The Man With The Opinions seems to have remerged; he has been giving
some people some (seemingly deserved) tough words on sci.crypt...
He hasn't been sighted here; sometimes that's good, sometimes not :-).
--
output = reverse("moc.liamg" ·@" "enworbbc")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/spreadsheets.html
Professor Marlin's Rule:
If you have an open book test, you will forget your book.
If you have a take home test, you will forget where you live.
Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
> The Man With The Opinions seems to have remerged; he has been giving
> some people some (seemingly deserved) tough words on sci.crypt...
>
> He hasn't been sighted here; sometimes that's good, sometimes not
> :-).
Ha - no reaction on this post. Damn. They all really fear his
resurrection ;-)
Me, I would love to have him back here. For several reasons ...
Some day, perhaps. Who knows.
Frank
--
Frank Goenninger
frgo at mac dot com
On 2006-01-18 22:27:31 +0000, Frank Goenninger DG1SBG
<·······@microsoft.com> said:
> Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
>
>> The Man With The Opinions seems to have remerged; he has been giving
>> some people some (seemingly deserved) tough words on sci.crypt...
>>
>> He hasn't been sighted here; sometimes that's good, sometimes not
>> :-).
>
> Ha - no reaction on this post. Damn. They all really fear his
> resurrection ;-)
Quite so.
In the same way that programs should be made for people
to read, and only incidentally, for computers to run,
c.l.l posts should be made for human beings to share
CL insigths, but not really as a blog for Mr N, to express
his hatred of all man-kind not as clever as himself.
Mr N. suffers from a social-behavioral disorder that he
is in denial about, and then embarks on fantasies,
including insults and threats.
I learnt more on c.l.l in this 3 month round, that I
ever did in 6 month lurking circa 1999/2000 at the height
of the N. terror.
See? Even mentiomning this, starts the whole feeling of
dread and déjà vu all over again :-(
--
JFB
verec <·····@mac.com> writes:
> Mr N. suffers from a social-behavioral disorder that he
> is in denial about, and then embarks on fantasies,
> including insults and threats.
>
> I learnt more on c.l.l in this 3 month round, that I
> ever did in 6 month lurking circa 1999/2000 at the height
> of the N. terror.
Are you exempt from the good behavior you demand from others? Is it
fine to make insults as long as they are against Erik Naggum?
Zach
On 2006-01-19 01:49:16 +0000, Zach Beane <····@xach.com> said:
> verec <·····@mac.com> writes:
>
>> Mr N. suffers from a social-behavioral disorder that he
>> is in denial about, and then embarks on fantasies,
>> including insults and threats.
>>
>> I learnt more on c.l.l in this 3 month round, that I
>> ever did in 6 month lurking circa 1999/2000 at the height
>> of the N. terror.
>
> Are you exempt from the good behavior you demand from others? Is it
> fine to make insults as long as they are against Erik Naggum?
>
> Zach
I knew this would degenerate quickly!
I will not answer.
--
JFB
verec wrote:
> I learnt more on c.l.l in this 3 month round, that I
> ever did in 6 month lurking circa 1999/2000 at the height
> of the N. terror.
That is merely a measure of Lisp's increasing mindshare. Now we have
mostly serious newbies asking sensible questions, back then it was just
the regulars and the occasional nutjob.
kenny
On 2006-01-19 03:40:43 +0000, Kenny Tilton <·············@nyc.rr.com> said:
> verec wrote:
>> I learnt more on c.l.l in this 3 month round, that I
>> ever did in 6 month lurking circa 1999/2000 at the height
>> of the N. terror.
>
> That is merely a measure of Lisp's increasing mindshare. Now we have
> mostly serious newbies asking sensible questions, back then it was just
> the regulars and the occasional nutjob.
>
> kenny
I wish you where right. Unfortunately, I just received this email.
Unedited except for replacing @ with at:
> From: erik at naggum.no
> Subject: Re: Naggum Sighted...
> Date: 19 January 2006 04:33:39 GMT
> To: verec at mac.com
>
> * verec @2006-01-19 01:33Z
> > Quite so.
> > In the same way that programs should be made for people to read,
> > and only incidentally, for computers to run, c.l.l posts should
> > be made for human beings to share CL insigths, but not really as
> > a blog for Mr N, to express his hatred of all man-kind not as
> > clever as himself.
> >
> > Mr N. suffers from a social-behavioral disorder that he is in
> > denial about, and then embarks on fantasies, including insults
> > and threats.
> >
> > I learnt more on c.l.l in this 3 month round, that I ever did
> > in 6 month lurking circa 1999/2000 at the height of the N. terror.
> >
> > See? Even mentiomning this, starts the whole feeling of dread
> > and déjà vu all over again :-(
>
> The only daemon that haunts you is yourself. The only hatred is
> your own. The only insanity is your own. Clean up your act. Become
> a human being through great effort to purge yourself of your hatred
> and insanity. Start now, then learn to keep your evil fantasies
> about other people to yourself.
>
> Erik Naggum
> --
> Member of: AAAS ACM AMS APS ASA EMS IEEE IMS MAA NBF NFF NMF NYAS
> What do I read? See http://erik.naggum.no/sources-and-resources/
I will not comment any further on Mr N. He obviously hasn't
learnt a thing in all this time, and even though I wished
his "reported illness" had somehow blocked his vitriol, I'm just
too tired.
This message just as a reminder of the hell c.l.l used to be
then, and why I will certainly make no other contribution to
this thread.
--
JFB
verec wrote:
> On 2006-01-19 03:40:43 +0000, Kenny Tilton <·············@nyc.rr.com> said:
>
>> verec wrote:
>>
>>> I learnt more on c.l.l in this 3 month round, that I
>>> ever did in 6 month lurking circa 1999/2000 at the height
>>> of the N. terror.
>>
>>
>> That is merely a measure of Lisp's increasing mindshare. Now we have
>> mostly serious newbies asking sensible questions, back then it was
>> just the regulars and the occasional nutjob.
>>
>> kenny
>
>
> I wish you where right. Unfortunately, I just received this email.
> Unedited except for replacing @ with at:
>
>> From: erik at naggum.no
>> Subject: Re: Naggum Sighted...
>> Date: 19 January 2006 04:33:39 GMT
>> To: verec at mac.com
>>
>> * verec @2006-01-19 01:33Z
>> > Quite so.
>> > In the same way that programs should be made for people to read,
>> > and only incidentally, for computers to run, c.l.l posts should
>> > be made for human beings to share CL insigths, but not really as
>> > a blog for Mr N, to express his hatred of all man-kind not as
>> > clever as himself.
>> >
>> > Mr N. suffers from a social-behavioral disorder that he is in
>> > denial about, and then embarks on fantasies, including insults
>> > and threats.
>> >
>> > I learnt more on c.l.l in this 3 month round, that I ever did
>> > in 6 month lurking circa 1999/2000 at the height of the N. terror.
>> >
>> > See? Even mentiomning this, starts the whole feeling of dread
>> > and déjà vu all over again :-(
>>
>> The only daemon that haunts you is yourself. The only hatred is
>> your own. The only insanity is your own. Clean up your act. Become
>> a human being through great effort to purge yourself of your hatred
>> and insanity. Start now, then learn to keep your evil fantasies
>> about other people to yourself.
>>
>> Erik Naggum
>> --
>> Member of: AAAS ACM AMS APS ASA EMS IEEE IMS MAA NBF NFF NMF NYAS
>> What do I read? See http://erik.naggum.no/sources-and-resources/
>
>
> I will not comment any further on Mr N. He obviously hasn't
> learnt a thing in all this time, and even though I wished
> his "reported illness" had somehow blocked his vitriol, I'm just
> too tired.
I agree with everything he said. In his /private/ email to you. (Hint.)
It was quite temperate, if you cool down long enough to think about it.
And that after you attacked him publicly. Did he respond publicly? No,
he kept it private, and again was quite temperate. Your response is to
publicly post a private response. Eeewww, as the kids say.
I imagine it is painful to be schooled in manners by one you would hold
up as the reprobate, but there it is. This pattern echos those of the
past; almost invariably his targets were well-chosen, and things got
out of hand because neither he nor his targets would back down.
>
> This message just as a reminder of the hell c.l.l used to be
> then, and why I will certainly make no other contribution to
> this thread.
You keep saying that. :) Well, as one venerable pointed out long ago in
the midst of one of those knock-down, drag-outs, the first person not to
respond wins.
Advantage you. :)
kenny
On 2006-01-19 07:14:09 +0000, Kenny Tilton <·············@nyc.rr.com> said:
[...]
> the first person not to respond wins.
>
> Advantage you. :)
ACK :-)
--
JFB
verec wrote:
> On 2006-01-19 03:40:43 +0000, Kenny Tilton <·············@nyc.rr.com> said:
>
> > verec wrote:
> >> I learnt more on c.l.l in this 3 month round, that I
> >> ever did in 6 month lurking circa 1999/2000 at the height
> >> of the N. terror.
> >
> > That is merely a measure of Lisp's increasing mindshare. Now we have
> > mostly serious newbies asking sensible questions, back then it was just
> > the regulars and the occasional nutjob.
> >
> > kenny
>
> I wish you where right. Unfortunately, I just received this email.
> Unedited except for replacing @ with at:
> > The only daemon that haunts you is yourself. The only hatred is
> > your own. The only insanity is your own. Clean up your act. Become
> > a human being through great effort to purge yourself of your hatred
> > and insanity. Start now, then learn to keep your evil fantasies
> > about other people to yourself.
> >
> > Erik Naggum
That is very good!
*Chuckle*
You got what you deserved right there. Really, you should get over that
whole period. Naggum is just a guy who writes things. If you pay
attention to the underlying message, it's not really hateful. Face it,
you do have an "evil fantasy" about the man. Still thinking about it
after all this time, you know?
Say ... dis donc ... aren't you ... mais oui!
Le Vermine Francaise!!!
C'est vous! O mon Dieu!
Je n'ai jamais pensee que je vous reverrais!
Il est tout clair, tout a coup!
That was so entertaining ... I have only fond memories. Fried frog
legs, anyone?
Hello Kaz,
> You got what you deserved right there. Really, you should get over
> that whole period. Naggum is just a guy who writes things. If you pay
> attention to the underlying message, it's not really hateful. Face it,
> you do have an "evil fantasy" about the man. Still thinking about it
> after all this time, you know?
>
> Say ... dis donc ... aren't you ... mais oui!
>
> Le Vermine Francaise!!!
>
> C'est vous! O mon Dieu!
>
> Je n'ai jamais pensee que je vous reverrais!
>
> Il est tout clair, tout a coup!
>
> That was so entertaining ... I have only fond memories. Fried frog
> legs, anyone?
>
This whole thread, and this post in particular, are the best proof that erik
is not an issue. The real problem lies within cll. Erik only has the odd
ability to make all the jerks jump out of the closet. <sigh>
verec <·····@mac.com> writes:
> Unfortunately, I just received this email.
> Unedited except for replacing @ with at:
>
>> From: erik at naggum.no
>> Subject: Re: Naggum Sighted...
>> Date: 19 January 2006 04:33:39 GMT
>> To: verec at mac.com
>> * verec @2006-01-19 01:33Z
>> > Quite so.
>> > In the same way that programs should be made for people to read,
>> > and only incidentally, for computers to run, c.l.l posts should
>> > be made for human beings to share CL insigths, but not really as
>> > a blog for Mr N, to express his hatred of all man-kind not as
>> > clever as himself.
>> >
>> > Mr N. suffers from a social-behavioral disorder that he is in
>> > denial about, and then embarks on fantasies, including insults
>> > and threats.
>> >
>> > I learnt more on c.l.l in this 3 month round, that I ever did
>> > in 6 month lurking circa 1999/2000 at the height of the N. terror.
>> >
>> > See? Even mentiomning this, starts the whole feeling of dread
>> > and d�j� vu all over again :-(
>> The only daemon that haunts you is yourself. The only hatred is
>> your own. The only insanity is your own. Clean up your act. Become
>> a human being through great effort to purge yourself of your hatred
>> and insanity. Start now, then learn to keep your evil fantasies
>> about other people to yourself.
>> Erik Naggum
>> --
>> Member of: AAAS ACM AMS APS ASA EMS IEEE IMS MAA NBF NFF NMF NYAS
>> What do I read? See http://erik.naggum.no/sources-and-resources/
>
> I will not comment any further on Mr N. He obviously hasn't
> learnt a thing in all this time, and even though I wished
> his "reported illness" had somehow blocked his vitriol, I'm just
> too tired.
>
> This message just as a reminder of the hell c.l.l used to be
> then, and why I will certainly make no other contribution to
> this thread.
> --
> JFB
Result of being below acceptable manners: JFB killfiled.
Frank
verec <·····@mac.com> writes:
> I wish you where right. Unfortunately, I just received this email.
> Unedited except for replacing @ with at:
Posting private email is pretty unconscionable. That said, I also
don't see anything in what he said as being "bad", intemperate, mean
spirited or otherwise inappropriate.
A (very small) word of advice: try not to think of these sort of
exchanges (especially on usenet) as zero-sum games. That's when
things typically devolve into total idiocy (there's a recent
incompentent poster here that is a great example of this).
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
From: Sam Steingold
Subject: Re: Naggum Sighted...
Date:
Message-ID: <uirsgdr8x.fsf@gnu.org>
> * jayessay <······@sbb.pbz> [2006-01-19 12:55:43 -0500]:
>
> verec <·····@mac.com> writes:
>
>> I wish you where right. Unfortunately, I just received this email.
>> Unedited except for replacing @ with at:
>
> Posting private email is pretty unconscionable.
Well, the "private email" was sheer abuse, rude and unjustified.
If it were sent by snail mail it might have been grounds for a
restraining order or something, and I would have had no problems with
people referring such "private hate mail" to police.
> That said, I also don't see anything in what he said as being "bad",
> intemperate, mean spirited or otherwise inappropriate.
I do.
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
http://www.dhimmi.com http://www.camera.org http://www.savegushkatif.org
http://ffii.org http://truepeace.org http://www.iris.org.il
What's the difference between Apathy & Ignorance? -I don't know and don't care!
Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
> > * jayessay <······@sbb.pbz> [2006-01-19 12:55:43 -0500]:
> >
> > verec <·····@mac.com> writes:
> >
> >> I wish you where right. Unfortunately, I just received this email.
> >> Unedited except for replacing @ with at:
> >
> > Posting private email is pretty unconscionable.
>
> Well, the "private email" was sheer abuse, rude and unjustified.
It would appear that this is open to interpretation, shrug. OTOH,
your point here is irrelevant to the quoted point.
> > That said, I also don't see anything in what he said as being "bad",
> > intemperate, mean spirited or otherwise inappropriate.
>
> I do.
Whatever.
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
jayessay wrote:
> It would appear that this is open to interpretation, shrug. OTOH,
> your point here is irrelevant to the quoted point.
I am the last person who would stick to Eric. He appears to have
nothing to offer except oh yes he is alive and funny and entertaining.
There are quite some other persons on comp.lang.lisp who will
contribute to meanigful discussion.
However, show me the laywer or police man who will not laugh when
someone will report Eric his alleged abuse on private mail.
I think Sam is taking some shots too quickly. I mean what will you
report to police? What? One can report crimes. However, Eric N. hasn't
commited to crime thus far.
comp.lang.lisp get over Eric N.
Sir Francis Drake
From: Sam Steingold
Subject: Re: Naggum Sighted...
Date:
Message-ID: <ubqy5ccs8.fsf@gnu.org>
> * Förster vom Silberwald <··········@ubgznvy.pbz> [2006-01-21 02:27:32 -0800]:
>
> jayessay wrote:
>
>> It would appear that this is open to interpretation, shrug. OTOH,
>> your point here is irrelevant to the quoted point.
>
> I am the last person who would stick to Eric. He appears to have
> nothing to offer except oh yes he is alive and funny and entertaining.
> There are quite some other persons on comp.lang.lisp who will
> contribute to meanigful discussion.
>
> However, show me the laywer or police man who will not laugh when
> someone will report Eric his alleged abuse on private mail.
>
> I think Sam is taking some shots too quickly. I mean what will you
> report to police? What? One can report crimes. However, Eric N. hasn't
> commited to crime thus far.
IIUC, there is a legal notion of harassment. I.e., if X sends
insulting and/or threatening messages to Y, then Y can ask for a
restraining order barring X from communicating with Y. This is not
easy, but I think that Naggum's messages qualify.
IANAL.
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
http://ffii.org http://www.dhimmi.com http://www.memri.org
http://www.iris.org.il http://www.savegushkatif.org http://truepeace.org
If I had known that it was harmless, I would have killed it myself.
Sam Steingold wrote:
> IIUC, there is a legal notion of harassment. I.e., if X sends
> insulting and/or threatening messages to Y, then Y can ask for a
> restraining order barring X from communicating with Y. This is not
> easy, but I think that Naggum's messages qualify.
First, apologies to everyone who came here expecting informed discussion
about Lisp.
Well, there's the question of jurisdiction when the two parties aren't
even in the same country. Which country's "legal notion of harassment"
should apply?
Further, there's the issue of how harassing the behaviour is. In person,
with express or implied threat of physical harm? By telephone or FAX?
Multiple emails from different addresses, making screening difficult?
Public, defamatory postings against a real name (whose reputation might
be worth something)?
Oh wait, we're talking about a single, private email -- in response to
public taunting -- telling the anonymous coward doing the taunting to
grow up?
Repeat after me: De minimus non curat lex.
> IANAL.
No shit. Were you to waste the Court's time with such a piddling,
three-year-old's-version-of-injustice type triviality, your ass would be
fired out of that courtroom AS IF FROM A CANNON. With costs.
Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
> > * Förster vom Silberwald <··········@ubgznvy.pbz> [2006-01-21 02:27:32 -0800]:
> >
> > jayessay wrote:
> >
> >> It would appear that this is open to interpretation, shrug. OTOH,
> >> your point here is irrelevant to the quoted point.
> >
> > I am the last person who would stick to Eric. He appears to have
> > nothing to offer except oh yes he is alive and funny and entertaining.
> > There are quite some other persons on comp.lang.lisp who will
> > contribute to meanigful discussion.
> >
> > However, show me the laywer or police man who will not laugh when
> > someone will report Eric his alleged abuse on private mail.
> >
> > I think Sam is taking some shots too quickly. I mean what will you
> > report to police? What? One can report crimes. However, Eric N. hasn't
> > commited to crime thus far.
>
> IIUC, there is a legal notion of harassment. I.e., if X sends
> insulting and/or threatening messages to Y, then Y can ask for a
> restraining order barring X from communicating with Y. This is not
> easy, but I think that Naggum's messages qualify.
>
Putting aside the near impossibility of achieving this when you are
trying to apply a local or country specific law to someone who is in a
different country and therefore does not fall under the same
jurisdiction, lets consider who would be able to take legal action
against who for a moment. Keep in mind, EN was not the person who
initiated the thread, he was not the one who publically criticised
the mental state/stability of someone - he only privately responded to a
personal attack performed in a public forum.
From a legal standpoint in this specific instance, I would much prefer
to be on EN's team as he would certainly have the stronger legal
case.
Also, in most countries, to prove a case of harassment, there has to
be evidence of repeated incidents before it is considered
harassment. In fact, there is a higher chance of EN succeeding in
bringing defimation charges against some of the posters in this thread
than on anyone bringing harrassment charges against him (especially as
stating the 'truth' is not sufficient defense against defamation
charges in many countries).
Regardless of anyones opinion of EN or what he may have posted to this
group (some considerable time ago BTW), it is quite pathetic to still
be debating his alleged 'roblems' so long after the fact and in a
forum he no longer participates in.
What next, a debate of Robert M's social skills or Brendan J's skills
at designing games in lisp? (maybe we need to wait another 12 months
or so since they were only last here a few months ago).
time to move on me thinks
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Tim X wrote:
> What next, a debate of Robert M's social skills or Brendan J's skills
> at designing games in lisp? (maybe we need to wait another 12 months
> or so since they were only last here a few months ago).
However, in Brandon's case I will clearly say that I am believing he is
a victim of some kind of "stalking". Everytime when Brandon posts
something on usenet an anonymous red-neck will post at the same time a
list of items: "What everybody should know about Brandon". The list in
question is always the same.
Eric is no stalker. Stalkers typically emerge when they have been
abadoned by women when woman dumped their boyfriends, Man often starts
then decidedly to make a womans life harder by harassements via sms,
email, letter, telephone calls, etc.
Nevertheless: Lisp and comp.lang.lisp is dire need of coders and no
Eric. It is that easy! Really.
Sir Francis Drake
Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
> > * jayessay <······@sbb.pbz> [2006-01-19 12:55:43 -0500]:
> >
> > verec <·····@mac.com> writes:
> >
> >> I wish you where right. Unfortunately, I just received this email.
> >> Unedited except for replacing @ with at:
> >
> > Posting private email is pretty unconscionable.
>
> Well, the "private email" was sheer abuse, rude and unjustified.
> If it were sent by snail mail it might have been grounds for a
> restraining order or something, and I would have had no problems with
> people referring such "private hate mail" to police.
I don't see it as hate mail. Erik made a private response to a public
criticism of his personality. Personally, I thought it was more than
reasonable that he posted it privately rather than adding to the
thread.
> > That said, I also don't see anything in what he said as being "bad",
> > intemperate, mean spirited or otherwise inappropriate.
>
> I do.
Not sure I agree. He was responding to an unprovoked criticism of his
posts and personality, but did it privately. His post may have been
critical of the original posters personality etc, but it was done
privately and I think quite reasonably.
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
From: Sam Steingold
Subject: Re: Naggum Sighted...
Date:
Message-ID: <uk6cvc540.fsf@gnu.org>
> * Tim X <····@fcnzgb.qriahy.pbz> [2006-01-20 22:05:14 +1100]:
>
> His post may have been critical of the original posters personality
> etc, but it was done privately and I think quite reasonably.
If you consider this reasonable:
>>> Become a human being through great effort to purge yourself of your
>>> hatred and insanity.
then all I can do is to remind you that, as you admitted yourself in
message <··············@tiger.rapttech.com.au>, your have "never [been]
on the wrong end of" Naggum's abuse, and wish that you have more
compassion for those who have been abused.
Indeed, it is nice that Naggum did not post his abuse here, and I think
we all might want to follow this particular example.
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
http://ffii.org http://www.iris.org.il http://www.jihadwatch.org
http://www.openvotingconsortium.org http://www.savegushkatif.org
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Kenny Tilton <·············@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> verec wrote:
> > I learnt more on c.l.l in this 3 month round, that I
> > ever did in 6 month lurking circa 1999/2000 at the height
> > of the N. terror.
>
> That is merely a measure of Lisp's increasing mindshare. Now we have
> mostly serious newbies asking sensible questions, back then it was
> just the regulars and the occasional nutjob.
Right. And it is (if you have the least bit of honesty and integrity)
pretty undeniable that the technical content that Erik brought was
irreplaceable.
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
From: Sam Steingold
Subject: Re: Naggum Sighted...
Date:
Message-ID: <ud5iodqrm.fsf@gnu.org>
> * jayessay <······@sbb.pbz> [2006-01-19 12:58:41 -0500]:
>
> And it is (if you have the least bit of honesty and integrity) pretty
> undeniable that the technical content that Erik brought was
> irreplaceable.
I deny that his "technical content" is irreplaceable, and I do not
appreciate your assail on "honesty and integrity" of those who disagree
with you.
Note "Followup-To: alt.fan.naggum".
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
http://www.mideasttruth.com http://www.jihadwatch.org http://www.memri.org
http://truepeace.org http://www.palestinefacts.org http://ffii.org
Daddy, why doesn't this magnet pick up this floppy disk?
Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
> > * jayessay <······@sbb.pbz> [2006-01-19 12:58:41 -0500]:
> >
> > And it is (if you have the least bit of honesty and integrity) pretty
> > undeniable that the technical content that Erik brought was
> > irreplaceable.
>
> I deny that his "technical content" is irreplaceable, and I do not
> appreciate your assail on "honesty and integrity" of those who disagree
> with you.
Fine. However, I haven't seen it replaced.
> Note "Followup-To: alt.fan.naggum".
Wow. Didn't even know such a group existed. Weird.
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
"jayessay" <······@foo.com> wrote in message
···················@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com...
> Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> > * jayessay <······@sbb.pbz> [2006-01-19 12:58:41 -0500]:
>> >
>> > And it is (if you have the least bit of honesty and integrity) pretty
>> > undeniable that the technical content that Erik brought was
>> > irreplaceable.
>>
>> I deny that his "technical content" is irreplaceable, and I do not
>> appreciate your assail on "honesty and integrity" of those who disagree
>> with you.
>
> Fine. However, I haven't seen it replaced.
Not to diss EN's remarkable technical insight and ability, but I think the
arrival of Pascal Costanza together with Peter Seibel's meteoric rise from
newbie to pop-icon went a long way to making up that loss. And it is (if
you have the least bit of honesty and integrity) pretty undeniable that the
noise and unpleasantness that surrounded EN, regardless of whether it was
his fault or society's, was a steep price to pay.
May this topic quickly fade and no other flame-baiters try resurecting the
ghosts of Naggums past again...
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
In article <·····················@edtnps89>,
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
> "jayessay" <······@foo.com> wrote in message
> ···················@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com...
> > Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
> >
> >> > * jayessay <······@sbb.pbz> [2006-01-19 12:58:41 -0500]:
> >> >
> >> > And it is (if you have the least bit of honesty and integrity) pretty
> >> > undeniable that the technical content that Erik brought was
> >> > irreplaceable.
> >>
> >> I deny that his "technical content" is irreplaceable, and I do not
> >> appreciate your assail on "honesty and integrity" of those who disagree
> >> with you.
> >
> > Fine. However, I haven't seen it replaced.
>
> Not to diss EN's remarkable technical insight and ability, but I think the
> arrival of Pascal Costanza together with Peter Seibel's meteoric rise from
> newbie to pop-icon went a long way to making up that loss. And it is (if
> you have the least bit of honesty and integrity) pretty undeniable that the
> noise and unpleasantness that surrounded EN, regardless of whether it was
> his fault or society's, was a steep price to pay.
To say nothing of the fact that EN often got things wrong, often
presented opinion as if it were fact, would often appoint himself as the
final arbiter of what was and was not acceptable behavior, and would
often take people to task for engaging in behavior that he himself
regularly engaged in.
His recent postings on sci.crypt are a perfect case in point. Every
single one of those postings (at least the ones archived at
groups.google.com) is taking someone to task for making personal attacks
and not sticking to technical discussions, but every single one of those
postings is itself a personal attack having nothing to do with any
technical topic.
Now, I will make the following predictions:
1. Someone (either EN or one of his supporters) will point out that
this post has nothing to do with any technical topic. To which I
respond a) that's true but b) I didn't start this thread and c) I think
that there are non-technical topics that are appropriate to discuss
here. I personally think the world would be a better place if we could
just let this particular sleeping dog lie, but unlike some people I do
not seek to impose my opinions on others.
2. Others (or perhaps the same person) will claim that this post is
itself a personal attack, that it is a reflection of some character
deficiency on my part, and that I am a hypocrite for writing it. I'll
wait until someone actually fulfills this prophecy before responding to
these (false) claims in the hopes that I might be proven wrong on this
point.
3. This thread will go on for a very long time, with a net negative
impact on the positive direction that this newsgroup and Lisp itself has
been taking recently.
Finally, I would like to make a public service announcement: if anyone
chooses to communicate with me by email on this matter I absolutely DO
NOT promise to hold your communications confidential. If you don't want
the world to know what you've said to me then you'd better just keep it
to yourself. You have been warned.
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
> Now, I will make the following predictions:
>
> 1. Someone (either EN or one of his supporters) will point out that
> this post has nothing to do with any technical topic.
IMO, your post has nothing to do with any technical topic.
> 2. Others (or perhaps the same person) will claim that this post is
> itself a personal attack, that it is a reflection of some character
> deficiency on my part, and that I am a hypocrite for writing it.
Others. I am not saying that.
> 3. This thread will go on for a very long time, with a net negative
> impact on the positive direction that this newsgroup and Lisp itself has
> been taking recently.
Arawn, I hope not.
> Finally, I would like to make a public service announcement: if anyone
> chooses to communicate with me by email on this matter I absolutely DO
> NOT promise to hold your communications confidential. If you don't want
> the world to know what you've said to me then you'd better just keep it
> to yourself. You have been warned.
It sounds as though those who wish to communicate with you
might as well respond in comp.lang.lisp. Works for me.
Will
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> "jayessay" <······@foo.com> wrote in message
> ···················@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com...
> > Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
> >
> >> > * jayessay <······@sbb.pbz> [2006-01-19 12:58:41 -0500]:
> >> >
> >> > And it is (if you have the least bit of honesty and integrity) pretty
> >> > undeniable that the technical content that Erik brought was
> >> > irreplaceable.
> >>
> >> I deny that his "technical content" is irreplaceable, and I do not
> >> appreciate your assail on "honesty and integrity" of those who disagree
> >> with you.
> >
> > Fine. However, I haven't seen it replaced.
>
> Not to diss EN's remarkable technical insight and ability, but I think the
> arrival of Pascal Costanza together with Peter Seibel's meteoric rise from
I speak of EN's (to me) amazing level of insight coming from a
seemingly unique perspective. For me I haven't had anything like some
of the "AHA!"s I had from some of his discussions. There are people
here who I believe have his level of technical accumen, but lack this
(to me refreshingly) unique way of looking at things.
> And it is (if you have the least bit of honesty and integrity)
> pretty undeniable
;-)
> that the noise and unpleasantness that surrounded
> EN, regardless of whether it was his fault or society's, was a steep
> price to pay.
It is sad, but I would tend to agree on this point...
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
Coby Beck wrote:
> Not to diss EN's remarkable technical insight and ability, but I think the
> arrival of Pascal Costanza together with Peter Seibel's meteoric rise from
> newbie to pop-icon went a long way to making up that loss.
Pascal and Peter are both excellent, and c.l.l would be greatly
the poorer without them, but what they provide is different in
kind from what Erik did. For that matter, Pascal and Peter are
very different from one another too. I don't think any of the
three would serve well as a replacement for any other.
> the noise and unpleasantness that surrounded EN, regardless of
> whether it was his fault or society's, was a steep price to pay.
Yes. But I think you have the alternatives wrong; it was
his fault, or that of the people he excoriated, or some
sort of nonlinear interaction between the two. "Society"
scarcely comes into it.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
"Gareth McCaughan" <················@pobox.com> wrote in message
···················@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com...
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
>> Not to diss EN's remarkable technical insight and ability, but I think
>> the
>> arrival of Pascal Costanza together with Peter Seibel's meteoric rise
>> from
>> newbie to pop-icon went a long way to making up that loss.
>
> Pascal and Peter are both excellent, and c.l.l would be greatly
> the poorer without them, but what they provide is different in
> kind from what Erik did. For that matter, Pascal and Peter are
> very different from one another too. I don't think any of the
> three would serve well as a replacement for any other.
You're quite right IMO. And just for the record there are many other great
individual contributors here, I only singled out PC and PS because of the
coincedental timings, (with such a short overlaps in, my recollections at
least).
>> the noise and unpleasantness that surrounded EN, regardless of
>> whether it was his fault or society's, was a steep price to pay.
>
> Yes. But I think you have the alternatives wrong; it was
> his fault, or that of the people he excoriated, or some
> sort of nonlinear interaction between the two. "Society"
> scarcely comes into it.
Yes, that's fine. "Society" was a little snarky of me. It's just it
happened so frequently.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> "jayessay" <······@foo.com> wrote in message
> ···················@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com...
> > Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
> >
> >> > * jayessay <······@sbb.pbz> [2006-01-19 12:58:41 -0500]:
> >> >
> >> > And it is (if you have the least bit of honesty and integrity) pretty
> >> > undeniable that the technical content that Erik brought was
> >> > irreplaceable.
> >>
> >> I deny that his "technical content" is irreplaceable, and I do not
> >> appreciate your assail on "honesty and integrity" of those who disagree
> >> with you.
> >
> > Fine. However, I haven't seen it replaced.
>
> Not to diss EN's remarkable technical insight and ability, but I think the
> arrival of Pascal Costanza together with Peter Seibel's meteoric rise from
> newbie to pop-icon went a long way to making up that loss. And it is (if
> you have the least bit of honesty and integrity) pretty undeniable that the
> noise and unpleasantness that surrounded EN, regardless of whether it was
> his fault or society's, was a steep price to pay.
>
> May this topic quickly fade and no other flame-baiters try resurecting the
> ghosts of Naggums past again...
>
> --
> Coby Beck
> (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
>
Have to agree that the contributions of Peter, Pascal and others have
been really positive, well presented and above emotional bullshit of
some. Having looked at some of the posts from Erik, I do think he also
made some really positive technical contributions, but he was not for
the emotionally fragile.
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
verec <·····@mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-01-18 22:27:31 +0000, Frank Goenninger DG1SBG
> <·······@microsoft.com> said:
>
>> Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
>>
>>> The Man With The Opinions seems to have remerged; he has been giving
>>> some people some (seemingly deserved) tough words on sci.crypt...
>>> He hasn't been sighted here; sometimes that's good, sometimes not
>>> :-).
>> Ha - no reaction on this post. Damn. They all really fear his
>> resurrection ;-)
>
> Quite so.
>
> In the same way that programs should be made for people
> to read, and only incidentally, for computers to run,
> c.l.l posts should be made for human beings to share
> CL insigths, but not really as a blog for Mr N, to express
> his hatred of all man-kind not as clever as himself.
>
> Mr N. suffers from a social-behavioral disorder that he
> is in denial about, and then embarks on fantasies,
> including insults and threats.
>
> I learnt more on c.l.l in this 3 month round, that I
> ever did in 6 month lurking circa 1999/2000 at the height
> of the N. terror.
>
> See? Even mentiomning this, starts the whole feeling of
> dread and d�j� vu all over again :-(
> --
> JFB
I knew it would happen. The only question was: Who would be the one
falling into this obvious trap. Now, should I laugh or cry...
One more question definitely answered - and another one also. See my
other post later down this thread.
Frank
verec wrote:
> Mr N. suffers from a social-behavioral disorder that he
> is in denial about, and then embarks on fantasies,
> including insults and threats.
He's not in denial. He mentions some health issues on his web site. Did
you see it?
Frank Goenninger DG1SBG wrote:
> Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
>
> > The Man With The Opinions seems to have remerged; he has been giving
> > some people some (seemingly deserved) tough words on sci.crypt...
> >
> > He hasn't been sighted here; sometimes that's good, sometimes not
> > :-).
>
> Ha - no reaction on this post. Damn. They all really fear his
> resurrection ;-)
No, some of us just noticed his intense contempt for people who discuss
personalities rather than technical matters. When I noticed this topic
down the page without any comments, I assumed people either got lives
or didn't want to commit the deadly sin of irony.
;)
(I mean, it almost seems as if you did want to troll out an emotional
outburst like verec's, in order to do something like actually come out
and tell him you killfiled him, rather than tacitly doing it.)
Tayssir
On 2006-01-19 12:44:31 +0000, "Tayssir John Gabbour"
<···········@yahoo.com> said:
> Frank Goenninger DG1SBG wrote:
>> Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
>>
>>> The Man With The Opinions seems to have remerged; he has been giving
>>> some people some (seemingly deserved) tough words on sci.crypt...
>>>
>>> He hasn't been sighted here; sometimes that's good, sometimes not
>>> :-).
>>
>> Ha - no reaction on this post. Damn. They all really fear his
>> resurrection ;-)
>
> No, some of us just noticed his intense contempt for people who discuss
> personalities rather than technical matters.
This doesn't account for _my_ immense contempt for arrogant
ignoramuses that blissfully ignore that computers are for
humans first, with all their failings, shortcoming and illnesses.
You cannot extract technical matters from personality because
that's all *brain activity*, and that if you have never heard
a word about "emotional intelligence", that's probably because
you only ever witnessed Naggum emotional stupidity.
> When I noticed this topic
> down the page without any comments, I assumed people either got lives
> or didn't want to commit the deadly sin of irony.
>
> ;)
>
> (I mean, it almost seems as if you did want to troll out an emotional
> outburst like verec's, in order to do something like actually come out
> and tell him you killfiled him, rather than tacitly doing it.)
Please: Whole-world "kill-file me" to your heart content :-)
whoever remains, if any, will still educate me on my path to
better Lisp understanding
--
JFB
verec wrote:
> On 2006-01-19 12:44:31 +0000, "Tayssir John Gabbour"
> <···········@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > No, some of us just noticed his intense contempt for people who discuss
> > personalities rather than technical matters.
>
> This doesn't account for _my_ immense contempt for arrogant
> ignoramuses that blissfully ignore that computers are for
> humans first, with all their failings, shortcoming and illnesses.
>
> You cannot extract technical matters from personality because
> that's all *brain activity*, and that if you have never heard
> a word about "emotional intelligence", that's probably because
> you only ever witnessed Naggum emotional stupidity.
Many are aware of the issues you raise, and if you aren't aware of
them, you might like sources like Jeff Schmidt's _Disciplined Minds_ to
learn more about the pressures and incentives which form professionals,
or maybe David Noble's discussion on the net and education. If you
really want to understand Lisp, I think you will get a lot more mileage
out of visiting Lisp meetings, than being unhappy on the net. There are
a lot of negatives to the net forming a lot of one's learning, even
given that it may be all you seem to have.
This thread has the intended effect of starting a boneheaded discussion
of one man, with all the silliness and hijinks one can predict, and
there's little point to taking part. (But it was actually a good sign,
as people totally ignored the first guy, and it took another attempt to
finally strike a tiny bit of paydirt.)
Tayssir
"Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
> Many are aware of the issues you raise, and if you aren't aware of
> them, you might like sources like Jeff Schmidt's _Disciplined Minds_ to
> learn more about the pressures and incentives which form professionals,
> or maybe David Noble's discussion on the net and education. If you
> really want to understand Lisp, I think you will get a lot more mileage
> out of visiting Lisp meetings, than being unhappy on the net. There are
> a lot of negatives to the net forming a lot of one's learning, even
> given that it may be all you seem to have.
This is important. If you haven't lived in person the "emulating"
contact with better "hackers", you may well misgrok what seems like
the harshness of usenet. You need to build a smart carapace, whic
reflects what _you_ believe is harshness, and let pass in the valuable
information. Granted, the master side could sometimes be more
gentler, but I'm not sure it would make it more effective: some
hustling is needed sometimes to let the message thru. I notice that
Zen monks seems to be propitious to hit the head of their apprentices
too.
On the other hand, it seems related to the fact that few women enter
the field.
1. I sat cross-legged on a hard pillow, closed my eyes gently and
practised Zen.
2. My teacher came in and hit my head to test if I had a Zen
experience.
3. I was shocked when he said he did not hit me, but years later I
realized my kind teacher was trying to make me aware that there
was no hitting, and no nothing, in Zen.
4. Lacking a deep understanding, many people may think Zen masters
are mad.
The Zen Librarian had a habit of pointing a finger at the shelves
when directing a patron to a book. One day, a boy walked around the
library, mockingly pointing a finger this way and that. Upon seeing
this insolent behavior, the Zen Librarian retrieved the PDR from the
reference shelves and slammed it shut on the boy's finger. The boy
immediately found enlightenment.
A student asked the master for help... does this program run from
the Workbench? The master grabbed the mouse and pointed to an
icon. "What is this?" he asked. The student replied "That's the
mouse". The master pressed control-Amiga-Amiga and hit the student
on the head with the Amiga ROM Kernel Manual.
-- Amiga Zen Master Peter da Silva
etc.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
CAUTION: The mass of this product contains the energy equivalent of
85 million tons of TNT per net ounce of weight.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>
> On the other hand, it seems related to the fact that few women enter
> the field.
women? What is this you speak of, some new lisp implementation?
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Tim X <····@spamto.devnul.com> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>
>>
>> On the other hand, it seems related to the fact that few women enter
>> the field.
>
> women? What is this you speak of, some new lisp implementation?
Imagine, if half lisp programmers would be women, we could make little
lispers, and quadruple the number of lisp programmers in 16 years!
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software 'releases'.
Our software 'escapes' leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality
assurance people in it's wake.
On 2006-01-20, Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Tim X <····@spamto.devnul.com> writes:
>> Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>>> On the other hand, it seems related to the fact that few women
>>> enter the field.
>>
>> women? What is this you speak of, some new lisp implementation?
>
> Imagine, if half lisp programmers would be women, we could make
> little lispers, and quadruple the number of lisp programmers in 16
> years!
So ... what you're saying is ... "fork you!" ?
;)
>>>>> "Pascal" == Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
Pascal> Imagine, if half lisp programmers would be women
If half of the lisp programmers were women, programmers from other
fields would flock to the lisp scene, just to be close to all of those
girls.
Perhaps we are approaching lisp marketing completely wrong?
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech | christian ··@ defun #\. dk
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
- ·······@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
Christian Lynbech wrote:
>>>>>>"Pascal" == Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>
>
> Pascal> Imagine, if half lisp programmers would be women
>
> If half of the lisp programmers were women, programmers from other
> fields would flock to the lisp scene, just to be close to all of those
> girls.
>
> Perhaps we are approaching lisp marketing completely wrong?
The Perl6 folks have already thought of that:
<http://pugs.blogs.com/audrey/2005/12/runtime_typecas.html>
--
Jens Axel S�gaard
Jens Axel S�gaard <······@soegaard.net> writes:
> Christian Lynbech wrote:
>>>>>>>"Pascal" == Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>> Pascal> Imagine, if half lisp programmers would be women
>> If half of the lisp programmers were women, programmers from other
>> fields would flock to the lisp scene, just to be close to all of those
>> girls.
>> Perhaps we are approaching lisp marketing completely wrong?
>
> The Perl6 folks have already thought of that:
>
> <http://pugs.blogs.com/audrey/2005/12/runtime_typecas.html>
This is definitely NOT what I had in mind when I spoke of having half
the lisp programmer being women!
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it!
Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!"
Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
> The Perl6 folks have already thought of that:
>
> <http://pugs.blogs.com/audrey/2005/12/runtime_typecas.html>
[whether the blog story is right or not but it hist a very serious
problem].
This is one of the reasons why I am seriously in the believing that
there /must/ exist a mind-body demarcation line. The bible is always
right. As usual:
==
Mt 8, 28-34
32 Er antwortete ihnen: Fahret hin! Sie fuhren aus und fuhren in die
Schweine und siehe, die ganze Herde stürmte den Abhang hinab in den
See und kam im Wasser um.
==
Nowadays there exist some theories that mind and body are the same. It
is not!
Sir Francis Drake
"Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
> verec wrote:
> > On 2006-01-19 12:44:31 +0000, "Tayssir John Gabbour"
> > <···········@yahoo.com> said:
> >
> > > No, some of us just noticed his intense contempt for people who discuss
> > > personalities rather than technical matters.
> >
> > This doesn't account for _my_ immense contempt for arrogant
> > ignoramuses that blissfully ignore that computers are for
> > humans first, with all their failings, shortcoming and illnesses.
> >
> > You cannot extract technical matters from personality because
> > that's all *brain activity*, and that if you have never heard
> > a word about "emotional intelligence", that's probably because
> > you only ever witnessed Naggum emotional stupidity.
>
> Many are aware of the issues you raise, and if you aren't aware of
> them, you might like sources like Jeff Schmidt's _Disciplined Minds_ to
> learn more about the pressures and incentives which form professionals,
> or maybe David Noble's discussion on the net and education. If you
> really want to understand Lisp, I think you will get a lot more mileage
> out of visiting Lisp meetings, than being unhappy on the net. There are
> a lot of negatives to the net forming a lot of one's learning, even
> given that it may be all you seem to have.
>
> This thread has the intended effect of starting a boneheaded discussion
> of one man, with all the silliness and hijinks one can predict, and
> there's little point to taking part. (But it was actually a good sign,
> as people totally ignored the first guy, and it took another attempt to
> finally strike a tiny bit of paydirt.)
>
>
> Tayssir
>
I have to say I'm a bit disapointed not to see an actual post of
Erik's. When I first came to c.l.l it was partly due to a friend of mine
showing me some of Erik's posts. I actually found them quite
refreshing - though I was never on the wrong end of one!
I had been interested in Lisp for quite some time, but had never found
the time to actually get serious about sitting down and learning
it. While I still find it hard to cut time to concentrate on learning
lisp, I have to say I now find it one of the things I really look
forward to - sad bastard that I am, I actually now look forward to my
saturday afternoon when i can sit down and struggle to improve my
grasp of lisp - its been the most challenging and rewarding
programming I've done in nearly 20 years and despite some months of
learning, I still find my efforts embarrasingly poor - despite that,
its great fun.
There is no doubt this group will certainly slap you around the ears
if you are being truely stupid - they will even slap you around the
ears if your being a bit thick - but if you can't handle that, then
newsgroups are probably not for you. From the archives of Erik's posts
I've seen, I found they often had the combination of great insight
coupled with a rather cutting and brutal honesty - personally I don't
mind that, after all, its just words. Of course, I'm speaking as
someone who has never been on the wrong end of one of his posts.
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
verec wrote:
> You cannot extract technical matters from personality because
> that's all *brain activity*, and that if you have never heard
> a word about "emotional intelligence", that's probably because
> you only ever witnessed Naggum emotional stupidity.
Give up on this one, mon ami!
Just catch a flying comet with your net and scoot back to planet
B-6-12.
That rose girl is drying up and a few volcanos need sweeping.
"Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
> Frank Goenninger DG1SBG wrote:
>> Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
>>
>> > The Man With The Opinions seems to have remerged; he has been giving
>> > some people some (seemingly deserved) tough words on sci.crypt...
>> >
>> > He hasn't been sighted here; sometimes that's good, sometimes not
>> > :-).
>>
>> Ha - no reaction on this post. Damn. They all really fear his
>> resurrection ;-)
>
> No, some of us just noticed his intense contempt for people who discuss
> personalities rather than technical matters. When I noticed this topic
> down the page without any comments, I assumed people either got lives
> or didn't want to commit the deadly sin of irony.
>
> ;)
There's times when I just can't resist. And, yes, I myself have been
fallen to the trap that Christopher Browne had put there - so ;-)
>
> (I mean, it almost seems as if you did want to troll out an emotional
> outburst like verec's, in order to do something like actually come out
> and tell him you killfiled him, rather than tacitly doing it.)
First part yes, second part no. But, of course you're right. I really
shouldn't have said this in public. I should have sent him private email.
Only point is that I now have to learn how to use killfiles
properly. Something I have avoided so far. Hmm - There's something to
learn in each and every post on this great newsgroup. <g>
>
> Tayssir
Cheers,
Frank
- feeling like being vaguely intrigued to perhaps stop that
thread now.
I'm trying to decide which is more embarrassing for this group:
1. Lisp psychosis
2. Naggum psychosis (to be clear: the reaction some people have
when Erik is merely *mentioned* by someone else).
From: Sam Steingold
Subject: Re: Naggum Sighted...
Date:
Message-ID: <upsmnddoz.fsf@gnu.org>
> * Joe Marshall <··········@tznvy.pbz> [2006-01-19 14:55:11 -0800]:
>
> I'm trying to decide which is more embarrassing for this group:
> 1. Lisp psychosis
> 2. Naggum psychosis (to be clear: the reaction some people have
> when Erik is merely *mentioned* by someone else).
which one does your message exemplify?
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
http://www.iris.org.il http://www.jihadwatch.org http://www.camera.org
http://www.honestreporting.com http://ffii.org
Linux - find out what you've been missing while you've been rebooting Windows.
> I'm trying to decide which is more embarrassing for this group:
> 1. Lisp psychosis
> 2. Naggum psychosis (to be clear: the reaction some people have
> when Erik is merely *mentioned* by someone else).
Yeah, the latter was really rather unexpected. I hadn't intended to
start any grand thread; the life it has taken on is curious to say the
least...
--
output = reverse("moc.liamg" ·@" "enworbbc")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/internet.html
Given recent events in Florida, the tourism board in Texas has
developed a new advertising campaign based on the slogan "Ya'll come
to Texas, where we ain't shot a tourist in a car since November 1963."
Christopher Browne wrote:
> output = reverse("moc.liamg" ·@" "enworbbc")
> http://cbbrowne.com/info/internet.html
> Given recent events in Florida, the tourism board in Texas has
> developed a new advertising campaign based on the slogan "Ya'll come
> to Texas, where we ain't shot a tourist in a car since November 1963."
Since you bring it up, I think good ol' Texas is no more. It seems that
either people are unwilling to use their guns, or it has been made
illegal to do so.
Watch this video to see what I mean:
(Warning: graphic violence)
http://video.gprime.net/media/video/completeass.wmv
If you are not free to shoot some skateboarders, are you really free?
Iraq may have more freedom than Texas - at least they got the
tailgating problem handled:
(Warning: violence)
http://globalresearch.ca/audiovideo/Aegis-PSD.wmv
In talk.politics.guns ·········@gmail.com wrote:
>Christopher Browne wrote:
>
>> output = reverse("moc.liamg" ·@" "enworbbc")
>> http://cbbrowne.com/info/internet.html
>> Given recent events in Florida, the tourism board in Texas has
>> developed a new advertising campaign based on the slogan "Ya'll come
>> to Texas, where we ain't shot a tourist in a car since November 1963."
>
>Since you bring it up, I think good ol' Texas is no more. It seems that
>either people are unwilling to use their guns, or it has been made
>illegal to do so.
>
>Watch this video to see what I mean:
>
>(Warning: graphic violence)
> http://video.gprime.net/media/video/completeass.wmv
Like most CCW holders, the man was showing great self restraint. It
was only afterwards in the part of the video you cut, that he drew his
weapon and flattened one of the tires on the skateboard.
·······@n?" <·@?.com> wrote in message
·······································@4ax.com...
> In talk.politics.guns ·········@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Like most CCW holders, the man was showing great self restraint. It
> was only afterwards in the part of the video you cut, that he drew his
> weapon and flattened one of the tires on the skateboard.
Flattened one of the tires on a skateboard??????????????????????
In talk.politics.guns "Don Staples" <········@livingston.net> wrote:
>
>·······@n?" <·@?.com> wrote in message
>·······································@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns ·········@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Like most CCW holders, the man was showing great self restraint. It
>> was only afterwards in the part of the video you cut, that he drew his
>> weapon and flattened one of the tires on the skateboard.
>
>Flattened one of the tires on a skateboard??????????????????????
>
Absolutely. SOP when you don't have a spike strip handy. ;>
·········@gmail.com wrote:
> Since you bring it up, I think good ol' Texas is no more. It seems that
> either people are unwilling to use their guns, or it has been made
> illegal to do so.
I'm quite sure that even in TX, using a gun to kill somebody for
anything other than self-defense, would probably be considered murder.
> Watch this video to see what I mean:
>
> (Warning: graphic violence)
> http://video.gprime.net/media/video/completeass.wmv
We don't watch no steenking WMVs.
> If you are not free to shoot some skateboarders, are you really free?
The question is: even if you're free, do you have a - moral or legal -
right to shoot skateboarders?
> Iraq may have more freedom than Texas
Well, if Dubya says so. It's certainly cool to have a foreign nation's
soldiers standing right there in front of you.
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
>> Since you bring it up, I think good ol' Texas is no more. It seems
>> that either people are unwilling to use their guns, or it has been
>> made illegal to do so.
>
> I'm quite sure that even in TX, using a gun to kill somebody for
> anything other than self-defense, would probably be considered murder.
>
Oh, my goodness, no. We have five types of "homicide" in Texas; "murder" is
only one.
1. "Accidental" discharge with no showing of malicious intent = Negligent
Homicide
2. "Victim" turns out to be man in deer costume at 300 yards = Excusable
Homicide
3. Killing of an enemy in time of war = Justifiable Homicide
4. Execution of a prisioner under a lawful warrant (if we had firing squads)
= Justifiable Homicide (likewise for shooting your wife's paramour 'out of
the saddle,' so to speak).
That's just for openers. Anywhere "deadly force" is authorized gets you a
pass - such as "Criminal Mischief During the Nighttime."
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote
(in article <··············@individual.net>):
> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
>> Since you bring it up, I think good ol' Texas is no more. It seems that
>> either people are unwilling to use their guns, or it has been made
>> illegal to do so.
>
> I'm quite sure that even in TX, using a gun to kill somebody for
> anything other than self-defense, would probably be considered murder.
You might want to be careful what you are "sure" about in the
future.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Randy Howard wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote
> (in article <··············@individual.net>):
>
>> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Since you bring it up, I think good ol' Texas is no more. It seems that
>>> either people are unwilling to use their guns, or it has been made
>>> illegal to do so.
>> I'm quite sure that even in TX, using a gun to kill somebody for
>> anything other than self-defense, would probably be considered murder.
>
> You might want to be careful what you are "sure" about in the
> future.
I'm pretty sure about the definition of murder, even if I don't quite
trust any centralized law enforcement, that might join sides with
whoever is killing, so that immoral deeds are legal.
Law is usually the law of the winning side.
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote
(in article <··············@individual.net>):
> Randy Howard wrote:
>> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote
>> (in article <··············@individual.net>):
>>
>>> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Since you bring it up, I think good ol' Texas is no more. It seems that
>>>> either people are unwilling to use their guns, or it has been made
>>>> illegal to do so.
>>> I'm quite sure that even in TX, using a gun to kill somebody for
>>> anything other than self-defense, would probably be considered murder.
>>
>> You might want to be careful what you are "sure" about in the
>> future.
>
> I'm pretty sure about the definition of murder,
You probabll are pretty sure about your own definition of
murder. The definition outside your head varies widely from one
person and from one jurisdiction to another.
Not everyone thinks it is immoral to stop a criminal
(permanently) from acts that you would respond to for reasons
other than self-defense.
> even if I don't quite trust any centralized law enforcement,
I don't even trust decentralized law enforcement. The very term
is suspect. It shouldn't be about enforcing laws, it should be
about doing the right thing and helping people in need of
assistance. Far too often laws themselves are immoral and
unworthy of enforcement.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Randy Howard wrote:
> I don't even trust decentralized law enforcement. The very term
> is suspect. It shouldn't be about enforcing laws, it should be
> about doing the right thing and helping people in need of
> assistance. Far too often laws themselves are immoral and
> unworthy of enforcement.
Agreed. But what if nobody helps someone?
You need some kind of law, some definition of right and wrong.
Decentralization helps to not let biased stuff creep into the legal
base. If nobody wields enough power to govern everybody else, who would
warmongers contact? Who would establish the laws that you (and probably
I too) find so immoral?
Our current systems are full of bias.
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
In article <··············@individual.net>,
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> Randy Howard wrote:
> > I don't even trust decentralized law enforcement. The very term
> > is suspect. It shouldn't be about enforcing laws, it should be
> > about doing the right thing and helping people in need of
> > assistance. Far too often laws themselves are immoral and
> > unworthy of enforcement.
>
> Agreed. But what if nobody helps someone?
When was the last time you saw a cop get there in time to help?
--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
On 2006-02-12, Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> Randy Howard wrote:
>> I don't even trust decentralized law enforcement. The very term
>> is suspect. It shouldn't be about enforcing laws, it should be
>> about doing the right thing and helping people in need of
>> assistance. Far too often laws themselves are immoral and
>> unworthy of enforcement.
>
> Agreed. But what if nobody helps someone?
first you shoukd help yourself. And I have found that people
will, in my experience inthe USA, generally help you if asked.
>
> You need some kind of law, some definition of right and wrong.
Ah but whose? So what you really need is some outside force to
set the rules otherwise there can be no set of basic principles
to guide socity.
> Decentralization helps to not let biased stuff creep into the legal
> base. If nobody wields enough power to govern everybody else, who would
well government is nessary and an evil inflicted on humanity at the same
time. It would seem to me that is is best kept in fear of the citizen that
it claims to represent.
> warmongers contact? Who would establish the laws that you (and probably
> I too) find so immoral?
the history of bad laws passed and enforced by govenrments is unending.
>
> Our current systems are full of bias.
>
and this would change in some future system? people are flawed so things
made by people are flawed, but the question is how badly and in what way?
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
marc spitzer wrote:
> first you shoukd help yourself. And I have found that people
> will, in my experience inthe USA, generally help you if asked.
Oh, sure.
> well government is nessary and an evil inflicted on humanity at the same
> time. It would seem to me that is is best kept in fear of the citizen that
> it claims to represent.
Laws are necessary. Government could be much smaller. But I don't
think we should discuss that here. Different people, different opinions.
>> Our current systems are full of bias.
>>
>
> and this would change in some future system? people are flawed so things
> made by people are flawed, but the question is how badly and in what way?
That's why there are, for instance, constitutions. Now if only
governments would care to respect them, both in the USA as in other
countries...
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> marc spitzer wrote:
>> and this would change in some future system? people are flawed so things
>> made by people are flawed, but the question is how badly and in what way?
>
> That's why there are, for instance, constitutions. Now if only
> governments would care to respect them, both in the USA as in other
> countries...
You'll have to get the citizens to care about them first. People
don't give a rat's about rights if they already have everything
they want.
Matt
"Ulrich Hobelmann" <···········@web.de> wrote in message
···················@individual.net...
> Randy Howard wrote:
> > Ulrich Hobelmann wrote
> > (in article <··············@individual.net>):
> >
> >> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Since you bring it up, I think good ol' Texas is no more. It seems
that
> >>> either people are unwilling to use their guns, or it has been made
> >>> illegal to do so.
> >> I'm quite sure that even in TX, using a gun to kill somebody for
> >> anything other than self-defense, would probably be considered murder.
> >
> > You might want to be careful what you are "sure" about in the
> > future.
>
> I'm pretty sure about the definition of murder, even if I don't quite
> trust any centralized law enforcement, that might join sides with
> whoever is killing, so that immoral deeds are legal.
>
> Law is usually the law of the winning side.
>
Which isn't the corpse's.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote in message
···················@individual.net...
> Randy Howard wrote:
> > Ulrich Hobelmann wrote
> > (in article <··············@individual.net>):
> >
> >> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Since you bring it up, I think good ol' Texas is no more. It seems
that
> >>> either people are unwilling to use their guns, or it has been made
> >>> illegal to do so.
> >> I'm quite sure that even in TX, using a gun to kill somebody for
> >> anything other than self-defense, would probably be considered murder.
> >
> > You might want to be careful what you are "sure" about in the
> > future.
>
> I'm pretty sure about the definition of murder
And wrong.....ever heard of defense of a third person, or public duty? Both
are affirmative defenses in Texas.
James H. Hood wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure about the definition of murder
>
> And wrong.....ever heard of defense of a third person, or public duty? Both
> are affirmative defenses in Texas.
What part of defending the public, or someone else, isn't about defense?
Murder is aggressively killing somebody else, and intentionally.
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> James H. Hood wrote:
>>> I'm pretty sure about the definition of murder
>>
>> And wrong.....ever heard of defense of a third person, or public
>> duty? Both are affirmative defenses in Texas.
>
> What part of defending the public, or someone else, isn't about
> defense?
> Murder is aggressively killing somebody else, and intentionally.
Not even close. Execution of a prisoner under a lawful warrant is not
murder. Killing an enemy in time of war is not murder.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> James H. Hood wrote:
>
>>> I'm pretty sure about the definition of murder
>>
>>
>> And wrong.....ever heard of defense of a third person, or public
>> duty? Both
>> are affirmative defenses in Texas.
>
>
> What part of defending the public, or someone else, isn't about defense?
>
> Murder is aggressively killing somebody else, and intentionally.
>
Perhaps your laws in Germany are different. But here in this country,
self defense, defense of others, and preventing a violent crime are not
considered murder, yet they are aggressively killing someone else
intentionally.
Harold
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote in message
···················@individual.net...
> Murder is aggressively killing somebody else, and intentionally.
Intentionally killing in self-defense or defense of another is not
"murder".....have an attorney explain this to you slowly and in words with
few syllables.
James H. Hood wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote in message
> ···················@individual.net...
>
>> Murder is aggressively killing somebody else, and intentionally.
>
> Intentionally killing in self-defense or defense of another is not
> "murder".....have an attorney explain this to you slowly and in words with
> few syllables.
I agree, but more and more judges at least in my country seem to see
this differently. You aren't even allowed to defend yourself anymore,
... well you are, but *intentionally* killing someone would still count
as murder here.
Seems like laws are slightly different.
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
> > Watch this video to see what I mean:
> >
> > (Warning: graphic violence)
> > http://video.gprime.net/media/video/completeass.wmv
>
> We don't watch no steenking WMVs.
A nerd who can't figure out how to watch WMVs? I did it on Linux with
no issues.
·········@gmail.com wrote
(in article
<························@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Watch this video to see what I mean:
>>>
>>> (Warning: graphic violence)
>>> http://video.gprime.net/media/video/completeass.wmv
>>
>> We don't watch no steenking WMVs.
>
> A nerd who can't figure out how to watch WMVs? I did it on Linux with
> no issues.
It's safe on Linux. It's safe on a Mac (if you aren't stupid
enough to use Microsoft's media player for the Mac), but it can
be downright dangerous to do so on a windows system, as the
recent security flap over wmv's has demonstrated.
Of course, doing anything on a Windows system can be dangerous
these days.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Randy Howard wrote:
>
> Of course, doing anything on a Windows system can be dangerous
> these days.
>
Is it more dangerous than Linux? http://www.debian.org/security/#DSAS
·········@gmail.com wrote
(in article
<·······················@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> Randy Howard wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course, doing anything on a Windows system can be dangerous
>> these days.
>>
>
> Is it more dangerous than Linux?
Yes.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Randy Howard wrote:
> ·········@gmail.com wrote
> (in article
> <························@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> >> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Watch this video to see what I mean:
> >>>
> >>> (Warning: graphic violence)
> >>> http://video.gprime.net/media/video/completeass.wmv
> >>
> >> We don't watch no steenking WMVs.
> >
> > A nerd who can't figure out how to watch WMVs? I did it on Linux with
> > no issues.
>
> It's safe on Linux. It's safe on a Mac (if you aren't stupid
> enough to use Microsoft's media player for the Mac), but it can
> be downright dangerous to do so on a windows system, as the
> recent security flap over wmv's has demonstrated.
I think that was WMFs not WMVs.
Rob Thorpe wrote
(in article
<·······················@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> Randy Howard wrote:
>> ·········@gmail.com wrote
>> (in article
>> <························@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>>>> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Watch this video to see what I mean:
>>>>>
>>>>> (Warning: graphic violence)
>>>>> http://video.gprime.net/media/video/completeass.wmv
>>>>
>>>> We don't watch no steenking WMVs.
>>>
>>> A nerd who can't figure out how to watch WMVs? I did it on Linux with
>>> no issues.
>>
>> It's safe on Linux. It's safe on a Mac (if you aren't stupid
>> enough to use Microsoft's media player for the Mac), but it can
>> be downright dangerous to do so on a windows system, as the
>> recent security flap over wmv's has demonstrated.
>
> I think that was WMFs not WMVs.
Right. Oh well, it'll be wmv's next week then. With Windows,
it's just a matter of time.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
·········@gmail.com wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Watch this video to see what I mean:
>>>
>>> (Warning: graphic violence)
>>> http://video.gprime.net/media/video/completeass.wmv
>> We don't watch no steenking WMVs.
>
> A nerd who can't figure out how to watch WMVs? I did it on Linux with
> no issues.
Oh, so it's just a harmless WMV... Well, I encountered enough WMVs that
VLC wouldn't play (Mac).
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> >> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Watch this video to see what I mean:
> >>>
> >>> (Warning: graphic violence)
> >>> http://video.gprime.net/media/video/completeass.wmv
> >> We don't watch no steenking WMVs.
> > A nerd who can't figure out how to watch WMVs? I did it on Linux with
> > no issues.
>
> Oh, so it's just a harmless WMV... Well, I encountered enough WMVs
> that VLC wouldn't play (Mac).
Oh, you said WMVs. I thought you said WMDs.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Code deleted is code debugged. -- Ian Bicking
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote
(in article <··············@individual.net>):
> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>>> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Watch this video to see what I mean:
>>>>
>>>> (Warning: graphic violence)
>>>> http://video.gprime.net/media/video/completeass.wmv
>>> We don't watch no steenking WMVs.
>>
>> A nerd who can't figure out how to watch WMVs? I did it on Linux with
>> no issues.
>
> Oh, so it's just a harmless WMV... Well, I encountered enough WMVs that
> VLC wouldn't play (Mac).
flip4mac
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
On 2006-02-12, Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
>> Since you bring it up, I think good ol' Texas is no more. It seems that
>> either people are unwilling to use their guns, or it has been made
>> illegal to do so.
>
> I'm quite sure that even in TX, using a gun to kill somebody for
> anything other than self-defense, would probably be considered murder.
Well to the best of my knowledge NY still has a "tools of the trade"
authorization to use deadly force. also there is a fleeing fellon rule,
if I remember correctly, that authorizes the use of deadly force on
fellons running away that pose no immediate danger to anybody.
[snip]
>> Iraq may have more freedom than Texas
When the Army was doing sweeps for weapons and such they did
let each household keep an ak47 for home defence, fronm what I remember
reading.
marc
In the last exciting episode, Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
>> Since you bring it up, I think good ol' Texas is no more. It seems that
>> either people are unwilling to use their guns, or it has been made
>> illegal to do so.
>
> I'm quite sure that even in TX, using a gun to kill somebody for
> anything other than self-defense, would probably be considered murder.
>
>> Watch this video to see what I mean:
>> (Warning: graphic violence)
>> http://video.gprime.net/media/video/completeass.wmv
>
> We don't watch no steenking WMVs.
>
>> If you are not free to shoot some skateboarders, are you really free?
>
> The question is: even if you're free, do you have a - moral or legal -
> right to shoot skateboarders?
The next question:
If you are free, do you have moral or legal obligation to shoot mimes?
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="ntlug.org" in String.concat ·@" [name;tld];;
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/slony.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #46. "If an advisor says to me "My liege,
he is but one man. What can one man possibly do?", I will reply
"This." and kill the advisor." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Christopher Browne wrote:
>>> If you are not free to shoot some skateboarders, are you really free?
>> The question is: even if you're free, do you have a - moral or legal -
>> right to shoot skateboarders?
>
> The next question:
>
> If you are free, do you have moral or legal obligation to shoot mimes?
??
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...