lives must not be
pleasant.

	Paul
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <amt5dm$dok$1@newsreader2.netcologne.de>
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> 
>>I apologise for my part in this.  Very early on I did mistakenly think
>>that he could be deconfused, but I am afraid to say that more recently
>>I have been taking a certain evil pleasure in merely baiting him.
>>This is both cruel - it's pretty much bullying - and a misuse of cll.
> 
> It's easy to fall into this trap.  Just remember that a non-negligible
> fraction of the population is mentally ill, and some fraction of those
> will have access to the internet.  The obviously disturbed trolls, while
> very annoying, in the end deserve our pity.  Their lives must not be
> pleasant.

Sorry to say that, but I disagree. If the reason for certain behavior is 
really some kind of mental illness, then pity doesn't help at all but 
pity rather feeds the illness. The only help that is appropriate is 
professional help, but mentally disturbed people are usually only 
willing to ask for professional help when their level of suffering is 
considerably high.

So, perverse and cruel as it might sound, anything that increases their 
level of suffering actually might be a step towards a real improvement 
of their situation. So don't feel ashamed if you happen to feel like 
poking fun at them - you are not the reason for their illness.

Newsgroups cannot be some kind of self-help group or a substitute for 
psychotherapy.

Pascal
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D92261B.6070405@nyc.rr.com>
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Sorry to say that, but I disagree. If the reason for certain behavior is 
> really some kind of mental illness, then pity doesn't help at all but 
> pity rather feeds the illness.

Rubbish. The mentally ill benefit enormously by not having their odd 
behavior taken at face value. In mild, non-threatening cases one needs 
to look past the immediate offensiveness of the behavior to the 
suffering (or simply confused) individual behind it. Compassion will 
then arise in anyone at all mentally well.

> ...anything that increases their 
> level of suffering actually might be a step towards a real improvement 
> of their situation. 

Self-justifying fiction. Abuse only makes them dig their heels in 
further, becoming more and more attached to their delusion/confusion 
with each exchange. They do /not/ miraculously discover their own 
confusion (what a concept!) and seek help, they sink in deeper.

But break off the attack and they can find their way back to clarity. 
Then "catch them" being normal and reinforce that.

Two things help the reality-challenged: psychotropic drugs and 
compassion. We can offer only the second. Imagine a mile in ilias's shoes.

disclaimer: pardon the holier-than-thou tone. i am as big an asshole as 
anyone. it's just that i have been very close to many a nutcase, and 
loose screws aside, they have been the most interesting, intelligent, 
decent, and -- precisely beacuse of their suffering -- compassionate, 
accepting people I have known.

k,c
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3242002724064420@naggum.no>
* Kenny Tilton
| Compassion will then arise in anyone at all mentally well.

  I think I understand your problem.  Please let me know how I help you.

| Self-justifying fiction.

  I see your pain, but I cannot share it.  Would you like to help me understand
  what made you make this hurtful statement?

| Abuse only makes them dig their heels in further, becoming more and more
| attached to their delusion/confusion with each exchange.

  Somewhere along the line here you managed to read "abuse" where no such
  intent was present in the articles you read.  I can see that your sensitivity
  towards "abusive" people has caused you to see them where they do not really
  exist, but it is difficult for me to sympathize with you when you think in
  such openly hostile terms.  Please reduce your hostility towards other people
  and do not accuse them of favoring abuse.  Try to understand what they meant,
  and try to see that as different from what caused you to feel pain.

| They do /not/ miraculously discover their own confusion (what a concept!)
| and seek help, they sink in deeper.

  You are so patronizing towards these suffering people.  Why do you speak on
  their behalf with such authority when you seem to want to evoke compassion?
  Your confused and self-contradictory verbalizations indicate that you both
  want to protect and to control a lower class of people than yourself.  "They"
  are no longer subject to their own willpower, but need your assistance.  The
  problem with this is that you replace compassion with a desire to manipulate
  other people.  You treat a whole class of people with a single statement that
  shows that you actually harbor dehumanizing resentment towards them.  Again,
  I can sense your pain and your desire to protect others from your own painful
  experiences, but really, you should trust each individual to cope with his
  own set of experiences on an individual basis.  While some clearly would sink
  deeper into whatever psychosis they suffer from, many others essentially wait
  for somebody to give them a jolt to get out of their rut.

| But break off the attack and they can find their way back to clarity.  Then
| "catch them" being normal and reinforce that.

  Again, there is much evidence of your pain and suffering, but although you
  cry out for compassion with your plight, you turn patronizing, arrogant, and
  even dehumanizing towards a large number of individuals by pretending to be
  able to know them all.  You define what is normal /for/ them.  This would not
  be so bad if it were possible to ascertain that you are normal, or generally
  that one is normal.  The desire to be normal is so strong with people who
  fear having a deviant psychology that they hunt the literature for evidence
  that they are within at least one definition of "normal".  However, there
  /is/ no "normal".  There is expediency of actions and reactions.  Rationality
  is not acting in particular way, it is using the feedback from the world that
  is acted upon to modify the actions.  You declare someone other than normal
  and irrational when you cannot understand them, but more often than not, this
  has been abused by both the medical and other professions with power to judge
  people to mean that if a group of people who consider themselves "normal" are
  unable to figure out the reasoning behind your actions and reactions, then
  you are not normal, irrational, and possibly mentally ill.  Since people with
  average intelligence tend to be "normal" more often than not, and people with
  very low or very high intelligence tend not to be "normal" more often than
  not, this system has caused very highly intelligent people to be mistreated
  and encouraging the myth that very high intelligence is indistinguishable
  from madness.  However, among a group of people who believe in reincarnation,
  there is a different set of "normal" reactions and lines of reasoning than
  among a group of people who consider the belief in reincarnation to be prima
  facie evidence of insanity.  The stereotypical nutcase believes he is Napeleon
  Bonarparte or Jesus or some other historical figure.  Meanwhile, in other
  parts of the world, very serious people go looking for the reincarnated Dalai
  Lama and usually find him in young boys.  If you hear voices tell you what to
  do, you are classified as insane in our days, but Joan of Arc heard the voice
  of God tell her what to do and led a nation of co-believers.  "Normal" is
  such a tainted concept that anyone who speaks of it should replace it with
  the much more honest and appropriate "just like I am".

| Two things help the reality-challenged: psychotropic drugs and compassion.

  Add firm feedback from other people and a refusal to blame other people for
  their coping problems.  Compassion does not mean yielding, but many "soft"
  people tend to think they serve people by providing a cushion-like reality
  for them, creating a buffer between them and reality.  This is an insult to
  their ability to deal with the world, abrogating their ability to cope in the
  absence of such buffers.  Many psychotropic drugs have the same effect of
  dulling the perception of reality and their reactions putting people into a
  contourless world of blurred grey instead of the stark black and white they
  see in their "natural state".  Notice also how some people reach for a stupid
  accusation that other people think in black-and-white terms -- they do
  nothing but highlight their own fears of the kind of mental illness that
  people they think are insane have an all-or-nothing reaction to things.  Real
  compassion means standing fast, being a firm reference point upon which
  others can lean and judge their own coping and the reality around them.  Real
  compassion is /not/ to change to suit the person who needs it.

| We can offer only the second.  Imagine a mile in ilias's shoes.

  Indeed, you should try to imagine his continued need to post.

| disclaimer: pardon the holier-than-thou tone.

  Your tone is that of someone who has been hurt and who has now found a
  mission to protect others from similar pain by placing yourself between the
  reality you believe some people cannot cope and those people, but actually
  only preventing them from learning how to cope more than anything else.

-- 
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: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3241983442772300@naggum.no>
* Pascal Costanza
| So, perverse and cruel as it might sound, anything that increases their
| level of suffering actually might be a step towards a real improvement of
| their situation.

  It is not perverse and cruel.  Most people live cozy little lives much like
  that of a pebble that has fallen into an indentation in a larger stone and
  through wind and rain and snow and cold, digs itself deeper and deeper
  because it never receive enough energy to travel out into the world.  You can
  find such holes that are hundreds of years old.  Humans at the bottom of such
  holes call their holes their "religions" or their "culture" and fight tooth
  and nail to remain in their hole if they are washed out by the massive floods
  of information from the Internet.

  However, people outside their hole have a duty in no small sense to drag them
  out, to let them see the human experience they have protected themselves
  from.  This will be very painful to many of the "outed" hole-dwellers.  If
  they are aware of this pain and do not want to be exposed to the real world,
  the solution is very, very simple: Return to their hole.  If, however, you do
  venture outside your hole, the fact that we are human beings and therefore
  invariably benefit from sharing in our collective experience, means that even
  hole-dwellers be exposed to the real world and experiences that they may
  resist because they secretly want to go back to their holes.

  It is courage that keeps them on the outside -- and that courage should be
  awarded with information they need but do not want.  If they respond with "I
  feel hurt!  Do not present information I cannot cope with!", they should go
  back to their hole and not return to the outside world.  As long as they are
  out in the real world, they have an /obligation/ to cope with the world they
  have chosen to deal with and human /decency/ requires that they do not make
  their coping problems anybody else's problem.  Posting a requirement to
  curtail the freedom of expression of others because they cannot cope with it
  is obscene and is the really perverse and cruel thing to do to others.

  Imagine how many things people cannot cope with!  Imagine a world where
  somebody's failure to cope were the one ruling principle of all your social
  interaction.  You would get a society where people could not pronounce true
  statements about groups of people because they would feel offended.  You
  would get a society where differences that really hurt a group would have to
  be kept a secret instead of being rectified and solved because they feel more
  hurt about the existence of a difference than about it causing their losses.
  You would get a society where people would have to determine whether they
  would offend anyone with statement before they could determine its truth.  In
  the end, we would encourage people not to learn to read because they would
  only find millions of volumes that made them feel ignorant and unworthy.

  If you want sympathy from some warm body that does not understand you, get a
  dog.  If you want sympathy from some warm body that does understand you, get
  a cat.  If you want sympaty from some warm body that wants to be understood
  before it gives you any sympathy whatsoever, get another human being.

-- 
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: Eliot Miranda
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D924916.7E9A5EAD@pacbell.net>
Erik Naggum wrote:
[snip]
>
>   Imagine how many things people cannot cope with!  Imagine a world where
>   somebody's failure to cope were the one ruling principle of all your social
>   interaction.  You would get a society where people could not pronounce true
>   statements about groups of people because they would feel offended.  You
>   would get a society where differences that really hurt a group would have to
>   be kept a secret instead of being rectified and solved because they feel more
>   hurt about the existence of a difference than about it causing their losses.
>   You would get a society where people would have to determine whether they
>   would offend anyone with statement before they could determine its truth. 

and soon enough the leaders of that society would choose to go to war
with Iraq ;)
-- 
_______________,,,^..^,,,____________________________
Eliot Miranda              Smalltalk - Scene not herd
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D91B651.9070106@nyc.rr.com>
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> all the other people who have been responding have been genuinely - if
> mistakenly - trying to help.

Absolutely. I lost a lot of respect for ilias when he rejected my 
assertion along those lines. Folks continued to respond helpfully long 
past early signs that he is uncoachable. Quite a tribute to c.l.l., by 
the way.

kenny
clinisys
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <7kh9ond9.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:

> I am afraid to say that more recently
> I have been taking a certain evil pleasure in merely baiting him.
> This is both cruel - it's pretty much bullying - and a misuse of cll.

I see nothing wrong with amusing myself by abusing people like this.
From: Raymond Wiker
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <86ofal18k2.fsf@raw.grenland.fast.no>
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:

> Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> 
> > I am afraid to say that more recently
> > I have been taking a certain evil pleasure in merely baiting him.
> > This is both cruel - it's pretty much bullying - and a misuse of cll.
> 
> I see nothing wrong with amusing myself by abusing people like this.

        Ilias, on the other hand, sees nothing wrong with abusing
himself by amusing people like this :-)

-- 
Raymond Wiker                        Mail:  ·············@fast.no
Senior Software Engineer             Web:   http://www.fast.no/
Fast Search & Transfer ASA           Phone: +47 23 01 11 60
P.O. Box 1677 Vika                   Fax:   +47 35 54 87 99
NO-0120 Oslo, NORWAY                 Mob:   +47 48 01 11 60

Try FAST Search: http://alltheweb.com/
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <ey3ptv1yrab.fsf@cley.com>
* Joe Marshall wrote:

> I see nothing wrong with amusing myself by abusing people like this.

I must admit that I only see something wrong sometimes: it's quite
hard to feel sympathy for our current troll. On the other hand what I
feel badly about - if anything - is mostly posting articles for my
*own* amusement, regardless of whether others might find them
amusing.  That's just arrogant, I think.

--tim
From: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <amut5t$fmu$1@helle.btinternet.com>
Tim wrote:
> * Joe Marshall wrote:
>>I see nothing wrong with amusing myself by abusing people like this.
> I must admit that I only see something wrong sometimes: it's quite
> hard to feel sympathy for our current troll.
I actually somewhat disagree with this. The word Bedlam is derived from 
the nickname of the Bethlehem hospital in London. In the C18 and C19th 
is was fashionable to go an laugh and throw things at the chained up 
inmates. My concern is that *I* have been involved in the usenet equivalent.

> On the other hand what I feel badly about - if anything - is mostly 
> posting articles for my *own* amusement, regardless of whether others
> might find them amusing.  That's just arrogant, I think.
What do you do then? How do you tell whether things are amusing or not? 
Or do you not post things that are attempts at humour? Usenet would be a 
much duller place without the humour and the `open-mike' posting!

:)w
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <ey3adm451lv.fsf@cley.com>
* Will Deakin wrote:
> Tim wrote:
> I actually somewhat disagree with this. 

Yes, so do I.  I am in multiple minds about it (Do I contradict
myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain
multitudes.)).

> What do you do then? How do you tell whether things are amusing or
> not? Or do you not post things that are attempts at humour? Usenet
> would be a much duller place without the humour and the `open-mike'
> posting!

Well, I guess the trick is to have some concern as to whether other
people might find them funny rather than just posting stuff to amuse
myself by causing ilias to foam...

--tim
From: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <amvbsk$2ra$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net>
Tim wrote:
> Yes, so do I.  I am in multiple minds about it (Do I contradict
> myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain
> multitudes.)).
I feel very much like this also. Hmmm.

> Well, I guess the trick is to have some concern as to whether other
> people might find them funny rather than just posting stuff to amuse
> myself by causing ilias to foam...
Absolutely! In borderline cases this would characterise this as the 
difference between a wind-up or a leg-pull...

;)w
From: Fred Gilham
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <u71y7gpn8e.fsf@snapdragon.csl.sri.com>
The bible has some interesting things to say about trolls...I mean
fools.  Some of it might even be applicable to the current situation.


All from the book of Proverbs:

12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man
listens to advice.

12:16 The vexation of a fool is known at once, but the prudent man
ignores an insult.

18:2 A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in
expressing his opinion.

One of my favorites:
26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him
yourself.
26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own
eyes.
Oops --- a contradiction.  I wonder if the author noticed.... :-)

27:22 Crush a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain,
yet his folly will not depart from him.

29:9 If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages
and laughs, and there is no quiet.

29:11 A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man quietly
holds it back.


There are also some good ones about lazy people, but they hit too
close to home. :-)


-- 
Fred Gilham                                      ······@csl.sri.com
[Some of the] Top ten reasons why the God of Jesus Christ makes a
better God than `Caesar':
9. God has a better retirement package.
5. God only wants 10%.
4. God has fewer laws.
1. Caesar wants you to send your sons to die for him.  God sent his
   Son to die for you.
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <4znu41oiz.fsf@beta.franz.com>
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:

> One of my favorites:
> 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him
> yourself.
> 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own
> eyes.
> Oops --- a contradiction.  I wonder if the author noticed.... :-)

Most defintely.  In modern times, the author would have started
the passage with "Riddle me this:"

-- 
Duane Rettig    ·····@franz.com    Franz Inc.  http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450               http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607        Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182   
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3242087179636056@naggum.no>
* Tim Bradshaw
| it's quite hard to feel sympathy for our current troll.

  I find this an odd statement.  I am overwhelmed with sympathy for him, which
  is why I want nothing to do with him at all.  It is precisely because this is
  such a sympathy-inducing creature that he has no place in a public forum.
  This is a person about whom I have two unwelcome choices: To care about him
  personally or not care about him or anything he says at all.  Nothing he says
  invites me to respond professionally to his questions.  He asks me to take
  part in his personal life, which is a disgraceful request in public.  It is
  like using the public announcement system of a full football stadium to ask
  someone for a date.  It is not only embarrassing in itself, it puts you in a
  position where you understand that answering in the negative will be a
  terrible blow, and you therefore understand that doing it in public may be
  nothing short of a manipulative move to make you answer in the affirmative
  because you at least feel enough about the stupid requestor to save him from
  a crushing defeat.  In short, I find the overwhelming sympathy obscene.  It
  is for the very same reason that I find street prostitutes distasteful -- it
  is not that they sell their body in a degrading manner, it is that anyone who
  understands what they are doing is forced to either care personally or to
  block any and all sympathy from reaching them, causing either an overwhelming
  personal involvement in the personal tragedy of strangers or a dehumanizing
  lack of emotional response to their plight.  Both are deeply offensive to me.

-- 
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: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <an4u4k$273$1@usenet.otenet.gr>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Tim Bradshaw
> | it's quite hard to feel sympathy for our current troll.
> 
>   I find this an odd statement.  I am overwhelmed with sympathy for him, which
>   is why I want nothing to do with him at all.  It is precisely because this is
>   such a sympathy-inducing creature that he has no place in a public forum.
>   This is a person about whom I have two unwelcome choices: To care about him
>   personally or not care about him or anything he says at all.  Nothing he says
>   invites me to respond professionally to his questions.  He asks me to take
>   part in his personal life, which is a disgraceful request in public.  It is
>   like using the public announcement system of a full football stadium to ask
>   someone for a date.  It is not only embarrassing in itself, it puts you in a
>   position where you understand that answering in the negative will be a
>   terrible blow, and you therefore understand that doing it in public may be
>   nothing short of a manipulative move to make you answer in the affirmative
>   because you at least feel enough about the stupid requestor to save him from
>   a crushing defeat.  In short, I find the overwhelming sympathy obscene.  It
>   is for the very same reason that I find street prostitutes distasteful -- it
>   is not that they sell their body in a degrading manner, it is that anyone who
>   understands what they are doing is forced to either care personally or to
>   block any and all sympathy from reaching them, causing either an overwhelming
>   personal involvement in the personal tragedy of strangers or a dehumanizing
>   lack of emotional response to their plight.  Both are deeply offensive to me.
> 

-

The Predators Instinct.

_

Translucency.

-
From: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <amt3e4$b72$1@venus.btinternet.com>
Tim wrote:
> I apologise for my part in this.  Very early on I did mistakenly think
> that he could be deconfused, but I am afraid to say that more recently
> I have been taking a certain evil pleasure in merely baiting him.
> This is both cruel - it's pretty much bullying - and a misuse of cll.
Mea culpa. I am guilty of this too[1]. On reflection, if this were to 
happen to somebody like my two year-old son I would be very upset. Even 
if he put himself in the way of it. Mocking[2] the afflicted is never 
justified.

In my defence I should add that some of my -- albeit oblique -- comments 
were intended to cause some form of reassement or adjustment of self but 
to no avail.

I wish that in fact the whole sorry episode turns about to be an 
enormously elaborate hoax.

(sigh)

Will

[1] Maybe this is an northern english thing -- or maybe I'm secretly 
your alter ego ;)
[2] I think at the time I thought that I was merely mithering but given 
the nature of
From: Nicolas Neuss
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <87ptv2fft0.fsf@ortler.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:

> * Pascal Costanza
> | Are there any successful patterns how to deal with trolls, perhaps from
> | other newsgroups?
> 
>   Stop responding to them.
>   [...]

Additionally, I lower the score on all messages originating from
ilias' (and also other troll's) posts.  The keys in Gnus are L-r-s-t
RET.  All messages in the subsequent are marked, and I usually do not
read them.  Saves me a lot of time.

Nicolas.
From: ilias
Subject: Silence is Accepting - [was Re: The toxicity of trolls]
Date: 
Message-ID: <amt3no$t54$1@usenet.otenet.gr>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Pascal Costanza
> | Are there any successful patterns how to deal with trolls, perhaps from
> | other newsgroups?
> 
>   Stop responding to them.
> 
>   I get much more pissed off by the people who cannot understand that ilias is
>   literally completely hopeless than by ilias, as I have made an exception to
>   my general principle not to kill-file people but listen to what a person has
>   to say regardless of his record, but ilias stood out as hopeless from day 1.
>   He wore a sign on his forehead telling everyone that he is a useless specimen
>   of the human race when he walked in the door.  There is no point whatsoever
>   in responding to him, as he gave every evidence of being learning-impaired
>   and worse from the outset.  Yet even people I have deemed really smart keep
>   responding to him, keeping him alive, evidently believing that the community
>   is somehow helped by it, at least by refuting his misinformation.  It is not.
> 
>   This breed of untermensch lives for the response they get from real people.
>   Unlike reasonably social human beings who attach importance to what they say
>   and do not need a response, this breed of untermensch attaches importance to
>   how people respond to what they say, and only their responses.  If they have
>   to pester and annoy others to elicit a response from them, so be it.  If they
>   have to break laws and regulations to cause others to notice them, so be it.
>   If they have to deface buildings with spray cans, so be it.
> 
>   When the Internet became a public resource, criminals had to come with it.
>   We have spammers, Nigerian 419 scams, trolls on newsgroups, etc, just like we
>   have criminals in the real world.  The difference is that our governments sit
>   on their hands and refuse to deal with them.  ilias' ISP behaves exactly as
>   stupidly as every other ISP and refuses to do anything about him.  There is
>   no way to stop the criminals.  They even have anti-social defense lawyers on
>   the Net to "protect" them from criticism, in our community exemplified by
>   Coby Beck, who attack those who criticize the untermensch and want them to
>   have free reign of the newsgroups while ordinary, decent people are left with
>   no choice but to stop reading newsgroups that are taken over by untermensch.
> 
>   If it had helped to kill-file ilias, the problem would have been gone by now.
>   The problem is all the people who think that /anyone/ in the known universe
>   would believe anything that he produces.  The crucial point when it comes to
>   deciding whether to refute some claim or not is to decide whether anybody had
>   reason to believe it to begin with.  If not, and you refute it, you gave it
>   credibility it did not deserve.  If somebody did believe it, and you did not
>   refute it, were you responsible for their confusion, for how long it took
>   them to unconfuse themselves, for their spreading more confusion?
> 
>   Now, I have to ask all the people who respond to ilias: Who the hell do you
>   think you are helping?  Who could /possibly/ believe something he writes?
>   Even if such people might exist, /why/ would you care about those people?  It
>   should take less time to think about what he writes than to read a refutation
>   to realize that he is totally, irrovocably hopeless.
> 
>   Previously, kill-filing people was based on their annoying opinions and their
>   tendency to stir up conflicts and flame wars.  There is real danger in being
>   insulated from "unwelcome" information with this practice, meaning that which
>   tests your convictions, but if there is anything the Internet can offer us
>   that the offline world could not, it is the free flow of counter-information,
>   which is routinely suppressed by the formal publishing channels.  However, if
>   you listen to people who believe weird things, you realize very quickly that
>   they will more likely than not be crackpots, which is why other people ignore
>   them.  It is your task, then, to be able to discern a crackpot from someone
>   who has an valuable alternative view, and actually /listen/ to what people
>   are saying, which sometimes require that you be much smarter than they are,
>   or think much more about it than they have.  People who protect themselves
>   from alternative views therefore tend to be unable to distinguish crackpots
>   in time, as well.  When presented with an unfiltered medium like the Internet
>   and Usenet newsgroups, those who have grown up on the filtered media will of
>   necessity feel bewildered and confused.  In very many cases, it helps to poke
>   them with a cattle-prod and yell "THINK!" at them or treat them harshly as
>   long as they do not engage their brain.  Few cases are literally hopeless,
>   but when one comes along, it /should/ be easy to detect because you know how
>   to sort an ignorant from an opinionated asshole and a person who believes in
>   some faulty premises from an actual retard or nutcase.
> 
>   I am puzzled by the fact that people who have lent no benevolence to people
>   who have held intelligent views differing from their own, lend benevolence to
>   ilias and his ilk.  It is as if they cannot deal with intelligent rejection
>   of their beliefs, but have no problems with misbehaving children.  If people
>   think and manage to enunciate their arguments instead of defending themselves
>   personally and attacking their critics, their contributions may be still hard
>   to deal with because it is intellectually demanding, but if you argue and
>   listen with them, you may learn something valuable that changes the way you
>   deal with the world around you.  Now, this is what I cannot figure out: What
>   could anyone possibly gain from converting ilias to his way of thinking?
> 
>   /Please/ do not respond to ilias.
> 

Silence is Accepting
From: ilias
Subject: The Leader Rules - The Sheeps Follow - [was Re: The toxicity of trolls]
Date: 
Message-ID: <amv45e$m7v$1@usenet.otenet.gr>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Pascal Costanza
> | Are there any successful patterns how to deal with trolls, perhaps from
> | other newsgroups?
> 
>   Stop responding to them.
> 
>   I get much more pissed off by the people who cannot understand that ilias is
>   literally completely hopeless than by ilias, as I have made an exception to

"literally completely hopeless"

>   my general principle not to kill-file people but listen to what a person has
>   to say regardless of his record, but ilias stood out as hopeless from day 1.

"hopeless from day 1"

>   He wore a sign on his forehead telling everyone that he is a useless specimen
>   of the human race when he walked in the door.  There is no point whatsoever

"useless specimen of the human race"

>   in responding to him, as he gave every evidence of being learning-impaired

"learning-impaired"

>   and worse from the outset.  Yet even people I have deemed really smart keep

"worse"

>   responding to him, keeping him alive, evidently believing that the community
>   is somehow helped by it, at least by refuting his misinformation.  It is not.
> 
>   This breed of untermensch lives for the response they get from real people.

"breed of untermensch"

>   Unlike reasonably social human beings who attach importance to what they say

"unreasonable social human being"

>   and do not need a response, this breed of untermensch attaches importance to

"breed of untermensch"

>   how people respond to what they say, and only their responses.  If they have
>   to pester and annoy others to elicit a response from them, so be it.  If they
>   have to break laws and regulations to cause others to notice them, so be it.
>   If they have to deface buildings with spray cans, so be it.

introducing: "criminal".

> 
>   When the Internet became a public resource, criminals had to come with it.
>   We have spammers, Nigerian 419 scams, trolls on newsgroups, etc, just like we
>   have criminals in the real world.  The difference is that our governments sit
>   on their hands and refuse to deal with them.  ilias' ISP behaves exactly as
>   stupidly as every other ISP and refuses to do anything about him.  There is
>   no way to stop the criminals.  They even have anti-social defense lawyers on

"criminal"

>   the Net to "protect" them from criticism, in our community exemplified by
>   Coby Beck, who attack those who criticize the untermensch and want them to

"Coby Beck, the collaborationist of untermensch"

>   have free reign of the newsgroups while ordinary, decent people are left with
>   no choice but to stop reading newsgroups that are taken over by untermensch.

"taken over by untermensch"

> 
>   If it had helped to kill-file ilias, the problem would have been gone by now.
>   The problem is all the people who think that /anyone/ in the known universe
>   would believe anything that he produces.  The crucial point when it comes to
>   deciding whether to refute some claim or not is to decide whether anybody had
>   reason to believe it to begin with.  If not, and you refute it, you gave it
>   credibility it did not deserve.  If somebody did believe it, and you did not
>   refute it, were you responsible for their confusion, for how long it took
>   them to unconfuse themselves, for their spreading more confusion?
> 
>   Now, I have to ask all the people who respond to ilias: Who the hell do you
>   think you are helping?  Who could /possibly/ believe something he writes?

"writings not believable"

>   Even if such people might exist, /why/ would you care about those people?  It

"People who believe writings, don't care about them"

>   should take less time to think about what he writes than to read a refutation
>   to realize that he is totally, irrovocably hopeless.

"totally, irrovocably hopeless"

> 
>   Previously, kill-filing people was based on their annoying opinions and their
>   tendency to stir up conflicts and flame wars.  There is real danger in being
>   insulated from "unwelcome" information with this practice, meaning that which
>   tests your convictions, but if there is anything the Internet can offer us
>   that the offline world could not, it is the free flow of counter-information,
>   which is routinely suppressed by the formal publishing channels.  However, if
>   you listen to people who believe weird things, you realize very quickly that

"believe weird things"

>   they will more likely than not be crackpots, which is why other people ignore
>   them.  It is your task, then, to be able to discern a crackpot from someone
>   who has an valuable alternative view, and actually /listen/ to what people
>   are saying, which sometimes require that you be much smarter than they are,
>   or think much more about it than they have.  People who protect themselves
>   from alternative views therefore tend to be unable to distinguish crackpots
>   in time, as well.  When presented with an unfiltered medium like the Internet
>   and Usenet newsgroups, those who have grown up on the filtered media will of
>   necessity feel bewildered and confused.  In very many cases, it helps to poke
>   them with a cattle-prod and yell "THINK!" at them or treat them harshly as
>   long as they do not engage their brain.  Few cases are literally hopeless,

"literally hopeless"

>   but when one comes along, it /should/ be easy to detect because you know how
>   to sort an ignorant from an opinionated asshole and a person who believes in
>   some faulty premises from an actual retard or nutcase.

"opinionated asshole"
"who believes in some faulty premises"

> 
>   I am puzzled by the fact that people who have lent no benevolence to people
>   who have held intelligent views differing from their own, lend benevolence to
>   ilias and his ilk.  It is as if they cannot deal with intelligent rejection
>   of their beliefs, but have no problems with misbehaving children.  If people
>   think and manage to enunciate their arguments instead of defending themselves
>   personally and attacking their critics, their contributions may be still hard
>   to deal with because it is intellectually demanding, but if you argue and
>   listen with them, you may learn something valuable that changes the way you
>   deal with the world around you.  Now, this is what I cannot figure out: What
>   could anyone possibly gain from converting ilias to his way of thinking?
> 
>   /Please/ do not respond to ilias.
> 

-

"literally completely hopeless"

"hopeless from day 1"

"useless specimen of the human race"

"learning-impaired"

"worse"

"breed of untermensch"

"breed of untermensch"

introducing: "criminal".

"criminal"

"Coby Beck, the collaborationist of untermensch"

"taken over by untermensch"

"writings not believable"

"People who believe writings, don't care about them"

"totally, irrovocably hopeless"

"believe weird things"

"literally hopeless"

"opinionated asshole"

"who believes in some faulty premises"

-

...

...

-

The Leader Rules - The Sheeps Follow.

-

Silence is Accepting.
From: Stig Hemmer
Subject: Re: The Leader Rules - The Sheeps Follow - [was Re: The toxicity of trolls]
Date: 
Message-ID: <ekvzntnl6m1.fsf@gnoll.pvv.ntnu.no>
ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
> The Leader Rules - The Sheeps Follow.

Bah.

Stig Hemmer,
Jack of a Few Trades.
From: Ben Olasov
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D93EBB3.CE57AA5E@pacbell.net>
Erik Naggum wrote:

> * Pascal Costanza
> | Are there any successful patterns how to deal with trolls, perhaps from
> | other newsgroups?
>
>   Stop responding to them.

Right.  This is definitely a case where doing nothing dominates doing something.
From: Kurt B. Kaiser
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <m37kh8uf5v.fsf@float.attbi.com>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
>   However, if you listen to people who believe weird things, you
>   realize very quickly that they will more likely than not be
>   crackpots, which is why other people ignore them.

One of these days someone with a weird mentality like our friend is
going to turn out to be a program.  And it will be tireless, does that
sound familiar?

I suppose it's still too early, but who knows?  And what better test
forum than c.l.l?

KBK
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <an1jnc$abftm$1@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de>
The world rejoiced as ···@shore.net (Kurt B. Kaiser) wrote:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
>>   However, if you listen to people who believe weird things, you
>>   realize very quickly that they will more likely than not be
>>   crackpots, which is why other people ignore them.
>
> One of these days someone with a weird mentality like our friend is
> going to turn out to be a program.  And it will be tireless, does that
> sound familiar?

There were some responses to 'the unnamed' that were pretty clearly
produced by Eliza, so there is precedent...
-- 
(reverse (concatenate 'string ·············@" "sirhc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/
"I have stopped  reading Stephen King novels.  Now I  just read C code
instead."  -- Richard A. O'Keefe
From: Alain Picard
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <861y7io4js.fsf@gondolin.local.net>
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:

> Are there any successful patterns how to deal with trolls, perhaps
> from other newsgroups?

Yes.  I established that he was a troll on his 2nd or 3rd post,
and, since he has confirmed his character, killfiled him, and
avoided every thread he's responsible for.  If we all do that,
the problem is immediately solved, I guarantee you.

It's up to us.
From: ilias
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <amq50v$3fk$1@usenet.otenet.gr>
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> I had a look on our news server just now.  We have comp.lang.lisp
> articles going back to 28-Aug-2002 (normally we keep them much longer,
> but out upstream server changed in a way with which leafnode couldn't
> cope earlier in Aug and I blew away our whole news spool...).  I think
> our feed is quite complete and relatively clean (most of the awfuller
> spam seems to get filtered).
> 
> We have 3531 articles in this time.
> 
> Of these: 320, or about 9% are by Ilias, and 659, or about 19% have a
> References line which has an ilias message ID at the start.  Combining
> these and removing duplicates, there are 838 articles in threads
> started by Ilias, or about 24% of the total.
> 
> This was all done with (e)grep, cat and sort so I may have fouled up
> some stuff.
> 
> But the results are fairly clear, I think: about 1/4 of the traffic in
> cll is a result of one troll.
> 
> If I remove articles posted to more than two newsgroups (393 articles)
> as unlikely to be interesting then I get ~ 27% of noise arising from
> Ilias alone.

missinformation!

i post mostly in topic.

about Lisp.

the savages react to this posts.

mainly off-topic.

talking about knowledge.

if often reply to this off-topic.

analyze how much of my posts are off-topic due to the trolling (as you 
like this term) of c.l.l. against me.

yes.

c.l.l. is trolling me.

unprofessional beasts.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <ey365wv2m7k.fsf@cley.com>
* at news wrote:

> the savages react to this posts.

> mainly off-topic.

> c.l.l. is trolling me.

> unprofessional beasts.

Well, you see, since we're all such a bunch of savages, and we
obviously don't know anything about Lisp really as you've made so
clear, and we're trolling you and unprofessional beasts and all,
wouldn't it be really a much better use of your time to just not post
to cll any more?  It must be really a huge waste of your time having
to deal with us unprofessional beasts who understand nothing and
refuse to learn from you, and I certainly don't think there is
anything that we can teach *you*.  You are *clearly* so far beyond the
rest of the Lisp community that you would be far better starting your
own community of disciples - we are just a bunch of stuck-in-the-mud
retards who, in 20 years, have failed to see the many glaring faults
in our standards and implementations.
From: ilias
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <an223i$5jm$2@usenet.otenet.gr>
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> * at news wrote:
> 
> 
>>the savages react to this posts.
> 
> 
>>mainly off-topic.
> 
> 
>>c.l.l. is trolling me.
> 
> 
>>unprofessional beasts.
> 
> 
> Well, you see, since we're all such a bunch of savages, and we
> obviously don't know anything about Lisp really as you've made so
> clear, and we're trolling you and unprofessional beasts and all,
> wouldn't it be really a much better use of your time to just not post
> to cll any more?  

primary:

'you' are not cll.

additionally:

there are 'highlights'.

finally:

i've hope.

> It must be really a huge waste of your time having
> to deal with us unprofessional beasts who understand nothing and
> refuse to learn from you, 

no it isn't.

> and I certainly don't think there is
> anything that we can teach *you*.  

every human can teach me.

after i teach him.

how to teach me.

> You are *clearly* so far beyond the
> rest of the Lisp community that you would be far better starting your
> own community of disciples - 

no need.

The Spirit of Lisp.

> we are just a bunch of stuck-in-the-mud
> retards who, in 20 years, have failed to see the many glaring faults
> in our standards and implementations.
> 

hard words.

repeat them.
From: Robert Hanlin
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <c427d639.0209281224.32d396c0@posting.google.com>
ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote:
> > we are just a bunch of stuck-in-the-mud
> > retards who, in 20 years, have failed to see the many glaring faults
> > in our standards and implementations.
> 
> hard words.
> repeat them.

Wow, he's starting to get more insightful.  (I'm not just talking
about the part I quoted.)  Erik Naggum is not about to pester ilias
for advice anytime soon, but that's just a matter of time.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3242239952522474@naggum.no>
* Robert Hanlin
| Erik Naggum is not about to pester ilias for advice anytime soon, but that's
| just a matter of time.

  Geez.  Do you think you could any /more/ focused on people?

  One toxic effect of catering to people like "ilias" is that people who have
  nothing whatsoever to offer anyone feel they have something to offer.

-- 
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway                 Today, the sum total of the money I
                                          would retain from the offers in the
more than 7500 Nigerian 419 scam letters received in the past 33 months would
have exceeded USD 100,000,000,000.  You can stop sending me more offers, now.
From: Robert Hanlin
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <c427d639.0209282131.71fa0889@posting.google.com>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
>   Geez.  Do you think you could any /more/ focused on people?

I must.  Names are the label associated with everyone's posts, and I
filter accordingly.


>   One toxic effect of catering to people like "ilias" is that people who have
>   nothing whatsoever to offer anyone feel they have something to offer.

Presumably you are speaking about me.  But I've written two useless
posts to c.l.lisp that I remember, and both times were a result of
your harsh words to someone.  Clearly you are not helping clear the
newsgroup of noise, perhaps you are even forcing ilias to compensate
for your stupidity by being even more determined, so why not change
strategy?

Anyway, I seem to recall that you were one huge problem with this
newsgroup as a representative of the community.  While you may have
interesting lisp experience, it is unfortuately inseparable from your
bile, as if there was one little piece of crap in the main course that
always drew attention.  So perhaps you should apologize to me for
being "focused on people."

Rob
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3242267411660936@naggum.no>
* Robert Hanlin
| I must.

  OK, I understand this to mean that you do not have the mental wherewithall to
  understand that focusing on people is a choice, opposed to focusing on the
  arguments, on information, on ideas, on knowledge, on understanding, etc.
  Prmitive minds focus on people, react to people, and blame people.  Advanced
  minds relate to ideas.  Those who focus on people are actually broken people
  themselves and therefore look at other people to discover that they are not
  alone in being broken.  Functional people have an actual /purpose/ to their
  communication and do not find casting blame and spreading their hatred far
  and wide conducive to their purposes.  Dysfunctional people focus on feeling
  well, because they do not feel well, and think this is somebody else's fault.
  If you do not feel well, you should stay home and repair yourself, not impose
  your personal problems on other people.  This is a really simple guideline.

| Presumably you are speaking about me.

  Yes, you have proven yourself to be toxic to us.  However, you are, by your
  own admission, unable to act more intelligently than you do, so you are sort
  of excused for your inability to do better.  By your own admission, your own
  "contributions" here must be judged according to their sender, not according
  to their contents.  Since you do not understand anything beyond a primitive
  level of interaction with other people, you will not understand that you have
  any alternatives and will never improve or behave differently towards people
  you think are at fault for your lack of feelings you can cope with.

| So perhaps you should apologize to me for being "focused on people."

  Far from it.  Focusing on people is a disease.  You spread that disease with
  your actions and your toxic articles, which, by your own admission, do not
  carry intelligent communication relevant to this forum.  This are, however,
  simply actions and choices on your part, and you can make other choices if
  you realize that you have a choice.  As long as you think you "must" focus on
  people, you must be judged accordingly, as a diseased, broken person.

  Your own actions have brought focus on yourself and your response to cast
  blame on me is simply stupid and does you no credit at all.  You have nothing
  to offer this forum except your own personal relations with people here,
  which you abuse the public forum to flaunt, and as such are a useless piece
  of shit.  So go stink up some other forum, please.  If you have no bowel
  control of your own, seek help.  This is not the proper forum to get help.

  Now, please leave this forum to people who can focus on its purpose, which
  is, probably to your amazement, not your personal animosity towards me, but
  the programming language Common Lisp and/or the language family Lisp.  Do you
  understand this or will you continue to attack me and not get the message?
  You will get preicsely one -1- opportunity to behave better than you have
  before you are judged an incorriigible idiot and menace to society.  Make
  your choice wisely.

-- 
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway                 Today, the sum total of the money I
                                          would retain from the offers in the
more than 7500 Nigerian 419 scam letters received in the past 33 months would
have exceeded USD 100,000,000,000.  You can stop sending me more offers, now.
From: Robert Hanlin
Subject: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <c427d639.0209290824.5f6f985a@posting.google.com>
>   Now, please leave this forum to people who can focus on its purpose, which
>   is, probably to your amazement, not your personal animosity towards me, but
>   the programming language Common Lisp and/or the language family Lisp.  Do you
>   understand this or will you continue to attack me and not get the message?
>   You will get preicsely one -1- opportunity to behave better than you have
>   before you are judged an incorriigible idiot and menace to society.  Make
>   your choice wisely.

Oh, you would not like an attack?  You prefer to call ilias an idiot,
use the word "you" all the time when trying to defeat cancers in your
newsgroup yet chide me for focussing on people?

All right.  I merely charge that "you," in the abstract (who must be a
nice individual in the particular), disrupt the normal cycle of
learning in newsgroups like this.  In other newsgroups, people learn
by making tentative posts without quite understanding the culture,
they are corrected in the main, and eventually become members who
enforce those norms.  You ruin this process by playing the role of the
newsgroup-supported toxic granny, whom no one wants to be dominated
by.
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame5.html

What do you consider an important, enlightening post to c.l.lisp?  I
notice that most of the time it's some variation of "Why don't people
like Lisp?"  It comes in the guise of posts like "Why don't those
Python guys just use Lisp," or "Why is it so hard to get a normal job
doing lisp?"  Maybe you don't like them, but since I've seen few
complaints, presumably that's considered a Useful topic here.  So I'm
being precisely topical, because I think there is something about Lisp
which supports bureaucrats like a Naggum, someone who sits in his
comfortable space after having learned lisp and spends his day
flaming.

So more than attacking you, because you're unwilling to be attacked,
is that there's a problem with Lisp being sufficiently dull due to its
stability, and so there's not enough desire to build apps on top of
lisp because it's simply not enjoyable.

I presume that Graham will be successful with Arc, not so much because
of his interesting insights, but because it's a new language that
people can learn actively rather than passively.

Now to make this whole discussion concrete, let me point out one
discussion where you took part.  Someone was trying to get a simple
Unix operation to work in Lisp, which struck him as a bit silly as he
didn't realize that the Lisp solution was more general if a bit
verbose.  You responded that Lisp's handling of filesystems are
general, but wrapped it in paragraphs of bile.  And he gave you an
insight that you cheerfully ignored!  People think that computing
history started with Unix, which lifted everything out of the muck! 
And so when people are faced with the prospect of learning loads of
generality when they just want to practice lisp by reading and parsing
a file, they can either be flamed or go to Python.

The Lisp cheerleaders TOLD them that Lisp was more powerful.  They did
not tell them however, of the interesting generality.  So it becomes
painful, not interesting, and they consider it an "academic" language
that doesn't work for the Real World.  No one pointed out that, "Oh,
here's a macro that makes the learning curve flatter, just load this
in..." or "You may think that Unix is the phat, 'home boy,' but there
is so much history behind everything, take a look at this faq which
describes a different world than your 'crib.'"


>   You will get preicsely one -1- opportunity to behave better than you have
>   before you are judged an incorriigible idiot and menace to society.

Since your one -1- mechanism to do any more than this is a killfile, I
suggest you compromise with me and give me a couple more chances to
make mistakes before I learn to sit well in your culture and produce
insightful posts.  After all, this is a social forum, and while it's
about ideas, you really shouldn't ignore its underlying nature of
people.

But do as you wish, I get the sad feeling that you've run an Eliza bot
against me, customizing some parts by hand before sending it to the
newsgroup...  and I appreciate the fact I'm playing the straight man.

Rob
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D973151.5020207@nyc.rr.com>
Robert Hanlin wrote:
> Oh, you would not like an attack?  You prefer to call ilias an idiot,
> use the word "you" all the time when trying to defeat cancers in your
> newsgroup yet chide me for focussing on people?

There are two kinds of folks on the Usenet. Those who engage in 
protracted hand-to-hand combat with other posters, and those who do not.

:)

kenny
clinisys
From: Robert Hanlin
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <c427d639.0209292034.55c74ed6@posting.google.com>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> There are two kinds of folks on the Usenet. Those who engage in 
> protracted hand-to-hand combat with other posters, and those who do not.

Don't worry, this is the first time I've started replying to his
posts, and it's clarified my thinking on what's missing from the lisp
community.  I'm sorry if it's been stressful for anyone else, but at
least it was enlightening for me.

I would personally like to see c.l.lisp invaded, to be a place where
there can be interesting discussion for people who are new to lisp. 
Naggum is perfectly rational in flaming me, since I really think his
culture should be destroyed.

These are the things I see with c.l.lisp today:
- it's been co-opted by Common Lisp, which is misleading for learners
- discussion concentrates too much on little historical quirks, than
on the deeper philosophy of Lisp
- more rewarding for some denizens to write pages of flames rather
than make a nice website to simply link to
- it's a natural meeting place for new people, but is not geared
towards them
- like some software packages, both lisp users and software have grown
sophisticated enough that the community has become forbidding to new
folk
- some smart people are emotionally sensitive, but that is no reason
to lose their thoughts

I did contribute something decent to c.l.lisp, at least so said the
people at Lambda the Ultimate; the Backus paper "Can Programming Be
Liberated from the von Neumann Style?"
http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs242/readings/backus.pdf

For all the "lisp" (really Common Lisp) advocacy here, no one
mentioned it.  I had to stumble upon it via a random google search. 
It's a million times more convincing than normal lisp advocacy, but
even knowledgable profs haven't found it on the net.  Therefore,
c.l.lisp is a suspect place for really understanding the philosophy of
lisp.  You probably can't expect a broad, evenhanded discussion here.

Clearly all this means it's sort of up to someone like me to play the
archaeologist and write up what I've learned about lisp, in a way that
new learners can appreciate the power and tradeoffs of the lisp
family.  While I for some reason feel religious feelings towards
lambda, smart learners need to be respected.

Well, those are my thoughts.  Maybe they can form into something
useful.


Rob
From: Frank A. Adrian
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <y_Tl9.2103$do6.129228@news.uswest.net>
Robert Hanlin wrote:

> These are the things I see with c.l.lisp today:
> - it's been co-opted by Common Lisp, which is misleading for learners

In what way?  Which "learners" are being confused?  What other Lisp vehicles 
are available to learners?  If by the previous, you mean scheme or emacs 
lisp, there are other newsgroups better suited towards them.  If by 
learning Lisp philosophy, it probably cannot be well-taught outside the 
context of a particular Lisp, which leads you back to either Common Lisp or 
other languages or dialects with other, more appropriate newsgroups.  If 
you want to cry over dead implementations like T or OakLisp, that's just 
too pathetic for words.


> - discussion concentrates too much on little historical quirks, than
> on the deeper philosophy of Lisp

I haven't seen this.  I would not be so arrogant to think that I could 
understand Western philosophy without also understanding historical 
"quirks" such as Greek democracy or that rise of Papal power in Western 
Europe.  Why do you think you can understand the "deeper philosophy of 
Lisp" without understanding some of the historical features behind its 
development?


> - more rewarding for some denizens to write pages of flames rather
> than make a nice website to simply link to

Well, we try to keep the riff-raff out, but folks like you keep butting back 
in...


> - it's a natural meeting place for new people, but is not geared
> towards them

Why should it be geared towards them?  I think one of the worst things that 
has happened to newsgroups is that people have come to believe that they 
can waltz into them without even having done a Google search on the topic, 
say "Explain it all to me in two sentences", and expect an answer other 
than "Fuck off, you lazy little shit."  You seem to think that being lazy 
and unprepared is a virtue that grants some sort of nobility of naivete 
upon the idiot.  This is a stupid idea.  In addition, if someone comes in 
and asks a question about Lisp that is obviously not homework, most people 
here give answers in the spirit that question was asked.  The only time I 
have seen someone talked harshly to is if, after receiving the answer to 
their question, they say something like "That's stupid," or "I don't think 
it should be that way," at which point it is pointed out to them that maybe 
they ought to learn something about the language before they stoop to 
criticize it.


> - some smart people are emotionally sensitive, but that is no reason
> to lose their thoughts

I haven't noticed any thoughts being lost.


> I did contribute something decent to c.l.lisp, at least so said the
> people at Lambda the Ultimate; the Backus paper "Can Programming Be
> Liberated from the von Neumann Style?"
> http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs242/readings/backus.pdf

Yeah, most of us around here read Backus' paper when it was published as a 
Turing Award lecture in the days before CACM became dumbed down by 
attitudes akin to your desire to be relevant to newbies and oher denizens 
of the unwashed masses.  A great contribution you have made, pointing out a 
paper that is 20+ years old, well-known in the community, and has little to 
do with Lisp, per se.  Maybe if you actually become familiar with the 
literature, you can find something that is actually useful.


> For all the "lisp" (really Common Lisp) advocacy here, no one
> mentioned it.

Mainly becuase it's old and has little to do with Lisp.  Besides you were 
just bitching about us being too focused on "historical quirks", which is 
what FP was.  And, in case you haven't noticed, since that paper, there's 
been a whole world of functional programming research that's been done.  
Why is this research (which is more timely and probably just as relevant) 
not more noticable than Backus' FP paper?


> I had to stumble upon it via a random google search.

At least you did one.  Thank you for that, at least.


> It's a million times more convincing than normal lisp advocacy, but
> even knowledgable profs haven't found it on the net.  Therefore,
> c.l.lisp is a suspect place for really understanding the philosophy of
> lisp.  You probably can't expect a broad, evenhanded discussion here.

So you're having a little public snit because your expectations weren't met.  
Tell me why I should care?


> Clearly all this means it's sort of up to someone like me to play the
> archaeologist and write up what I've learned about lisp, in a way that
> new learners can appreciate the power and tradeoffs of the lisp
> family.  While I for some reason feel religious feelings towards
> lambda, smart learners need to be respected.

There are already plenty of documents out there that do a good job.  Because 
you haven't found them, don't assume (a) that they don't exist or (b) that 
you can do better.  You could actually start with the papers from the two 
HOPL proceedings on Lisp.  These are historically valid, being written by 
people who were there at the time (McCarthy for the first, and Gabriel and 
Steele for the second) and give tons of references to other good material.  
As for your own paper, please, have at it - when we see your result, it 
might actually be reasonable.  Just make sure that it's well researched an 
factual before you go off spouting.


> Well, those are my thoughts.  Maybe they can form into something
> useful.

Form your thoughts into something useful first, then figure out if your 
little snit was worth having.

faa
From: Robert Hanlin
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <c427d639.0209300638.2d83f38c@posting.google.com>
"Frank A. Adrian" <·······@ancar.org> wrote:
> I haven't seen this.  I would not be so arrogant to think that I could 
> understand Western philosophy without also understanding historical 
> "quirks"

I would.  It takes an understanding of reasonably rational people to
see why many things happen.  You certainly can't learn much from
"history," unless you prepare to be a deep-in-the-mud scholar, because
quiet details are exceedingly hard to capture.  So you need some
generalization to rely on, and that's the abstraction of human
motivations.  As well as a feeling of where it doesn't have to be
absolutely rational.

If that makes me arrogant, at least history tells us that people have
had worse vices.


> Why do you think you can understand the "deeper philosophy of 
> Lisp" without understanding some of the historical features behind its 
> development?

Because there are no doubt a lot of boneheaded mistakes behind its
development, and it's occasionally dangerous to put too much stock in
some detail that is actually a bit silly.


> Well, we try to keep the riff-raff out, but folks like you keep butting back 
> in...

You are aware that you're threatening someone who is not easily
killfileable, right?  I know you have a need to be gratuitous, because
even I am disturbed at what I wrote.  But put the snake back in your
pants, please.


> > - some smart people are emotionally sensitive, but that is no reason
> > to lose their thoughts
> I haven't noticed any thoughts being lost.

No, I don't think you did.


> your desire to be relevant to newbies and oher denizens 
> of the unwashed masses.  

You mean like Python is being increasingly useful to the exclusion of
lisp, simply because it supports more mainstream standards?  Or will
you use the counterargument that lisp does not need to attach itself
like to every new development, as if there were a central lisp entity
that could do so?


> Yeah, most of us around here read Backus' paper when it was published as a 
> Turing Award lecture in the days before CACM became dumbed down by 
> attitudes

a) some of us weren't alive then, I wasn't
b) sophistication in domain-specific knowledge often trades off with
CS sophistication -- at least when it's not embodied in programming
environments
c) don't cry for the lisp machine or CACM, Virginia, because you don't
fully accept why the industry killed them.  If you're going to be
cold-bloodded, imagine how industry types (like me) are the same way.


> So you're having a little public snit because your expectations weren't met.  
> Tell me why I should care?

If we agree not to care about each other's snits, will that even
things out?


> Form your thoughts into something useful first, then figure out if your 
> little snit was worth having.

I think not.  Why don't you write a program all at once, and then test
it?


Rob
From: Wade Humeniuk
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <dr_l9.16837$qB3.932503@news0.telusplanet.net>
"Robert Hanlin" <··············@yahoo.com> wrote in message
·································@posting.google.com...
> > Why do you think you can understand the "deeper philosophy of
> > Lisp" without understanding some of the historical features behind its
> > development?
>
> Because there are no doubt a lot of boneheaded mistakes behind its
> development, and it's occasionally dangerous to put too much stock in
> some detail that is actually a bit silly.
>

Why are you making such a mythological statement?  Do you believe there is some simple unifying
computing principles, that if just discovered, will make computing simple and easy?  You might have
noticed that computing is all about details and precision.

I am just curious, but do you make many boneheaded mistakes?

Wade
From: Robert Hanlin
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <c427d639.0209301719.79f2cd51@posting.google.com>
"Wade Humeniuk" <····@nospam.nowhere> wrote:
> Why are you making such a mythological statement?  Do you believe there 
> is some simple unifying computing principles, that if just discovered, will 
> make computing simple and easy?  You might have noticed that computing is 
> all about details and precision.

Basically I believe that most of the time people think about emergent
properties of systems.  Oftentimes they can generalize them with a
sensible model that fits their web of knowledge.  That generalization
is a form of compression.  Why not learn the compressed ideals, build
up my web, and learn details that don't fit more rapidly?  After all,
I have a lot of practice with this in daily life.

Computer languages are like this.  They have themes that enable a
designer/user to think "bad feature!" or "This would really fit!"  So
these principles do exist, I suppose the only question is how useful
they are.  In my experience they're very.

Don't think I believe in getting rid of details.  I simply believe in
W.V. Quine's arguments that epistemology is better studied as
psychology.


> make computing simple and easy?  You might have noticed that computing is 
> all about details and precision.

No.  Computing is far older than Turing, et al.  We know people in the
time of Descartes had an obvious itch to make morality mechanically
deterministic, and later with Hilbert's polynomial root question. 
When it came to Turing and von Neumann's time, only then did it make
sense to work out the little machines... or at least be the first to
publish them.


> I am just curious, but do you make many boneheaded mistakes?

I'm sure you've already answered this in your own mind.  And I of
course agree.  So more and more I augment my mind with collab and
other systems.


Rob
From: Wade Humeniuk
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <gYim9.22444$qB3.1135071@news0.telusplanet.net>
"Robert Hanlin" <··············@yahoo.com> wrote in message
·································@posting.google.com...
> Basically I believe that most of the time people think about emergent
> properties of systems.  Oftentimes they can generalize them with a
> sensible model that fits their web of knowledge.  That generalization
> is a form of compression.  Why not learn the compressed ideals, build
> up my web, and learn details that don't fit more rapidly?  After all,
> I have a lot of practice with this in daily life.
>

Because many times the compressed ideals, though aesthetically appealling are untrue.  I have found
in writing design documents that I have had to "compress" the information.  But in the compression I
have created "errors of ommission".  (Its like this, except for these little exceptions I will not
tell you about.)  Also when I meet someone that just has compressed ideals, I find them being able
to speak the jargon but when pressed and questioned they have no depth to their understanding.  It
is not a web that is built but a house of cards.

> > I am just curious, but do you make many boneheaded mistakes?
>
> I'm sure you've already answered this in your own mind.  And I of
> course agree.  So more and more I augment my mind with collab and
> other systems.

No, I am more interested if you see yourself making "mistakes" or "boneheaded mistakes".  Just
wondering if you are self destructive in your comments to yourself (as you are destructive to
others).

Wade
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <ey3u1k78pr2.fsf@cley.com>
* Robert Hanlin wrote:

> I would.  It takes an understanding of reasonably rational people to
> see why many things happen.  You certainly can't learn much from
> "history," unless you prepare to be a deep-in-the-mud scholar, because
> quiet details are exceedingly hard to capture.  So you need some
> generalization to rely on, and that's the abstraction of human
> motivations.  As well as a feeling of where it doesn't have to be
> absolutely rational.

It's strange that this is true for Lisp, while it's so thoroughly
false for, say, the hard sciences - where you'd expect it to be even
more true.  I can't imagine, for instance, someone being able to
understand quantum mechanics without being *really* familiar with 19th
and early 20th century classical mechanics, particularly the
Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formalisations and things like the calculus
of variations. I suppose this is why computing is so much more
exciting and dynamic than these tedious subjects - you don't have to
waste half your time learning about boring old ps and qs and can move
straight on to inventing radical stuff.  Or is that reinventing stuff?
I can never tell.

--tim
From: Bulent Murtezaoglu
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <873crr9xi9.fsf@acm.org>
>>>>> "RH" == Robert Hanlin <··············@yahoo.com> writes:
[quoting Frank Adrian]
    >> Yeah, most of us around here read Backus' paper when it was
    >> published as a Turing Award lecture in the days before CACM
    >> became dumbed down by attitudes

    RH> a) some of us weren't alive then, I wasn't 

Then, might one suggest the possibility that that people who have been 
reading CS literature before you were born are wiser in some ways than 
you are at the present time?  Might one further suggest that tapping into 
that wisdom requires something other than perceiving your elders as 
pointlessly hostile?

    RH> b) sophistication
    RH> in domain-specific knowledge often trades off with CS
    RH> sophistication -- at least when it's not embodied in
    RH> programming environments 

True sophistication in some field usually entails the ability to recognize 
when one is lacking the background/sophistication in other fields.  FAA is 
talking about "dumbing down" as in the "you do not need sophistication" 
undertone not the "proper understanding of this requires acquisition of 
additonal knowledge" one.

    RH> c) don't cry for the lisp machine or
    RH> CACM, Virginia, because you don't fully accept why the
    RH> industry killed them.  [...]

Ok, please, enlighten us?  How did these things come about and why?  Do 
they have the same cause?  There are people here who are intimately familiar 
with the rise and demise of Lisp machines.  Quite a few also have at least 
skimmed through CACM over the years.  So if you are off-base they might tell 
you.

cheers,

BM

 
From: Robert Hanlin
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <c427d639.0209301753.234ef240@posting.google.com>
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> wrote:
> Ok, please, enlighten us?  How did these things come about and why?  Do 
> they have the same cause?  There are people here who are intimately familiar 
> with the rise and demise of Lisp machines.  Quite a few also have at least 
> skimmed through CACM over the years.  So if you are off-base they might tell 
> you.

I have also "skimmed through CACM."  It is a little odd that there are
articles such as "What did Netscape learn from its mistakes?"  But so
what.  CACM doesn't check your creds when you join, other than if you
have enough cash.  So it's not a large leap to find the CACM was
dumbed down to serve more people.  But the difference is that Frank
finds it appalling, while I find it obvious and natural.  There will
always be places to find good articles; and editorial staffs die, get
bored, and shift due to politics.  The restaurant with the ambience
you love will turn trendy once the owner's kids take over.

The demise of lisp machines have been studied in some detail.  I've
also known people who've used the beasts, and they've said nothing
that contradicts what I've read.  Should I repeat what I've read in
case studies like this:
http://kogs-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/~moeller/symbolics-info/Symbolics.pdf

Really, do I want to ask a Mac user in 1996 why Macs were declining? 
"It's Bill Gates, man.  It's a CONSPIRACY."


> True sophistication in some field usually entails the ability to recognize 
> when one is lacking the background/sophistication in other fields.  FAA is 
> talking about "dumbing down" as in the "you do not need sophistication" 
> undertone not the "proper understanding of this requires acquisition of 
> additonal knowledge" one.

Irrelevant.  I'm sure there was some great Artist of Brooms.  We have
lost the art of the Great Broom Masters.  We are still learning tools
to hold that much information.  But your average person or company
will have various tradeoffs of sophistication, and the "dumbed-down"
stuff is sufficiently useful for them.


> Then, might one suggest the possibility that that people who have been 
> reading CS literature before you were born are wiser in some ways than 
> you are at the present time?  

Depends on the individual.  Feynman -- loved his intro lectures on
physics.  Spivak -- loved his intro to analysis.  Fleischmann and
Pons?  No way.


Rob
From: Frank A. Adrian
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <uG9m9.54$P36.120743@news.uswest.net>
Robert Hanlin wrote:

> 
> If that makes me arrogant, at least history tells us that people have
> had worse vices.

True, but the thing about vices is that we should try to get rid of them, 
not glory in the fact that we have less worse ones.


>> Why do you think you can understand the "deeper philosophy of
>> Lisp" without understanding some of the historical features behind its
>> development?
> 
> Because there are no doubt a lot of boneheaded mistakes behind its
> development,

Probably, but those have also had about 40 years worth of time to be elided.  
Thinking that you can avoid these same issues without being aware of them 
is not only arrogant, but foolish.  Those that would not learn from 
history...


> and it's occasionally dangerous to put too much stock in
> some detail that is actually a bit silly.

Except those silly details are usually there for a good reason.  You ignore 
them at your own peril.


> You are aware that you're threatening someone who is not easily
> killfileable, right?  I know you have a need to be gratuitous, because
> even I am disturbed at what I wrote.  But put the snake back in your
> pants, please.

My goodness, you are so paranoid.  I didn't even say anything about doing 
anything to you, let alone killfiling you.  Just saying that trolls like 
you need to be watched and discouraged.  And why the fascination with my 
"trouser snake"?  Gosh, *I'm* beginning to feel a bit threatened, now.


> You mean like Python is being increasingly useful to the exclusion of
> lisp, simply because it supports more mainstream standards?

I haven't noticed Lisp being excluded anywhere important.  Nor have I 
actually noticed Python being used anywhere that interesting, either.  But 
then, that's because I'm willing to admit that I don't care about Python 
and I haven't been looking that hard for it.


> Or will
> you use the counterargument that lisp does not need to attach itself
> like to every new development, as if there were a central lisp entity
> that could do so?

Well, you're assuming that Lisp use in every new project is a good thing.  I 
don't necessarily think so. I'd tend to limit it's use by the clueless, 
myself.  But you seem to have this popularity fetish that a lot of people 
seem to have.  You see, I'm fine to not have Lisp be popular, as long as it 
remains the best programming language out there.


> a) some of us weren't alive then, I wasn't

Ignorance of past developments in one's chosen field of endeavour is not an 
excuse.  I know that there were also many things going on in CS before I 
was studying computers.  Where was the first use of the term "Software 
Engineering"?  What was the first language Grace Hopper designed and why 
was it an advance over what was present then?  How do the two of these 
combine to point at a direction for new research even today?  If you can't 
answer these questions, why do you think you are capable of critiquing 
something that was a product of minds who obviously thought of these kinds 
of things?


> b) sophistication in domain-specific knowledge often trades off with
> CS sophistication -- at least when it's not embodied in programming
> environments

Do you want to talk about Computer-Aided Engineering of electronic circuits?  
Efficient portfolio management theory?  Analysis of workflow models? 
Analysis of pharmacological data?  These are just some of the fields I've 
had to familiarize myself with in order to have interesting tasks to 
program.  That hasn't stopped me from knowing about multiprocessing, 
databases, and probably more languages and their design rationales than you 
have heard of.  Your item above sounds (once again) like your same whine of 
"Love me because I'm too lazy to be versatile".


> c) don't cry for the lisp machine or CACM, Virginia, because you don't
> fully accept why the industry killed them.  If you're going to be
> cold-bloodded, imagine how industry types (like me) are the same way.

Industry often kills off good things (or tries to).  CACM hasn't been 
killed, just dumbed down.  And, speaking of "industry types", I've been out 
in industry, programming in non-academic and non-research positions for the 
past twenty-plus years.  I now make my living managing programmers and do 
any occasional programming as a hobby.  I daresay I know a hell of a lot 
more about "industry types" than you.  And most industry types don't go 
around with the idea that they don't have to work to learn something or, if 
they do, I sure as hell don't hire them.


> If we agree not to care about each other's snits, will that even
> things out?

Yeah, after this post, I plan on ignoring most of what you have to say until 
I see you've gotten past your "I'm special because I'm young and ignorant 
and too lazy to learn something new" attitude.


> I think not.  Why don't you write a program all at once, and then test
> it?

Having an idea that you might want to write a program is not the same as 
writing it.  Try to at least get a line or two of code before you ask 
others to comment on it.


faa
From: Robert Hanlin
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <c427d639.0210010654.6fc4eb70@posting.google.com>
"Frank A. Adrian" <·······@ancar.org> wrote:
> Yeah, after this post, I plan on ignoring most of what you have to say until 
> I see you've gotten past your "I'm special because I'm young and ignorant 
> and too lazy to learn something new" attitude.

Perhaps I have made a straw man out of you.  Kill your straw man, I'll
kill mine.

My point is that if one does a bit of learning, it becomes useful to
manage that process.  Now, each process may have its own
disadvantages, but oftentimes these can be mitigated or deferred,
while retaining the advantages.

My process may seem nuts to you.  And it would probably get you
nowhere in your life.  Same with my view of yours.


> True, but the thing about vices is that we should try to get rid of them, 
> not glory in the fact that we have less worse ones.

This reminds me of an anecdote an AI person told me.  He stressed the
foundation of making sure the machine has a motivation.  Perfectly
rational beings don't move much; they don't create art.  Life & death
is meaningless.  I'm waiting for the next version of AIMA before I buy
it, but even I know this is well-known.

I've observed some animals, like many do with pets.  In the rodent
world, you find that domesticated rats are noticably smarter than
mice.  But they do so many more foolish things.  They experiment with
sliding down vertical surfaces, using friction to slow them.  They're
pushy when they want to play, accidentally knocking another rat down a
branch, and then being pushy with their guilt trying to apologize. 
(At least that was my anthropomorphic interpretation of events.)

So I'll take the small vices for 100, Alex.  I'm better for them, if a
bit more foolish.  I'll just keep them in mind when it's important not
to be a silly moron.


> Probably, but those have also had about 40 years worth of time to be elided.  
> Thinking that you can avoid these same issues without being aware of them 
> is not only arrogant, but foolish.  Those that would not learn from 
> history...

There are risks.  But reasonably natural workarounds are usually
there.  I mean, I have to workaround doc/implementation errors in
other systems anyway.


> I haven't noticed Lisp being excluded anywhere important.  Nor have I 
> actually noticed Python being used anywhere that interesting, either.  

I thought Norvig suggested Python for his students, mainly for a nice
crossplatform GUI.  And there's all sorts of case studies on
Python.org.

Even forgetting all that, assuming I misunderstood Norvig's
intentions, it's in my personal best interest to have lots of active
work on making Lisp "topical" to today's domains.  I think
Scheme/Python/Haskell are fulfilling this role, so... I'm not going to
make a big fight over it.

It's not black & white, because popularity has its downsides as well
as upsides.  For you, the downsides are more dominant, for me it's
hard to say.


> Ignorance of past developments in one's chosen field of endeavour is not an 
> excuse.  

What?  I said I read Backus' paper, it would just have been odd in
1978 when I didn't exist.  Plus I think you'll take a book over
papyrus. ;)


> was studying computers.  Where was the first use of the term "Software 
> Engineering"?  What was the first language Grace Hopper designed and why 
> was it an advance over what was present then?  How do the two of these 
> combine to point at a direction for new research even today?  If you can't 
> answer these questions, why do you think you are capable of critiquing 
> something that was a product of minds who obviously thought of these kinds 
> of things?

That's the thing.  Now that you mention it, I'm reading all I can
about the A-O compiler and the McIlroy 1968 speech.  Distributed
objects?  That's the logical progression of either of those alone. 
But Windows has had it since forever, so you can't mean that.

You think I don't read.  To the contrary.  I set myself up with
systems so that I can learn anything I want.  I get special deals from
my bookstore; I scan some sites endlessly for links.


> If you can't 
> answer these questions, why do you think you are capable of critiquing 
> something that was a product of minds who obviously thought of these kinds 
> of things?

Cause skool teeches me to have a kritikal mind.  How do you think they
came up with insights?  There are different minds, and they have
different styles of thinking.  Think of that best-paid IBM researcher
whose name eludes me, whom Fred Brooks praised as a chaotic mind who
runs through the forest leaving sparks behind.  He couldn't manage a
single person, but more disciplined minds brought his ideas to
fruition.  So who can say what kind of mind is better?  They're
different, some being less outwardly respectful than others.  Who
knows what respect means for each person?  It definitely means
different things in each culture!


> And why the fascination with my 
> "trouser snake"?  Gosh, *I'm* beginning to feel a bit threatened, now.

I meant that you were panting, and your tongue is sharp and venomous. 
I want your snake-tongue back in your panting mouth.  This "trouser
snake" thing sickens me.

Yes, I'm lying.


> had to familiarize myself with in order to have interesting tasks to 
> program.  That hasn't stopped me from knowing about multiprocessing, 
> databases, and probably more languages and their design rationales than you 
> have heard of.  Your item above sounds (once again) like your same whine of 
> "Love me because I'm too lazy to be versatile".

Speaking of "trouser snakes," I'm not getting into a pissing match. 
I've bought or read whatever I could about the thoughts of Stroustrup,
KMP, Gabriel/Steele, Wall, van Rossum, etc.  Maybe you've gone
further.  Good for you.  I've been programming 2-3 years, and do not
see myself defined as a programmer.

And before you chide me on my youth, I came into this world with
things like history existing like anything else in my enviroment.  I
history as much respect as I give any physical object.  Whatever I
feel it deserves.


Rob
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <kzbsmzsf0x3.fsf@panix3.panix.com>
··············@yahoo.com (Robert Hanlin) writes:

[...]
> I did contribute something decent to c.l.lisp, at least so said the
> people at Lambda the Ultimate; the Backus paper "Can Programming Be
> Liberated from the von Neumann Style?"
> http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs242/readings/backus.pdf

Did you contribute the paper, or the link to it?

> For all the "lisp" (really Common Lisp) advocacy here, no one
> mentioned it.  I had to stumble upon it via a random google search. 
> It's a million times more convincing than normal lisp advocacy, but
> even knowledgable profs haven't found it on the net.

Until now, I would have thought that paper was routinely mentioned in
the course of the first or second year in any decent computer science
curriculum, but I must have been wrong.

---Vassil.
From: Robert Hanlin
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <c427d639.0209300442.339cf13@posting.google.com>
Vassil Nikolov <··········@poboxes.com> wrote:
> Did you contribute the paper, or the link to it?

I can't tell if you are asking me if I scanned it in for cs242 or are
asking me a rhetorical question whether I wrote it.  If the former,
with all respect I already answered this; and if the latter, it's
probably a pointless piece of discussion if people who need it most
can't conveniently read it at leisure.  (I didn't intend to credit
myself like Prometheus, if you happen to imply that.)


> Until now, I would have thought that paper was routinely mentioned in
> the course of the first or second year in any decent computer science
> curriculum, but I must have been wrong.

It is mentioned as a footnote in SICP.  But clearly "decent computer
science curriculums" do not hold much power over the IT industry. 
(And I think you would like the industry to produce commodity machines
that run CS languages elegantly.)  Maybe that's not a bad thing; the
industry is a domain where certain factors dominate pure technical
competence.

Rob
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <3242352669923252@naggum.no>
* Robert Hanlin
| Naggum is perfectly rational in flaming me, since I really think his
| culture should be destroyed.

  Thanks for your candor.

| - some smart people are emotionally sensitive, but that is no reason
| to lose their thoughts

  I think the best approach is to invite people over to an entirely different
  service where they can have some say over the noise level.  Usenet with a
  volume knob, so to speak.  Since the number of opinionated idiots on the Net
  is only increasing, and good people leave because people like you want to
  destroy what made it interesting to use the forum, there is no other option
  but to give the interesting people an opportunity to be relieved of idiots.

| You probably can't expect a broad, evenhanded discussion here.

  /You/ sure cannot expect that.

-- 
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway                 Today, the sum total of the money I
                                          would retain from the offers in the
more than 7500 Nigerian 419 scam letters received in the past 33 months would
have exceeded USD 100,000,000,000.  You can stop sending me more offers, now.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D97EF6E.9050907@nyc.rr.com>
Robert Hanlin wrote:
> I would personally like to see c.l.lisp invaded, to be a place where
> there can be interesting discussion for people who are new to lisp. 

Actually, newbies are well treated here in c.l.l. Even ilias was taken 
seriously and given solid advice until one by one we all gave up on him.

Gratuitous efforts such as yours to clean up c.l.l. only add to the 
noise. c.l.l. itself does not fret over c.l.l., and we are here day in 
and day out. Knights in shining armor need not apply.

We should file this under Troll Patterns. You are not the first to 
conclude that c.l.l. in general and EN in particular contribute 
significantly to lisp being less popular than other languages, and go so 
far as to try to raise a lynch mob to silence him. Never works. (Your 
"seem to recall...huge problem...EN as representative" is not supported 
by the archives.)

The pattern includes: such folk then blame c.l.l. for complicity or 
cowardice rather than accept that they have misjudged things. But that 
is terribly condescending towards the veterans here, so the trolls then 
have tarred themselves with unsociability and soon stomp out the c.l.l. 
door muttering unkind parting shots at us all.

> Naggum is perfectly rational in flaming me, since I really think his
> culture should be destroyed.

Oh, please. Sound the trumpets! Turn loose the hounds! Way too 
self-important and grandiose. Simply joining c.l.l. and making positive 
contributions would have been more consistent with your stated goal. 
Even taking issue with others as you see fit is dandy. Just speak for 
yourself and ease up on the crusadespeak.

Sorry for nagging you, but try as I might I have not been able to break 
into the Top Ten statistics around here so I am posting articles I 
usually discard once composed.

:)

kenny
clinisys
From: Robert Hanlin
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <c427d639.0209300425.59b91b70@posting.google.com>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Gratuitous efforts such as yours to clean up c.l.l. only add to the 
> noise. c.l.l. itself does not fret over c.l.l., and we are here day in 
> and day out. Knights in shining armor need not apply.

Of course.  Obviously your episode with ilias is one that will
eventually reach some nice conclusion, since while this is an
unmoderated forum, you guys have more investment and patience here
than do others.  The downside is that a) you need to spend time
managing the forum and b) some good people don't have the patience and
leave.  Erik sort of sacrifices himself as a necessity, and while he
occasionally kills off people who actually seem to be fine
contributing members to other forums (I've received a couple letters
from them), them's the breaks.  Obviously no one likes that unclean
result.

Certainly, Naggum's assessment of my posts are right, and I notice
he's written two more posts that I have no interest in reading.  Those
two minutes of his life are wasted, another demonstration of the
messiness of his job.


> Simply joining c.l.l. and making positive 
> contributions would have been more consistent with your stated goal. 
> Even taking issue with others as you see fit is dandy. Just speak for 
> yourself and ease up on the crusadespeak.

I have no intention of actually following up on what I said, which
makes me a troll.  Fortunately I do personally know people who are
actually doing what I alluded to, so no loss to you.  There are other
mitigating factors.  c.l.lisp is not the only place to discuss lisp. 
There is a good body of literature on the subject which makes a lot of
discussion redundant.  And the case studies of AI companies put things
like the Lisp Machine in perspective.  No real complaints.

Rob
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <3242394600698797@naggum.no>
* Robert Hanlin
| Certainly, Naggum's assessment of my posts are right, and I notice he's
| written two more posts that I have no interest in reading.  Those two
| minutes of his life are wasted, another demonstration of the messiness of
| his job.

  If they were for you, you would have received them in mail.  I consider you
  just as hopeless as the others of your kind, so the point is only to make
  the forum aware of a counterposition to your obviously disturbed views.  It
  is in that regard quite interesting that you have to tell people that you
  refuse to read something.  Such behavior alone confirms your kook factor.
  
-- 
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: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <ana11r$62c$1@knossos.btinternet.com>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> It is in that regard quite interesting that you have to tell people that
> you refuse to read something.  Such behavior alone confirms your kook factor.
Lol. (It is a great pity that along with the other interesting 
statistics recently generated on comp.lang.lisp that this kook 
coefficient could not be assigned to posters[1].)

;)w

[1] Maybe on the basis of statistical sampling or some other rigours 
analytical technique...
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <elbbxrza.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> writes:

> Lol. (It is a great pity that along with the other interesting
> statistics recently generated on comp.lang.lisp that this kook
> coefficient could not be assigned to posters[1].)
> 
> 
> ;)w
> 
> [1] Maybe on the basis of statistical sampling or some other rigours
> analytical technique...

You could poll regular c.l.l. posters with the question `Is XXX a
kook?' (with suitable substitution applied) and obtain the ratio of
yea to nay votes.  Ought to suffice for a crude measure.
From: Robert Hanlin
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <c427d639.0209301833.1ac9be42@posting.google.com>
Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Lol. (It is a great pity that along with the other interesting 
> statistics recently generated on comp.lang.lisp that this kook 
> coefficient could not be assigned to posters[1].)

You know, you already have me successfully contained to this one
thread, with decreasing signs of posting on others.  Do you wish to
screw up and have me post elsewhere here?

Us kooks are very persistent and have lots of time on our hands.  It
would be trivial for me to get new email addresses on various servers,
start offering helpful advice, then start poisoning the stream with
little flamewars, or waste experienced peoples' time correcting small,
obvious, but vital mistakes.  I type fast enough that I could probably
maintain 10 personas while spending one/two hours a day.  While
walking on the sidewalk, I could think up minor posts.

Us kooks are imaginative, so I could make a little background for
them, give them their little personalities, and slowly introduce them.
 I could do the same for various lisp mailing lists and the like. 
Maybe play with their grammar styles, so no amount of bayesian
analysis can find me out.  Eventually, I could be a little too harsh
to someone.

Of course, I'm just kidding.  

So why continue to gloat over the fact that I am a kook, when you
already know I am one?

Why not tell people to stop engaging me in conversation I might find
interesting in this thread, perhaps with a modicum of respect that no
one needs to mean, and let it slowly die out?  Maybe I will go back
into my books and do strange kook things in worlds that don't touch
you.

Rob
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D99344D.3040104@nyc.rr.com>
Robert Hanlin wrote:
> Us kooks are very persistent and have lots of time on our hands.  It
> would be trivial for me to ...

<snip more of same>

> 
> Of course, I'm just kidding.  

disavowal disallowed. self-destruct program has run successfully to 
completion. rest easy; you can go now.

k,c
From: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <anbglf$hts$1@knossos.btinternet.com>
Robert Hanlin wrote:
> Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Lol. (It is a great pity that along with the other interesting 
>>statistics recently generated on comp.lang.lisp that this kook 
>>coefficient could not be assigned to posters[1].)
> You know, you already have me successfully contained to this one
> thread, with decreasing signs of posting on others.  Do you wish to
> screw up and have me post elsewhere here?
In the inimitible words of Rhett Butler, `Frankly, my dear, I don't give 
a damn.' Fill your boots. Whether float you boat.

Moreover, chill. In what way do you think that you are unique in the 
capacity of kookness? All of us, I content, have a kook within that is 
longing to escape

> So why continue to gloat over the fact that I am a kook, when you
> already know I am one?
Probably because there is only us kooks out here.

:)w
From: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <anbl8k$e23$1@newsreaderm1.core.theplanet.net>
Will Deakin wrote:
> a damn.' Fill your boots. Whether float you boat.
                             ^^^^^^^
			    Whatever
> capacity of kookness? All of us, I content, have a kook within that is 
                                      ^^^^^^^
				     contend

:)w
From: quasi
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <kevipu4pidegblu5iir3t69cuqvf67v11s@4ax.com>
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 06:51:27 +0000 (UTC), Will Deakin 
>Probably because there is only us kooks out here.
>

ummm... probably we should rechristen our cl-cookbook as the
cl-kookbook.

those who are symmetric could replace the k with the b or vice-versa
to get interesting combinations.
cl-kookkook
cl-bookbook
cl-boobboob
...

wOw, I am a kook too !
--

Think.
From: Peter Lewerin
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D99CB5D.3040601@swipnet.se>
> cl-boobboob


Wouldn't that be

   cl-()()

?

Brings a new meaning to the term "dotted pair"...
From: Frank A. Adrian
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <EfZl9.7$om5.33559@news.uswest.net>
Kenny Tilton wrote:

> Sorry for nagging you, but try as I might I have not been able to break
> into the Top Ten statistics around here so I am posting articles I
> usually discard once composed.

Keep up the good work!  We all need goals! :-)

faa
From: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <an9otk$ikc$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net>
Kenny Tilton wrote:
> Sorry for nagging you, but try as I might I have not been able to break 
> into the Top Ten statistics around here so I am posting articles I 
> usually discard once composed.
As somebody who has been able to reach such giddy heights, if the last 
bunch of statistics is to be believed, without adding much to the sum 
total of human[1] knowledge, I would gladly give you my spot. I, will 
therefore, hold a posting monitorium until the end of the month to 
give you the chance to reach this nivana[2].

;)w

[1] ...or lisp related...
[2]  I should also add that I am hoping to be reincarnated as a sloth. 
The though of being the only land animal sufficiently slow to 
photosynthesis is simply too good to be true.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D99C779.4090405@nyc.rr.com>
I am reminded of the "mercy sack" given (by Brett Fahr, I think) to 
Michael Strachan of the Giants on the last series of the last game so he 
could break Gastineau's record. Shameful!

No, I want to earn this, so now I have to make the Top Nine.

:)

k,c

Will Deakin wrote:
> Kenny Tilton wrote:
> 
>> Sorry for nagging you, but try as I might I have not been able to 
>> break into the Top Ten statistics around here so I am posting articles 
>> I usually discard once composed.
> 
> As somebody who has been able to reach such giddy heights, if the last 
> bunch of statistics is to be believed, without adding much to the sum 
> total of human[1] knowledge, I would gladly give you my spot. I, will 
> therefore, hold a posting monitorium until the end of the month to give 
> you the chance to reach this nivana[2].
> 
> ;)w
> 
> [1] ...or lisp related...
> [2]  I should also add that I am hoping to be reincarnated as a sloth. 
> The though of being the only land animal sufficiently slow to 
> photosynthesis is simply too good to be true.
> 
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <4lm5khsf6.fsf@beta.franz.com>
··············@yahoo.com (Robert Hanlin) writes:

> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> > There are two kinds of folks on the Usenet. Those who engage in 
> > protracted hand-to-hand combat with other posters, and those who do not.
> 
> Don't worry, this is the first time I've started replying to his
> posts, and it's clarified my thinking on what's missing from the lisp
> community.  I'm sorry if it's been stressful for anyone else, but at
> least it was enlightening for me.

No stress here.  I just hope it's not too stressful for you, once you
realize your thinking isn't as clear as you think.

> I would personally like to see c.l.lisp invaded, to be a place where
> there can be interesting discussion for people who are new to lisp. 
> Naggum is perfectly rational in flaming me, since I really think his
> culture should be destroyed.

There are many ways to interpret this paragraph:

 1. Erik Naggum is a cultured person, and he should be turned into
a barbarian.
 2. Some Lisp purists should come into c.l.l and destroy Erik's pet
culture, Common Lisp.
 3. Someone should break into Erik's lab and destroy his petri dishes.

Others, anyone?

> These are the things I see with c.l.lisp today:

OK, but I don't see them the same way as you do:

> - it's been co-opted by Common Lisp, which is misleading for learners

Let's talk about the history of Common Lisp.  In a nutshell, it was an
effort by Lisp users and vendors of many different philosophies and
dialects to come together as one, and Common Lisp was the result.   Yes,
Common Lisp was co-opted as Lisp, by Lispers, if you take the first
meaning of the word co-opt in my dictionary (which means "to vote
into a body by joint action or by votes of the existing members" (World
Book).  After the co-opting, users of most of the other Lisp dialects
chose willingly to abandon their dialects, with a few exceptions
(scheme, elisp, and autolisp being the most obvious).

> - discussion concentrates too much on little historical quirks, than
> on the deeper philosophy of Lisp

Hmm, I see you're stuck on Lambda Calculus and FP.  What makes you think
that these define Lisp today?

> - more rewarding for some denizens to write pages of flames rather
> than make a nice website to simply link to

How about http://www.lisp.org?

> - it's a natural meeting place for new people, but is not geared
> towards them

The internet is definitely _not_ a good place to meet new people.

> - like some software packages, both lisp users and software have grown
> sophisticated enough that the community has become forbidding to new
> folk

I had thought that this list of yours was one which you considered to
be Bad Things.  How is this a Bad Thing?  If I ever need surgery, I am
certainly grateful that the community of surgeons doesn't make it too
easy for new folk to join.

> - some smart people are emotionally sensitive, but that is no reason
> to lose their thoughts

Take care for your own sensitivities, lest you get lost in your own
thoughts.

> I did contribute something decent to c.l.lisp, at least so said the
> people at Lambda the Ultimate; the Backus paper "Can Programming Be
> Liberated from the von Neumann Style?"
> http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs242/readings/backus.pdf
> 
> For all the "lisp" (really Common Lisp) advocacy here, no one
> mentioned it.  I had to stumble upon it via a random google search. 
> It's a million times more convincing than normal lisp advocacy, but
> even knowledgable profs haven't found it on the net.  Therefore,
> c.l.lisp is a suspect place for really understanding the philosophy of
> lisp.  You probably can't expect a broad, evenhanded discussion here.

Of course not.  After all, we are talking about Pure Functional Lisp,
here, aren't we?

Why would we want to mention a paper which only mentions Lisp 3 times,
once by reference to McCarthy (whom I'd rather reference directly),
and twice referring to Pure Lisp (which it even admits doesn't exist)?
How is such a paper enlightening?  How is it possibly evenhanded?

> Clearly all this means it's sort of up to someone like me to play the
> archaeologist and write up what I've learned about lisp, in a way that
> new learners can appreciate the power and tradeoffs of the lisp
> family.

I'd be delighted to see your theorys about what makes Lisp powerful
and separates it from other languages.  Draw on all the archaeology
you desire.

>  While I for some reason feel religious feelings towards
> lambda, smart learners need to be respected.

Hmm, religious feelings?  Shouldn't that be Lambda then?

> Well, those are my thoughts.  Maybe they can form into something
> useful.

That would be very interesting.

-- 
Duane Rettig    ·····@franz.com    Franz Inc.  http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450               http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607        Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182   
From: Robert Hanlin
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <c427d639.0209300606.522e75f1@posting.google.com>
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote: 
> No stress here.  I just hope it's not too stressful for you, once you
> realize your thinking isn't as clear as you think.

Thank you.  After this paragraph I won't say any more about my mental
state while writing what I did, just understand that when I'm sick
with a cold, my mind actually becomes hazy and simpleminded.  Erik was
right, I literally lose my head.  On the upside (?), alcohol and
mind-altering drugs have very little effect.  So, combine this fact
with some subconscious anger at Erik's sniping at quasi for being a
goodguy, and there you go.


> I'd be delighted to see your theorys about what makes Lisp powerful
> and separates it from other languages.  Draw on all the archaeology
> you desire.

Great.  Despite what I said to Kenny (that I have no intention of
doing anything I said), I am just being sulky and somewhat
passive-aggressive because part of me is extremely shocked at my lack
of self-control when I'm sick.  I'm doing that "archaeology" stuff
under my real name though.  I sort of feel I need to do it, because
it's horrible to realize that things like Java are successful because
they assume the programmer is a consumer.  Which makes perfect sense,
but it's injuring to the pride of idealists with delusions of changing
the world but realize their own house is not in order.

I don't hate things like Java, I see their use in industry, but I was
so much happier when I stopped feeling stupid that I was always...
"uncomfortable"... for reasons I understand now.


> Hmm, I see you're stuck on Lambda Calculus and FP.  What makes you think
> that these define Lisp today?

I think most of Lisp's benefits /for me/ come from lambda & FP.  I
realize this is odd, since that's against the current of
sophistication, except that I've been using languages where expressing
things this way is contorted.  So you have to see that I'm biased
towards things you consider primitive and limiting, because that's
precisely what many other languages don't have.

I have always wondered why things like files and even state were taken
for granted.  I had a reasonable knowledge of electronics, but I never
could see why programming languages were so constrained to what is
easily expressed in electronics.


> Why would we want to mention a paper which only mentions Lisp 3 times,
> once by reference to McCarthy (whom I'd rather reference directly),
> and twice referring to Pure Lisp (which it even admits doesn't exist)?
> How is such a paper enlightening?  How is it possibly evenhanded?

Because it helped me understand this disconnect -- how could you
reason about things coded in the normal style of asm or C?  I had
never seen a C program one could reason about, without handwaving. 
The algorithms can be reasoned with, sure, but I was always feeling a
lack of abstraction.  I suppose I am just rehashing the major downside
to starting out the hacker way.  And I'm of course ignoring the
advantages I gained from that perspective.  But I think my point
stands that it's a paper that finally puts things in a way that
curious people like me can understand, without the suspicion that the
advocate is hiding something.  Maybe the paper itself is not so
perfect, but I still maintain that it's a solid base for discussion
and exploration.


> Hmm, religious feelings?  Shouldn't that be Lambda then?

I did lower-case intentionally.  You don't have to capitalize god's
name if you believe in her. ;)  The fact I'm religious tells me that
my understanding is still immature.  But I'll live.

Rob
From: Thomas F. Burdick
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <xcvn0pz48dc.fsf@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:

> ··············@yahoo.com (Robert Hanlin) writes:
> 
> > I would personally like to see c.l.lisp invaded, to be a place where
> > there can be interesting discussion for people who are new to lisp. 
> > Naggum is perfectly rational in flaming me, since I really think his
> > culture should be destroyed.
> 
> There are many ways to interpret this paragraph:
> 
>  1. Erik Naggum is a cultured person, and he should be turned into
> a barbarian.
>  2. Some Lisp purists should come into c.l.l and destroy Erik's pet
> culture, Common Lisp.
>  3. Someone should break into Erik's lab and destroy his petri dishes.
> 
> Others, anyone?

Well, similar to (3), perhaps Erik has a bread starter, or makes his
own yoghurt.  Or this guy could be advocating the bombing of Norway.

-- 
           /|_     .-----------------------.                        
         ,'  .\  / | No to Imperialist war |                        
     ,--'    _,'   | Wage class war!       |                        
    /       /      `-----------------------'                        
   (   -.  |                               
   |     ) |                               
  (`-.  '--.)                              
   `. )----'                               
From: Marc Spitzer
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <Xns92992C0E84287mspitze1optonlinenet@167.206.3.3>
··············@yahoo.com (Robert Hanlin) wrote in 
·································@posting.google.com:

> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>> There are two kinds of folks on the Usenet. Those who engage in 
>> protracted hand-to-hand combat with other posters, and those who do not.
> 
> Don't worry, this is the first time I've started replying to his
> posts, and it's clarified my thinking on what's missing from the lisp
> community.  I'm sorry if it's been stressful for anyone else, but at
> least it was enlightening for me.
> 
> I would personally like to see c.l.lisp invaded, to be a place where
> there can be interesting discussion for people who are new to lisp. 
> Naggum is perfectly rational in flaming me, since I really think his
> culture should be destroyed.

From what I have seen of Eriks culuture here is the culture of a master 
craftsman who takes great pride in his craft and tools.  And he is more 
then willing to help new people learn lisp/programming, as long as you 
behave in a professional and adult mannor.  People who do not behave this 
way get incouraged to do so in his unique style.  In fact my first 
interaction with Erik was getting a dose of his uniq corrective language in 
responce to a a post of mine.  The odd thing was he was right, so I 
apoligized and that was the end of it.  I have also seen Erik apoligize 
here when he has been shown to be wrong, to his satisfaction.  

The other attatude is the learn X in 21 days crapola.  Well I do not think 
that is any way to build a carier that is mesured in decades.

Remember learning a craft is like growing up, when you get to 30 or so you 
tend to relize that dam near all the stuff that your parents taught you, or 
tried to when you were 16 and knew it all, was correct.

> 
> These are the things I see with c.l.lisp today:
> - it's been co-opted by Common Lisp, which is misleading for learners

What other versions of "lisp" are out there in widespread use do not have 
their own news groups?  

> - discussion concentrates too much on little historical quirks, than
> on the deeper philosophy of Lisp

zen and the art of lisp coding???

> - more rewarding for some denizens to write pages of flames rather
> than make a nice website to simply link to

Are you saying that people should put up websites full of flames and just 
link to it?  And why do you think that Erik finds it rewarding?  Could it 
be he just feels it may be nessary to do?

> - it's a natural meeting place for new people, but is not geared
> towards them

No place worth staying is geared to new people.  When it is for new people 
they leave when they are not new.  I want a place that is for experts so I 
have a shot at becoming one by learning from them.

> - like some software packages, both lisp users and software have grown
> sophisticated enough that the community has become forbidding to new
> folk

There is a cost of entry, both socal ant technical.  If you do not
want to pay it fine you will not get in.

> - some smart people are emotionally sensitive, but that is no reason
> to lose their thoughts

But are they well manored?  If they are civil or try to be they do not get 
flamed, most of the time.  

> 
> I did contribute something decent to c.l.lisp, at least so said the
> people at Lambda the Ultimate; the Backus paper "Can Programming Be
> Liberated from the von Neumann Style?"
> http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs242/readings/backus.pdf
> 
> For all the "lisp" (really Common Lisp) advocacy here, no one

I just took a quick look at it, it is an APL paper from what I skimed.  And 
this is what you consider a real meaningful contrabution to the group, one 
url from a google search?  You want praise and respect for that?  It apears 
that you set very low standards for yourself, you should fix that. 

> mentioned it.  I had to stumble upon it via a random google search. 
> It's a million times more convincing than normal lisp advocacy, but
> even knowledgable profs haven't found it on the net.  Therefore,
> c.l.lisp is a suspect place for really understanding the philosophy of
> lisp.  You probably can't expect a broad, evenhanded discussion here.
> 
> Clearly all this means it's sort of up to someone like me to play the
> archaeologist and write up what I've learned about lisp, in a way that
> new learners can appreciate the power and tradeoffs of the lisp
> family.  While I for some reason feel religious feelings towards
> lambda, smart learners need to be respected.

I am reminded of a quote from the Supranos, "If you want respect you give 
respect" rough quote.  You do not apear to give respect to others so why 
should other people give you any?

> 
> Well, those are my thoughts.  Maybe they can form into something
> useful.

Here are some things for you to think about:

On a purly practical level Erik is very useful and you have not proven to 
be of much, if any, use.

And once you start down this path you are in for a long haul and you will 
not win from what I have seen here.

marc

> 
> 
> Rob
> 
From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <cf333042.0209300804.1cbf5dfe@posting.google.com>
··············@yahoo.com (Robert Hanlin) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> > There are two kinds of folks on the Usenet. Those who engage in 
> > protracted hand-to-hand combat with other posters, and those who do not.
> 
> Don't worry, this is the first time I've started replying to his

There is no moratorium which suspends jugments of idiocy for flaming
beginners.

> posts, and it's clarified my thinking on what's missing from the lisp
> community. 

This community, its relationship with the newsgroup, and its influence
on a programming language, are figments of your overactive
imagination.

 I'm sorry if it's been stressful for anyone else, but at
> least it was enlightening for me.
> 
> I would personally like to see c.l.lisp invaded, to be a place where

Invaded by whom? The newsgroup isn't an object that exists
independently of its voluntary participants. You are allowing
convenient abstractions to take on a life that they do not really
have.

This newsgroup, by definition, already contains the entire set of
people who wish to discuss Lisp on Usenet. So if you are going to
abuse the newsgroup with an invasion, it will have to be with an army
of people who want anything but to discuss Lisp.

> there can be interesting discussion for people who are new to lisp. 

If you scan just the past week's worth of articles, you will find that
a number of people have asked pertinent questions, and received
excellent replies.

> Naggum is perfectly rational in flaming me, since I really think his
> culture should be destroyed.
> 
> These are the things I see with c.l.lisp today:
> - it's been co-opted by Common Lisp, which is misleading for learners

What is misleading to learners is that some impostor languages
masquerade under the name Lisp. This makes it hard to discern what is
the real, best of bered Lisp, and what is some stillborn offshoot, or
historic remnant.

Common Lisp is the homo sapiens sapiens of Lisp; it has coopted its
evolutionary predecessors. Deal with the evolution.

> - it's a natural meeting place for new people, but is not geared
> towards them

Try the personal ads if you want to meet people. Or the local watering
hole, etc. I for one am not interested in meeting anyone through
Usenet. Do not assume that everyone wants what you want or that the
purpose of a communication medium is to cater to your personal needs
or problems.

> - like some software packages, both lisp users and software have grown
> sophisticated enough that the community has become forbidding to new
> folk

Sophistication is only forbidding to those who lack the capacity for
sophistication. The need to adapt rests with the unsophisticated.

> - some smart people are emotionally sensitive, but that is no reason
> to lose their thoughts

So take your own advice, if you fancy yourself smart.

> I did contribute something decent to c.l.lisp, at least so said the
> people at Lambda the Ultimate; the Backus paper "Can Programming Be
> Liberated from the von Neumann Style?"
> http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs242/readings/backus.pdf

Thank you for the URL.
From: ilias
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <an9jar$2sp$3@usenet.otenet.gr>
Robert Hanlin wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> 
>>There are two kinds of folks on the Usenet. Those who engage in 
>>protracted hand-to-hand combat with other posters, and those who do not.

[...]
> I would personally like to see c.l.lisp invaded, to be a place where
> there can be interesting discussion for people who are new to lisp. 

patience.

The Spirit of Lisp.

> Naggum is perfectly rational in flaming me, since I really think his
> culture should be destroyed.

patience.

Selfdestruction.

> These are the things I see with c.l.lisp today:
[...]
> Well, those are my thoughts.  Maybe they can form into something
> useful.

they form into.

Answers.

Translucency.
From: Bruce Hoult
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <bruce-DD84AA.21454530092002@copper.ipg.tsnz.net>
In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
 ··············@yahoo.com (Robert Hanlin) wrote:

> I did contribute something decent to c.l.lisp, at least so said the
> people at Lambda the Ultimate; the Backus paper "Can Programming Be
> Liberated from the von Neumann Style?"
> http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs242/readings/backus.pdf
> 
> For all the "lisp" (really Common Lisp) advocacy here, no one
> mentioned it.  I had to stumble upon it via a random google search. 
> It's a million times more convincing than normal lisp advocacy, but
> even knowledgable profs haven't found it on the net.

I just read this paper again.  The last time was in probably 1983.  It's 
interesting that it had a big effect on me back then, but now I can see 
that he *totally* missed the subsequent major developments in computer 
architecture that allow modern computers to largely side-step the von 
Neumann bottleneck.  Our RAM chips today have maybe 1/20th of the 
latency of the RAM available when that paper was written, but computers 
are more than 10,000 times faster.

Not that this negates his points about FP in the long run, but it sure 
has extended the practical lifetime of FORTRAN/C by a lot.

-- Bruce
From: Robert Hanlin
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <c427d639.0209300700.6541ab52@posting.google.com>
Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org> wrote:
> that he *totally* missed the subsequent major developments in computer 
> architecture that allow modern computers to largely side-step the von 
> Neumann bottleneck.  Our RAM chips today have maybe 1/20th of the 
> latency of the RAM available when that paper was written, but computers 
> are more than 10,000 times faster.

As I understand, you are saying something akin to "This algorithm has
bad time complexity, but since the values of n are small it's not
worth losing hair about"...

While I may be nitpicking, Backus' paper was not all about the
performance issues of the bottleneck.  It was also about the human
contortions that come from it.  If you've been programming since 1983
in languages of your choice, you might be tempted to ignore this.  But
most programmers in the world use some sort of Algol.  (Unless Cobol
isn't an Algol), and this lack is apparent.

I've read the CLiki article on Lisp Weenies, who hate their easy
well-paid day jobs.  I definitely sound like this, but I'm actually
not angry.


Rob
From: ozan s yigit
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <vi4u1k7r175.fsf@blue.cs.yorku.ca>
Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org> writes:

> "Can Programming Be Liberated from the von Neumann Style?"

> I just read this paper again.  [...]

it is worth mentioning that in 1986 ACM published a volume containing the
turing award lectures including this paper; looks like still in print and
(imnsho) an essential part of a serious CS library.

ACM Turing Award Lectures: The First Twenty Years 1966-1985
Robert L. Ashenhurst, Susan Graham (Eds)
Addison-Wesley, 1986. ISBN: 0201548852

oz
-- 
if you want to have your head in the clouds
you need to keep your feet on the ground. -- terry pratchett
From: Paolo Amoroso
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <uYScPTVxAnp7mi5U9IMpihWvii01@4ax.com>
On 29 Sep 2002 21:34:18 -0700, ··············@yahoo.com (Robert Hanlin)
wrote:

> I would personally like to see c.l.lisp invaded, to be a place where
> there can be interesting discussion for people who are new to lisp. 

How long have you been subscribing to comp.lang.lisp?


> These are the things I see with c.l.lisp today:
> - it's been co-opted by Common Lisp, which is misleading for learners

This is an historical consequence, as has been explained elsewhere in this
thread. Anyway, you may have missed the discussions about MacLisp,
Interlisp, ZetaLisp/LispMachine Lisp, Franz Lisp, *LISP, EuLISP and ISLISP
that take place here from time to time. See for example the currently
active thread about Interlisp implementation.

If a discussion is on topic for an online forum, but you are not interested
in it, the solution is quite simple: ignore that discussion and start new
threads on topics that you personally find interesting.


> - discussion concentrates too much on little historical quirks, than
> on the deeper philosophy of Lisp

This is a hint that you have missed some threads, or that you haven't been
subscribing to comp.lang.lisp for a long time.


> - like some software packages, both lisp users and software have grown
> sophisticated enough that the community has become forbidding to new
> folk

Common Lisp was intended as an industrial-strength language for solving
complex, large and challenging problems. It was not intended as a "for
dummies" language.


> I did contribute something decent to c.l.lisp, at least so said the
> people at Lambda the Ultimate; the Backus paper "Can Programming Be
> Liberated from the von Neumann Style?"
> http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs242/readings/backus.pdf
> 
> For all the "lisp" (really Common Lisp) advocacy here, no one
> mentioned it.  I had to stumble upon it via a random google search. 

The lack of enthusiasm for that paper is hardly surprising. Common Lisp is
a multiparadigm language. Emphasizing the association of Common Lisp with
functional programming may reinforce some old prejudices, e.g. that Lisp is
an old, inefficient academic language.


> Clearly all this means it's sort of up to someone like me to play the
> archaeologist and write up what I've learned about lisp, in a way that

Huh... What was you point about discussions here concentrating too much on
little historical quirks?


Paolo
-- 
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
From: Fred Gilham
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <u7d6qre5mn.fsf@snapdragon.csl.sri.com>
> > I did contribute something decent to c.l.lisp, at least so said
> > the people at Lambda the Ultimate; the Backus paper "Can
> > Programming Be Liberated from the von Neumann Style?"
> > http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs242/readings/backus.pdf
> > 
> > For all the "lisp" (really Common Lisp) advocacy here, no one
> > mentioned it.  I had to stumble upon it via a random google search. 
>
> The lack of enthusiasm for that paper is hardly surprising. Common
> Lisp is a multiparadigm language. Emphasizing the association of
> Common Lisp with functional programming may reinforce some old
> prejudices, e.g. that Lisp is an old, inefficient academic language.

I wouldn't even say that this paper particularly supports the case for
Common Lisp.  I get the impression that he would be (or would have
been) far happier with some ML variant.

He says,

     ...Furthermore, in an effort to introduce storage and to improve
     their efficiency on von Neumann computers, applicative systems
     have tended to become engulfed in a large von Neumann system.
     For example, pure Lisp is often buried in large extensions with
     many von Neumann features.  The resulting complex systems offer
     little guidance to the machine designer.

I would be very surprised if he did not consider Common Lisp a "large
extension with many von Neumann features".

-- 
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com || Progressive (adj): Value-free;
tolerant; non-judgemental.  E.g. traditional archery instruction
methods spent tedious hours teaching the archer to hit a bulls-eye.
Progressive methods achieved better results by telling the student
archer to shoot in the manner he or she found most comfortable, then
calling whatever the arrow hit the bulls-eye.
From: Rob Warnock
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <br2cnQd6vP2rzACgXTWc3g@News.GigaNews.Com>
Robert Hanlin <··············@yahoo.com> wrote:
+---------------
| I would personally like to see c.l.lisp invaded, to be a place where
| there can be interesting discussion for people who are new to lisp. 
+---------------

Right about now, is anyone else thinking that it might be a good idea
to establish "comp.lang.lisp.newuser", where a brief FAQ (containing
mostly pointers to web stuff) would be posted *frequently* (maybe even
once a day!)?!?

Nah, that would just clutter up "comp.lang.lisp" with postings that
quote the newbies' entire articles and add one line saying:

	See "comp.lang.lisp.newuser".

followed by a dozen more replies saying "That wasn't very helpful!"

;-}  ;-}  ;-}


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock, PP-ASEL-IA		<····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://www.rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <u7kgx1kc7.fsf@poboxes.com>
    On Fri, 04 Oct 2002 03:28:38 CDT, ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) said:

    [...]
    RW> establish "comp.lang.lisp.newuser"

Perhaps "comp.lang.lisp.user" will suffice?

See the last paragraph of
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/user.html for a
`mapping' from hacker and luser to Lisp hacker and Lisp user.

Just serious,
Vassil.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <3242309506891957@naggum.no>
* Robert Hanlin
[ deletia ]

  Thank you for making the best choice you could possibly make given your
  intellectual capacity.  Your choice has been duly noted and will of course
  be respected.  If people want to read long stories about me by a disturbed
  individual, they will know where to find them.  If they want to read articles
  on Common Lisp, they will know where not to find them.  Thank you for
  playing.

-- 
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway                 Today, the sum total of the money I
                                          would retain from the offers in the
more than 7500 Nigerian 419 scam letters received in the past 33 months would
have exceeded USD 100,000,000,000.  You can stop sending me more offers, now.
From: Paolo Amoroso
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <f3ScPXufc86TydwrwiilhfKgnwGl@4ax.com>
On 29 Sep 2002 09:24:10 -0700, ··············@yahoo.com (Robert Hanlin)
wrote:

> learning in newsgroups like this.  In other newsgroups, people learn
> by making tentative posts without quite understanding the culture,
> they are corrected in the main, and eventually become members who
> enforce those norms.  You ruin this process by playing the role of the

There is a wider spectrum of ways in which people learn the culture of an
online technical forum. Some of those forums have more demanding
requirements. See for example the guidelines for posting to the qmail
mailing list:

  12 Steps to qmail List Bliss
  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/writings/12-steps-to-qmail-list-bliss.html

This document by Eric Raymond is also relevant:

  How to Ask Questions the Smart Way
  http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html


> is that there's a problem with Lisp being sufficiently dull due to its
> stability, and so there's not enough desire to build apps on top of
> lisp because it's simply not enjoyable.

This your personal opinion. Noted.


Paolo
-- 
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
From: Thomas F. Burdick
Subject: Re: A social problem of lisp (Was: Re: The toxicity of trolls)
Date: 
Message-ID: <xcvlm5fpgkz.fsf@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:

> On 29 Sep 2002 09:24:10 -0700, ··············@yahoo.com (Robert Hanlin)
> wrote:
> 
> > is that there's a problem with Lisp being sufficiently dull due to its
> > stability, and so there's not enough desire to build apps on top of
> > lisp because it's simply not enjoyable.
> 
> This your personal opinion. Noted.

Sorry, Paolo, but I've got to disagree with you here.  If I went
around proclaiming that California was sufficiently full due to its
population, and so there's not enough desire to immigrate to it; well,
that's not really an opinion, it's objectively wrong.

Of course there's desire to build apps in CL -- what do you think most
of the (active) posters here do?  And go look at the various
implementation mailing lists, they're full of people asking questions
or giving advice, the content of which indicates that they're actively
using CL for building things.  And with a language as un-hyped as CL,
I'd guess that >= 90% of these people are using it by active choice.

-- 
           /|_     .-----------------------.                        
         ,'  .\  / | No to Imperialist war |                        
     ,--'    _,'   | Wage class war!       |                        
    /       /      `-----------------------'                        
   (   -.  |                               
   |     ) |                               
  (`-.  '--.)                              
   `. )----'                               
From: ilias
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <an540h$5lk$1@usenet.otenet.gr>
Robert Hanlin wrote:
> ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote:
> 
>>>we are just a bunch of stuck-in-the-mud
>>>retards who, in 20 years, have failed to see the many glaring faults
>>>in our standards and implementations.
>>
>>hard words.
>>repeat them.
> 
> 
> Wow, he's starting to get more insightful.  (I'm not just talking
> about the part I quoted.)  Erik Naggum is not about to pester ilias
> for advice anytime soon, but that's just a matter of time.

yes, i think he'll be able in about... 20 years to overcome his ego.

have a good night.
From: John Stone
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <uy99qwtcd.fsf@pop.softhome.net>
ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:

> analyze how much of my posts are off-topic due to the trolling (as you
> like this term) of c.l.l. against me.
> 
> yes.
> 
> c.l.l. is trolling me.

Acknowledging that is a great first step.

> unprofessional beasts.

Don't let them get you down.  Ignore their "bait", or send it back in
a clever way that shows that you're not falling for their silly
practical jokes.  Or you could talk about Lisp, but you have to wait
until people stop talking about "trolling", whatever that is.

-- 
John Stone

"See what I do with it?  I eat it!"  
Angelo Rossitto as Grazbo in Al Adamson's DRACULA VS. FRANKENSTEIN
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <3D914F4A.9060409@nyc.rr.com>
John Stone wrote:
> Don't let them get you down.

good advice, but perhaps too late, witness his asshole thread. which 
indeed suggests he is no troll, for he seems sincerely hurt that he has 
become a laughing stock in c.l.l.

  but that happened because he first initiated a dialog (good) in which 
his contributions were a mess (bad). this smacked of trolldom but now 
looks like a deep psychological defect in his ability to sustain a 
coherent social interaction. in which case c.l.l. should indeed stop 
tormenting the poor guy.

i mean, he /does/ like Lisp. :)

kenny
clinisys
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <amsje4$8pbhf$2@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de>
After takin a swig o' grog, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> belched out...:
> John Stone wrote:
>> Don't let them get you down.
>
> good advice, but perhaps too late, witness his asshole thread. which
> indeed suggests he is no troll, for he seems sincerely hurt that he
> has become a laughing stock in c.l.l.
>
>   but that happened because he first initiated a dialog (good) in
> which his contributions were a mess (bad). this smacked of trolldom
> but now looks like a deep psychological defect in his ability to
> sustain a coherent social interaction. in which case c.l.l. should
> indeed stop tormenting the poor guy.

It is not necessary for someone to /intend/ to troll a group in order
to in fact do so.

There are quite a number of "trolls" out on Usenet that basically
suffer from some form of mental illness that leads them to some form
of paranoid schizophrenia, which leads to them constructing strange
conspiracy theories.

In some cases, (as seems the case here) there is something severely
broken about the "troll's" communications skills.  There may some
intelligence in some areas, but due to the "breakage" in the other
areas, it turns out to be impossible for the "troll" to constructively
communicate with the community around them.

The net result is that whether the individual /intends/ 'evil' or not,
there is no way to hold a constructive conversation.
-- 
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@cbbrowne.com")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/x.html
Rules  of the  Evil Overlord  #145. "My  dungeon cell  decor  will not
feature exposed pipes.  While they add to the  gloomy atmosphere, they
are good  conductors of vibrations and  a lot of  prisoners know Morse
code." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
From: ilias
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <amsc58$pq3$1@usenet.otenet.gr>
Kenny Tilton wrote:
> 
> 
> John Stone wrote:
> 
>> Don't let them get you down.
> 
> good advice, but perhaps too late, witness his asshole thread. which 

perhaps you've missinterpreted.

the 'LISP - Assholes' thread.
·················································@usenet.otenet.gr

limits.

> indeed suggests he is no troll, for he seems sincerely hurt that he has 
> become a laughing stock in c.l.l.

savages can't hurt me.

they are irrelevant.

> 
>  but that happened because he first initiated a dialog (good) in which 
> his contributions were a mess (bad). this smacked of trolldom but now 
> looks like a deep psychological defect in his ability to sustain a 
> coherent social interaction. in which case c.l.l. should indeed stop 
> tormenting the poor guy.

savages of c.l.l.

listen to your cyber-doctor.

> i mean, he /does/ like Lisp. :)

of course.
From: Jacek Podkanski
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls - toxicity of professionals
Date: 
Message-ID: <aJ6k9.11187$DR.849561@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
Tim Bradshaw wrote:

> I had a look on our news server just now.  We have comp.lang.lisp
> articles going back to 28-Aug-2002 (normally we keep them much longer,
> but out upstream server changed in a way with which leafnode couldn't
> cope earlier in Aug and I blew away our whole news spool...).  I think
> our feed is quite complete and relatively clean (most of the awfuller
> spam seems to get filtered).
> 
> We have 3531 articles in this time.
> 
> Of these: 320, or about 9% are by Ilias, and 659, or about 19% have a
> References line which has an ilias message ID at the start.  Combining
> these and removing duplicates, there are 838 articles in threads
> started by Ilias, or about 24% of the total.
> 
> This was all done with (e)grep, cat and sort so I may have fouled up
> some stuff.
> 
> But the results are fairly clear, I think: about 1/4 of the traffic in
> cll is a result of one troll.
> 
> If I remove articles posted to more than two newsgroups (393 articles)
> as unlikely to be interesting then I get ~ 27% of noise arising from
> Ilias alone.
> 
> --tim

I had a look on my computer just now. I have already downloaded about 3.5 
MB of various references and manuals on Lisp, mostly following links from 
messages other post on this group. I also spent much of my free time trying 
to work out various things in Lisp. Significant part of my computer time is 
related to Lisp or ideas learned from Lisp. 

As you see, you professionals made more impact on a hobbyist and a troll 
like me than another troll.

But maybe I should complain that you are unable to teach me anything and 
spend time wasted on Lisp playing mindless computer games.
-- 
Jacek Podkanski
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls - toxicity of professionals
Date: 
Message-ID: <f34a0f4f.0209252202.7e6b0460@posting.google.com>
Jacek Podkanski <··············@supanet.com> wrote in message news:<·····················@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
[...]
> I have already downloaded about 3.5 
> MB of various references and manuals on Lisp

Does that mean you don't have the HyperSpec (~15 MB), or that
you counted just compressed files?  If the former, the HyperSpec
`site' is at http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/index.html
and it has a link to the compressed downloadable file as well.

---Vassil.
From: Jacek Podkanski
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls - toxicity of professionals
Date: 
Message-ID: <GTUk9.2102$sh4.101485@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
Vassil Nikolov wrote:

> Jacek Podkanski <··············@supanet.com> wrote in message
> news:<·····················@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
> [...]
>> I have already downloaded about 3.5
>> MB of various references and manuals on Lisp
> 
> Does that mean you don't have the HyperSpec (~15 MB), or that
> you counted just compressed files?  If the former, the HyperSpec
> `site' is at http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/index.html
> and it has a link to the compressed downloadable file as well.
> 
> ---Vassil.
I mean uncompressed files. Mostly pdf and Postscript. Thank you for the 
link. I will have a look at your HyperSpec.
-- 
Jacek Podkanski
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls - toxicity of professionals
Date: 
Message-ID: <kzbofai7gff.fsf@panix2.panix.com>
Jacek Podkanski <··············@supanet.com> writes:
[...]
> Thank you for the 
> link. I will have a look at your HyperSpec.

You are welcome; of course, it is not mine.

Kent Pitman did a *Very Good Thing* by making it.

---Vassil.
From: Jacek Podkanski
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls - toxicity of professionals
Date: 
Message-ID: <YBpl9.4275$YE1.113164@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
Vassil Nikolov wrote:

> Jacek Podkanski <··············@supanet.com> writes:
> [...]
>> Thank you for the
>> link. I will have a look at your HyperSpec.
> 
> You are welcome; of course, it is not mine.
> 
> Kent Pitman did a *Very Good Thing* by making it.
> 
> ---Vassil.
Ooops, I meant recommended by you.
-- 
Jacek Podkanski
From: Xah Lee
Subject: Re: The toxicity of trolls
Date: 
Message-ID: <7fe97cc4.0209270630.2bb3580@posting.google.com>
Dear troll readers,

I resent your uncouth advice on dealing with trolls. To the average
intellects rampant in comp.lang.lisp, the "gospel of ignorance" seems
to be the sage advice for dealing with trolls, but has anyone noticed
that it is rhetorical advice and never worked?

Alas, it is never going to work, because, like corruption or thievery
or mistrust, it takes a single cell to thwart the whole system, where
society necessarily became law-laden, lock-decorated, and mistrustful,
and that is the nature of things.

i have been more and more viewing things from A artificial life
dynamic system point of view. Ignoring trolls is indeed a
above-average advice, because it is a form of education, of the
probable theorizing of how troll operates. However, it is a bit
valueless if one do not understand the core of the problem, or never
took time to think and analyze the complete picture. There are indeed
many perspectives and questions to be asked on the subject of troll.
For example, why do trolls troll? What is their ilk, if any? What
caused their disposition? Apparently a simple first question like this
already calls for researches that likely no one has examined well
scholarly. Immediately the question begs how do we define a "troll".
As with "intelligence", i'm sure it is elusive. Of the liberally or
literally endowed, one can probe on the writing styles of good trolls,
such as mine. Now, have you observed, that certain trolls tends to
exhibit phantasmagoric reconditeness in their produce? Say, the Erik
Naggum fellow, who has i'm sure in various times been labeled a troll,
and a big monstrous one at that. As you can see, a clear definition of
troll now becomes painfully necessary. Just exactly who is troll and
who is not? Is it by intent or by result? ...

the issue of how to deal with a troll is in fact a stupid question not
realized. If one traces the origins of troll, she'll find that it is a
human phenomenon, not particular to newsgroups. The world trolling has
somewhat specific meaning in the beginning. According to the Jargon
File (http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/), it originally means the act
of message posting that ensure fire, knowingly or not. Today, the word
troll are both verb and noun, and are applied loosely to any outsider.
If you don't like someone's manners, he is a troll. If you don't like
a gadfly, he is a troll. If you don't like a philosopher, he is a
troll. If you don't like a inquirer, he is a troll. If you don't like
a humorist, he is a troll. If you don't like a teacher, he is a troll.
If you don't like witches, they are, well, witches and must be
witch-hunted. Thusly, from weirdo to witches, from teachers to
philosophers, from gadfly to firebrand, from loner to gay, they are
all trolls online at your call. Quick spun the guild of killfilers and
troll-criers. Anyone who has contrariwise things to say or the manner
of saying it is a troll.

Before the internet, there are epithets of weirdo, geek, oddball,
screwball, crank, kook, crackpot, jester, queer, fruitcake, firebrand,
gadfly, hell-raiser, rabble-rouser, outsider, loner, desperado, witch.
Their owners exists everywhere, from your highschool to your
workplace. As you can see, trolls were not born with the internet. It
was with us from the dawn of time. It is of course oblivious to the
mainstream. After all, who like witches?

now what about the process aspect? I'm sure all of you who read me
have at least ten years of living experience. Of these years, 2/3 of
time your eyes must be open. So, you must have some inkling of the
general situation of human activities. In conglomerations, people do
all kinds of things; and throughout a life time, view changes,
behavior changes, life-style changes. What is it, that have every
online discussion groups plagued with the troll phenomenon? Of course
both troll and troll-dealers are responsible, but what made them tick?
Now coming back to our original sagacious advice of ignoring trolls,
why would it _never_ work? Could you now see the complexity of the
problem? From a process point of view, troll-criers feeds trolls
because that made them both happy. Spatting and babbling is an
inherent part of discussion. Do you honest think there should or would
be a pure society filled with perfect logicians who have unilateral
goals and impeccable manners? Good trolls, such as myself, ENJOY
trolling. Troll-feeders, enjoy spitting on their targets. (a basic
human need.) Troll advisers, enjoys giving troll-dealing advice.
Bleeding-hearts, enjoys speaking out for so-called trolls. The more
open a forum, the more diversity. Nothing can be less natural.

i don't know if i should have some conclusive remarks about troll. You
see, i'm beginning to view things as a process, a ever changing
dynamic system, a artificial-life model. The human-simpletons are just
little insignificant entities in a environment of billions of them,
each effecting local happenings in a diverse and extreme complex way
with some simple but fuzzy needs, along which some emergent phenomenon
arises, among them trolling.

PS i as a troll is rather special because i tend to put a final say on
things, in contrast with one-liner trolls i myself despise. (In a
sense i'm an anti-troll, untroll, or an atrocious atroll.) At first i
balked at being branded a troll. Now i revel it. I as a troll is
rather recent, beginning and getting worse about in 1998. I have been
using online discussion medium since 1990. Perhaps one day i'll write
"how i became a troll". It is bound to be a tragedy.

    I'll find a day to massacre them all,  
    And raze their faction and their family...
          William Shakespeare, in Titus Andronicus

--

gratuitous poem:

magic a scissor i wish
so sharp and so cross
so that i can chop
chop off brainless heads

i would like to swing
a giant ax swing
off with their heads
of priests and deans

evil wish i be
hatred i behold
the righteous and the main
torture with no death
befalls to them

--

recently i read,
mankind was not kind,
Charles Bukowski,
how i love you so.

speak truth you do,
of folks on this earth,
pettiness and conceit,
fucking asses and holes.

humble and polite,
decent and all-right,
God this, children that,
motherfucking lies.

i'm on your side,
let us make a friend,
power shall we hunger,
death to those differ.

we shall speak truths,
truths of our own kind,
just like mankind,
fuck opposing kinds.

ethics we device,
moral we indite,
praying we force,
down mankind's throats.

mankind you fuckface,
we are truth harbingers,
conform and revere,
lest God strike you down.

 Xah 
 ···@xahlee.org 
 http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html