maybe old news on this group, but saw this float by on HN
http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
bummer.
\p
---
Wit is educated insolence. - Aristotle
d p chang wrote:
> maybe old news on this group, but saw this float by on HN
>
> http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
>
> bummer.
Everybody dies. Not that he has: one tweet doth not a passing make.
> ---
> Wit is educated insolence. - Aristotle
F*ck, you can't even quote him?
hth, kt
----
"If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations. "
- e naggum
+ Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com>:
> d p chang wrote:
>> maybe old news on this group, but saw this float by on HN
>>
>> http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
>>
>> bummer.
>
> Everybody dies. Not that he has: one tweet doth not a passing make.
There seems to be more evidence:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8u5dp/erik_naggum_19652009_rip/
I too have known for a few years that he had health problems, but I
never knew until now what he was suffering from. Details in the above
link, for the morbidly curious.
If you want quotes, here is a whole pile of them:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erik_Naggum
Here is a nice one:
If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.
-- Erik Naggum
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- It is undesirable to believe a proposition
when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.
-- Bertrand Russell
Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
That would have been good for us and bad for him.
kt
ps. RIP, Erik. k
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:51:04 -0400, Kenneth Tilton wrote:
> Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
>> Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
> That would have been good for us and bad for him.
Yep, no doubt. I'm sure there are quite a few people out there who are
very quietly not miserable at his passing, but I think they might have
misunderstood him a bit. I'm pretty sure that maintaining his c.l.l
persona (along with his persona in some other places) was a lot harder on
him than it was on anyone he flamed. I don't want to discuss the merits of
that persona in a thread about Erik's death, so I'll just say that I
appreciated it. He was full of epigrams and cogent points, and I suspect
he'll be quoted for a long time to come.
RIP.
I never realised he was so young , based on his rants I was
imagining some grumpy old guy. Can someone provide some links to
some of his insightful posts ? All I have seen are rants. Most of
them boring or even disturbing but here's a link to one I find
quite funny:
< http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/a7b0fb7978c079d8
>
Some great quotes in there.
--
God grant me serenity to accept the code I cannot change, courage to
change the code I can, and wisdom to know the difference.
Erik Naggum (1965 - 2009)
On Jun 20, 4:52 pm, Spiros Bousbouras <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> RIP.
>
> I never realised he was so young , based on his rants I was
> imagining some grumpy old guy. Can someone provide some links to
> some of his insightful posts ? All I have seen are rants. Most of
> them boring or even disturbing
I have yet to find any of his writing boring or disturbing. I didn't
know about Erik until I stumbled on Kent Pitman's eulogy, but I am
very glad that I know now. Here's one I saw this evening which shows
his customary deft mastery of both profundity and flame:
http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/e15d85ac5626af9e
> but here's a link to one I find
> quite funny:
>
> <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/a7b0fb7978c079d8
>
>
>
> Some great quotes in there.
>
> --
> God grant me serenity to accept the code I cannot change, courage to
> change the code I can, and wisdom to know the difference.
>
> Erik Naggum (1965 - 2009)
toby <····@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
> I have yet to find any of his writing boring or disturbing. I didn't know
> about Erik until I stumbled on Kent Pitman's eulogy, but I am very glad
> that I know now. Here's one I saw this evening which shows his customary
> deft mastery of both profundity and flame:
> http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/e15d85ac5626af9e
Yes, and together with more recent c.l.l. posts there is another
interesting observation you can make: Kenny Tilton is one of the very few
persons who was slapped by Erik, but had enough humor for not bearing
grudges against Erik for the rest of his (K.'s) life.
Nicolas
Nicolas Neuss wrote:
> toby <····@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
>
>> I have yet to find any of his writing boring or disturbing. I didn't know
>> about Erik until I stumbled on Kent Pitman's eulogy, but I am very glad
>> that I know now. Here's one I saw this evening which shows his customary
>> deft mastery of both profundity and flame:
>> http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/e15d85ac5626af9e
>
> Yes, and together with more recent c.l.l. posts there is another
> interesting observation you can make: Kenny Tilton is one of the very few
> persons who was slapped by Erik, but had enough humor for not bearing
> grudges against Erik for the rest of his (K.'s) life.
As with Xah, one must consider the source: the cited post is what polite
conversation looked like when Erik was holding forth on Usenet. The
tip-off above was the brevity of the flaming -- I am reminded of a dog
woofing without lifting its head off its paws -- and the extensive
return to technical topic.
kt
On 2009-07-03 12:42:19 +0100, Nicolas Neuss
<········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> said:
> es, and together with more recent c.l.l. posts there is another
> interesting observation you can make: Kenny Tilton is one of the very few
> persons who was slapped by Erik, but had enough humor for not bearing
> grudges against Erik for the rest of his (K.'s) life.
I think you also have to take into account that the world was a fiercer
place in those days. I'm not sure what changed, but I'm pretty sure
that people are both less fierce and much, much more likely to take
offence. This is not a good change, on the whole.
On Jul 3, 9:46 pm, Tim Bradshaw <····@cley.com> wrote:
> On 2009-07-03 12:42:19 +0100, Nicolas Neuss
> <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> said:
>
> > es, and together with more recent c.l.l. posts there is another
> > interesting observation you can make: Kenny Tilton is one of the very few
> > persons who was slapped by Erik, but had enough humor for not bearing
> > grudges against Erik for the rest of his (K.'s) life.
>
> I think you also have to take into account that the world was a fiercer
> place in those days. I'm not sure what changed, but I'm pretty sure
> that people are both less fierce and much, much more likely to take
> offence. This is not a good change, on the whole.
I blame cats with captions. I can haz fierce intertubes? Not if you
phrase it that way.
On Jun 20, 12:51 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
> That would have been good for us and bad for him.
You can't be serious.
His arrogance and hostility drove me away from c.l.l for years. I can
only wonder how many others he alienated.
He was very smart, and could be nice to those who were comfortable
with being condescended to. But he attacked me unprovoked, just for
thinking I knew as much as he did -- which I did. And then he would
hold forth on ethics, completely in denial about how he had just
violated the very principles he was enunciating. Indeed, I had the
feeling the primary purpose of his pontifications was convincing
himself that his behavior was irreproachable, when it was nothing of
the kind.
I am stunned at the number of people who think he was an asset to
c.l.l. I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
recovered yet). While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
glad he stopped posting here.
-- Scott
On 21 jun, 01:09, Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I am stunned at the number of people who think he was an asset to
> c.l.l. I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
> damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
> recovered yet). While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
> glad he stopped posting here.
I think you were a little too tough on him. I didn't know him, but he
must have been at least very smart. These descriptions that has been
done here remind me of the first programming teacher I had (I did
mathematics, not computer science). As a person, he was a bit rude
(for other people, not for me), and inflexible as a teacher. But he
knew how to teach. He made us do much more advanced projects than we
should do, he didn't like delays and most students just didn't do
anything. Many people cheated at his test. But, still, for the few
people that didn't cheat or copy, he made us really learn and like
computer programming. In only 6 months, 6 hours of class per week (4
of which were theoretic classes), we made a library, a curses-game of
snake and a pacman game in Glut/OpenGL, among other 7 smaller
projects.
Sometimes I look at his projects for other classes now and see that
apparently he got soft now and gives lighter projects. It at least
looks like my class was one of the first he taught, though I am not
sure about it. He looks like the kind of person that teaches as much
as you can learn.
Well, I don't mean to defend a person that isn't even part of this
conversation. I am just trying to argue that an apparently rude person
sometimes is not exactly a bad person. Sometimes this person is just
impatient, he just goes to the point and does his best to show the
things he knows to other people. No one is perfect, and, if he was
impatient, maybe it's because he had some other very good qualities.
Rest in peace, Erik Naggum.
On Jun 20, 11:00 pm, gugamilare <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 jun, 01:09, Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > I am stunned at the number of people who think he was an asset to
> > c.l.l. I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
> > damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
> > recovered yet). While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
> > glad he stopped posting here.
>
> I think you were a little too tough on him.
You should have seen how he was on me -- and hundreds of others.
> No one is perfect, and, if he was
> impatient, maybe it's because he had some other very good qualities.
I already said he was very smart. Evidently some people learned a lot
from him.
But it's interesting you should point out that no one is perfect.
Erik Naggum was perfect in his own mind -- but only in his own mind.
-- Scott
On Jun 21, 8:17 pm, Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 11:00 pm, gugamilare <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 21 jun, 01:09, Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > > While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
> > > glad he stopped posting here.
Why are you glad? Did he do anything that you couldn't avoid by
killfiling him? It was your choice (and seems, your fault) that you
didn't ignore him when you had to.
> > I think you were a little too tough on him.
>
> You should have seen how he was on me -- and hundreds of others.
He's dead now, why did you bring it up and why do you continue to
speak of it? What do you expect to achieve? To those that don't know
him well, perhaps they'll think Naggum was an asshole for a moment in
their life, and some time after forget about all this altogether. To
those who do know him, you're simply noise.
> But it's interesting you should point out that no one is perfect.
> Erik Naggum was perfect in his own mind -- but only in his own mind.
(another remark about Naggum...)
On Jun 21, 7:00 am, gugamilare <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
.
>
> I think you were a little too tough on him. I didn't know him, but he
> must have been at least very smart.
I did know him, a little, and he was indeed very smart indeed, and a
nice person (you may not believe this, but you are wrong). After a
long time away (mostly) from CLL, I realise that much of the reason I
no longer read or contribute to it is that Erik is no longer here.
There are others I miss as well - I probably don't need to name them -
but, mostly, it's Erik.
--tim
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:00:18 -0700 (PDT), Tim Bradshaw <··········@tfeb.org> said:
> I did know him, a little, and he was indeed very smart indeed, and a
> nice person (you may not believe this, but you are wrong). After a
> long time away (mostly) from CLL, I realise that much of the reason I
> no longer read or contribute to it is that Erik is no longer here.
> There are others I miss as well - I probably don't need to name them -
> but, mostly, it's Erik.
True. And let me add after the ancient poet, exegit monumentum.
---Vassil.
Tim Bradshaw <··········@tfeb.org> wrote:
+---------------
| gugamilare <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
| > I think you were a little too tough on him. I didn't know him,
| > but he must have been at least very smart.
|
| I did know him, a little, and he was indeed very smart indeed,
| and a nice person (you may not believe this, but you are wrong).
+---------------
Indeed. Regardless of what one thinks of his single-minded style of
dealing with trolls and/or the "less clueful", I personally always
found him to be *very* informative & helpful in strictly technical
conversations. There were several long threads in 2000, 2001, and
2002 about issues with SGML & XML and possible alternatives to those
that I found *very* helpful.
He will be missed...
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
On Jun 25, 10:18 pm, ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
> Tim Bradshaw <··········@tfeb.org> wrote:
> +---------------| gugamilare <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> | > I think you were a little too tough on him. I didn't know him,
> | > but he must have been at least very smart.
> |
> | I did know him, a little, and he was indeed very smart indeed,
> | and a nice person (you may not believe this, but you are wrong).
> +---------------
>
> Indeed. Regardless of what one thinks of his single-minded style of
> dealing with trolls and/or the "less clueful", I personally always
> found him to be *very* informative & helpful in strictly technical
> conversations. There were several long threads in 2000, 2001, and
> 2002 about issues with SGML & XML and possible alternatives to those
> that I found *very* helpful.
>
> He will be missed...
May I ask for you to please enumerate a few of the concepts from
those discussions that you found most helpful? Which if any have
you utilized in your own work or hobbies? Thanks!
KHD
Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
+---------------
| ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
| > There were several long threads in 2000, 2001, and 2002 about
| > issues with SGML & XML and possible alternatives to those
| > that I found *very* helpful.
|
| May I ask for you to please enumerate a few of the concepts from
| those discussions that you found most helpful?
+---------------
Well, just to name a few... ;-}
1. The basic SGML (and XML) rant:
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 07:21:01 GMT
From: Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
Subject: Re: XML and lisp
Message-ID: <················@naggum.net>
... I actually prefer to break the _incredibly_ stupid syntactic-only
separation of elements and attribute values. SGML and its descendants
have made a crucial mistake: For every level of container (there are
about 7 of them), there is a new syntax for _two_ properties of the
container: (1) the contents is wrapped in one syntax, but (2) the
"writing on the box" is in quite another. This means that information
and meta-information are massively different concepts, and this
artificial separation runs through the whole SGML design. Each level
offers a new way to write the two differently. This is what makes it
so goddamn hard to reason about SGML documents and to do reasonably
intelligent transformations on them without working your butt off
specifying all sorts of irrelevant stuff that does _nothing_ but get
in your way. ...
But there must be something seductive about this mistake, because
I've found myself starting to make it more than once when designing
graph structures [e.g., attributed-ASTs in a compiler or a data-mining
application], and each time have been saved from the brink by
remembering Erik's strident denunciation.
Said another way, it's surprising how often one finds oneself tempted
to "just add one little attribute" to a node when what one should
really be doing is pushing both the existing node *and* the "attribute"
into a sub-graph... or flattening/splicing them into a list... or some
other "rotation" of the data representation entirely which will be
more useful [or at least, easier to post-process] in the long run.
2. Conversely, from the same article, the notion of using an alterative
minimal-angle-brackets syntax for representing SGML/HTML/XML which
*preserves* the (mistaken) distinction between elements & attributes,
which he called "Enamel" (a.k.a. "NML") and Tim Bradshaw later picked
up on and called "TML" (a.k.a. "DTML" when emphasizing the macro
features). See Erik's full article [ask Google Groups for the above
Message-ID] for several examples.
I found it quite easy to write a simple TML parser, which was much
easier than HTML when composing some of my own (internal) documents.
[Tim has used TML/DTML *much* more heavily; he might (or might not)
choose to comment further.]
3. This article, and the thread around it:
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Date: 30 Sep 2002 15:40:43 +0000
From: Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: Core ideas behind SGML and XML
Message-ID: <················@naggum.no>
Not from that thread/time, per se...
4. Erik's classic:
http://naggum.no/lugm-time.html
The Long, Painful History of Time
and all of the followup discussions in netnews later. While I have
not (yet) gone so far as to adopt his "local-time" scheme, awareness
of some of these issues *has* improved my effectiveness when dealing
with such baroqueness as PostgreSQL's "TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE" and
"TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE" types. ;-} ;-}
5. His general advocacy for and discussion of details of Common Lisp
contributed [though I couldn't say exactly how much] to my switching
from Scheme to CL, which, almost a decade later, I can safely say
was the right decision (for me).
Enough for now. I'd have to go digging around for more. Suffice it
to say that I personally felt that his presence was beneficial.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
On Jun 26, 12:14 am, ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
> Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > May I ask for you to please enumerate a few of the concepts from
> > those discussions that you found most helpful?
>
> Well, just to name a few... ;-}
>
> [snip list]
>
> Enough for now. I'd have to go digging around for more. Suffice it
> to say that I personally felt that his presence was beneficial.
I agree and thank you for the list! Reading about the gems other
people remember helps one find the nuggets they may have missed.
KHD
Scott Burson wrote:
> On Jun 20, 12:51 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
>>> Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>> That would have been good for us and bad for him.
>
> You can't be serious.
>
> His arrogance and hostility drove me away from c.l.l for years. I can
> only wonder how many others he alienated.
>
> He was very smart, and could be nice to those who were comfortable
> with being condescended to. But he attacked me unprovoked, just for
> thinking I knew as much as he did -- which I did. And then he would
> hold forth on ethics, completely in denial about how he had just
> violated the very principles he was enunciating. Indeed, I had the
> feeling the primary purpose of his pontifications was convincing
> himself that his behavior was irreproachable, when it was nothing of
> the kind.
>
> I am stunned at the number of people who think he was an asset to
> c.l.l. I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
> damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
> recovered yet). While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
> glad he stopped posting here.
You have taken personally what was not personal to you, but only to
Erik. That suggests that you like Erik suffer not from unsociability but
from too much sociability: you care to much about people. Version two of
this mot goes the other way: being sociable means not being all that
sensitive to other people, explaining why some of us are as we are.
Yes, I have been drinking.
hth, kt
+ Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com>:
> You have taken personally what was not personal to you, but only to
> Erik. That suggests that you like Erik suffer not from unsociability
> but from too much sociability: you care to much about people.
Hmm, I never thought of it that way before. You seem to be on to
something there. I too have been at the pointy end of Erik's ire on
occasion, and while it bothered me momentarily, I just let it pass and
found I could still enjoy much of his writing, and indeed learn from it.
(Not when he got into serious flame wars, however. I just skipped those.
But then, there are movie scenes that I cannot bear to watch, if I find
them too embarrasing. I keep telling myself it's just movie stars saying
their lines, but somehow it doesn't work, and I just look away and try
to think of something else instead.)
> Yes, I have been drinking.
Good for you! But then, what else are weekends good for?
No, don't answer that.
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- It is undesirable to believe a proposition
when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.
-- Bertrand Russell
On Jun 21, 1:58 am, Harald Hanche-Olsen <······@math.ntnu.no> wrote:
> I too have been at the pointy end of Erik's ire on
> occasion, and while it bothered me momentarily, I just
> let it pass and found I could still enjoy much of his
> writing, and indeed learn from it.
Indeed.
My thoughts can be found here. I put this on another thread, but
wanted to make sure to get it into this thread as well:
http://open.salon.com/blog/kent_pitman/2009/06/24/erik_naggum_rip
+ netsettler <······@nhplace.com>:
> My thoughts can be found here. I put this on another thread, but
> wanted to make sure to get it into this thread as well:
>
> http://open.salon.com/blog/kent_pitman/2009/06/24/erik_naggum_rip
That sums it up nicely. Thanks.
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- It is undesirable to believe a proposition
when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.
-- Bertrand Russell
On Jun 20, 10:14 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [Y]ou like Erik suffer not from unsociability but
> from too much sociability: you care too much about people.
LOL
> Yes, I have been drinking.
Enuf said.
-- Scott
Scott Burson wrote:
> On Jun 20, 10:14 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [Y]ou like Erik suffer not from unsociability but
>> from too much sociability: you care too much about people.
>
> LOL
>
>> Yes, I have been drinking.
>
> Enuf said.
Clever editing. Feel better? Now I am drinking Starbucks and you are
really going to get it.
Few who got their horns stuck locked with Erik's realized they were as
responsible for those mad exchanges as he. It's the well-known Problem
of Having The Last Word, which is a problem only if you take the stupid
exchanges seriously. Taking them seriously, The Other's idiocies must be
answered. The only way out is to simply stop, something Erik would start
pointing out to his tormentor as the threads grew overlong even by his
easy standards. It always sounded like, "Be quiet, I am right." but read
carefully one could see he was explaining simply that he could not
control himself enough to stop so would The Other please get them both
out of the stalemate.
Sarte said we are not free to be not free. If you had a crappy on-line
relationship with Erik, you too were responsible.
kt
On Jun 21, 6:09 am, Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am stunned at the number of people who think he was an asset to
> c.l.l. I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
> damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
> recovered yet). While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
> glad he stopped posting here.
I'm sorry if he hurt your feelings but many of his posts were really
strong and insightful. And I've learned that best way to enjoy this
newsgroup is to pay attention to the good parts and skip the bad. Now
whenever trolls and spammers post some garbage I just skip them, the
worst thing is giving my limited time and attention to people who
don't deserve it.
Slobodan
On 21 June, 10:15, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> And I've learned that best way to enjoy this
> newsgroup is to pay attention to the good parts and skip the bad.
Substitute "life" for "newsgroup" and you have an excellent general
advice. Of course in life it can sometimes be impossible to "skip"
the bad parts but I have often seen people not do that even when it
seems quite possible that they could.
On 21 June, 05:09, Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 12:51 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > > Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
> > That would have been good for us and bad for him.
>
> You can't be serious.
>
> His arrogance and hostility drove me away from c.l.l for years.
Why go away from c.l.l instead of simply not reading his posts?
[...]
> I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
> damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
> recovered yet).
What kind of damage did he do ?
At least Naggums were somewhat witty. Kenny is what (in his late
50s). Hopefully that douchebag Kenny keels over soon.
On Jun 20, 11:09 pm, Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 12:51 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > > Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
> > That would have been good for us and bad for him.
>
> You can't be serious.
>
> His arrogance and hostility drove me away from c.l.l for years. I can
> only wonder how many others he alienated.
>
> He was very smart, and could be nice to those who were comfortable
> with being condescended to. But he attacked me unprovoked, just for
> thinking I knew as much as he did -- which I did. And then he would
> hold forth on ethics, completely in denial about how he had just
> violated the very principles he was enunciating. Indeed, I had the
> feeling the primary purpose of his pontifications was convincing
> himself that his behavior was irreproachable, when it was nothing of
> the kind.
>
> I am stunned at the number of people who think he was an asset to
> c.l.l. I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
> damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
> recovered yet). While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
> glad he stopped posting here.
>
> -- Scott
MarkH wrote:
> At least Naggums were somewhat witty. Kenny is what (in his late
> 50s). Hopefully that douchebag Kenny keels over soon.
A month from 58. But I play tennis twice a week, hardcore softball twice
a week, and am a non-smoking vegetarian. I also do tai-chi, chi kung,
and san-shou. The old man smoked and got no exercise and made it past
eighty and I am his clone.
Do the arithmetic.
best, kt
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:50:54 -0400, <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> MarkH wrote:
>> At least Naggums were somewhat witty. Kenny is what (in his late
>> 50s). Hopefully that douchebag Kenny keels over soon.
>
> A month from 58. But I play tennis twice a week, hardcore softball twice
> a week, and am a non-smoking vegetarian. I also do tai-chi, chi kung,
> and san-shou. The old man smoked and got no exercise and made it past
> eighty and I am his clone.
>
> Do the arithmetic.
About half of you came from elsewhere, but the paternal line persists
well.
I regularly eat vegetarians
On 2009-06-21 23:50:54 +0100, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> A month from 58. But I play tennis twice a week, hardcore softball
> twice a week, and am a non-smoking vegetarian. I also do tai-chi, chi
> kung, and san-shou. The old man smoked and got no exercise and made it
> past eighty and I am his clone.
I think I have said before that I think you are probably actually Erik.
I guess we know that is not true now, but you will have your work cut
out to keep up his standards.
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On 2009-06-21 23:50:54 +0100, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
>> A month from 58. But I play tennis twice a week, hardcore softball
>> twice a week, and am a non-smoking vegetarian. I also do tai-chi, chi
>> kung, and san-shou. The old man smoked and got no exercise and made it
>> past eighty and I am his clone.
>
> I think I have said before that I think you are probably actually Erik.
> I guess we know that is not true now, but you will have your work cut
> out to keep up his standards.
>
Well, how was he going back on long fly balls?
kt
ps. If I was Erik, would I be able to roll my eyes and Just Ignore Eran
Gat/Ron Garret?
On Jun 24, 10:05 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> > On 2009-06-21 23:50:54 +0100, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
> >> A month from 58. But I play tennis twice a week, hardcore softball
> >> twice a week, and am a non-smoking vegetarian. I also do tai-chi, chi
> >> kung, and san-shou. The old man smoked and got no exercise and made it
> >> past eighty and I am his clone.
>
> > I think I have said before that I think you are probably actually Erik.
> > I guess we know that is not true now, but you will have your work cut
> > out to keep up his standards.
>
> Well, how was he going back on long fly balls?
>
> kt
>
> ps. If I was Erik, would I be able to roll my eyes and Just Ignore
"were", not "was", you ungrammatical bastard!
> Eran Gat/Ron Garret?
Tim Bradshaw <···@tfeb.org> writes:
> On 2009-06-21 23:50:54 +0100, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
> > A month from 58. But I play tennis twice a week, hardcore softball
> > twice a week, and am a non-smoking vegetarian. I also do tai-chi,
> > chi kung, and san-shou. The old man smoked and got no exercise and
> > made it past eighty and I am his clone.
>
> I think I have said before that I think you are probably actually
> Erik. I guess we know that is not true now, but you will have your
> work cut out to keep up his standards.
"The old man" probably refers to Ken's old man, not to Erik, who was
nowhere near eighty when he died. Tilton's style also differs in many
perceptible ways from that of Erik -- this may be an elaborate ruse of
course, some wily subterfuge.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (················@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:08:06 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On 2009-06-21 23:50:54 +0100, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
>> A month from 58. But I play tennis twice a week, hardcore softball
>> twice a week, and am a non-smoking vegetarian. I also do tai-chi, chi
>> kung, and san-shou. The old man smoked and got no exercise and made it
>> past eighty and I am his clone.
>
> I think I have said before that I think you are probably actually Erik.
> I guess we know that is not true now, but you will have your work cut
> out to keep up his standards.
I don't understand how you could think Erik and Kenny were the same guy.
The level of subterfuge involved would have been epic. Erik was a
brilliant programmer. Kenny is amusing. At any rate, while Erik's English
was pretty good for a Norwegian it was not the colloquial English that
Kenny uses. And Erik would never have professed the kind of weak-ass
pseudo-religious eastern bullshit Kenny is so fond of. He would have
hated all that Taoist bullshit.
That said, I should point out that meat is good for you. Being at the top
off the food chain is a guaranteed life-extender. So I tend to think that
vegetarians are a species of free-rider. Delicious free-riders, but free-
riders all the same.
OTOH genetics is a lot more important than diet, so Kenny's "RIP Kenny"
c.l.l thread probably won't happen until the '40s or '50s. Assuming he
manages to stave off the cirrhosis that long. By that point I figure that
that either the apocalypse or the Singularity will have happened. If it's
the former I will definitely descend on Manhattan and eat some
vegetarians...
On 2009-06-25 20:53:03 +0100, Duncan
<··································@togivemyaddressout.com> said:
> I don't understand how you could think Erik and Kenny were the same guy.
> The level of subterfuge involved would have been epic. Erik was a
> brilliant programmer. Kenny is amusing. At any rate, while Erik's English
> was pretty good for a Norwegian it was not the colloquial English that
> Kenny uses. And Erik would never have professed the kind of weak-ass
> pseudo-religious eastern bullshit Kenny is so fond of. He would have
> hated all that Taoist bullshit.
Either this is a joke for which I have fallen, or you've missed
something (perhaps history) in my post.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:44:04 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On 2009-06-25 20:53:03 +0100, Duncan
> <··································@togivemyaddressout.com> said:
>
>> I don't understand how you could think Erik and Kenny were the same
>> guy. The level of subterfuge involved would have been epic. Erik was a
>> brilliant programmer. Kenny is amusing. At any rate, while Erik's
>> English was pretty good for a Norwegian it was not the colloquial
>> English that Kenny uses. And Erik would never have professed the kind
>> of weak-ass pseudo-religious eastern bullshit Kenny is so fond of. He
>> would have hated all that Taoist bullshit.
>
> Either this is a joke for which I have fallen, or you've missed
> something (perhaps history) in my post.
It's a joke.
Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> writes:
> He was very smart, and could be nice to those who were comfortable
> with being condescended to. But he attacked me unprovoked, just for
> thinking I knew as much as he did -- which I did.
Do you have a reference for this exchange? I know of _very_ few exchanges
where Erik attacked without a reason. I would be interested to know one
more of those cases.
And, yes, I also have been "attacked" by him once per Email. But instead
of taking it personal, I analyzed the reason of his attack and found that
it was due to a sloppy formulation in a post of mine. So I followed up my
post with a clarification.
Rest in peace, Erik, and thank you. I learned a lot from your posts.
Nicolas
I'm not a lisp programmer, but for years I've enjoyed, from time
to time, browsing this group.
That Naggum -- he was SO smart, golly I've missed him all these
years.
Look, really, you guys chased him off.
In a pretty nasty way, too. VERY nasty. Not nice.
Yeah, he was unreasonable, extremely. But what's the
saying about "unreasonable men" -- that without them nothing
would ever advance, something like that. That was him.
---
By email, just after he left, I tried to get him back --
he replied (I have it somewhere), but wouldn't.
You know, maybe if a BUNCH of you had asked him back, he would have,
and we would have had the benefit of his, yes, wisdom, etc,
FOR ALL THESE MISSING YEARS! :-(
Really, really too bad. Tears actually coming to my eyes right
now.
He was so good.
(yeah, he had his problems, but who doesn't, huh?)
David
On Jun 21, 11:41 am, ·······@panix.com (David Combs) wrote:
> I'm not a lisp programmer, but for years I've enjoyed, from time
> to time, browsing this group.
>
> That Naggum -- he was SO smart, golly I've missed him all these
> years.
>
> Look, really, you guys chased him off.
>
> In a pretty nasty way, too. VERY nasty. Not nice.
>
I am glad someone has also realized this. Yes, he was bullied
away and I feel guilty for not sticking up for him more
forcefully.
Wade
> Yeah, he was unreasonable, extremely. But what's the
> saying about "unreasonable men" -- that without them nothing
> would ever advance, something like that. That was him.
>
> ---
>
> By email, just after he left, I tried to get him back --
> he replied (I have it somewhere), but wouldn't.
>
> You know, maybe if a BUNCH of you had asked him back, he would have,
> and we would have had the benefit of his, yes, wisdom, etc,
> FOR ALL THESE MISSING YEARS! :-(
>
> Really, really too bad. Tears actually coming to my eyes right
> now.
>
> He was so good.
>
> (yeah, he had his problems, but who doesn't, huh?)
>
> David
Wade <·············@gmail.com> writes:
> I am glad someone has also realized this. Yes, he was bullied
> away and I feel guilty for not sticking up for him more
> forcefully.
>
> Wade
I think the main reason he left was his illness. Perhaps he would have
stayed longer, if Ga(rre)t would not have insisted in mobbing him. But I
had the feeling that he used this only as a welcome excuse for drawing a
final line.
Nicolas
In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> Wade <·············@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I am glad someone has also realized this. Yes, he was bullied
> > away and I feel guilty for not sticking up for him more
> > forcefully.
> >
> > Wade
>
> I think the main reason he left was his illness. Perhaps he would have
> stayed longer, if Ga(rre)t would not have insisted in mobbing him.
Me "mob" Erik? That's a good one.
I never did anything to Erik that Erik did not do to other people. I
was exquisitely careful in my dealings with never to do or say anything
for which I could not cite chapter and verse precedent in something he
had said.
If I did anything to Erik it was to hold up a mirror. It is not
surprising that he didn't like what he saw. He wasn't the only one.
rg
On Jun 21, 8:59 pm, Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 11:41 am, ·······@panix.com (David Combs) wrote:
> > In a pretty nasty way, too. VERY nasty. Not nice.
>
> I am glad someone has also realized this. Yes, he was bullied
> away and I feel guilty for not sticking up for him more
> forcefully.
>
> Wade
>
> > Yeah, he was unreasonable, extremely. But what's the
> > saying about "unreasonable men" -- that without them nothing
> > would ever advance, something like that. That was him.
I always imagined him as last viking holding the Stamford Bridge,
keeping the bridge alone against whole Saxon army. He was einheri
(lone fighter). He was completely unreasonable in good way.
All the Einheriar fight in Odin's courts
every day;
they choose the slain and ride from battle;
then they sit more at peace together.
--
embed <······@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> > Yeah, he was unreasonable, extremely. But what's the saying about
>> > "unreasonable men" -- that without them nothing would ever advance,
>> > something like that. That was him.
>
> I always imagined him as last viking holding the Stamford Bridge,
> keeping the bridge alone against whole Saxon army. He was einheri
> (lone fighter). He was completely unreasonable in good way.
The problem is that the Norwegians at Stamford Bridge were invaders, and
the essentially internecine war they started led to the victory of the
Normans three weeks later.
That's really _not_ a good role model.
--
You cannot run Windows innocently. Guilt of aiding & abetting, at the
very least, is automatic. Loading up on anti-virus and firewall software,
even decent ones, are merely well-meaning actions to be taken into
consideration by judge and jury when deciding your sentence. --dpm
In article <··············@latakia.octopodial-chrome.com>,
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> embed <······@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> > Yeah, he was unreasonable, extremely. But what's the saying about
> >> > "unreasonable men" -- that without them nothing would ever advance,
> >> > something like that. That was him.
> >
> > I always imagined him as last viking holding the Stamford Bridge,
> > keeping the bridge alone against whole Saxon army. He was einheri
> > (lone fighter). He was completely unreasonable in good way.
>
> The problem is that the Norwegians at Stamford Bridge were invaders, and
> the essentially internecine war they started led to the victory of the
> Normans three weeks later.
>
> That's really _not_ a good role model.
But a very apt analogy.
rg
On Jun 21, 8:59 pm, Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 11:41 am, ·······@panix.com (David Combs) wrote:
> > In a pretty nasty way, too. VERY nasty. Not nice.
>
> I am glad someone has also realized this. Yes, he was bullied
> away and I feel guilty for not sticking up for him more
> forcefully.
>
> Wade
>
> > Yeah, he was unreasonable, extremely. But what's the
> > saying about "unreasonable men" -- that without them nothing
> > would ever advance, something like that. That was him.
I always imagined him as last viking holding the Stamford Bridge,
keeping the bridge alone against whole Saxon army. He was einheri
(lone fighter). He was completely unreasonable in good way.
All the Einheriar fight in Odin's courts
every day;
they choose the slain and ride from battle;
then they sit more at peace together.
--
RIP erik
On Jun 20, 12:51 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
> That would have been good for us and bad for him.
>
> kt
>
> ps. RIP, Erik. k
Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
> Slobodan
I feel the same way.
I was never on the receiving end of his pointed comments (and wit, I
thought). He was always unfailingly polite in private correspondence.
I learned a lot from him, and know that there is more still to learn
from what he wrote.
Even though some of his public exchanges got totally out of hand, I
thought they were often escalated by others. He just answered in kind,
but with heavier artillery.
The funny thing seemed to me that often *he* held up a mirror to others
who could not recognize what they saw in it.
Please rest in peace, Erik. You have been missed a long time already.
Wow. The end of a usenet era.
I had a few modest tussels with Erik, and he was certainly the main
reason I read cll.
I am pretty much in the "despise him yet fascinated by him" camp.
While he was clearly very smart, I found his intense invective
completely unacceptable.
Still, RIP.
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
········@STRIPCAPStelus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
RIP erik
On Jun 20, 10:46 am, Harald Hanche-Olsen <······@math.ntnu.no> wrote:
> + Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com>:
>
> > d p chang wrote:
> >> maybe old news on this group, but saw this float by on HN
>
> >> http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
>
> >> bummer.
>
> > Everybody dies. Not that he has: one tweet doth not a passing make.
>
> There seems to be more evidence:
>
> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8u5dp/erik_naggum_196520...
>
> I too have known for a few years that he had health problems, but I
> never knew until now what he was suffering from. Details in the above
> link, for the morbidly curious.
>
> If you want quotes, here is a whole pile of them:
>
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erik_Naggum
>
> Here is a nice one:
>
> If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.
> -- Erik Naggum
>
> --
> * Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
> - It is undesirable to believe a proposition
> when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.
> -- Bertrand Russell
On Jun 23, 8:12 am, nallen05 <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> RIP erik
>
Do not stand at my grave and weep;
I am not there. I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow.
I am the diamond glints on snow.
I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awaken in the morning's hush
I am the swift uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circled flight.
I am the soft stars that shine at night.
Do not stand at my grave and cry;
I am not there. I did not die.
Mary Elizabeth Frye (1932)
Go softly, Erik, into the light,
Go free form pain's embrace;
Here your flame burns forever bright,
Your posts have made the case.
Go lisping, Erik, closing paren only on Earth,
Death's shadow dwindles in your wake;
Go victorious, angels beckon "Come" with mirth,
Your legacy, soft, compiled we all make.
--agt
--
Freedom - no pane, all gaiGN!
Code Art Now
http://codeartnow.com
Email: ···@codeartnow.com
On Jun 23, 9:36 am, viper-2 <········@mail.infochan.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 8:12 am, nallen05 <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > RIP erik
>
> Do not stand at my grave and weep;
> I am not there. I do not sleep.
> I am a thousand winds that blow.
> I am the diamond glints on snow.
> I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
> I am the gentle autumn rain.
> When you awaken in the morning's hush
> I am the swift uplifting rush
> Of quiet birds in circled flight.
> I am the soft stars that shine at night.
> Do not stand at my grave and cry;
> I am not there. I did not die.
>
> Mary Elizabeth Frye (1932)
>
> Go softly, Erik, into the light,
> Go free form pain's embrace;
> Here your flame burns forever bright,
> Your posts have made the case.
>
> Go lisping, Erik, closing paren only on Earth,
> Death's shadow dwindles in your wake;
> Go victorious, angels beckon "Come" with mirth,
> Your legacy, soft, compiled we all make.
>
> --agt
>
> --
> Freedom - no pane, all gaiGN!
>
> Code Art Nowhttp://codeartnow.com
> Email: ····@codeartnow.com
As usual, I'm in a hurry. That first line was intended to be:
"Go gently, Erik, into the light"
Bye for now. I'm busy these days in Fortran and GNU Autotools mode.:-)
--agt
--
Freedom - no pane, all gaiGN!
Code Art Now
http://codeartnow.com
Email: ···@codeartnow.com
viper-2 <········@mail.infochan.com> writes:
> Go softly, Erik, into the light,
Christ, this is getting embarrassing.
It's too bad Erik is dead; he was human, he wasn't evil, he did some
good, he probably got his share of undeserved disrespect. It's natural
to give someone the benefit of the doubt in death.
But are there really Naggum fanboys?!
I never realized...!
-Miles
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Miles Bader wrote:
> viper-2 <········@mail.infochan.com> writes:
>> Go softly, Erik, into the light,
>
> Christ, this is getting embarrassing.
>
> It's too bad Erik is dead; he was human, he wasn't evil, he did some
> good, he probably got his share of undeserved disrespect. It's natural
> to give someone the benefit of the doubt in death.
>
> But are there really Naggum fanboys?!
He had quite a following. At LUGM 99 he was surrounded by fans like a
rock star. He also was elected by acclaim to the ALU board. This was the
conference at which his talk/paper on time was delivered. On c.l.l, the
fans did not appear until someone started nasty a thread with his name
in the subject. Then appear they did.
kt
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> d p chang wrote:
>> maybe old news on this group, but saw this float by on HN
>>
>> http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
>>
>> bummer.
>
> Everybody dies. Not that he has: one tweet doth not a passing make.
true enough.
>> Wit is educated insolence. - Aristotle
>
> F*ck, you can't even quote him?
@Q: ATTENTION, all abducting aliens! you DON'T need to RETURN them!
@A: Erik Naggum (c.l.l)
\p
Erik Naggum, 1965--2009
His posts were _both_ accurate and precise.
May the soil be light on him.
* * *
Was it he who said that one should always be prepared to challenge
one's assumptions?
---Vassil.
On Jun 20, 4:12 pm, Vassil Nikolov <········@pobox.com> wrote:
> Erik Naggum, 1965--2009
>
> His posts were _both_ accurate and precise.
>
> May the soil be light on him.
>
> * * *
>
> Was it he who said that one should always be prepared to challenge
> one's assumptions?
>
> ---Vassil.
I don't think Erik would have approved of your changing the subject
for no reason and implying that he was just some Lisper.
--
Von Neuman is dead, Dijkstra is dead, and Me I feel also not so good.
-- Erik Naggum 2009
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:28:12 -0700 (PDT), fft1976 <·······@gmail.com> said:
> I don't think Erik would have approved of your changing the subject
> for no reason and implying that he was just some Lisper.
I wish it were possible for him to say so himself, whether or not
giving me a piece of his mind at the same time.
What I implied, but did not wish to say explicitly, was my belief,
based on a post of his from a long time ago, that he did not like to
see his name in a subject line, which I wanted to respect.
Apparently, the implication failed; and the belief may be wrong.
Sadly, it seems we shall never know now.
> Von Neuman is dead, Dijkstra is dead, and Me I feel also not so good.
> -- Erik Naggum 2009
This makes me wonder mildly how the first name in the above sentence
got misspelled.
---Vassil.
On Jun 20, 9:08 am, d p chang <······@meer.net> wrote:
> maybe old news on this group, but saw this float by on HN
>
> http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
>
> bummer.
>
> \p
> ---
> Wit is educated insolence. - Aristotle
I am really saddened by this news. He was truly a
good friend.
And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
attacked you, you attacked first.
Wade
In article
<····································@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
> attacked you, you attacked first.
And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not an unprovoked
attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it been directed
at him? Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make sure that there
was not even a single instance where he attacked first? Would you
consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack you now in the
way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
(http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
-- very little provocation.
Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community *still* spends
more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead than advancing
the state of the art in Lisp. What the man truly aspired to has always
been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
rg
On Jun 21, 11:59 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> In article
> <····································@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
> > attacked you, you attacked first.
>
> And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not an unprovoked
> attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it been directed
> at him? Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make sure that there
> was not even a single instance where he attacked first? Would you
> consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack you now in the
> way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
>
> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
> -- very little provocation.
>
> Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community *still* spends
> more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead than advancing
> the state of the art in Lisp. What the man truly aspired to has always
> been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
>
> rg
I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.
Wade
On 21 jun, 15:33, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Even Erik's own death provoked a flame war, as a homage from cll.
>
> Slobodan
I see no flame war here, just a normal and healthy conversation.
gugamilare wrote:
> On 21 jun, 15:33, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Even Erik's own death provoked a flame war, as a homage from cll.
>>
>> Slobodan
>
> I see no flame war here, just a normal and healthy conversation.
Give us a minute.
kt
On Jun 21, 11:33 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Even Erik's own death provoked a flame war, as a homage from cll.
LOL And a fitting homage it is, too.
I'm glad some people remember him fondly. I just don't happen to be
one of them.
I'm going to leave it at that. I've said my piece, and he's gone now.
-- Scott
Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm glad some people remember him fondly. I just don't happen to be
> one of them.
I remember him as an enthusiastic and very friendly person the couple of
times I met him IRL, and also in mail exchanges that we had over the
last 15-20 years. I also won't forget the absolutely horrible
accusations he made in usenet posts (in norwegian) a couple of years
ago, but now that he's gone I'm a little sad that we never met IRL
again, because I'm sure we would be able to square that up over a beer.
RIP.
--
(espen)
In article
<····································@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 11:59�am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <····································@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
> > > attacked you, you attacked first.
> >
> > And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not an unprovoked
> > attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it been directed
> > at him? �Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make sure that there
> > was not even a single instance where he attacked first? �Would you
> > consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack you now in the
> > way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
> >
> > This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> > acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> > (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
> > -- very little provocation.
> >
> > Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community *still* spends
> > more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead than advancing
> > the state of the art in Lisp. �What the man truly aspired to has always
> > been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
> >
> > rg
>
> I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.
I didn't realize that one was required. So was that supposed to be
funny? I'm sorry, but I don't see the humor. Perhaps you'd be so kind
as to explain it to me?
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
> In article
> <····································@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 21, 11:59 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <····································@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
>>>> attacked you, you attacked first.
>>> And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not an unprovoked
>>> attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it been directed
>>> at him? Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make sure that there
>>> was not even a single instance where he attacked first? Would you
>>> consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack you now in the
>>> way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
>>>
>>> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
>>> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
>>> (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
>>> -- very little provocation.
>>>
>>> Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community *still* spends
>>> more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead than advancing
>>> the state of the art in Lisp. What the man truly aspired to has always
>>> been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
>>>
>>> rg
>> I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.
>
> I didn't realize that one was required. So was that supposed to be
> funny? I'm sorry, but I don't see the humor. Perhaps you'd be so kind
> as to explain it to me?
I was wondering the same thing. My guess is your jumping all over the
word "dweeb". Maybe that was used playfully.
kt
In article <·························@cv.net>,
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article
> > <····································@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jun 21, 11:59 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <····································@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>
> >>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
> >>>> attacked you, you attacked first.
> >>> And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not an unprovoked
> >>> attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it been directed
> >>> at him? Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make sure that there
> >>> was not even a single instance where he attacked first? Would you
> >>> consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack you now in the
> >>> way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
> >>>
> >>> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> >>> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> >>> (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
> >>> -- very little provocation.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community *still* spends
> >>> more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead than advancing
> >>> the state of the art in Lisp. What the man truly aspired to has always
> >>> been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
> >>>
> >>> rg
> >> I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.
> >
> > I didn't realize that one was required. So was that supposed to be
> > funny? I'm sorry, but I don't see the humor. Perhaps you'd be so kind
> > as to explain it to me?
>
> I was wondering the same thing. My guess is your jumping all over the
> word "dweeb". Maybe that was used playfully.
I see. It is my impression (and dictionaries confirm) that "dweeb" is
pejorative. And there are no smileys or other emoticons to indicate
that the word was being used in anything other than its pejorative
sense. I also have a hard time seeing how "idiot" could have been meant
"playfully". But be all that as it may...
Is it not possible that some of those "dweebs" who "attacked first" did
not in fact "attack first" but were, like Wade, just trying
unsuccessfully to be funny?
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
> In article <·························@cv.net>,
> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <····································@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 21, 11:59 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <····································@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>
>>>>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
>>>>>> attacked you, you attacked first.
>>>>> And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not an unprovoked
>>>>> attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it been directed
>>>>> at him? Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make sure that there
>>>>> was not even a single instance where he attacked first? Would you
>>>>> consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack you now in the
>>>>> way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
>>>>> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
>>>>> (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
>>>>> -- very little provocation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community *still* spends
>>>>> more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead than advancing
>>>>> the state of the art in Lisp. What the man truly aspired to has always
>>>>> been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
>>>>>
>>>>> rg
>>>> I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.
>>> I didn't realize that one was required. So was that supposed to be
>>> funny? I'm sorry, but I don't see the humor. Perhaps you'd be so kind
>>> as to explain it to me?
>> I was wondering the same thing. My guess is your jumping all over the
>> word "dweeb". Maybe that was used playfully.
>
> I see. It is my impression (and dictionaries confirm) that "dweeb" is
> pejorative.
Don't be a dork. The question is whether the put-down (I looked up
pejorative) was playful or earnest. Meanwhile, any good dictionary would
characterize dweeb as light-hearted.
>..And there are no smileys or other emoticons to indicate
> that the word was being used in anything other than its pejorative
> sense.
I am factoring in his plaint that you had no sense of humor, working
backwards to dweeb being used playfully. But I /am/ just guessing.
> I also have a hard time seeing how "idiot" could have been meant
> "playfully".
You need to come to a Lisp-NYC meeting. But not one of the church deals,
then we just pray and sing hyms.
> But be all that as it may...
>
> Is it not possible that some of those "dweebs" who "attacked first" did
> not in fact "attack first" but were, like Wade, just trying
> unsuccessfully to be funny?
In a brawl that drags on for weeks involving dozens of exchanges, who
threw the first punch is about as interesting as whether Burton picked
up Taylor or Taylor picked up Burton.
kt
In article <························@cv.net>,
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article <·························@cv.net>,
> > Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ron Garret wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <····································@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Jun 21, 11:59 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <····································@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
> >>>>>> attacked you, you attacked first.
> >>>>> And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not an unprovoked
> >>>>> attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it been directed
> >>>>> at him? Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make sure that there
> >>>>> was not even a single instance where he attacked first? Would you
> >>>>> consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack you now in the
> >>>>> way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> >>>>> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> >>>>> (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
> >>>>> -- very little provocation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community *still* spends
> >>>>> more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead than advancing
> >>>>> the state of the art in Lisp. What the man truly aspired to has always
> >>>>> been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> rg
> >>>> I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.
> >>> I didn't realize that one was required. So was that supposed to be
> >>> funny? I'm sorry, but I don't see the humor. Perhaps you'd be so kind
> >>> as to explain it to me?
> >> I was wondering the same thing. My guess is your jumping all over the
> >> word "dweeb". Maybe that was used playfully.
> >
> > I see. It is my impression (and dictionaries confirm) that "dweeb" is
> > pejorative.
>
> Don't be a dork. The question is whether the put-down (I looked up
> pejorative) was playful or earnest. Meanwhile, any good dictionary would
> characterize dweeb as light-hearted.
>
I must not have a very good dictionary then. Could maybe recommend one
for me where I might find the correct definition?
Oh, is "idiot" light-hearted also? Can I call Wade an idiot and expect
that he would not take offense? Or is there some kind of asymmetric
rule that makes it light-hearted when he says it but serious when I say
it? I am genuinely confused by this, and I eagerly await the
instruction of those who are wiser than I.
> >..And there are no smileys or other emoticons to indicate
> > that the word was being used in anything other than its pejorative
> > sense.
>
> I am factoring in his plaint that you had no sense of humor, working
> backwards to dweeb being used playfully. But I /am/ just guessing.
>
Yes, that's the perennial dilemma of all failed comedians: was it that
the audience didn't have a sense of humor, or that the joke just wasn't
very funny? I'm afraid I have no guidance to offer, except to observe
that these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
> > I also have a hard time seeing how "idiot" could have been meant
> > "playfully".
>
> You need to come to a Lisp-NYC meeting.
That presents a logistical challenge for me, since I live in Los
Angeles. I have, however, attended several CRACL meetings (the LA
equivalent of LispNYC) and not once have I ever heard anyone call
someone else a dweeb or an idiot. Are the cultures really that
different? Do you guys really go around calling each other dweebs and
idiots all in good fun?
> > But be all that as it may...
> >
> > Is it not possible that some of those "dweebs" who "attacked first" did
> > not in fact "attack first" but were, like Wade, just trying
> > unsuccessfully to be funny?
>
> In a brawl that drags on for weeks involving dozens of exchanges, who
> threw the first punch is about as interesting as whether Burton picked
> up Taylor or Taylor picked up Burton.
I agree absolutely. But maybe you should direct that comment at Wade
rather than me. He is, after all, the one who took the initiative to
bring it up.
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
> In article <························@cv.net>,
> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret wrote:
>>> In article <·························@cv.net>,
>>> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ron Garret wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <····································@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 21, 11:59 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <····································@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
>>>>>>>> attacked you, you attacked first.
>>>>>>> And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not an unprovoked
>>>>>>> attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it been directed
>>>>>>> at him? Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make sure that there
>>>>>>> was not even a single instance where he attacked first? Would you
>>>>>>> consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack you now in the
>>>>>>> way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
>>>>>>> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
>>>>>>> (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
>>>>>>> -- very little provocation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community *still* spends
>>>>>>> more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead than advancing
>>>>>>> the state of the art in Lisp. What the man truly aspired to has always
>>>>>>> been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rg
>>>>>> I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.
>>>>> I didn't realize that one was required. So was that supposed to be
>>>>> funny? I'm sorry, but I don't see the humor. Perhaps you'd be so kind
>>>>> as to explain it to me?
>>>> I was wondering the same thing. My guess is your jumping all over the
>>>> word "dweeb". Maybe that was used playfully.
>>> I see. It is my impression (and dictionaries confirm) that "dweeb" is
>>> pejorative.
>> Don't be a dork. The question is whether the put-down (I looked up
>> pejorative) was playful or earnest. Meanwhile, any good dictionary would
>> characterize dweeb as light-hearted.
>>
>
> I must not have a very good dictionary then. Could maybe recommend one
> for me where I might find the correct definition?
>
> Oh, is "idiot" light-hearted also? Can I call Wade an idiot and expect
> that he would not take offense? Or is there some kind of asymmetric
> rule that makes it light-hearted when he says it but serious when I say
> it? I am genuinely confused by this, and I eagerly await the
> instruction of those who are wiser than I.
Idiot can go either way. Again, I am just working backwards from the
confusing charge that you lacked humor.
>
>>> ..And there are no smileys or other emoticons to indicate
>>> that the word was being used in anything other than its pejorative
>>> sense.
>> I am factoring in his plaint that you had no sense of humor, working
>> backwards to dweeb being used playfully. But I /am/ just guessing.
>>
>
> Yes, that's the perennial dilemma of all failed comedians: was it that
> the audience didn't have a sense of humor, or that the joke just wasn't
> very funny? I'm afraid I have no guidance to offer, except to observe
> that these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
You have lost the context, perhaps deliberately: no one is saying the
material was suitable for a Letterman monologue. The charge as far as I
can make out is that you were a buzz-kill when you had a cow over "dweeb".
>
>>> I also have a hard time seeing how "idiot" could have been meant
>>> "playfully".
>> You need to come to a Lisp-NYC meeting.
>
> That presents a logistical challenge for me, since I live in Los
> Angeles. I have, however, attended several CRACL meetings (the LA
> equivalent of LispNYC) and not once have I ever heard anyone call
> someone else a dweeb or an idiot. Are the cultures really that
> different? Do you guys really go around calling each other dweebs and
> idiots all in good fun?
Word. We have to spend all our Google SoC money buying drinks for
neighboring tables that get offended.
kt
In article <·························@cv.net>,
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, that's the perennial dilemma of all failed comedians: was it that
> > the audience didn't have a sense of humor, or that the joke just wasn't
> > very funny? I'm afraid I have no guidance to offer, except to observe
> > that these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
> You have lost the context, perhaps deliberately: no one is saying the
> material was suitable for a Letterman monologue. The charge as far as I
> can make out is that you were a buzz-kill when you had a cow over "dweeb".
No, I haven't lost the context, you are missing the point. What I take
issue with is not so much Wade's use of the word "dweeb" (though I do
think it was uncalled for), it's his assertion that the dweebs [sic]
invariably attacked first, that Erik never cast the first stone. How
does he know? Did he review Erik's entire corpus? Were Erik's
responses always justified and proportionate, and by what measure? Is
it not possible that Erik sometimes misinterpreted what was intended to
be a joke, that he was, to borrow your phraseology, being a buzz-kill
when he had his cows?
Now, it's possible that Wade's entire comment was intended to be a joke,
but there's reason to believe that he was being serious. For one thing,
Erik certainly believed that he was invariably the victim and never the
aggressor. But there's an easy way to resolve this: Wade, did you
intend your comment to be a joke?
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
> In article <·························@cv.net>,
> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yes, that's the perennial dilemma of all failed comedians: was it that
>>> the audience didn't have a sense of humor, or that the joke just wasn't
>>> very funny? I'm afraid I have no guidance to offer, except to observe
>>> that these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
>
>> You have lost the context, perhaps deliberately: no one is saying the
>> material was suitable for a Letterman monologue. The charge as far as I
>> can make out is that you were a buzz-kill when you had a cow over "dweeb".
>
> No, I haven't lost the context, you are missing the point. What I take
> issue with is not so much Wade's use of the word "dweeb" (though I do
> think it was uncalled for), it's his assertion that the dweebs [sic]
> invariably attacked first, that Erik never cast the first stone.
Oh. I was only trying to help with the no-humor charge, because I was
curious, too. But if you insist...
> How
> does he know? Did he review Erik's entire corpus? Were Erik's
> responses always justified and proportionate, and by what measure? Is
> it not possible that Erik sometimes misinterpreted what was intended to
> be a joke, that he was, to borrow your phraseology, being a buzz-kill
> when he had his cows?
Gosh, I do not remember anything like that (flames starting over
misapprehended jests). Are you just making this up to keep the thread going?
If we consider only whether Erik ever went off half-cocked, I would have
to side with Wade on this. Erik was always the first amongst us to
identify a troll or dork so it seemed to us as if he were making an
unprovoked attack, but before it was over it was clear his antagonist
did have issues. (No, one did not become a troll or dork because of an
Erik attack.)
>
> Now, it's possible that Wade's entire comment was intended to be a joke,
> but there's reason to believe that he was being serious. For one thing,
> Erik certainly believed that he was invariably the victim and never the
> aggressor. But there's an easy way to resolve this: Wade, did you
> intend your comment to be a joke?
>
Doesn't matter: all jokes speak the truth.
kt
On Jun 21, 5:55 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article <·························@cv.net>,
> > Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Yes, that's the perennial dilemma of all failed comedians: was it that
> >>> the audience didn't have a sense of humor, or that the joke just wasn't
> >>> very funny? I'm afraid I have no guidance to offer, except to observe
> >>> that these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
>
> >> You have lost the context, perhaps deliberately: no one is saying the
> >> material was suitable for a Letterman monologue. The charge as far as I
> >> can make out is that you were a buzz-kill when you had a cow over "dweeb".
>
> > No, I haven't lost the context, you are missing the point. What I take
> > issue with is not so much Wade's use of the word "dweeb" (though I do
> > think it was uncalled for), it's his assertion that the dweebs [sic]
> > invariably attacked first, that Erik never cast the first stone.
>
> Oh. I was only trying to help with the no-humor charge, because I was
> curious, too. But if you insist...
>
> > How
> > does he know? Did he review Erik's entire corpus? Were Erik's
> > responses always justified and proportionate, and by what measure? Is
> > it not possible that Erik sometimes misinterpreted what was intended to
> > be a joke, that he was, to borrow your phraseology, being a buzz-kill
> > when he had his cows?
>
> Gosh, I do not remember anything like that (flames starting over
> misapprehended jests). Are you just making this up to keep the thread going?
>
> If we consider only whether Erik ever went off half-cocked, I would have
> to side with Wade on this. Erik was always the first amongst us to
> identify a troll or dork so it seemed to us as if he were making an
> unprovoked attack, but before it was over it was clear his antagonist
> did have issues. (No, one did not become a troll or dork because of an
> Erik attack.)
>
I remember thinking that very thing sometimes. He seemed
to be going off on someone and starting it. But sure enough
a few posts later the dork would show their true colors. I
usually went back in the posts to see what might
have tipped Erik off and, every time, I found something.
I even pointed it out to the hurt party once or twice, but it was
water off a duck's back.
Wade
>
>
> > Now, it's possible that Wade's entire comment was intended to be a joke,
> > but there's reason to believe that he was being serious. For one thing,
> > Erik certainly believed that he was invariably the victim and never the
> > aggressor. But there's an easy way to resolve this: Wade, did you
> > intend your comment to be a joke?
>
> Doesn't matter: all jokes speak the truth.
>
> kt
In article <·························@cv.net>,
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article <·························@cv.net>,
> > Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Yes, that's the perennial dilemma of all failed comedians: was it that
> >>> the audience didn't have a sense of humor, or that the joke just wasn't
> >>> very funny? I'm afraid I have no guidance to offer, except to observe
> >>> that these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
> >
> >> You have lost the context, perhaps deliberately: no one is saying the
> >> material was suitable for a Letterman monologue. The charge as far as I
> >> can make out is that you were a buzz-kill when you had a cow over "dweeb".
> >
> > No, I haven't lost the context, you are missing the point. What I take
> > issue with is not so much Wade's use of the word "dweeb" (though I do
> > think it was uncalled for), it's his assertion that the dweebs [sic]
> > invariably attacked first, that Erik never cast the first stone.
>
> Oh. I was only trying to help with the no-humor charge, because I was
> curious, too. But if you insist...
>
> > How
> > does he know? Did he review Erik's entire corpus? Were Erik's
> > responses always justified and proportionate, and by what measure? Is
> > it not possible that Erik sometimes misinterpreted what was intended to
> > be a joke, that he was, to borrow your phraseology, being a buzz-kill
> > when he had his cows?
>
> Gosh, I do not remember anything like that (flames starting over
> misapprehended jests). Are you just making this up to keep the thread going?
No. I have a genuine difference of opinion.
> If we consider only whether Erik ever went off half-cocked, I would have
> to side with Wade on this. Erik was always the first amongst us to
> identify a troll or dork so it seemed to us as if he were making an
> unprovoked attack, but before it was over it was clear his antagonist
> did have issues. (No, one did not become a troll or dork because of an
> Erik attack.)
Just because someone has issues doesn't mean they deserve abuse.
rg
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:55:11 -0400, <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Doesn't matter: all jokes speak the truth.
Ah, yes.
You can insult someone, as long as you laugh at the end.
Getting away with something by sending two conflicting messages.
Stereotypes and jokes become popular because people recognize some
truth in them.
PS. Shame I never got to read Erik realtime....
GP lisper <········@CloudDancer.com> writes:
> You can insult someone, as long as you laugh at the end.
In this electronic age the custom is to accompany insults and cheerful
suggestions that people fuck off with a few happy smileys. The point of
this has always eluded me.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (················@uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
> In this electronic age the custom is to accompany insults and cheerful
> suggestions that people fuck off with a few happy smileys. The point of
> this has always eluded me.
a kind of condition handling?
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> If we consider only whether Erik ever went off half-cocked, I would
> have to side with Wade on this. Erik was always the first amongst us
> to identify a troll or dork so it seemed to us as if he were making an
> unprovoked attack, but before it was over it was clear his antagonist
> did have issues. (No, one did not become a troll or dork because of an
> Erik attack.)
I think his message <················@naggum.no> was pretty
unprovoked...Greg Neumann didn't seem like a jerk in that thread, just
someone with a different set of opinions.
I'm pretty sure that your parenthetical aside is possibly incorrect as
well. In another newsgroup I used to frequent there was a fellow a lot
like Naggum: very smart, very friendly in person, very frequently
correct in his factual matter--and absolutely, utterly unpleasant to
people he disagreed with on matters of opinion or fact. Rather than
attempting to persuade in good faith, he'd push and push and push people
until, yes, they started posting emotionally, and then he'd call them
out for their emotional postings.
This boiled down to 'how dare you react as though your buttons have been
pushed after I've been pushing your buttons!' Not really productive
behaviour... There's a reason for the old proverb that one can catch
more flies with honey than with vinegar.
I spent a good deal of time reading a large number of Naggum's posts
this weekend. I think he was a lot like a lot of us technical types:
extremely intelligent, but not terribly socially apt. I'm sorry that
he's dead, and I'm sorry that he stopped posting his valuable posts--but
not sorry that he stopped posting his abuse.
--
If your adversary is badly bunkered, there is no rule against your
standing over him and counting his strokes aloud, but it will be a wise
precaution to arm yourself with the niblick before doing so, so as to
meet him on equal terms. --Horace G. Hutchinson, 1886
Robert Uhl wrote:
> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>> If we consider only whether Erik ever went off half-cocked, I would
>> have to side with Wade on this. Erik was always the first amongst us
>> to identify a troll or dork so it seemed to us as if he were making an
>> unprovoked attack, but before it was over it was clear his antagonist
>> did have issues. (No, one did not become a troll or dork because of an
>> Erik attack.)
>
> I think his message <················@naggum.no> was pretty
> unprovoked...Greg Neumann didn't seem like a jerk in that thread, just
> someone with a different set of opinions.
One swallow doth not an indictment make.
>
> I'm pretty sure that your parenthetical aside is possibly incorrect as
> well.
Well it is incorrect, but only if one worries about precision and that
albatross fell from my neck when I found UseNet.
If you want to get all precise, yeah, it's gray areas all the way down.
Someone who has a bad time with Erik might not have a bad time with the
Dalai Lama. I just do not remember anyone who had a bad time with him
who did not confirm their Erik-independent asinity at other times.
> In another newsgroup I used to frequent there was a fellow a lot
> like Naggum: very smart, very friendly in person, very frequently
> correct in his factual matter--and absolutely, utterly unpleasant to
> people he disagreed with on matters of opinion or fact. Rather than
> attempting to persuade in good faith, he'd push and push and push people
> until, yes, they started posting emotionally, and then he'd call them
> out for their emotional postings.
>
> This boiled down to 'how dare you react as though your buttons have been
> pushed after I've been pushing your buttons!' Not really productive
> behaviour... There's a reason for the old proverb that one can catch
> more flies with honey than with vinegar.
>
> I spent a good deal of time reading a large number of Naggum's posts
> this weekend. I think he was a lot like a lot of us technical types:
> extremely intelligent, but not terribly socially apt. I'm sorry that
> he's dead, and I'm sorry that he stopped posting his valuable posts--but
> not sorry that he stopped posting his abuse.
>
The exciting thing is that no one was forced to read anything he wrote,
just as no one here reads Seamus anymore. But read him we did. Moral
there somewhere.
kt
On 2009-06-22, Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> If we consider only whether Erik ever went off half-cocked, I would
>> have to side with Wade on this. Erik was always the first amongst us
>> to identify a troll or dork so it seemed to us as if he were making an
>> unprovoked attack, but before it was over it was clear his antagonist
>> did have issues. (No, one did not become a troll or dork because of an
>> Erik attack.)
>
> I think his message <················@naggum.no> was pretty
> unprovoked...Greg Neumann didn't seem like a jerk in that thread, just
> someone with a different set of opinions.
Having looked at the thread just now, my conclusion is that Neumann was being a
trolling buffoon, and Naggum pretty much wrote what had to be written,
and then some.
There was lots more headroom for Naggum to be a jerk, which he didn't take
advantage of.
> I'm pretty sure that your parenthetical aside is possibly incorrect as
> well. In another newsgroup I used to frequent there was a fellow a lot
> like Naggum: very smart, very friendly in person, very frequently
> correct in his factual matter--and absolutely, utterly unpleasant to
> people he disagreed with on matters of opinion or fact.
Can you find an instance where Naggum disagreed over a matter of fact,
and he was the one who persisted on the wrong end of the fact stick?
> This boiled down to 'how dare you react as though your buttons have been
> pushed after I've been pushing your buttons!' Not really productive
> behaviour... There's a reason for the old proverb that one can catch
> more flies with honey than with vinegar.
For what reason do we catch flies, and with what intent?
On Usenet, the role of honey is played by sticky pattern matches located in a
kill file.
But we tend to enjoy free-style swatting for a while.
Kaz Kylheku <········@gmail.com> writes:
> Can you find an instance where Naggum disagreed over a matter of fact,
> and he was the one who persisted on the wrong end of the fact stick?
When he had maxed up his flamethrower, he sometimes ignored very simple
facts, even when served very politely to him. Which just shows that he
was really pissed off, and not only "testing the opponent" like he
sometimes claimed. I.e. he was showing a more vulnerable side of himself
than he liked to - which probably pissed him even more off ;-)
Well, I won't say anything more about that. I don't want this to turn
into a stupid flamewar - that's not letting him r.i.p is it?
--
(espen)
On Jun 21, 6:20 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> In article <························@cv.net>,
> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ron Garret wrote:
> > > In article <·························@cv.net>,
> > > Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Ron Garret wrote:
> > >>> In article
> > >>> <····································@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > >>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> On Jun 21, 11:59 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> In article
> > >>>>> <····································@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >>>>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
> > >>>>>> attacked you, you attacked first.
> > >>>>> And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not an unprovoked
> > >>>>> attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it been directed
> > >>>>> at him? Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make sure that there
> > >>>>> was not even a single instance where he attacked first? Would you
> > >>>>> consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack you now in the
> > >>>>> way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
>
> > >>>>> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> > >>>>> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> > >>>>> (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
> > >>>>> -- very little provocation.
>
> > >>>>> Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community *still* spends
> > >>>>> more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead than advancing
> > >>>>> the state of the art in Lisp. What the man truly aspired to has always
> > >>>>> been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
>
> > >>>>> rg
> > >>>> I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.
> > >>> I didn't realize that one was required. So was that supposed to be
> > >>> funny? I'm sorry, but I don't see the humor. Perhaps you'd be so kind
> > >>> as to explain it to me?
> > >> I was wondering the same thing. My guess is your jumping all over the
> > >> word "dweeb". Maybe that was used playfully.
>
> > > I see. It is my impression (and dictionaries confirm) that "dweeb" is
> > > pejorative.
>
> > Don't be a dork. The question is whether the put-down (I looked up
> > pejorative) was playful or earnest. Meanwhile, any good dictionary would
> > characterize dweeb as light-hearted.
>
> I must not have a very good dictionary then. Could maybe recommend one
> for me where I might find the correct definition?
>
> Oh, is "idiot" light-hearted also? Can I call Wade an idiot and expect
> that he would not take offense? Or is there some kind of asymmetric
> rule that makes it light-hearted when he says it but serious when I say
> it? I am genuinely confused by this, and I eagerly await the
> instruction of those who are wiser than I.
Your sarcastic, insincere, play-dumb responses further enshrine,
for many years to come, evidence of the thinly veiled aggression
and insincerity in you that Erik battled against. Erik died, and
yet you remain a living irony and testament to his truth.
KHD
In article
<····································@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 6:20 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > In article <························@cv.net>,
> > Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ron Garret wrote:
> > > > In article <·························@cv.net>,
> > > > Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >> Ron Garret wrote:
> > > >>> In article
> > > >>> <····································@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > >>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >>>> On Jun 21, 11:59 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>> In article
> > > >>>>> <····································@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > >>>>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
> > > >>>>>> attacked you, you attacked first.
> > > >>>>> And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not an
> > > >>>>> unprovoked
> > > >>>>> attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it been
> > > >>>>> directed
> > > >>>>> at him? Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make sure that
> > > >>>>> there
> > > >>>>> was not even a single instance where he attacked first? Would you
> > > >>>>> consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack you now
> > > >>>>> in the
> > > >>>>> way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
> >
> > > >>>>> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> > > >>>>> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck
> > > >>>>> off"
> > > >>>>> (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be
> > > >>>>> charitable
> > > >>>>> -- very little provocation.
> >
> > > >>>>> Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community *still*
> > > >>>>> spends
> > > >>>>> more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead than
> > > >>>>> advancing
> > > >>>>> the state of the art in Lisp. What the man truly aspired to has
> > > >>>>> always
> > > >>>>> been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
> >
> > > >>>>> rg
> > > >>>> I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.
> > > >>> I didn't realize that one was required. So was that supposed to be
> > > >>> funny? I'm sorry, but I don't see the humor. Perhaps you'd be so
> > > >>> kind
> > > >>> as to explain it to me?
> > > >> I was wondering the same thing. My guess is your jumping all over the
> > > >> word "dweeb". Maybe that was used playfully.
> >
> > > > I see. It is my impression (and dictionaries confirm) that "dweeb" is
> > > > pejorative.
> >
> > > Don't be a dork. The question is whether the put-down (I looked up
> > > pejorative) was playful or earnest. Meanwhile, any good dictionary would
> > > characterize dweeb as light-hearted.
> >
> > I must not have a very good dictionary then. Could maybe recommend one
> > for me where I might find the correct definition?
> >
> > Oh, is "idiot" light-hearted also? Can I call Wade an idiot and expect
> > that he would not take offense? Or is there some kind of asymmetric
> > rule that makes it light-hearted when he says it but serious when I say
> > it? I am genuinely confused by this, and I eagerly await the
> > instruction of those who are wiser than I.
>
> Your sarcastic, insincere, play-dumb responses further enshrine,
> for many years to come, evidence of the thinly veiled aggression
> and insincerity in you that Erik battled against. Erik died, and
> yet you remain a living irony and testament to his truth.
At least my aggression is thinly veiled. Erik's aggression was manifest.
BTW, my response was sarcastic because sarcasm can be an effective tool
for unmasking hypocrisy. But it was not insincere.
rg
On Jun 24, 4:16 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> In article
> <····································@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 6:20 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > In article <························@cv.net>,
> > > Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Ron Garret wrote:
> > > > > In article <·························@cv.net>,
> > > > > Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> Ron Garret wrote:
> > > > >>> In article
> > > > >>> <····································@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > >>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>>> On Jun 21, 11:59 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> In article
> > > > >>>>> <····································@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > >>>>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
> > > > >>>>>> attacked you, you attacked first.
> > > > >>>>> And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not an
> > > > >>>>> unprovoked
> > > > >>>>> attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it been
> > > > >>>>> directed
> > > > >>>>> at him? Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make sure that
> > > > >>>>> there
> > > > >>>>> was not even a single instance where he attacked first? Would you
> > > > >>>>> consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack you now
> > > > >>>>> in the
> > > > >>>>> way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
>
> > > > >>>>> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> > > > >>>>> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck
> > > > >>>>> off"
> > > > >>>>> (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be
> > > > >>>>> charitable
> > > > >>>>> -- very little provocation.
>
> > > > >>>>> Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community *still*
> > > > >>>>> spends
> > > > >>>>> more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead than
> > > > >>>>> advancing
> > > > >>>>> the state of the art in Lisp. What the man truly aspired to has
> > > > >>>>> always
> > > > >>>>> been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
>
> > > > >>>>> rg
> > > > >>>> I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.
> > > > >>> I didn't realize that one was required. So was that supposed to be
> > > > >>> funny? I'm sorry, but I don't see the humor. Perhaps you'd be so
> > > > >>> kind
> > > > >>> as to explain it to me?
> > > > >> I was wondering the same thing. My guess is your jumping all over the
> > > > >> word "dweeb". Maybe that was used playfully.
>
> > > > > I see. It is my impression (and dictionaries confirm) that "dweeb" is
> > > > > pejorative.
>
> > > > Don't be a dork. The question is whether the put-down (I looked up
> > > > pejorative) was playful or earnest. Meanwhile, any good dictionary would
> > > > characterize dweeb as light-hearted.
>
> > > I must not have a very good dictionary then. Could maybe recommend one
> > > for me where I might find the correct definition?
>
> > > Oh, is "idiot" light-hearted also? Can I call Wade an idiot and expect
> > > that he would not take offense? Or is there some kind of asymmetric
> > > rule that makes it light-hearted when he says it but serious when I say
> > > it? I am genuinely confused by this, and I eagerly await the
> > > instruction of those who are wiser than I.
>
> > Your sarcastic, insincere, play-dumb responses further enshrine,
> > for many years to come, evidence of the thinly veiled aggression
> > and insincerity in you that Erik battled against. Erik died, and
> > yet you remain a living irony and testament to his truth.
>
> At least my aggression is thinly veiled. Erik's aggression was manifest.
Your words "at least" imply a value judgement; specifically that
your veiled and sarcastic style is "better" than Erik's unveiled
direct style. From this example we can further conclude that you
are self-righteous and judgmental.
> BTW, my response was sarcastic because sarcasm can be an effective tool
> for unmasking hypocrisy. But it was not insincere.
In other words you believe that your use of mockery and ridicule
is justified because it's effective at achieving your goal. Then
I claim you must either allow the same justification for insults
and the other more direct rhetoric such as that employed by Erik
or you must admit that you are yourself a hypocrite.
KHD
In article
<····································@r25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 4:16 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <····································@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > On Jun 21, 6:20 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <························@cv.net>,
> > > > Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Ron Garret wrote:
> > > > > > In article <·························@cv.net>,
> > > > > > Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> Ron Garret wrote:
> > > > > >>> In article
> > > > > >>> <····································@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com
> > > > > >>> >,
> > > > > >>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>>> On Jun 21, 11:59 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> In article
> > > > > >>>>> <····································@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.c
> > > > > >>>>> om>,
> >
> > > > > >>>>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he
> > > > > >>>>>> personally
> > > > > >>>>>> attacked you, you attacked first.
> > > > > >>>>> And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not an
> > > > > >>>>> unprovoked
> > > > > >>>>> attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it been
> > > > > >>>>> directed
> > > > > >>>>> at him? Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make sure
> > > > > >>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>> there
> > > > > >>>>> was not even a single instance where he attacked first? Would
> > > > > >>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>> consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack you
> > > > > >>>>> now
> > > > > >>>>> in the
> > > > > >>>>> way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
> >
> > > > > >>>>> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think
> > > > > >>>>> it's
> > > > > >>>>> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly
> > > > > >>>>> fuck
> > > > > >>>>> off"
> > > > > >>>>> (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be
> > > > > >>>>> charitable
> > > > > >>>>> -- very little provocation.
> >
> > > > > >>>>> Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community *still*
> > > > > >>>>> spends
> > > > > >>>>> more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead than
> > > > > >>>>> advancing
> > > > > >>>>> the state of the art in Lisp. What the man truly aspired to
> > > > > >>>>> has
> > > > > >>>>> always
> > > > > >>>>> been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
> >
> > > > > >>>>> rg
> > > > > >>>> I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.
> > > > > >>> I didn't realize that one was required. So was that supposed to
> > > > > >>> be
> > > > > >>> funny? I'm sorry, but I don't see the humor. Perhaps you'd be
> > > > > >>> so
> > > > > >>> kind
> > > > > >>> as to explain it to me?
> > > > > >> I was wondering the same thing. My guess is your jumping all over
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> word "dweeb". Maybe that was used playfully.
> >
> > > > > > I see. It is my impression (and dictionaries confirm) that "dweeb"
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > pejorative.
> >
> > > > > Don't be a dork. The question is whether the put-down (I looked up
> > > > > pejorative) was playful or earnest. Meanwhile, any good dictionary
> > > > > would
> > > > > characterize dweeb as light-hearted.
> >
> > > > I must not have a very good dictionary then. Could maybe recommend one
> > > > for me where I might find the correct definition?
> >
> > > > Oh, is "idiot" light-hearted also? Can I call Wade an idiot and expect
> > > > that he would not take offense? Or is there some kind of asymmetric
> > > > rule that makes it light-hearted when he says it but serious when I say
> > > > it? I am genuinely confused by this, and I eagerly await the
> > > > instruction of those who are wiser than I.
> >
> > > Your sarcastic, insincere, play-dumb responses further enshrine,
> > > for many years to come, evidence of the thinly veiled aggression
> > > and insincerity in you that Erik battled against. Erik died, and
> > > yet you remain a living irony and testament to his truth.
> >
> > At least my aggression is thinly veiled. Erik's aggression was manifest.
>
> Your words "at least" imply a value judgement; specifically that
> your veiled and sarcastic style is "better" than Erik's unveiled
> direct style. From this example we can further conclude that you
> are self-righteous and judgmental.
Yes, again following Erik's lead. And your point would be...?
> > BTW, my response was sarcastic because sarcasm can be an effective tool
> > for unmasking hypocrisy. But it was not insincere.
>
> In other words you believe that your use of mockery and ridicule
> is justified because it's effective at achieving your goal. Then
> I claim you must either allow the same justification for insults
> and the other more direct rhetoric such as that employed by Erik
> or you must admit that you are yourself a hypocrite.
I am willing to play by either set of rules. My strong preference is to
play by the rules of civilized discourse. But if someone insists on
other rules I can deal with that. What I will not accept is one set of
rules for one side in a debate and a different set of rules for the
other side. *That* is the sort of hypocrisy that I believe is properly
responded to with sarcasm.
rg
On Jun 24, 5:20 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> In article
> <····································@r25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 4:16 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <····································@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 21, 6:20 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article <························@cv.net>,
> > > > > Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Ron Garret wrote:
> > > > > > > In article <·························@cv.net>,
> > > > > > > Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> Ron Garret wrote:
> > > > > > >>> In article
> > > > > > >>> <····································@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com
> > > > > > >>> >,
> > > > > > >>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>>> On Jun 21, 11:59 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> In article
> > > > > > >>>>> <····································@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.c
> > > > > > >>>>> om>,
>
> > > > > > >>>>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>> And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he
> > > > > > >>>>>> personally
> > > > > > >>>>>> attacked you, you attacked first.
> > > > > > >>>>> And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not an
> > > > > > >>>>> unprovoked
> > > > > > >>>>> attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it been
> > > > > > >>>>> directed
> > > > > > >>>>> at him? Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make sure
> > > > > > >>>>> that
> > > > > > >>>>> there
> > > > > > >>>>> was not even a single instance where he attacked first? Would
> > > > > > >>>>> you
> > > > > > >>>>> consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack you
> > > > > > >>>>> now
> > > > > > >>>>> in the
> > > > > > >>>>> way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
>
> > > > > > >>>>> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think
> > > > > > >>>>> it's
> > > > > > >>>>> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly
> > > > > > >>>>> fuck
> > > > > > >>>>> off"
> > > > > > >>>>> (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be
> > > > > > >>>>> charitable
> > > > > > >>>>> -- very little provocation.
>
> > > > > > >>>>> Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community *still*
> > > > > > >>>>> spends
> > > > > > >>>>> more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead than
> > > > > > >>>>> advancing
> > > > > > >>>>> the state of the art in Lisp. What the man truly aspired to
> > > > > > >>>>> has
> > > > > > >>>>> always
> > > > > > >>>>> been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
>
> > > > > > >>>>> rg
> > > > > > >>>> I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.
> > > > > > >>> I didn't realize that one was required. So was that supposed to
> > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > >>> funny? I'm sorry, but I don't see the humor. Perhaps you'd be
> > > > > > >>> so
> > > > > > >>> kind
> > > > > > >>> as to explain it to me?
> > > > > > >> I was wondering the same thing. My guess is your jumping all over
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> word "dweeb". Maybe that was used playfully.
>
> > > > > > > I see. It is my impression (and dictionaries confirm) that "dweeb"
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > pejorative.
>
> > > > > > Don't be a dork. The question is whether the put-down (I looked up
> > > > > > pejorative) was playful or earnest. Meanwhile, any good dictionary
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > characterize dweeb as light-hearted.
>
> > > > > I must not have a very good dictionary then. Could maybe recommend one
> > > > > for me where I might find the correct definition?
>
> > > > > Oh, is "idiot" light-hearted also? Can I call Wade an idiot and expect
> > > > > that he would not take offense? Or is there some kind of asymmetric
> > > > > rule that makes it light-hearted when he says it but serious when I say
> > > > > it? I am genuinely confused by this, and I eagerly await the
> > > > > instruction of those who are wiser than I.
>
> > > > Your sarcastic, insincere, play-dumb responses further enshrine,
> > > > for many years to come, evidence of the thinly veiled aggression
> > > > and insincerity in you that Erik battled against. Erik died, and
> > > > yet you remain a living irony and testament to his truth.
>
> > > At least my aggression is thinly veiled. Erik's aggression was manifest.
>
> > Your words "at least" imply a value judgement; specifically that
> > your veiled and sarcastic style is "better" than Erik's unveiled
> > direct style. From this example we can further conclude that you
> > are self-righteous and judgmental.
>
> Yes, again following Erik's lead.
Fascinating. You claim to be following the lead of a dead man in
conversation he is not participating in (because he is dead). So
it becomes clear that Erik had a profound and enduring impact on
your behavior.
> And your point would be...?
I'm observing and documenting facts for the benefit of those who
are trying to weigh your claims regarding Erik. Specifically the
fact that you utilize an aggressive, self-righteous, judgmental,
sarcastic, insincere style of discourse in pursuit of your aims.
> > > BTW, my response was sarcastic because sarcasm can be an effective tool
> > > for unmasking hypocrisy. But it was not insincere.
>
> > In other words you believe that your use of mockery and ridicule
> > is justified because it's effective at achieving your goal. Then
> > I claim you must either allow the same justification for insults
> > and the other more direct rhetoric such as that employed by Erik
> > or you must admit that you are yourself a hypocrite.
>
> I am willing to play by either set of rules. My strong preference is to
> play by the rules of civilized discourse. But if someone insists on
> other rules I can deal with that. What I will not accept is one set of
> rules for one side in a debate and a different set of rules for the
> other side. *That* is the sort of hypocrisy that I believe is properly
> responded to with sarcasm.
Since this forum is an unmoderated venue one may follow whatever
rules one wishes. Notions such as "insist" and "one set of rules
for one side ..." etc are irrelevant and quite possibly nonsense.
KHD
In article
<····································@v4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 5:20 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <····································@r25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> > Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > On Jun 24, 4:16 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <····································@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 21, 6:20 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article <························@cv.net>,
> > > > > > Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Ron Garret wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article <·························@cv.net>,
> > > > > > > > Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > >> Ron Garret wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> In article
> > > > > > > >>> <····································@r31g2000prh.googlegroups
> > > > > > > >>> .com
> > > > > > > >>> >,
> > > > > > > >>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> On Jun 21, 11:59 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com>
> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>> In article
> > > > > > > >>>>> <····································@y34g2000prb.googlegrou
> > > > > > > >>>>> ps.c
> > > > > > > >>>>> om>,
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>> And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he
> > > > > > > >>>>>> personally
> > > > > > > >>>>>> attacked you, you attacked first.
> > > > > > > >>>>> And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not
> > > > > > > >>>>> an
> > > > > > > >>>>> unprovoked
> > > > > > > >>>>> attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it
> > > > > > > >>>>> been
> > > > > > > >>>>> directed
> > > > > > > >>>>> at him? Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make
> > > > > > > >>>>> sure
> > > > > > > >>>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>>> there
> > > > > > > >>>>> was not even a single instance where he attacked first?
> > > > > > > >>>>> Would
> > > > > > > >>>>> you
> > > > > > > >>>>> consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack
> > > > > > > >>>>> you
> > > > > > > >>>>> now
> > > > > > > >>>>> in the
> > > > > > > >>>>> way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think
> > > > > > > >>>>> it's
> > > > > > > >>>>> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to
> > > > > > > >>>>> "kindly
> > > > > > > >>>>> fuck
> > > > > > > >>>>> off"
> > > > > > > >>>>> (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's
> > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>> charitable
> > > > > > > >>>>> -- very little provocation.
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community
> > > > > > > >>>>> *still*
> > > > > > > >>>>> spends
> > > > > > > >>>>> more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead
> > > > > > > >>>>> than
> > > > > > > >>>>> advancing
> > > > > > > >>>>> the state of the art in Lisp. What the man truly aspired
> > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>> has
> > > > > > > >>>>> always
> > > > > > > >>>>> been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> rg
> > > > > > > >>>> I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.
> > > > > > > >>> I didn't realize that one was required. So was that supposed
> > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > >>> funny? I'm sorry, but I don't see the humor. Perhaps you'd
> > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > >>> so
> > > > > > > >>> kind
> > > > > > > >>> as to explain it to me?
> > > > > > > >> I was wondering the same thing. My guess is your jumping all
> > > > > > > >> over
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> word "dweeb". Maybe that was used playfully.
> >
> > > > > > > > I see. It is my impression (and dictionaries confirm) that
> > > > > > > > "dweeb"
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > pejorative.
> >
> > > > > > > Don't be a dork. The question is whether the put-down (I looked
> > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > pejorative) was playful or earnest. Meanwhile, any good
> > > > > > > dictionary
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > characterize dweeb as light-hearted.
> >
> > > > > > I must not have a very good dictionary then. Could maybe recommend
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > for me where I might find the correct definition?
> >
> > > > > > Oh, is "idiot" light-hearted also? Can I call Wade an idiot and
> > > > > > expect
> > > > > > that he would not take offense? Or is there some kind of
> > > > > > asymmetric
> > > > > > rule that makes it light-hearted when he says it but serious when I
> > > > > > say
> > > > > > it? I am genuinely confused by this, and I eagerly await the
> > > > > > instruction of those who are wiser than I.
> >
> > > > > Your sarcastic, insincere, play-dumb responses further enshrine,
> > > > > for many years to come, evidence of the thinly veiled aggression
> > > > > and insincerity in you that Erik battled against. Erik died, and
> > > > > yet you remain a living irony and testament to his truth.
> >
> > > > At least my aggression is thinly veiled. Erik's aggression was
> > > > manifest.
> >
> > > Your words "at least" imply a value judgement; specifically that
> > > your veiled and sarcastic style is "better" than Erik's unveiled
> > > direct style. From this example we can further conclude that you
> > > are self-righteous and judgmental.
> >
> > Yes, again following Erik's lead.
>
> Fascinating. You claim to be following the lead of a dead man in
> conversation he is not participating in (because he is dead). So
> it becomes clear that Erik had a profound and enduring impact on
> your behavior.
I'm not sure I'd call it "profound." I follow his example when I think
it's appropriate. I don't understand why you think the fact that he's
dead is relevant. Don't you think most people aspire to live their life
in a way that sets an example for people after they are dead?
> > And your point would be...?
>
> I'm observing and documenting facts for the benefit of those who
> are trying to weigh your claims regarding Erik.
Claims? What claims? I don't recall making any claims about Erik. All
I can remember doing is asking a question about him.
> Specifically the
> fact that you utilize an aggressive, self-righteous, judgmental,
> sarcastic, insincere style of discourse in pursuit of your aims.
Yes, when I am dealing with someone who refuses to follow the rules of
civilized discourse.
But (following Erik's example again, at least to a certain extent) what
is it about me that fascinates you so? Why am I so important that you
feel the need to make these observations and document my behavior?
> > > > BTW, my response was sarcastic because sarcasm can be an effective tool
> > > > for unmasking hypocrisy. But it was not insincere.
> >
> > > In other words you believe that your use of mockery and ridicule
> > > is justified because it's effective at achieving your goal. Then
> > > I claim you must either allow the same justification for insults
> > > and the other more direct rhetoric such as that employed by Erik
> > > or you must admit that you are yourself a hypocrite.
> >
> > I am willing to play by either set of rules. My strong preference is to
> > play by the rules of civilized discourse. But if someone insists on
> > other rules I can deal with that. What I will not accept is one set of
> > rules for one side in a debate and a different set of rules for the
> > other side. *That* is the sort of hypocrisy that I believe is properly
> > responded to with sarcasm.
>
> Since this forum is an unmoderated venue one may follow whatever
> rules one wishes. Notions such as "insist" and "one set of rules
> for one side ..." etc are irrelevant and quite possibly nonsense.
I don't mean rules in the sense of enforceable strictures, I mean rules
in the sense of social norms and conventions. Just because this is an
unmoderated forum doesn't mean there aren't rules in that second sense.
This very exchange is manifest proof that there are rules in that second
sense. If you don't think that there is a set of unwritten rules that
I'm violating, why are we having this conversation?
rg
On Jun 24, 8:36 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 5:20 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 24, 4:16 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > > > At least my aggression is thinly veiled. Erik's aggression was
> > > > > manifest.
>
> > > > Your words "at least" imply a value judgement; specifically that
> > > > your veiled and sarcastic style is "better" than Erik's unveiled
> > > > direct style. From this example we can further conclude that you
> > > > are self-righteous and judgmental.
>
> > > Yes, again following Erik's lead.
>
> > Fascinating. You claim to be following the lead of a dead man in
> > conversation he is not participating in (because he is dead). So
> > it becomes clear that Erik had a profound and enduring impact on
> > your behavior.
>
> I'm not sure I'd call it "profound." I follow his example when I think
> it's appropriate. I don't understand why you think the fact that he's
> dead is relevant. Don't you think most people aspire to live their life
> in a way that sets an example for people after they are dead?
Correction, you *claim* to follow Erik's example.
> > > And your point would be...?
>
> > I'm observing and documenting facts for the benefit of those who
> > are trying to weigh your claims regarding Erik.
>
> Claims? What claims? I don't recall making any claims about Erik.
> All I can remember doing is asking a question about him.
Now you demonstrate that you either have a poor memory, or often
play dumb, or are a liar. Below are more than a dozen claims you
made about Erik in this very thread alone:
> I follow [Erik's] example when I think it's appropriate.
> ...
> I never did anything to Erik that Erik did not do to other people.
> ...
> If I did anything to Erik it was to hold up a mirror. It is not
> surprising that he didn't like what he saw. He wasn't the only one.
> ...
> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> with -- let's be charitable -- very little provocation.
> ...
> Erik certainly believed that he was invariably the victim and never the
> aggressor.
> ...
> It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
> his actual contributions would merit.
> ...
> I never said anything to Erik for which I could not
> find precedent in Erik's own writings.
> ...
> The reason Erik despised me was that I modeled my behavior after his.
> ...
> Erik's biggest problem was an inability to seriously consider the
> possibility that he might be wrong.
> ...
> Erik was actually wrong fairly regularly
> ...
> I don't care what label you put on it. Whatever it was, it was the
> result of following Erik's example.
as requested.
> > Specifically the
> > fact that you utilize an aggressive, self-righteous, judgmental,
> > sarcastic, insincere style of discourse in pursuit of your aims.
>
> Yes
Excellent. You admit the qualitative facts of your behavior.
> when I am dealing with someone who refuses to follow the rules of
> civilized discourse.
> But (following Erik's example again, at least to a certain extent) what
> is it about me that fascinates you so? Why am I so important that you
> feel the need to make these observations and document my behavior?
I've already answered thusly:
> > I'm observing and documenting facts for the benefit of those who
> > are trying to weigh your claims regarding Erik.
> > > > > BTW, my response was sarcastic because sarcasm can be an effective tool
> > > > > for unmasking hypocrisy. But it was not insincere.
>
> > > > In other words you believe that your use of mockery and ridicule
> > > > is justified because it's effective at achieving your goal. Then
> > > > I claim you must either allow the same justification for insults
> > > > and the other more direct rhetoric such as that employed by Erik
> > > > or you must admit that you are yourself a hypocrite.
>
> > > I am willing to play by either set of rules. My strong preference is to
> > > play by the rules of civilized discourse. But if someone insists on
> > > other rules I can deal with that. What I will not accept is one set of
> > > rules for one side in a debate and a different set of rules for the
> > > other side. *That* is the sort of hypocrisy that I believe is properly
> > > responded to with sarcasm.
>
> > Since this forum is an unmoderated venue one may follow whatever
> > rules one wishes. Notions such as "insist" and "one set of rules
> > for one side ..." etc are irrelevant and quite possibly nonsense.
>
> I don't mean rules in the sense of enforceable strictures, I mean rules
> in the sense of social norms and conventions. Just because this is an
> unmoderated forum doesn't mean there aren't rules in that second sense.
>
> This very exchange is manifest proof that there are rules in that second
> sense.
Illogical. This exchange proves nothing of the kind.
> If you don't think that there is a set of unwritten rules that
> I'm violating, why are we having this conversation?
I've already answered that question twice. I will try once more.
I'm observing and documenting facts for the benefit of those who
are trying to weigh your claims regarding Erik. Said another way
I'm providing additional context regarding the character of your
rhetorical style to help other observers balance their scales.
KHD
In article
<····································@j14g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > > And your point would be...?
> >
> > > I'm observing and documenting facts for the benefit of those who
> > > are trying to weigh your claims regarding Erik.
> >
> > Claims? What claims? I don't recall making any claims about Erik.
> > All I can remember doing is asking a question about him.
>
> Now you demonstrate that you either have a poor memory, or often
> play dumb, or are a liar. Below are more than a dozen claims you
> made about Erik in this very thread alone:
Ah. I interpreted the phrase "claim about Erik" to mean something
different. In particular, I distinguish making a claim about someone
and expressing an opinion about them. I also distinguish between making
a claim about *someone* versus making a claim about their legacy or
making a claim about a relationship with them.
But you're right. A few of these actually are claims about Erik
(notably the one about him being wrong). So I stand corrected.
As to the truth of the claims themselves, unfortunately, Google Groups
search has been down for the last four days (and still is as I write
this) so I can't do the research I'd need to do to defend them. That's
why I'd been trying to avoid making claims (I failed apparently). But
if you are really interested in trying to weigh my claims we can
reconvene when the record is back on line.
For what it's worth, the reason for my original question was that I had
intended to use the occasion of Erik's passing to go back and do a
comprehensive review of his work, and I wanted to make sure that I knew
its full scope, since he didn't leave a traditional CV from which to
start.
rg
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:30:05 -0700, Ron Garret wrote:
> For what it's worth, the reason for my original question was that I had
> intended to use the occasion of Erik's passing to go back and do a
> comprehensive review of his work, and I wanted to make sure that I knew
> its full scope, since he didn't leave a traditional CV from which to
> start.
You know, I think all this drama about who is and who is not a really
terrible and irredeemably bad person is pretty silly. It's very
predictable primate behavior, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by
it. But it's dumb. Respect for the dead is also a predictable and
irrational primate behavior, but I prefer it, somehow.
I've corresponded with you in the past, though both of us were using
different names back then. Our correspondence was short and to the point,
but it was cordial. So I have no desire to point a finger at you and say
"bad man!"
But I think you ought to reflect a bit on your interactions with Erik.
Yes, he was really over the top in some cases. But the thing is- you
weren't a newbie to c.l.l. You knew what Erik was, but you provoked him
anyway. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that you liked it
when Erik went ballistic.
Look, I have a lot of respect for Erik, but I also think he was a pretty
deeply disturbed guy. I understand why newbies who posted dumb shit to
c.l.l. might be pretty offended by his responses- they were
disproportionate. They should have just ignored the insults, but primates
suck at that. What I don't understand is why c.l.l veterans kept
provoking him. I mean- you knew what he was, but you kept egging him on.
Why did you do that, knowing that he was a bit off?
I mean- I'm not pointing a finger at you and saying "bad man." I'm sure
you're a nice guy, and my very limited interactions with you have been
very civil. But I don't get why you felt the need to provoke Erik as much
as you did.
In article <············@news.eternal-september.org>,
Duncan <··································@togivemyaddressout.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:30:05 -0700, Ron Garret wrote:
>
> > For what it's worth, the reason for my original question was that I had
> > intended to use the occasion of Erik's passing to go back and do a
> > comprehensive review of his work, and I wanted to make sure that I knew
> > its full scope, since he didn't leave a traditional CV from which to
> > start.
>
> You know, I think all this drama about who is and who is not a really
> terrible and irredeemably bad person is pretty silly. It's very
> predictable primate behavior, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by
> it. But it's dumb. Respect for the dead is also a predictable and
> irrational primate behavior, but I prefer it, somehow.
>
> I've corresponded with you in the past, though both of us were using
> different names back then. Our correspondence was short and to the point,
> but it was cordial. So I have no desire to point a finger at you and say
> "bad man!"
>
> But I think you ought to reflect a bit on your interactions with Erik.
Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, as I've pointed out before, Google Groups
search is down so that's makes it harder to go back and review the
record. (In fact, what I've been working on today is some code to
scrape the Google c.l.l. archive so I can get my own copy and build my
own index.)
> Yes, he was really over the top in some cases. But the thing is- you
> weren't a newbie to c.l.l. You knew what Erik was, but you provoked him
> anyway. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that you liked it
> when Erik went ballistic.
For me to respond to this would lead us deep into a rabbit hole which
will be difficult to escape without access to the record, so it will
have to wait.
rg
On Jun 25, 5:54 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> Duncan <··································@togivemyaddressout.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:30:05 -0700, Ron Garret wrote:
>
> > > For what it's worth, the reason for my original question was that I had
> > > intended to use the occasion of Erik's passing to go back and do a
> > > comprehensive review of his work, and I wanted to make sure that I knew
> > > its full scope, since he didn't leave a traditional CV from which to
> > > start.
>
> > You know, I think all this drama about who is and who is not a really
> > terrible and irredeemably bad person is pretty silly. It's very
> > predictable primate behavior, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by
> > it. But it's dumb. Respect for the dead is also a predictable and
> > irrational primate behavior, but I prefer it, somehow.
>
> > I've corresponded with you in the past, though both of us were using
> > different names back then. Our correspondence was short and to the point,
> > but it was cordial. So I have no desire to point a finger at you and say
> > "bad man!"
>
> > But I think you ought to reflect a bit on your interactions with Erik.
>
> Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, as I've pointed out before, Google Groups
> search is down so that's makes it harder to go back and review the
Then I shall help you. See below.
> record. (In fact, what I've been working on today is some code to
> scrape the Google c.l.l. archive so I can get my own copy and build my
> own index.)
As a test case, make sure the code correctly finds the origin of
the downward spiral between you and Erik:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/tree/browse_frm/thread/3531e0c56736bc70/2ff6104137373ad3#doc_bddf7bdcb9ec383f
Ie a thread were you demonstrated the same qualitative behaviors
we've carefully documented and agreed on here and then topped it
off by falsely accusing Erik of "continued comparison of Microsoft
to the Nazis".
One of Erik's responses
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/bef3ea57d2dd4110
seems to size up your tendencies fairly accurately; for example,
he notes your tendency to make factual errors, about what people
write, even about what you yourself write, even in the very same
thread. Just as you did here when you claimed you made no claims
about Erik. Below is and excerpt from that response that answers
you very well in his own words and is quite prophetic.
KHD
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Erann Gat wrote:
> > I said you compared Microsoft to the *Nazis*.
>
> no, Erann, what I actually did was comparing their propaganda machines,
> and I went out of my way to make it very hard for any morally upright
> person to think I compared Microsoft to Nazis.
> as an aside here, how come you don't obey your own style guide and see
> that a valid issue with your statement above is very much like this:
>
> > Not, "In my opinion you are wrong," nor, "My view of people is
> > different," but "in *fact* wrong."
>
> you make claims about what _I_ do, Erann, even when I object to it.
> barring insanity on your part, which I see no evidence of yet, you must
> be doing this on purpose. you object to statements of fact which you do
> not agree with, not because they are wrong, but because they are
> statements of fact. yet you make statements of fact yourself, without
> the "in my opinion" crap you want from me. why is there one law for
> Erann Gat and one law for me, Erann? is it because it would be a little
> too hard for you to live by your _own_ laws, but a lot easier on _you_ if
> everybody else did? you used the term "hypocritical blowhard". it's a
> very good term, Erann, and I think you are the best person to use it.
>
> > Granted, you did not use the word "Holocaust."
>
> have you not noticed how many factual errors you have made on your way to
> reach the conclusions that lead to your accusations, Erann? your fantasy
> is the culprit here, not me or anything I _actually_ said or did.
>
> > But I did, and I'll use it again.
>
> I'm sure you will, and it will make you even more enraged and prove again
> and again and again that you are dead set on believing your own lies,
> which I will reject as long as you present them as the truth they aren't.
> "Isn't it funny how people keep falling for Bill's lies?" no, it isn't
> funny: people like you will believe any lies if it serves your purposes.
>
> _I'm_ offended by people who have to _invent_ accusations towards others:
> they have exactly _zero_ credibility until all false accusations are duly
> and completely retracted, otherwise they should be punished severely for
> making them. fortunately, most court systems around the world agree with
> me on this issue: those who make up what they want their victims to be
> guilty of are themselves punished for this injustice, in some legal
> system _very_ severely. making false and hurtful claims about others is
> punishable by law in the United States and the rest of the Western world,
> and people are sometimes rewarded very large sums of money for the damage
> that has been done by those who use such tactics.
>
> you, Erann Gat, make the incredibly unintelligent mistake of confusing
> what you feel with what I did, and then you make the second incredibly
> unintelligent mistake of _saying_ that I did what you feel. since you
> don't see this yourself, but still admit to a number of mistakes that
> lead right up to the conclusion that you can't keep your fantasy world
> from the real world, what needs to be done to you is to make you realize
> that _you_ are the evil person in this setting for being so careless
> about the truth in your accusations.
>
> it was false accusations, Erann Gat, that were at the core of the inhuman
> atrocities to which you object: the Holocaust. the Jews were blamed for
> all sorts of evil and all sorts of problems, people believed these false
> accusations and that the final solution would be to get rid of them. now
> you're doing exactly the same: you _invent_ your accusations, and portray
> others in the image of your own mind. _you_ are an evil man, Erann Gat.
>
> I'll repeat this: Joseph Goebbels' theories of successful propaganda have
> been studied and they are valid regardless of which despicable horror of
> a purpose to which they were once put, and they are employed _today_, by
> every ad agency which uses entertainment to sell goods or motivate people
> to favor causes or political parties. Goebbels' fundamental insight was
> precisely that entertainment is the most efficient vehicle to make people
> verbalize and consciously grasp otherwise unstated beliefs and attitudes.
> the unwillingness to understand this, and why it was so very successfully
> employed in Germany at the end of World War II _by_ the Nazis, only means
> that one must believe that knowledge itself can be tainted by how it has
> been used and how it was discovered. the past, however, is the past, and
> it cannot be changed -- all we can ever do with the past is to learn from
> it. what _can_ be changed is the future and the more we know of what
> caused history to take the shape it did, the better prepared we are to
> prevent its undesirable developments from repeating. those who deny
> themselves access to knowledge gained at the hands of evil, are more
> likely to cause evil to rise again in a subtly different form. evil, to
> be fought, _must_ be understood. those who do not understand evil are
> the ones who will most likely go along with it again in a form they don't
> recognize, just as they did with Goebble's propaganda and just as they do
> if they believe any other propagandist who uses his insight into shaping
> the beliefs of the masses. and that means you, Erann Gat, who believe
> the best current propagandist of the West, and who revel in the use of
> false accusations yourself.
>
> I'm sure you will continue to lie to yourself and to others, Erann. I'm
> sure you will continue to spread your false accusations against me. I'm
> sure you will "grant" that I have never _actually_ said anything of which
> you accuse me, yet will never make the connection that it is all in your
> mind, exactly the same way some people get the wrong idea that somebody's
> race or creed or sexual orientation or handicap is at fault for their bad
> actions, indeed _make_ them bad people, and will go after others of the
> same race or creed or sexual orientation or handicap and kill them, as
> people of minds like yours have done in the past.
>
> I'll venture an explanation that I have reason to believe is correct
> because I have come across your kind a little too often: the reason you
> get so upset about this is that you know that this modus operandi has
> _not_ been excised in your behavior -- you still think false accusations
> are valid means of attacking an opponent. I know exactly what causes
> people like you to act the way they do: the belief that if enough people
> believe a false accusation, it becomes true, and that if you can spread
> the word enough, your false accusation will be believed by enough people
> to cause the _victim_ of your lies and your complete disregard for truth
> and justice to suffer. the American version of this is the lynch mob:
> never mind whether the person was _actually_ guilty, all it took was one
> guy like Erann Gat to make a very impassioned statement that somebody had
> done something very bad, and the easily impressionable masses took it
> from there. but only extremely evil people engage in such activities.
>
> since I expect you to continue on your quest, and since I fully expect
> you to continue to be offended by your very own mental images and blame
> me for them in an ever escalating series of misrepresentations and
> purposeful distortions of the truth, I am prepared to take legal action
> against you if you continue. I hope you understand what I'm saying and
> that you don't invent something else that you claim I have said. you are
> in the wrong here for making your false accusations about what I have
> said and done. you are forever free to react any way you want, but you
> are _not_ free to claim that I have said or done that which I have not.
>
> a person of reasonably moral stature would have wanted to understand, to
> make sure his feelings of immense offense were based in reality, to ask
> for explanations and to explain his reaction, instead of lying about what
> another person has said. a person with a _constructive_ goal would have
> objected to _parts_ of an expression while still getting the actual point
> and purpose of making it, while a person with no constructive goal at all
> would latch onto that which could cause the most damage, especially if it
> weren't even true, as that would cause the accused to defend himself
> against wild and false accusations, which in some deranged people's minds
> is _itself_ evidence of _some_ wrong-doing. you can clearly identify an
> evil person by how they make and enjoy the effects of false accusations,
> and how they react to rejections of their accusations: they invent even
> _more_ accusations, in order to get others to believe them. that's when
> you know somebody is lying through their teeth and are actually aware of
> it themselves. as understanding spreads, accusations tend to diminish.
> as evil people fail to get what they want, accusations only escalate.
> anyone who has wasted his time reading our "exchange" knows that I have
> _objected_ to your incredibly tasteless accusations, only to be faced
> with even worse accusations from you. if there had been any truth to
> what you say, Erann, any truth at all, you would have been able to
> respond rationally to my objections to your claims, but instead, you have
> decided to make things even worse. the last person to do something a
> little like this, only a lot less intense, actually apologized publicly.
> I don't know how useful apologies are, as I'm much more interested in
> understanding why some people can't be satisified with the facts and
> attack me for what I actually do instead of having to invent all sorts of
> incredible bullshit for which to attack me, and why it doesn't help to
> tell them that they're exaggerating so much that there's no point in even
> _trying_ to sort out what they are _actually_ reacting to. on the other
> hand, it has been said that if you say something of importance, there
> will always be some people who hate you for it.
>
> I think I've said all that needs to be said in answer to the Erann Gat
> phenomenon. sorry about the length.
>
> #:Erik
In article
<····································@j14g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 5:54 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > Duncan <··································@togivemyaddressout.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:30:05 -0700, Ron Garret wrote:
> >
> > > > For what it's worth, the reason for my original question was that I had
> > > > intended to use the occasion of Erik's passing to go back and do a
> > > > comprehensive review of his work, and I wanted to make sure that I knew
> > > > its full scope, since he didn't leave a traditional CV from which to
> > > > start.
> >
> > > You know, I think all this drama about who is and who is not a really
> > > terrible and irredeemably bad person is pretty silly. It's very
> > > predictable primate behavior, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by
> > > it. But it's dumb. Respect for the dead is also a predictable and
> > > irrational primate behavior, but I prefer it, somehow.
> >
> > > I've corresponded with you in the past, though both of us were using
> > > different names back then. Our correspondence was short and to the point,
> > > but it was cordial. So I have no desire to point a finger at you and say
> > > "bad man!"
> >
> > > But I think you ought to reflect a bit on your interactions with Erik.
> >
> > Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, as I've pointed out before, Google Groups
> > search is down so that's makes it harder to go back and review the
>
> Then I shall help you. See below.
>
> > record. (In fact, what I've been working on today is some code to
> > scrape the Google c.l.l. archive so I can get my own copy and build my
> > own index.)
>
> As a test case, make sure the code correctly finds the origin of
> the downward spiral between you and Erik:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/tree/browse_frm/thread/3531e0c56
> 736bc70/2ff6104137373ad3#doc_bddf7bdcb9ec383f
>
> Ie a thread were you demonstrated the same qualitative behaviors
> we've carefully documented and agreed on here and then topped it
> off by falsely accusing Erik of "continued comparison of Microsoft
> to the Nazis".
>
> One of Erik's responses
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/bef3ea57d2dd4110
>
> seems to size up your tendencies fairly accurately; for example,
> he notes your tendency to make factual errors, about what people
> write, even about what you yourself write, even in the very same
> thread. Just as you did here when you claimed you made no claims
> about Erik. Below is and excerpt from that response that answers
> you very well in his own words and is quite prophetic.
Yes, I remember this well. This very thread was the subject of our
conversation when Erik and I met in person. At that meeting he
eventually conceded that I was right and he was wrong. I think there
may even be a record of that concession somewhere, but since Google
search is down... (How did you find this?)
rg
On Jun 25, 9:20 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 5:54 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > Duncan <··································@togivemyaddressout.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:30:05 -0700, Ron Garret wrote:
>
> > > > > For what it's worth, the reason for my original question was that I had
> > > > > intended to use the occasion of Erik's passing to go back and do a
> > > > > comprehensive review of his work, and I wanted to make sure that I knew
> > > > > its full scope, since he didn't leave a traditional CV from which to
> > > > > start.
>
> > > > You know, I think all this drama about who is and who is not a really
> > > > terrible and irredeemably bad person is pretty silly. It's very
> > > > predictable primate behavior, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by
> > > > it. But it's dumb. Respect for the dead is also a predictable and
> > > > irrational primate behavior, but I prefer it, somehow.
>
> > > > I've corresponded with you in the past, though both of us were using
> > > > different names back then. Our correspondence was short and to the point,
> > > > but it was cordial. So I have no desire to point a finger at you and say
> > > > "bad man!"
>
> > > > But I think you ought to reflect a bit on your interactions with Erik.
>
> > > Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, as I've pointed out before, Google Groups
> > > search is down so that's makes it harder to go back and review the
>
> > Then I shall help you. See below.
>
> > > record. (In fact, what I've been working on today is some code to
> > > scrape the Google c.l.l. archive so I can get my own copy and build my
> > > own index.)
>
> > As a test case, make sure the code correctly finds the origin of
> > the downward spiral between you and Erik:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/tree/browse_frm/thread/...
> > 736bc70/2ff6104137373ad3#doc_bddf7bdcb9ec383f
>
> > Ie a thread were you demonstrated the same qualitative behaviors
> > we've carefully documented and agreed on here and then topped it
> > off by falsely accusing Erik of "continued comparison of Microsoft
> > to the Nazis".
>
> > One of Erik's responses
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/bef3ea57d2dd4110
>
> > seems to size up your tendencies fairly accurately; for example,
> > he notes your tendency to make factual errors, about what people
> > write, even about what you yourself write, even in the very same
> > thread. Just as you did here when you claimed you made no claims
> > about Erik. Below is and excerpt from that response that answers
> > you very well in his own words and is quite prophetic.
>
> Yes, I remember this well. This very thread was the subject of our
> conversation when Erik and I met in person. At that meeting he
Do you also agree that thread was the origin of acrimony between
you and Erik?
> eventually conceded that I was right and he was wrong. I think there
What precisely do you claim he conceded? Something about MS-DOS?
> may even be a record of that concession somewhere, but since Google
> search is down... (How did you find this?)
I remembered that thread and your fulfillment of Godwin's Law. I
located it with Google search which is working just fine for me.
KHD
In article
<····································@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 9:20 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > On Jun 25, 5:54 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > > Duncan <··································@togivemyaddressout.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:30:05 -0700, Ron Garret wrote:
> >
> > > > > > For what it's worth, the reason for my original question was that I
> > > > > > had
> > > > > > intended to use the occasion of Erik's passing to go back and do a
> > > > > > comprehensive review of his work, and I wanted to make sure that I
> > > > > > knew
> > > > > > its full scope, since he didn't leave a traditional CV from which
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > start.
> >
> > > > > You know, I think all this drama about who is and who is not a really
> > > > > terrible and irredeemably bad person is pretty silly. It's very
> > > > > predictable primate behavior, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised
> > > > > by
> > > > > it. But it's dumb. Respect for the dead is also a predictable and
> > > > > irrational primate behavior, but I prefer it, somehow.
> >
> > > > > I've corresponded with you in the past, though both of us were using
> > > > > different names back then. Our correspondence was short and to the
> > > > > point,
> > > > > but it was cordial. So I have no desire to point a finger at you and
> > > > > say
> > > > > "bad man!"
> >
> > > > > But I think you ought to reflect a bit on your interactions with
> > > > > Erik.
> >
> > > > Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, as I've pointed out before, Google Groups
> > > > search is down so that's makes it harder to go back and review the
> >
> > > Then I shall help you. See below.
> >
> > > > record. (In fact, what I've been working on today is some code to
> > > > scrape the Google c.l.l. archive so I can get my own copy and build my
> > > > own index.)
> >
> > > As a test case, make sure the code correctly finds the origin of
> > > the downward spiral between you and Erik:
> >
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/tree/browse_frm/thread/...
> > > 736bc70/2ff6104137373ad3#doc_bddf7bdcb9ec383f
> >
> > > Ie a thread were you demonstrated the same qualitative behaviors
> > > we've carefully documented and agreed on here and then topped it
> > > off by falsely accusing Erik of "continued comparison of Microsoft
> > > to the Nazis".
> >
> > > One of Erik's responses
> >
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/bef3ea57d2dd4110
> >
> > > seems to size up your tendencies fairly accurately; for example,
> > > he notes your tendency to make factual errors, about what people
> > > write, even about what you yourself write, even in the very same
> > > thread. Just as you did here when you claimed you made no claims
> > > about Erik. Below is and excerpt from that response that answers
> > > you very well in his own words and is quite prophetic.
> >
> > Yes, I remember this well. This very thread was the subject of our
> > conversation when Erik and I met in person. At that meeting he
>
> Do you also agree that thread was the origin of acrimony between
> you and Erik?
Probably. I'd have to check. My memory isn't *that* good.
> > eventually conceded that I was right and he was wrong. I think there
>
> What precisely do you claim he conceded? Something about MS-DOS?
That's a long story. But no, it wasn't about MS-DOS. It's much more
complicated than that.
> > may even be a record of that concession somewhere, but since Google
> > search is down... (How did you find this?)
>
> I remembered that thread and your fulfillment of Godwin's Law. I
> located it with Google search which is working just fine for me.
That's interesting.
Knowing this, I did a little more experimenting, and it seems I've
stumbled on a bug in Google Groups search. If I do this:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10
&scoring=&lr=&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_min
y=1981&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2001&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uautho
rs=erik+naggum&safe=off
which is a search for all articles by Erik Naggum in any newsgroup
between 1981 and 2001 I get a single result. If I change the start date
to 1991 I get 1500+ results.
OK, let me go do a little homework.
rg
In article <·······························@news.albasani.net>,
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
>
> Knowing this, I did a little more experimenting, and it seems I've
> stumbled on a bug in Google Groups search. If I do this:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10
> &scoring=&lr=&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_min
> y=1981&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2001&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uautho
> rs=erik+naggum&safe=off
>
> which is a search for all articles by Erik Naggum in any newsgroup
> between 1981 and 2001 I get a single result. If I change the start date
> to 1991 I get 1500+ results.
>
> OK, let me go do a little homework.
No good. The results seem totally random. I'm back to waiting until
this gets fixed. (My attempt to scrape the articles ran afoul of
Google's anti-bot measures, which are surprisingly effective.)
rg
On Jun 26, 12:22 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 9:20 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 25, 5:54 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > > > Duncan <··································@togivemyaddressout.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:30:05 -0700, Ron Garret wrote:
>
> > > > > > > For what it's worth, the reason for my original question was that I
> > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > intended to use the occasion of Erik's passing to go back and do a
> > > > > > > comprehensive review of his work, and I wanted to make sure that I
> > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > its full scope, since he didn't leave a traditional CV from which
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > start.
>
> > > > > > You know, I think all this drama about who is and who is not a really
> > > > > > terrible and irredeemably bad person is pretty silly. It's very
> > > > > > predictable primate behavior, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > it. But it's dumb. Respect for the dead is also a predictable and
> > > > > > irrational primate behavior, but I prefer it, somehow.
>
> > > > > > I've corresponded with you in the past, though both of us were using
> > > > > > different names back then. Our correspondence was short and to the
> > > > > > point,
> > > > > > but it was cordial. So I have no desire to point a finger at you and
> > > > > > say
> > > > > > "bad man!"
>
> > > > > > But I think you ought to reflect a bit on your interactions with
> > > > > > Erik.
>
> > > > > Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, as I've pointed out before, Google Groups
> > > > > search is down so that's makes it harder to go back and review the
>
> > > > Then I shall help you. See below.
>
> > > > > record. (In fact, what I've been working on today is some code to
> > > > > scrape the Google c.l.l. archive so I can get my own copy and build my
> > > > > own index.)
>
> > > > As a test case, make sure the code correctly finds the origin of
> > > > the downward spiral between you and Erik:
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/tree/browse_frm/thread/...
> > > > 736bc70/2ff6104137373ad3#doc_bddf7bdcb9ec383f
>
> > > > Ie a thread were you demonstrated the same qualitative behaviors
> > > > we've carefully documented and agreed on here and then topped it
> > > > off by falsely accusing Erik of "continued comparison of Microsoft
> > > > to the Nazis".
>
> > > > One of Erik's responses
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/bef3ea57d2dd4110
>
> > > > seems to size up your tendencies fairly accurately; for example,
> > > > he notes your tendency to make factual errors, about what people
> > > > write, even about what you yourself write, even in the very same
> > > > thread. Just as you did here when you claimed you made no claims
> > > > about Erik. Below is and excerpt from that response that answers
> > > > you very well in his own words and is quite prophetic.
>
> > > Yes, I remember this well. This very thread was the subject of our
> > > conversation when Erik and I met in person. At that meeting he
>
> > Do you also agree that thread was the origin of acrimony between
> > you and Erik?
>
> Probably. I'd have to check. My memory isn't *that* good.
>
> > > eventually conceded that I was right and he was wrong. I think there
>
> > What precisely do you claim he conceded? Something about MS-DOS?
>
> That's a long story. But no, it wasn't about MS-DOS. It's much more
> complicated than that.
It sounds like that may perhaps be a "positive" story. Would you
be willing to share your recollection of the meeting with us?
KHD
In article
<····································@j14g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 12:22 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > On Jun 25, 9:20 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > > Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 25, 5:54 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Duncan <··································@togivemyaddressout.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:30:05 -0700, Ron Garret wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > For what it's worth, the reason for my original question was
> > > > > > > > that I
> > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > intended to use the occasion of Erik's passing to go back and
> > > > > > > > do a
> > > > > > > > comprehensive review of his work, and I wanted to make sure
> > > > > > > > that I
> > > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > its full scope, since he didn't leave a traditional CV from
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > start.
> >
> > > > > > > You know, I think all this drama about who is and who is not a
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > terrible and irredeemably bad person is pretty silly. It's very
> > > > > > > predictable primate behavior, so I suppose I shouldn't be
> > > > > > > surprised
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > it. But it's dumb. Respect for the dead is also a predictable and
> > > > > > > irrational primate behavior, but I prefer it, somehow.
> >
> > > > > > > I've corresponded with you in the past, though both of us were
> > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > different names back then. Our correspondence was short and to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > point,
> > > > > > > but it was cordial. So I have no desire to point a finger at you
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > say
> > > > > > > "bad man!"
> >
> > > > > > > But I think you ought to reflect a bit on your interactions with
> > > > > > > Erik.
> >
> > > > > > Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, as I've pointed out before, Google
> > > > > > Groups
> > > > > > search is down so that's makes it harder to go back and review the
> >
> > > > > Then I shall help you. See below.
> >
> > > > > > record. (In fact, what I've been working on today is some code to
> > > > > > scrape the Google c.l.l. archive so I can get my own copy and build
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > own index.)
> >
> > > > > As a test case, make sure the code correctly finds the origin of
> > > > > the downward spiral between you and Erik:
> >
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/tree/browse_frm/thread/..
> > > > >.
> > > > > 736bc70/2ff6104137373ad3#doc_bddf7bdcb9ec383f
> >
> > > > > Ie a thread were you demonstrated the same qualitative behaviors
> > > > > we've carefully documented and agreed on here and then topped it
> > > > > off by falsely accusing Erik of "continued comparison of Microsoft
> > > > > to the Nazis".
> >
> > > > > One of Erik's responses
> >
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/bef3ea57d2dd4110
> >
> > > > > seems to size up your tendencies fairly accurately; for example,
> > > > > he notes your tendency to make factual errors, about what people
> > > > > write, even about what you yourself write, even in the very same
> > > > > thread. Just as you did here when you claimed you made no claims
> > > > > about Erik. Below is and excerpt from that response that answers
> > > > > you very well in his own words and is quite prophetic.
> >
> > > > Yes, I remember this well. This very thread was the subject of our
> > > > conversation when Erik and I met in person. At that meeting he
> >
> > > Do you also agree that thread was the origin of acrimony between
> > > you and Erik?
> >
> > Probably. I'd have to check. My memory isn't *that* good.
> >
> > > > eventually conceded that I was right and he was wrong. I think there
> >
> > > What precisely do you claim he conceded? Something about MS-DOS?
> >
> > That's a long story. But no, it wasn't about MS-DOS. It's much more
> > complicated than that.
>
> It sounds like that may perhaps be a "positive" story.
It is. (Well, mostly.)
> Would you
> be willing to share your recollection of the meeting with us?
I was planning to. But it's a long, complicated story and I want to
make sure I get it right (one of the things I've learned over the years
is that when dealing with anything related to Erik it's really important
to get things right) and at the moment I'm being stymied in my efforts
to consult the historical record by an apparent bug in Google Groups
search.
rg
Duncan <··································@togivemyaddressout.com>
writes:
>
> What I don't understand is why c.l.l veterans kept provoking him. I
> mean- you knew what he was, but you kept egging him on. Why did you
> do that, knowing that he was a bit off?
This cartoon says it all:
http://xkcd.com/386/
I was like that when I was younger; it's why I tossled with folks like
Erik, and why _I_ was like him. It was juvenile, but there it is.
--
I used to be convinced that MicroSquish shipped crap because they simply
didn't give a flying fuck as long as the sheep kept buying their shit.
Now, I'm convinced that they really do ship the best products they are
capable of writing, and *that's* tragic. --John C. Randolph, about MS
Duncan wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:30:05 -0700, Ron Garret wrote:
>
>> For what it's worth, the reason for my original question was that I had
>> intended to use the occasion of Erik's passing to go back and do a
>> comprehensive review of his work, and I wanted to make sure that I knew
>> its full scope, since he didn't leave a traditional CV from which to
>> start.
>
> You know, I think all this drama about who is and who is not a really
> terrible and irredeemably bad person is pretty silly. It's very
> predictable primate behavior, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by
> it. But it's dumb. Respect for the dead is also a predictable and
> irrational primate behavior, but I prefer it, somehow.
>
> I've corresponded with you in the past, though both of us were using
> different names back then. Our correspondence was short and to the point,
> but it was cordial. So I have no desire to point a finger at you and say
> "bad man!"
>
> But I think you ought to reflect a bit on your interactions with Erik.
> Yes, he was really over the top in some cases. But the thing is- you
> weren't a newbie to c.l.l. You knew what Erik was, but you provoked him
> anyway. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that you liked it
> when Erik went ballistic.
>
> Look, I have a lot of respect for Erik, but I also think he was a pretty
> deeply disturbed guy. I understand why newbies who posted dumb shit to
> c.l.l. might be pretty offended by his responses- they were
> disproportionate. They should have just ignored the insults, but primates
> suck at that. What I don't understand is why c.l.l veterans kept
> provoking him. I mean- you knew what he was, but you kept egging him on.
> Why did you do that, knowing that he was a bit off?
>
> I mean- I'm not pointing a finger at you and saying "bad man." I'm sure
> you're a nice guy, and my very limited interactions with you have been
> very civil. But I don't get why you felt the need to provoke Erik as much
> as you did.
I do not think Erann had much more control over his behavior than did
Erik, nor was there a conscious intent to bedevil Erik. It was just a
case of two very different people who shared an inability to let go.
kt
In article <·························@cv.net>,
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Duncan wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:30:05 -0700, Ron Garret wrote:
> >
> >> For what it's worth, the reason for my original question was that I had
> >> intended to use the occasion of Erik's passing to go back and do a
> >> comprehensive review of his work, and I wanted to make sure that I knew
> >> its full scope, since he didn't leave a traditional CV from which to
> >> start.
> >
> > You know, I think all this drama about who is and who is not a really
> > terrible and irredeemably bad person is pretty silly. It's very
> > predictable primate behavior, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by
> > it. But it's dumb. Respect for the dead is also a predictable and
> > irrational primate behavior, but I prefer it, somehow.
> >
> > I've corresponded with you in the past, though both of us were using
> > different names back then. Our correspondence was short and to the point,
> > but it was cordial. So I have no desire to point a finger at you and say
> > "bad man!"
> >
> > But I think you ought to reflect a bit on your interactions with Erik.
> > Yes, he was really over the top in some cases. But the thing is- you
> > weren't a newbie to c.l.l. You knew what Erik was, but you provoked him
> > anyway. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that you liked it
> > when Erik went ballistic.
> >
> > Look, I have a lot of respect for Erik, but I also think he was a pretty
> > deeply disturbed guy. I understand why newbies who posted dumb shit to
> > c.l.l. might be pretty offended by his responses- they were
> > disproportionate. They should have just ignored the insults, but primates
> > suck at that. What I don't understand is why c.l.l veterans kept
> > provoking him. I mean- you knew what he was, but you kept egging him on.
> > Why did you do that, knowing that he was a bit off?
> >
> > I mean- I'm not pointing a finger at you and saying "bad man." I'm sure
> > you're a nice guy, and my very limited interactions with you have been
> > very civil. But I don't get why you felt the need to provoke Erik as much
> > as you did.
>
> I do not think Erann had much more control over his behavior than did
> Erik, nor was there a conscious intent to bedevil Erik. It was just a
> case of two very different people who shared an inability to let go.
I think that's very insightful. I've always thought that one of the
main reasons Erik and I didn't get along is that we were too much alike.
One of the big differences between me and Erik is that I recognized this
and he didn't.
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
> In article <·························@cv.net>,
> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Duncan wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:30:05 -0700, Ron Garret wrote:
>>>
>>>> For what it's worth, the reason for my original question was that I had
>>>> intended to use the occasion of Erik's passing to go back and do a
>>>> comprehensive review of his work, and I wanted to make sure that I knew
>>>> its full scope, since he didn't leave a traditional CV from which to
>>>> start.
>>> You know, I think all this drama about who is and who is not a really
>>> terrible and irredeemably bad person is pretty silly. It's very
>>> predictable primate behavior, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by
>>> it. But it's dumb. Respect for the dead is also a predictable and
>>> irrational primate behavior, but I prefer it, somehow.
>>>
>>> I've corresponded with you in the past, though both of us were using
>>> different names back then. Our correspondence was short and to the point,
>>> but it was cordial. So I have no desire to point a finger at you and say
>>> "bad man!"
>>>
>>> But I think you ought to reflect a bit on your interactions with Erik.
>>> Yes, he was really over the top in some cases. But the thing is- you
>>> weren't a newbie to c.l.l. You knew what Erik was, but you provoked him
>>> anyway. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that you liked it
>>> when Erik went ballistic.
>>>
>>> Look, I have a lot of respect for Erik, but I also think he was a pretty
>>> deeply disturbed guy. I understand why newbies who posted dumb shit to
>>> c.l.l. might be pretty offended by his responses- they were
>>> disproportionate. They should have just ignored the insults, but primates
>>> suck at that. What I don't understand is why c.l.l veterans kept
>>> provoking him. I mean- you knew what he was, but you kept egging him on.
>>> Why did you do that, knowing that he was a bit off?
>>>
>>> I mean- I'm not pointing a finger at you and saying "bad man." I'm sure
>>> you're a nice guy, and my very limited interactions with you have been
>>> very civil. But I don't get why you felt the need to provoke Erik as much
>>> as you did.
>> I do not think Erann had much more control over his behavior than did
>> Erik, nor was there a conscious intent to bedevil Erik. It was just a
>> case of two very different people who shared an inability to let go.
>
> I think that's very insightful. I've always thought that one of the
> main reasons Erik and I didn't get along is that we were too much alike.
See Erik. See Erik in grave. See Erik spin.
> One of the big differences between me and Erik is that I recognized this
> and he didn't.
Can I be the tie-breaker? Your commonalities were Lisp and an addiction
to Usenet battle. If you feel a need to augment, please use a
non-destructive function.
kt
On Jun 25, 5:20 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not think Erann had much more control over his behavior than did
> Erik, nor was there a conscious intent to bedevil Erik. It was just a
> case of two very different people who shared an inability to let go.
Erik let go when he left c.l.l., long before he left this earth. It
appears that Erann/Ron cannot let go, and he has illustrated in his
posts in this thread the kind of behavior that set off Erik so many
years ago.
My sense of fair play is offended. I think I'll go read other
threads.
Brad
Brad Lucier wrote:
> On Jun 25, 5:20 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I do not think Erann had much more control over his behavior than did
>> Erik, nor was there a conscious intent to bedevil Erik. It was just a
>> case of two very different people who shared an inability to let go.
>
> Erik let go when he left c.l.l., long before he left this earth.
Fair enough. But that is still an inability to let go, dropping Usenet
altogether because he could deal with Erann/Ron (and I suppose others on
other NGs he frequented).
> It
> appears that Erann/Ron cannot let go, and he has illustrated in his
> posts in this thread the kind of behavior that set off Erik so many
> years ago.
Yes. But it seems he deserves our compassion as much as did Erik. Well,
according to this Far Eastern BS I like so well, everyone deserves our
compassion.
>
> My sense of fair play is offended. I think I'll go read other
> threads.
Good call. Me, I am taking a different tack: my small tribute to Erik
will be not letting Erann feed on his carcass. I think we owe both of
them that much.
kt
On 2009-06-21 23:20:47 +0100, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
> I must not have a very good dictionary then. Could maybe recommend one
> for me where I might find the correct definition?
>
> Oh, is "idiot" light-hearted also? Can I call Wade an idiot and expect
> that he would not take offense?
Curiously, I half-wrote and then decided not to post an article where I
tried to make some clever metacircular comment about people without
senses of humour. I didn't post it because, well, it was obviously too
silly. But clearly not so.
Just in case: yes, you can call people idiots and it can be
light-hearted. I do this all the time.
May be it's a US/European thing.
In article <·······················@tfeborg>,
Tim Bradshaw <···@tfeb.org> wrote:
> On 2009-06-21 23:20:47 +0100, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
>
> > I must not have a very good dictionary then. Could maybe recommend one
> > for me where I might find the correct definition?
> >
> > Oh, is "idiot" light-hearted also? Can I call Wade an idiot and expect
> > that he would not take offense?
>
> Curiously, I half-wrote and then decided not to post an article where I
> tried to make some clever metacircular comment about people without
> senses of humour. I didn't post it because, well, it was obviously too
> silly. But clearly not so.
>
> Just in case: yes, you can call people idiots and it can be
> light-hearted. I do this all the time.
>
> May be it's a US/European thing.
No, I certainly believe that it's possible in general to call someone an
idiot in a light-hearted way. We have smileys to help cue the reader
when this is the intent. But my question was about one particular
instance, and we have an answer from the author himself: it was intended
to be "deadly serious."
rg
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> We have smileys to help cue the reader when this is the intent.
Smileys are an insult.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (················@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
>> We have smileys to help cue the reader when this is the intent.
>
> Smileys are an insult.
Spoken like a True Finn!
clt
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> I see. It is my impression (and dictionaries confirm) that "dweeb" is
> pejorative. And there are no smileys or other emoticons to indicate
> that the word was being used in anything other than its pejorative
> sense.
Smileys are for dweebs and idiots, for humourless gits.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (················@uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
On Jun 21, 12:42 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> In article
> <····································@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 11:59 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <····································@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
> > > > attacked you, you attacked first.
>
> > > And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not an unprovoked
> > > attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it been directed
> > > at him? Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make sure that there
> > > was not even a single instance where he attacked first? Would you
> > > consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack you now in the
> > > way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
>
> > > This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> > > acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> > > (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
> > > -- very little provocation.
>
> > > Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community *still* spends
> > > more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead than advancing
> > > the state of the art in Lisp. What the man truly aspired to has always
> > > been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
>
> > > rg
>
> > I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.
>
> I didn't realize that one was required. So was that supposed to be
> funny? I'm sorry, but I don't see the humor. Perhaps you'd be so kind
> as to explain it to me?
>
> rg
No, it was not meant to be funny. That was deadly serious.
Why would I try to be funny when the straight-man is even funnier?
Wade
In article
<····································@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 12:42�pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <····································@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > �Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 21, 11:59�am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <····································@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > �Wade <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
> > > > > attacked you, you attacked first.
> >
> > > > And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not an unprovoked
> > > > attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it been directed
> > > > at him? �Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make sure that there
> > > > was not even a single instance where he attacked first? �Would you
> > > > consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack you now in the
> > > > way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
> >
> > > > This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> > > > acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> > > > (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
> > > > -- very little provocation.
> >
> > > > Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community *still* spends
> > > > more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead than advancing
> > > > the state of the art in Lisp. �What the man truly aspired to has always
> > > > been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
> >
> > > > rg
> >
> > > I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.
> >
> > I didn't realize that one was required. �So was that supposed to be
> > funny? �I'm sorry, but I don't see the humor. �Perhaps you'd be so kind
> > as to explain it to me?
> >
> > rg
>
> No, it was not meant to be funny. That was deadly serious.
Deadly serious? That's even more serious than I thought.
Tell me this then: when someone disagrees with you, do you consider
calling them an idiot an appropriate response? Is that the model you
would like others to use in their interactions with you on this
newsgroup?
rg
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
> -- very little provocation.
Ron, I'm shocked. Someone really told you in a public forum to "fuck off"?
Terrible indeed. Although you asked only this honest question (and were
not satisfied with the answers, played dumb, and asked it again):
"I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"
Yes, such foul speech should really be avoided.
Nicolas
Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> writes:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
>> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
>> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
>> (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
>> -- very little provocation.
>
> Although you asked only this honest question (and were not satisfied
> with the answers, played dumb, and asked it again):
>
> "I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
> so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
> who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
> than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
> rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"
maybe they were a little rant-y (i only remember the high order bits
now), but i recall there being several huge discussions about structure
(eg, consider macros) that where his opinions were insightful.
i do agree thtat rant-y-ness seems/qseemed to turn people off to the words
(whether they agree or not).
\p
In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> > acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> > (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
> > -- very little provocation.
>
> Ron, I'm shocked. Someone really told you in a public forum to "fuck off"?
> Terrible indeed. Although you asked only this honest question (and were
> not satisfied with the answers, played dumb, and asked it again):
>
> "I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
> so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
> who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
> than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
> rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"
I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
he made contributions that I was not aware of. What exactly is wrong
with asking what those might be?
rg
On Jun 22, 10:20 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
> Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > > This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> > > acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> > > (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
> > > -- very little provocation.
>
> > Ron, I'm shocked. Someone really told you in a public forum to "fuck off"?
> > Terrible indeed. Although you asked only this honest question (and were
> > not satisfied with the answers, played dumb, and asked it again):
>
> > "I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
> > so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
> > who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
> > than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
> > rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"
>
> I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
> I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
> his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
> he made contributions that I was not aware of. What exactly is wrong
> with asking what those might be?
>
> rg
I found that I'm in agreement with Erik on several key issues, like
religion, S-expressions vs XML and some distaste towards the rabid
open source movement. However, his thoughts on many of these topics
were hardly original, so I would also like to see what is it about his
prolific posting that made him, in the eyes of his followers
"extremely smart".
On Jun 23, 4:52 am, fft1976 <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 10:20 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
> > Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>
> > > Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > > > This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> > > > acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> > > > (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
> > > > -- very little provocation.
>
> > > Ron, I'm shocked. Someone really told you in a public forum to "fuck off"?
> > > Terrible indeed. Although you asked only this honest question (and were
> > > not satisfied with the answers, played dumb, and asked it again):
>
> > > "I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
> > > so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
> > > who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
> > > than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
> > > rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"
>
> > I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
> > I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
> > his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
> > he made contributions that I was not aware of. What exactly is wrong
> > with asking what those might be?
>
> > rg
>
> I found that I'm in agreement with Erik on several key issues, like
> religion, S-expressions vs XML and some distaste towards the rabid
> open source movement. However, his thoughts on many of these topics
> were hardly original, so I would also like to see what is it about his
> prolific posting that made him, in the eyes of his followers
> "extremely smart".
As Louis Armstrong said; you'll never know.
On Jun 23, 6:42 am, Lars Rune Nøstdal <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 4:52 am, fft1976 <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 10:20 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
> > > Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>
> > > > Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > > > > This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> > > > > acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> > > > > (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
> > > > > -- very little provocation.
>
> > > > Ron, I'm shocked. Someone really told you in a public forum to "fuck off"?
> > > > Terrible indeed. Although you asked only this honest question (and were
> > > > not satisfied with the answers, played dumb, and asked it again):
>
> > > > "I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
> > > > so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
> > > > who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
> > > > than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
> > > > rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"
>
> > > I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
> > > I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
> > > his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
> > > he made contributions that I was not aware of. What exactly is wrong
> > > with asking what those might be?
>
> > > rg
>
> > I found that I'm in agreement with Erik on several key issues, like
> > religion, S-expressions vs XML and some distaste towards the rabid
> > open source movement. However, his thoughts on many of these topics
> > were hardly original, so I would also like to see what is it about his
> > prolific posting that made him, in the eyes of his followers
> > "extremely smart".
>
> As Louis Armstrong said; you'll never know.
Ooh, so sacred, I will never know. That makes you feel so special, the
chosen one, doesn't it?
On Jun 23, 9:44 pm, fft1976 <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 6:42 am, Lars Rune Nøstdal <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 4:52 am, fft1976 <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 10:20 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
> > > > Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>
> > > > > Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > > > > > This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> > > > > > acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> > > > > > (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
> > > > > > -- very little provocation.
>
> > > > > Ron, I'm shocked. Someone really told you in a public forum to "fuck off"?
> > > > > Terrible indeed. Although you asked only this honest question (and were
> > > > > not satisfied with the answers, played dumb, and asked it again):
>
> > > > > "I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
> > > > > so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
> > > > > who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
> > > > > than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
> > > > > rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"
>
> > > > I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
> > > > I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
> > > > his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
> > > > he made contributions that I was not aware of. What exactly is wrong
> > > > with asking what those might be?
>
> > > > rg
>
> > > I found that I'm in agreement with Erik on several key issues, like
> > > religion, S-expressions vs XML and some distaste towards the rabid
> > > open source movement. However, his thoughts on many of these topics
> > > were hardly original, so I would also like to see what is it about his
> > > prolific posting that made him, in the eyes of his followers
> > > "extremely smart".
>
> > As Louis Armstrong said; you'll never know.
>
> Ooh, so sacred, I will never know. That makes you feel so special, the
> chosen one, doesn't it?
I was thinking the same thing about you reading your "question".
On Jun 23, 9:43 pm, Lars Rune Nøstdal <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 9:44 pm, fft1976 <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 6:42 am, Lars Rune Nøstdal <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 23, 4:52 am, fft1976 <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 22, 10:20 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
> > > > > Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > > > > > > This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> > > > > > > acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> > > > > > > (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
> > > > > > > -- very little provocation.
>
> > > > > > Ron, I'm shocked. Someone really told you in a public forum to "fuck off"?
> > > > > > Terrible indeed. Although you asked only this honest question (and were
> > > > > > not satisfied with the answers, played dumb, and asked it again):
>
> > > > > > "I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
> > > > > > so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
> > > > > > who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
> > > > > > than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
> > > > > > rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"
>
> > > > > I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
> > > > > I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
> > > > > his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
> > > > > he made contributions that I was not aware of. What exactly is wrong
> > > > > with asking what those might be?
>
> > > > > rg
>
> > > > I found that I'm in agreement with Erik on several key issues, like
> > > > religion, S-expressions vs XML and some distaste towards the rabid
> > > > open source movement. However, his thoughts on many of these topics
> > > > were hardly original, so I would also like to see what is it about his
> > > > prolific posting that made him, in the eyes of his followers
> > > > "extremely smart".
>
> > > As Louis Armstrong said; you'll never know.
>
> > Ooh, so sacred, I will never know. That makes you feel so special, the
> > chosen one, doesn't it?
>
> I was thinking the same thing about you reading your "question".
That doesn't make any sense. I never claimed any secret "knowledge".
You know what you sound like? Like a religious cult victim (I know
because I've met enough of those in my day)
By the way, am I the only one who thinks that Erik spoke about himself
when he was flaming others? Psychologists have a name for that, but I
forget what it is.
--
The magnitude of the hypocrisy of this unthinking, evil bastard whose
only goal is to feel good about himself defies description by normal
means.
-- Erik Naggum 2002
On Jun 24, 7:56 am, fft1976 <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 9:43 pm, Lars Rune Nøstdal <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 9:44 pm, fft1976 <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 23, 6:42 am, Lars Rune Nøstdal <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 23, 4:52 am, fft1976 <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 22, 10:20 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
> > > > > > Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > > > > > > > This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> > > > > > > > acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> > > > > > > > (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
> > > > > > > > -- very little provocation.
>
> > > > > > > Ron, I'm shocked. Someone really told you in a public forum to "fuck off"?
> > > > > > > Terrible indeed. Although you asked only this honest question (and were
> > > > > > > not satisfied with the answers, played dumb, and asked it again):
>
> > > > > > > "I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
> > > > > > > so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
> > > > > > > who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
> > > > > > > than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
> > > > > > > rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"
>
> > > > > > I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
> > > > > > I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
> > > > > > his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
> > > > > > he made contributions that I was not aware of. What exactly is wrong
> > > > > > with asking what those might be?
>
> > > > > > rg
>
> > > > > I found that I'm in agreement with Erik on several key issues, like
> > > > > religion, S-expressions vs XML and some distaste towards the rabid
> > > > > open source movement. However, his thoughts on many of these topics
> > > > > were hardly original, so I would also like to see what is it about his
> > > > > prolific posting that made him, in the eyes of his followers
> > > > > "extremely smart".
>
> > > > As Louis Armstrong said; you'll never know.
>
> > > Ooh, so sacred, I will never know. That makes you feel so special, the
> > > chosen one, doesn't it?
>
> > I was thinking the same thing about you reading your "question".
>
> That doesn't make any sense. I never claimed any secret "knowledge".
Ok. I can't answer your "question" then.
> You know what you sound like? Like a religious cult victim (I know
> because I've met enough of those in my day)
That's nice.
> By the way, am I the only one who thinks that Erik spoke about himself
> when he was flaming others? Psychologists have a name for that, but I
> forget what it is.
Yeah, they have names for most things.
On 24 June, 06:56, fft1976 <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> By the way, am I the only one who thinks that Erik spoke about himself
> when he was flaming others? Psychologists have a name for that, but I
> forget what it is.
projection
> --
> The magnitude of the hypocrisy of this unthinking, evil bastard whose
> only goal is to feel good about himself defies description by normal
> means.
fft1976 <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> I found that I'm in agreement with Erik on several key issues, like
> religion, S-expressions vs XML and some distaste towards the rabid
> open source movement. However, his thoughts on many of these topics
> were hardly original, so I would also like to see what is it about his
> prolific posting that made him, in the eyes of his followers
> "extremely smart".
The spectacle.
I'm always amazed how scenarists who are not very smart (if they were,
they'd be rocket scientits, no?) can write stories about very smart
people and make they seem really smart (but then, the spectactors
(ie. us) are not so smart either, so how could we know they're really
smart or not?).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
On 23 June, 07:33, ····@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:
> fft1976 <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> > I found that I'm in agreement with Erik on several key issues, like
> > religion, S-expressions vs XML and some distaste towards the rabid
> > open source movement. However, his thoughts on many of these topics
> > were hardly original, so I would also like to see what is it about his
> > prolific posting that made him, in the eyes of his followers
> > "extremely smart".
>
> The spectacle.
>
> I'm always amazed how scenarists who are not very smart (if they were,
> they'd be rocket scientits, no?) can write stories about very smart
> people and make they seem really smart (but then, the spectactors
> (ie. us) are not so smart either, so how could we know they're really
> smart or not?).
I have yet to encounter a movie where a character was depicted as
smart in a convincing manner. I have seen several where the
attempts to depict a character as smart were utterly ludicrous.
The character of Jeff Goldblum in "Independence day" is a prime
example.
--
Who's your mama?
In article
<····································@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Spiros Bousbouras <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 June, 07:33, ····@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> wrote:
> > fft1976 <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> > > I found that I'm in agreement with Erik on several key issues, like
> > > religion, S-expressions vs XML and some distaste towards the rabid
> > > open source movement. However, his thoughts on many of these topics
> > > were hardly original, so I would also like to see what is it about his
> > > prolific posting that made him, in the eyes of his followers
> > > "extremely smart".
> >
> > The spectacle.
> >
> > I'm always amazed how scenarists who are not very smart (if they were,
> > they'd be rocket scientits, no?) can write stories about very smart
> > people and make they seem really smart (but then, the spectactors
> > (ie. us) are not so smart either, so how could we know they're really
> > smart or not?).
>
> I have yet to encounter a movie where a character was depicted as
> smart in a convincing manner. I have seen several where the
> attempts to depict a character as smart were utterly ludicrous.
> The character of Jeff Goldblum in "Independence day" is a prime
> example.
Jodie Foster in "Contact" maybe?
Does MacGuyver count?
rg
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote on Tue, 23 Jun 2009:
> In article <····································@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Spiros Bousbouras <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have yet to encounter a movie where a character was depicted as smart in
>> a convincing manner. I have seen several where the attempts to depict a
>> character as smart were utterly ludicrous.
> Jodie Foster in "Contact" maybe?
> Does MacGuyver count?
Let us not forget Wesley Crusher in Star Trek (TNG).
That boy was a genius.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
This message has been brought to you by the number 5 and the letter F.
I've just had a funny thought. What if Erik Naggum
and Seamus MacRae were posting in the same thread ?
--
A recent statistic has showed the every 10 minutes
someone somewhere is insulting Seamus MacRae.
In article <··············@geddis.org>, Don Geddis <···@geddis.org>
wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote on Tue, 23 Jun 2009:
> > In article
> > <····································@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Spiros
> > Bousbouras <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I have yet to encounter a movie where a character was depicted as smart in
> >> a convincing manner. I have seen several where the attempts to depict a
> >> character as smart were utterly ludicrous.
> > Jodie Foster in "Contact" maybe?
> > Does MacGuyver count?
>
> Let us not forget Wesley Crusher in Star Trek (TNG).
Oh please, do let us forget Wesley Crusher. Pleeeeeeaaase?
;-)
rg
On 23 June, 17:58, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> In article
> <····································@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> Spiros Bousbouras <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 23 June, 07:33, ····@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> > wrote:
> > > fft1976 <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > I found that I'm in agreement with Erik on several key issues, like
> > > > religion, S-expressions vs XML and some distaste towards the rabid
> > > > open source movement. However, his thoughts on many of these topics
> > > > were hardly original, so I would also like to see what is it about his
> > > > prolific posting that made him, in the eyes of his followers
> > > > "extremely smart".
>
> > > The spectacle.
>
> > > I'm always amazed how scenarists who are not very smart (if they were,
> > > they'd be rocket scientits, no?) can write stories about very smart
> > > people and make they seem really smart (but then, the spectactors
> > > (ie. us) are not so smart either, so how could we know they're really
> > > smart or not?).
>
> > I have yet to encounter a movie where a character was depicted as
> > smart in a convincing manner. I have seen several where the
> > attempts to depict a character as smart were utterly ludicrous.
> > The character of Jeff Goldblum in "Independence day" is a prime
> > example.
>
> Jodie Foster in "Contact" maybe?
I don't remember enough details about what Foster did in the movie
to be able to answer this. And since I found the movie ludicrous in
general I'm not willing to rewatch it in order to refresh my
memory.
> Does MacGuyver count?
Only if his contraptions would work in the real world. If they
wouldn't , and I don't think most of them would , then it's an
example of being ludicrous when trying to depict a character as
smart. In fact it could be argued that his refusal to use guns in
the kind of job he was in already counts as stupid. It's easy if
you know in advance that the script writers won't have you killed
but he's supposed to be imitating a real person.
--
Who's your mama?
On Jun 23, 5:21 am, Spiros Bousbouras <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have yet to encounter a movie where a character was depicted as
> smart in a convincing manner.
"Verbal", Kevin Spacey's character in _The Usual Suspects_. Not
technically smart, but a frighteningly brilliant con man.
-- Scott
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:21:11 -0700 (PDT), Spiros Bousbouras <······@gmail.com> said:
> I have yet to encounter a movie where a character was depicted as
> smart in a convincing manner.
May I offer the following characters:
George Smiley and Bill Haydon.
Eli Cross (somewhat more debatably, perhaps).
---Vassil.
On 24 June, 02:41, Vassil Nikolov <········@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:21:11 -0700 (PDT), Spiros Bousbouras <······@gmail.com> said:
>
> > I have yet to encounter a movie where a character was depicted as
> > smart in a convincing manner.
>
> May I offer the following characters:
>
> George Smiley and Bill Haydon.
>
> Eli Cross (somewhat more debatably, perhaps).
Which movies?
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:37:56 -0700 (PDT), Spiros Bousbouras <······@gmail.com> said:
> On 24 June, 02:41, Vassil Nikolov <········@pobox.com> wrote:
>> May I offer the following characters [claming that they are
>> convincingly depicted as smart]:
>> George Smiley and Bill Haydon.
>> Eli Cross (somewhat more debatably, perhaps).
> Which movies?
For this sub-thread in particular, I still want to emphasize the
characters, rather than that in which they appear, but, that said,
the former are from "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy", a six-episode TV
series (based on the book), and the latter is from "The Stunt Man".
And then for some reason I also thought of Birgit Haas from "Il faut
tuer Birgit Haas" ("Birgit Haas Must Be Killed"), but I am not
really sure this is a good example (it is a good film, though!).
---Vassil.
--
Vassil Nikolov <········@pobox.com>
(1) M(Gauss);
(2) M(a) if M(b) and declared(b, M(a)),
where M(x) := "x is a mathematician".
On Jun 22, 10:52 pm, fft1976 <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...I would also like to see what is it about his
> prolific posting that made him, in the eyes of his followers
> "extremely smart".
What he wrote. Try reading it.
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
> I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
> his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
> he made contributions that I was not aware of.
Yes, that is it precisely.
> What exactly is wrong with asking what those might be?
Nothing. Unfortunately, the path to wisdom is very thorny for you, and it
depends a lot on your own dedication if you will achieve it. Nobody can
answer your question easily for you. Nevertheless, below I will set up a
learning program with which you can find the answer.
1. The first thing is to analyze where your own main problem was during
your discussions with Erik. At some time, I thought that Erik baited
stupidity. However, it became clear to me some time ago that the real
problem that Erik's method brought to light was a serious lack of humour in
his contrahents. His contrahents, and especially you being the most
unrelenting among them, were not able to step back and look at their own
behaviour with a smile, when they were attacked in a rude way. Keep this
in mind when you follow the next steps.
2. The most cumbersome part of the program is to go through all your
exchanges with Erik (I remember that you once said that you had saved all
of them, so this should be possible for you) and reread them in the
following way: Try _not_ to find errors on Erik's part (you already know
much more faults in Erik then are real), but ask yourself only: "What did I
write wrong in this message?", "Why was Erik right when he treated me in
that way?" [And, while going through your exchanges in this manner, please
try to suppress your hatred against Erik which you have shown at many
places. Otherwise, it will become much more difficult for you to
understand.]
3. I think step 2 will take you quite some time. I would estimate that you
will need at least take a week of otherwise completely free time to analyze
these conversations carefully.
4. Doing all this, you will meet a lot of very good argumentation and
brilliant wordplay from Erik's side. Also, you will learn a lot of human
psychology, especially your own. And these gains will be simultaneously
the answer to your above question which you won't have to ponder any more
in the future.
4. Come back here and report. If the above program should be successful,
your post will probably read something like "People, I'm sorry."
5. If the program should not be successful, we are ready to help you in
understanding things. For this, you should compile a link of Google group
references listing all your exchanges with Erik. Then we will pick out
some of them (or all of them one-by-one if you want) and will show you
where you went awry, why Erik was allowed to act as he did, etc. Maybe we
even find some points where Erik was wrong, but my guess is that there
won't be a lot of them.
Nicolas
In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
> > I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
> > his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
> > he made contributions that I was not aware of.
>
> Yes, that is it precisely.
>
> > What exactly is wrong with asking what those might be?
>
> Nothing. Unfortunately, the path to wisdom is very thorny for you, and it
> depends a lot on your own dedication if you will achieve it. Nobody can
> answer your question easily for you. Nevertheless, below I will set up a
> learning program with which you can find the answer.
>
> 1. The first thing is to analyze where your own main problem was during
> your discussions with Erik.
This is a non-sequitur. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the
question I asked. Whatever issues I may have had in my dealings with
Erik are completely irrelevant to the question of what contributions he
made to the community that made people hold him in such high regard
(unless you're saying that his interactions with me *were* those
contributions? In which case, wow, I never realized I was that
important).
But since you brought it up, I feel compelled to respond:
> 1. The first thing is to analyze where your own main problem was during
> your discussions with Erik. At some time, I thought that Erik baited
> stupidity. However, it became clear to me some time ago that the real
> problem that Erik's method brought to light was a serious lack of humour in
> his contrahents. His contrahents, and especially you being the most
> unrelenting among them, were not able to step back and look at their own
> behaviour with a smile, when they were attacked in a rude way. Keep this
> in mind when you follow the next steps.
>
> 2. The most cumbersome part of the program is to go through all your
> exchanges with Erik (I remember that you once said that you had saved all
> of them, so this should be possible for you) and reread them in the
> following way: Try _not_ to find errors on Erik's part (you already know
> much more faults in Erik then are real), but ask yourself only: "What did I
> write wrong in this message?", "Why was Erik right when he treated me in
> that way?" [And, while going through your exchanges in this manner, please
> try to suppress your hatred against Erik which you have shown at many
> places. Otherwise, it will become much more difficult for you to
> understand.]
>
> 3. I think step 2 will take you quite some time. I would estimate that you
> will need at least take a week of otherwise completely free time to analyze
> these conversations carefully.
>
> 4. Doing all this, you will meet a lot of very good argumentation and
> brilliant wordplay from Erik's side. Also, you will learn a lot of human
> psychology, especially your own. And these gains will be simultaneously
> the answer to your above question which you won't have to ponder any more
> in the future.
>
> 4. Come back here and report. If the above program should be successful,
> your post will probably read something like "People, I'm sorry."
>
> 5. If the program should not be successful, we are ready to help you in
> understanding things. For this, you should compile a link of Google group
> references listing all your exchanges with Erik. Then we will pick out
> some of them (or all of them one-by-one if you want) and will show you
> where you went awry, why Erik was allowed to act as he did, etc. Maybe we
> even find some points where Erik was wrong, but my guess is that there
> won't be a lot of them.
I'm glad to hear that you're willing to help. You should know then,
that I've already undertaken the program that you suggest. In fact, my
entire dealings with Erik were marked by almost continual self-analysis,
starting from even before I posted my first response to him. Like I
told you before, I never said anything to Erik for which I could not
find precedent in Erik's own writings. The reason Erik despised me was
that I modeled my behavior after his.
Maybe it's *you* who should undertake the program you suggest above.
Erik's biggest problem was an inability to seriously consider the
possibility that he might be wrong. It appears that you may suffer from
the same malady.
Note that nothing I've said has anything to do with actually *being*
wrong. Erik was actually wrong fairly regularly, but that is an
entirely separate issue. Even if Erik were never wrong about anything,
everything that I just said would still be valid.
I note for the record before we veer too far off topic that my actual
question (which you have conceded was a valid one) has not yet been
answered.
rg
On Jun 23, 9:35 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
> Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> >
> > [T]he path to wisdom is very thorny for you [...]
>
> I'm glad to hear that you're willing to help. You should know then,
> that I've already undertaken the program that you suggest.
Arrogance answered with humility. Well done.
-- Scott
On Jun 23, 12:56 pm, Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 9:35 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
> > Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>
> > > [T]he path to wisdom is very thorny for you [...]
>
> > I'm glad to hear that you're willing to help. You should know then,
> > that I've already undertaken the program that you suggest.
>
> Arrogance answered with humility. Well done.
Yes, it's called insincerity.
KHD
Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> writes:
> On Jun 23, 9:35�am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
>> In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
>> �Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > [T]he path to wisdom is very thorny for you [...]
>>
>> I'm glad to hear that you're willing to help. �You should know then,
>> that I've already undertaken the program that you suggest.
>
> Arrogance answered with humility. Well done.
>
> -- Scott
Dear Scott Burson,
at the beginning, I want to thank you for your FSet library which I
downloaded some time ago and maybe even will use in the future.
I do not rank you lowly and therefore think that you deserve an answer to
your injection.
Since you find my answer to Ron Garret so inappropriate, it seems that we
have a completely different perspective of reality. Thus, I want to sketch
you mine first:
Here is a man, Erann Gat/Ron Garret, who after hearing of Erik Naggum's
death poses the following question anonymously as the "lisper" in
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932>:
"I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he
contributed so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for
those of you who say that his net influence was positive despite his
abrasiveness: other than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few
pithy quotes, and a lot of rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik
contribute?"
We have to keep in mind, that Erann Gat/Ron Garret has known Erik Naggum
for more or equal time than any other person on this planet (with the
possible exception of Kent Pitman and Erik's mum), and has also received
and discarded countless positive judgements of Erik. Nevertheless, in that
forum he poses the above question, discards all answers again, and finally
reproaches the dead Erik here in comp.lang.lisp of being the cause that
someone in that forum finally told him to "kindly fuck off".
(http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/b1ddbf8808454ac2)
In my book, this is a malice which I have not often encountered. I think
it is caused by a psychopathic hatred of Erik, and with this in mind I have
worded my answer to him.
Now, since you apparently stick together with Ron in this matter, I would
first be very interested in how you view the whole set of affairs, and how
you think my answer should have been.
Second, since such a difference in perspective between us two is possible,
I would like to reiterate my wish for a reference to _your_ encounter with
Erik where he "attacked you unprovoked" (you can use Email, if you want).
Before, I was in doubt, but after you now take party with Ron Garret in
this way, I would really be surprised if I should not view your quarrel
with Erik in a completely different light than you do.
Nicolas
fft1976 <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> Sell crazy someplace else; we are all stocked up here.
If you mean by this, that you are fed up with this stuff, and that I should
have sent this to Scott by Email (if at all), then, on retrospect, I think
you're right.
So, should not something very special happen, this will be my last post in
this thread.
Nicolas
In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> Here is a man, Erann Gat/Ron Garret, who after hearing of Erik Naggum's
> death poses the following question anonymously as the "lisper" in
> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932>:
First, that my handle on Hacker News is "Lisper" is well known. I don't
know of anyone who uses their real name there. So to say that I posted
this "anonymously" is either ignorant or disingenuous.
Second, that question was posed *there*. This discussion is being held
*here*, and the real topic here is not my question but rather this:
> And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
> attacked you, you attacked first.
The question that I posed *there* has been brought into *this*
discussion *not* by me, but by *you* (message ID
··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de)
> We have to keep in mind, that Erann Gat/Ron Garret has known Erik Naggum
> for more or equal time than any other person on this planet (with the
> possible exception of Kent Pitman and Erik's mum)
Huh? On what basis do you make that assertion? I barely knew Erik at
all. I met him only once. For the record, the one time we did meet we
ultimately got along quite well (to the shock of many witnesses).
> In my book, this is a malice which I have not often encountered. I think
> it is caused by a psychopathic hatred of Erik
I have undergone all kinds of armchair psychoanalysis in this forum by
people who do not know me and have never met me, and nearly all of it is
wrong in ways that range from amusing to annoying. But for the record,
I do and did not hate Erik. I did not care for *some* of the things he
*did*, but that is not at all the same thing as hating the person. I
have no reason to believe that he did the things I disliked out of
malice, and I have no reason to believe that he was anything but a
smart, honorable man with whom I happened to have a difference of
opinion. A rather substantial difference of opinion to be sure, but
still nothing more than that.
> and with this in mind I have worded my answer to him.
Yes, but you proceed on false premises. And not for the first time.
rg
Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> writes:
>
> In my book, this is a malice which I have not often encountered. I think
> it is caused by a psychopathic hatred of Erik, and with this in mind I have
> worded my answer to him.
If you want psycopathic hatred, check out
<··········@goliath.newsfeeds.com>:
>> I'm overjoyed that I actually hurt your feelings. I wish I could hurt
>> your feelings so much you would commit suicide. sadly, this has failed,
>> and now the world has to live with an amoral creep who considers himself
>> above ethics and reproach. you are clearly a psychotic monster, beset
>> with hatred and malice towards everything that hurts you, and you're so
>> out of touch with reality to begin with that your fantasy world is taking
>> over, and hence it is in fact impossible to hurt you, any more than you
>> constantly hurt yourself. this is also why you have to imagine what my
>> day is like, and post your literally insane imagination. any remnant of
>> sanity would have held you back from such levels of psychotic behavior.
>>
>> you should consult a psychiatric ward and have yourself committed before
>> you actually kill someone in your deranged, psychotic state, filled as
>> you are with hatred and malice towards people who didn't stop hurting you
>> when you screamed "please don't hurt me" to yourself, only.
>>
>> the only thing I regret is that I didn't see your fantastic stupidity as
>> a result of your shattered psychology -- it's fairly uncommon to be so
>> fucking retarded because of a psychological problem, but clearly, you
>> have been immensely stupid all your life, and now that I come and hurt
>> your stupid feelings, so you turn on me like a vicious and mad dog -- and
>> that's exactly what you are to me: a mad dog in need of a bullet through
>> his sick brain before he actually manages to hurt someone or himself.
>>
>> do the world a huge favor and commit suicide tonight.
That is, quite literally, the work of a sick man.
Erik Naggum was brilliant; he had great ideas and penetrating insight.
The world is poorer for the loss of his mind. He was also inexcusably
unpleasant and petty (at least, in my reading of the events on c.l.l
that led to that message, he had no excuse). The world is richer for
the loss of his black heart.
Like all of us, he had his good and his bad sides. When he was good, he
was very, very good. When he was bad, he was very, very, _very_ bad.
That doesn't really matter now; he's dead now and deserves our prayers
no more or less than anyone else. I wish I could have known him
personally.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another,
'What! You too? I thought I was the only one!'
--C.S. Lewis
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:08:23 -0600, Robert Uhl wrote:
> That is, quite literally, the work of a sick man.
Yep, for once someone uses literally appropriately. But I think you've
failed to really think about what that statement implies. Very early in
this thread Ken Tilton posted something like "Bad for him, good for us."
I didn't know Erik, but I've read thousands of his posts over the years.
He had a Usenet problem, and I'm pretty sure it hurt him more than it
hurt anyone else.
> Erik Naggum was brilliant; he had great ideas and penetrating insight.
> The world is poorer for the loss of his mind. He was also inexcusably
> unpleasant and petty (at least, in my reading of the events on c.l.l
> that led to that message, he had no excuse). The world is richer for
> the loss of his black heart.
If you grant that he was sick in some respects this paragraph seems
overly mean. I mean- you can say that the world is better off without his
black heart, or you can say that he was sick, but I don't see how you can
say both things.
> Like all of us, he had his good and his bad sides. When he was good, he
> was very, very good. When he was bad, he was very, very, _very_ bad.
>
> That doesn't really matter now; he's dead now and deserves our prayers
> no more or less than anyone else. I wish I could have known him
> personally.
I'm pretty sure Erik wouldn't want your prayers. He wasn't a really
prayerful kind of guy. OTOH, he could have used a bit more in the way of
Christian forgiveness when he was alive and posting.
On 25.6.2009 20:08, Robert Uhl wrote:
> Nicolas Neuss<········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> writes:
>> In my book, this is a malice which I have not often encountered. I think
>> it is caused by a psychopathic hatred of Erik, and with this in mind I have
>> worded my answer to him.
>
> If you want psycopathic hatred, check out
> <··········@goliath.newsfeeds.com>:
>
>>> I'm overjoyed that I actually hurt your feelings. I wish I could hurt
>>> your feelings so much you would commit suicide. sadly, this has failed,
...
Yes, it is bullying, probably crime by Norwegian laws. Such posts can
severely hurt some individuals and contribute to their future psychical
problems. So, I think Ron's reactions were adequate. Of course, it is
sad that Erik Naggum died so young nevertheless.
Kazimir Majorinc
http://kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com
Kazimir Majorinc wrote:
> On 25.6.2009 20:08, Robert Uhl wrote:
>
>> Nicolas Neuss<········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> writes:
>>> In my book, this is a malice which I have not often encountered. I
>>> think
>>> it is caused by a psychopathic hatred of Erik, and with this in mind
>>> I have
>>> worded my answer to him.
>>
>> If you want psycopathic hatred, check out
>> <··········@goliath.newsfeeds.com>:
>>
>>>> I'm overjoyed that I actually hurt your feelings. I wish I could
>>>> hurt
>>>> your feelings so much you would commit suicide. sadly, this has
>>>> failed,
>
> ....
>
> Yes, it is bullying, probably crime by Norwegian laws. Such posts can
> severely hurt some individuals and contribute to their future psychical
> problems. So, I think Ron's reactions were adequate. Of course, it is
> sad that Erik Naggum died so young nevertheless.
>
>
> Kazimir Majorinc
> http://kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com
>
Kazimir is right!
But I feel lots of people turning against Ron, for something that
happened long time ago. This right now could hurt him too. Please be
careful!
And R.I.P. Erik Naggum! I wish, I've started lisp 10 years earlier...
Kazimir Majorinc wrote:
> On 25.6.2009 20:08, Robert Uhl wrote:
>
>> Nicolas Neuss<········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> writes:
>>> In my book, this is a malice which I have not often encountered. I
>>> think
>>> it is caused by a psychopathic hatred of Erik, and with this in mind
>>> I have
>>> worded my answer to him.
>>
>> If you want psycopathic hatred, check out
>> <··········@goliath.newsfeeds.com>:
>>
>>>> I'm overjoyed that I actually hurt your feelings. I wish I could
>>>> hurt
>>>> your feelings so much you would commit suicide. sadly, this has
>>>> failed,
>
> ...
>
> Yes, it is bullying, probably crime by Norwegian laws. Such posts can
> severely hurt some individuals and contribute to their future psychical
> problems. So, I think Ron's reactions were adequate. Of course, it is
> sad that Erik Naggum died so young nevertheless.
Bah. Erik was more linguistically flamboyant, but Erann was the
deliberately aggressive bully. Erann's great accomplishment may have
been raising the art of passive aggression to a level that constitutes
bullying.... hang on, I just described most marriages... never mind.
kt
>
>
> Kazimir Majorinc
> http://kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com
>
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
> If you want psycopathic hatred, check out
> <··········@goliath.newsfeeds.com>:
Since I don't have a newsfeeds account, here is the Google groups
reference:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/21744d089a3f1b79/502e776681d49d9d#502e776681d49d9d
> [...]
> That is, quite literally, the work of a sick man.
I know that this message is used often against Erik, and of course it tells
us something about the demons that chased him.
But please note that this message was not intended for the public. It was
mailed privately to Janos Blazi who has plagued him (and us all) for quite
a while in comp.lang.lisp and then dared to mail him privately [BTW, what
would you expect, if you tantalize a lion from a safe distance and then
move closer?] It then was published by Janos Blazi by violating the
sancticity of mail (I hope this is the right expression).
I therefore hesitate to accept this post as an argument against Erik. At
least in Germany, there are problems with using illegally obtained material
in a court case.
Nicolas
Ron Garret wrote:
> In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
> Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>>
>>> I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
>>> I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
>>> his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
>>> he made contributions that I was not aware of.
>> Yes, that is it precisely.
>>
>>> What exactly is wrong with asking what those might be?
>> Nothing. Unfortunately, the path to wisdom is very thorny for you, and it
>> depends a lot on your own dedication if you will achieve it. Nobody can
>> answer your question easily for you. Nevertheless, below I will set up a
>> learning program with which you can find the answer.
>>
>> 1. The first thing is to analyze where your own main problem was during
>> your discussions with Erik.
>
> This is a non-sequitur. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the
> question I asked. Whatever issues I may have had in my dealings with
> Erik are completely irrelevant to the question of what contributions he
> made to the community that made people hold him in such high regard
> (unless you're saying that his interactions with me *were* those
> contributions? In which case, wow, I never realized I was that
> important).
>
> But since you brought it up, I feel compelled to respond:
>
>> 1. The first thing is to analyze where your own main problem was during
>> your discussions with Erik. At some time, I thought that Erik baited
>> stupidity. However, it became clear to me some time ago that the real
>> problem that Erik's method brought to light was a serious lack of humour in
>> his contrahents. His contrahents, and especially you being the most
>> unrelenting among them, were not able to step back and look at their own
>> behaviour with a smile, when they were attacked in a rude way. Keep this
>> in mind when you follow the next steps.
>>
>> 2. The most cumbersome part of the program is to go through all your
>> exchanges with Erik (I remember that you once said that you had saved all
>> of them, so this should be possible for you) and reread them in the
>> following way: Try _not_ to find errors on Erik's part (you already know
>> much more faults in Erik then are real), but ask yourself only: "What did I
>> write wrong in this message?", "Why was Erik right when he treated me in
>> that way?" [And, while going through your exchanges in this manner, please
>> try to suppress your hatred against Erik which you have shown at many
>> places. Otherwise, it will become much more difficult for you to
>> understand.]
>>
>> 3. I think step 2 will take you quite some time. I would estimate that you
>> will need at least take a week of otherwise completely free time to analyze
>> these conversations carefully.
>>
>> 4. Doing all this, you will meet a lot of very good argumentation and
>> brilliant wordplay from Erik's side. Also, you will learn a lot of human
>> psychology, especially your own. And these gains will be simultaneously
>> the answer to your above question which you won't have to ponder any more
>> in the future.
>>
>> 4. Come back here and report. If the above program should be successful,
>> your post will probably read something like "People, I'm sorry."
>>
>> 5. If the program should not be successful, we are ready to help you in
>> understanding things. For this, you should compile a link of Google group
>> references listing all your exchanges with Erik. Then we will pick out
>> some of them (or all of them one-by-one if you want) and will show you
>> where you went awry, why Erik was allowed to act as he did, etc. Maybe we
>> even find some points where Erik was wrong, but my guess is that there
>> won't be a lot of them.
>
> I'm glad to hear that you're willing to help. You should know then,
> that I've already undertaken the program that you suggest. In fact, my
> entire dealings with Erik were marked by almost continual self-analysis,
> starting from even before I posted my first response to him. Like I
> told you before, I never said anything to Erik for which I could not
> find precedent in Erik's own writings. The reason Erik despised me was
> that I modeled my behavior after his.
Ah, this was the aggression Erik always complained about. You remind me
of the bit Lenny Bruce used to do about the cop testifying against Lenny
at his obscenity trial, repeating Lenny's material and butchering it.
>
> Maybe it's *you* who should undertake the program you suggest above.
> Erik's biggest problem was an inability to seriously consider the
> possibility that he might be wrong. It appears that you may suffer from
> the same malady.
Here's a malady: deciding you are the one to change someone else by
aping them. It was just aggression, why dress it up?
>
> Note that nothing I've said has anything to do with actually *being*
> wrong. Erik was actually wrong fairly regularly, but that is an
> entirely separate issue. Even if Erik were never wrong about anything,
> everything that I just said would still be valid.
>
> I note for the record before we veer too far off topic that my actual
> question (which you have conceded was a valid one) has not yet been
> answered.
You are being too aggressive. A pattern is confirmed.
kt
In article <·························@cv.net>,
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
> > Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
> >>> I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
> >>> his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
> >>> he made contributions that I was not aware of.
> >> Yes, that is it precisely.
> >>
> >>> What exactly is wrong with asking what those might be?
> >> Nothing. Unfortunately, the path to wisdom is very thorny for you, and it
> >> depends a lot on your own dedication if you will achieve it. Nobody can
> >> answer your question easily for you. Nevertheless, below I will set up a
> >> learning program with which you can find the answer.
> >>
> >> 1. The first thing is to analyze where your own main problem was during
> >> your discussions with Erik.
> >
> > This is a non-sequitur. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the
> > question I asked. Whatever issues I may have had in my dealings with
> > Erik are completely irrelevant to the question of what contributions he
> > made to the community that made people hold him in such high regard
> > (unless you're saying that his interactions with me *were* those
> > contributions? In which case, wow, I never realized I was that
> > important).
> >
> > But since you brought it up, I feel compelled to respond:
> >
> >> 1. The first thing is to analyze where your own main problem was during
> >> your discussions with Erik. At some time, I thought that Erik baited
> >> stupidity. However, it became clear to me some time ago that the real
> >> problem that Erik's method brought to light was a serious lack of humour in
> >> his contrahents. His contrahents, and especially you being the most
> >> unrelenting among them, were not able to step back and look at their own
> >> behaviour with a smile, when they were attacked in a rude way. Keep this
> >> in mind when you follow the next steps.
> >>
> >> 2. The most cumbersome part of the program is to go through all your
> >> exchanges with Erik (I remember that you once said that you had saved all
> >> of them, so this should be possible for you) and reread them in the
> >> following way: Try _not_ to find errors on Erik's part (you already know
> >> much more faults in Erik then are real), but ask yourself only: "What did I
> >> write wrong in this message?", "Why was Erik right when he treated me in
> >> that way?" [And, while going through your exchanges in this manner, please
> >> try to suppress your hatred against Erik which you have shown at many
> >> places. Otherwise, it will become much more difficult for you to
> >> understand.]
> >>
> >> 3. I think step 2 will take you quite some time. I would estimate that you
> >> will need at least take a week of otherwise completely free time to analyze
> >> these conversations carefully.
> >>
> >> 4. Doing all this, you will meet a lot of very good argumentation and
> >> brilliant wordplay from Erik's side. Also, you will learn a lot of human
> >> psychology, especially your own. And these gains will be simultaneously
> >> the answer to your above question which you won't have to ponder any more
> >> in the future.
> >>
> >> 4. Come back here and report. If the above program should be successful,
> >> your post will probably read something like "People, I'm sorry."
> >>
> >> 5. If the program should not be successful, we are ready to help you in
> >> understanding things. For this, you should compile a link of Google group
> >> references listing all your exchanges with Erik. Then we will pick out
> >> some of them (or all of them one-by-one if you want) and will show you
> >> where you went awry, why Erik was allowed to act as he did, etc. Maybe we
> >> even find some points where Erik was wrong, but my guess is that there
> >> won't be a lot of them.
> >
> > I'm glad to hear that you're willing to help. You should know then,
> > that I've already undertaken the program that you suggest. In fact, my
> > entire dealings with Erik were marked by almost continual self-analysis,
> > starting from even before I posted my first response to him. Like I
> > told you before, I never said anything to Erik for which I could not
> > find precedent in Erik's own writings. The reason Erik despised me was
> > that I modeled my behavior after his.
>
> Ah, this was the aggression Erik always complained about. You remind me
> of the bit Lenny Bruce used to do about the cop testifying against Lenny
> at his obscenity trial, repeating Lenny's material and butchering it.
>
> >
> > Maybe it's *you* who should undertake the program you suggest above.
> > Erik's biggest problem was an inability to seriously consider the
> > possibility that he might be wrong. It appears that you may suffer from
> > the same malady.
>
> Here's a malady: deciding you are the one to change someone else by
> aping them. It was just aggression, why dress it up?
I don't care what label you put on it. Whatever it was, it was the
result of following Erik's example.
> > Note that nothing I've said has anything to do with actually *being*
> > wrong. Erik was actually wrong fairly regularly, but that is an
> > entirely separate issue. Even if Erik were never wrong about anything,
> > everything that I just said would still be valid.
> >
> > I note for the record before we veer too far off topic that my actual
> > question (which you have conceded was a valid one) has not yet been
> > answered.
>
> You are being too aggressive. A pattern is confirmed.
And you, like many others, are rather pointedly avoiding answering my
question, preferring instead to change the subject and dredge up the
distant past. There is indeed a pattern here. What conclusions should
I draw from it?
rg
On Jun 23, 6:26 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> In article <·························@cv.net>,
> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ron Garret wrote:
> > > In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
> > > Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>
> > >> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > >>> I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
> > >>> I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
> > >>> his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
> > >>> he made contributions that I was not aware of.
> > >> Yes, that is it precisely.
>
> > >>> What exactly is wrong with asking what those might be?
> > >> Nothing. Unfortunately, the path to wisdom is very thorny for you, and it
> > >> depends a lot on your own dedication if you will achieve it. Nobody can
> > >> answer your question easily for you. Nevertheless, below I will set up a
> > >> learning program with which you can find the answer.
>
> > >> 1. The first thing is to analyze where your own main problem was during
> > >> your discussions with Erik.
>
> > > This is a non-sequitur. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the
> > > question I asked. Whatever issues I may have had in my dealings with
> > > Erik are completely irrelevant to the question of what contributions he
> > > made to the community that made people hold him in such high regard
> > > (unless you're saying that his interactions with me *were* those
> > > contributions? In which case, wow, I never realized I was that
> > > important).
>
> > > But since you brought it up, I feel compelled to respond:
>
> > >> 1. The first thing is to analyze where your own main problem was during
> > >> your discussions with Erik. At some time, I thought that Erik baited
> > >> stupidity. However, it became clear to me some time ago that the real
> > >> problem that Erik's method brought to light was a serious lack of humour in
> > >> his contrahents. His contrahents, and especially you being the most
> > >> unrelenting among them, were not able to step back and look at their own
> > >> behaviour with a smile, when they were attacked in a rude way. Keep this
> > >> in mind when you follow the next steps.
>
> > >> 2. The most cumbersome part of the program is to go through all your
> > >> exchanges with Erik (I remember that you once said that you had saved all
> > >> of them, so this should be possible for you) and reread them in the
> > >> following way: Try _not_ to find errors on Erik's part (you already know
> > >> much more faults in Erik then are real), but ask yourself only: "What did I
> > >> write wrong in this message?", "Why was Erik right when he treated me in
> > >> that way?" [And, while going through your exchanges in this manner, please
> > >> try to suppress your hatred against Erik which you have shown at many
> > >> places. Otherwise, it will become much more difficult for you to
> > >> understand.]
>
> > >> 3. I think step 2 will take you quite some time. I would estimate that you
> > >> will need at least take a week of otherwise completely free time to analyze
> > >> these conversations carefully.
>
> > >> 4. Doing all this, you will meet a lot of very good argumentation and
> > >> brilliant wordplay from Erik's side. Also, you will learn a lot of human
> > >> psychology, especially your own. And these gains will be simultaneously
> > >> the answer to your above question which you won't have to ponder any more
> > >> in the future.
>
> > >> 4. Come back here and report. If the above program should be successful,
> > >> your post will probably read something like "People, I'm sorry."
>
> > >> 5. If the program should not be successful, we are ready to help you in
> > >> understanding things. For this, you should compile a link of Google group
> > >> references listing all your exchanges with Erik. Then we will pick out
> > >> some of them (or all of them one-by-one if you want) and will show you
> > >> where you went awry, why Erik was allowed to act as he did, etc. Maybe we
> > >> even find some points where Erik was wrong, but my guess is that there
> > >> won't be a lot of them.
>
> > > I'm glad to hear that you're willing to help. You should know then,
> > > that I've already undertaken the program that you suggest. In fact, my
> > > entire dealings with Erik were marked by almost continual self-analysis,
> > > starting from even before I posted my first response to him. Like I
> > > told you before, I never said anything to Erik for which I could not
> > > find precedent in Erik's own writings. The reason Erik despised me was
> > > that I modeled my behavior after his.
>
> > Ah, this was the aggression Erik always complained about. You remind me
> > of the bit Lenny Bruce used to do about the cop testifying against Lenny
> > at his obscenity trial, repeating Lenny's material and butchering it.
>
> > > Maybe it's *you* who should undertake the program you suggest above.
> > > Erik's biggest problem was an inability to seriously consider the
> > > possibility that he might be wrong. It appears that you may suffer from
> > > the same malady.
>
> > Here's a malady: deciding you are the one to change someone else by
> > aping them. It was just aggression, why dress it up?
>
> I don't care what label you put on it. Whatever it was, it was the
> result of following Erik's example.
>
> > > Note that nothing I've said has anything to do with actually *being*
> > > wrong. Erik was actually wrong fairly regularly, but that is an
> > > entirely separate issue. Even if Erik were never wrong about anything,
> > > everything that I just said would still be valid.
>
> > > I note for the record before we veer too far off topic that my actual
> > > question (which you have conceded was a valid one) has not yet been
> > > answered.
>
> > You are being too aggressive. A pattern is confirmed.
>
> And you, like many others, are rather pointedly avoiding answering my
> question, preferring instead to change the subject and dredge up the
> distant past. There is indeed a pattern here. What conclusions should
> I draw from it?
>
> rg
He contributed nothing.
In article
<····································@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
"Chris." <···············@gmail.com> wrote:
> He contributed nothing.
Let's not go overboard. He certainly contributed *something*: at least
one conference paper, a bunch of usenet posts, some elisp code. Was
there anything else?
rg
On Jun 24, 3:14 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> In article
> <····································@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "Chris." <···············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > He contributed nothing.
>
> Let's not go overboard. He certainly contributed *something*: at least
> one conference paper, a bunch of usenet posts, some elisp code. Was
> there anything else?
>
> rg
It is genuinely hard to be insightful.
Having read through the log of his posts that bean put up on his blog,
it is apparent to me that:
1. He grokked programming in a way few people do
2. He wasn't willing to roll over and agree with people for the sake
of politics
I appreciate that he may have hurt your feelings at some time or
another,
but in terms of contributions, he has put forth many interesting
thoughts and that is enough for me.
I was genuinely saddened when he stopped posting because he was
interesting.
(Even if he wasn't always diplomatic).
In article
<····································@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 3:14�am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <····································@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �"Chris." <···············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > He contributed nothing.
> >
> > Let's not go overboard. �He certainly contributed *something*: at least
> > one conference paper, a bunch of usenet posts, some elisp code. �Was
> > there anything else?
> >
> > rg
>
> It is genuinely hard to be insightful.
>
> Having read through the log of his posts that bean put up on his blog,
> it is apparent to me that:
>
> 1. He grokked programming in a way few people do
> 2. He wasn't willing to roll over and agree with people for the sake
> of politics
>
> I appreciate that he may have hurt your feelings at some time or
> another,
> but in terms of contributions, he has put forth many interesting
> thoughts and that is enough for me.
>
> I was genuinely saddened when he stopped posting because he was
> interesting.
> (Even if he wasn't always diplomatic).
Look, I don't have a hidden agenda behind this question. I just want to
make sure that my opinion of Erik is based on all the available
information, that's all.
rg
On Jun 24, 1:07 pm, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 3:14 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <····································@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > "Chris." <···············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > He contributed nothing.
>
> > Let's not go overboard. He certainly contributed *something*: at least
> > one conference paper, a bunch of usenet posts, some elisp code. Was
> > there anything else?
>
> > rg
>
> It is genuinely hard to be insightful.
It is. And if rg were being honest, he would concede as much. To be
"insightful" as reliably as Erik is beyond most people.
>
> Having read through the log of his posts that bean put up on his blog,
> it is apparent to me that:
>
> 1. He grokked programming in a way few people do
> 2. He wasn't willing to roll over and agree with people for the sake
> of politics
Erik might have sympathised with Mark Twain: "The trouble with the
world is not that people know too little, but that they know so many
things that ain't so."
>
> I appreciate that he may have hurt your feelings at some time or
> another,
Somebody had to do it.
> but in terms of contributions, he has put forth many interesting
> thoughts and that is enough for me.
>
> I was genuinely saddened when he stopped posting because he was
> interesting.
> (Even if he wasn't always diplomatic).
I think he would have wanted us to learn something from his life so
that we could not repeat the same mistakes. Perhaps taking rg's bait
is one of those errors.
--T
In article
<····································@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
toby <····@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 1:07�pm, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 3:14�am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <····································@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > �"Chris." <···············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > He contributed nothing.
> >
> > > Let's not go overboard. �He certainly contributed *something*: at least
> > > one conference paper, a bunch of usenet posts, some elisp code. �Was
> > > there anything else?
> >
> > > rg
> >
> > It is genuinely hard to be insightful.
>
> It is. And if rg were being honest, he would concede as much.
Have I ever denied that it is hard to be insightful?
> I think he would have wanted us to learn something from his life so
> that we could not repeat the same mistakes. Perhaps taking rg's bait
> is one of those errors.
If it is, you clearly haven't learned to avoid it.
rg
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> In article
> <····································@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> "Chris." <···············@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> He contributed nothing.
>
> Let's not go overboard. He certainly contributed *something*: at
> least one conference paper, a bunch of usenet posts, some elisp code.
> Was there anything else?
i recall from way back in the day that he was pretty active in the sgml
world. i'd have to dig trhough (possibly dead) archives to be sure, but
this may really just have been in the 'usenet' category.
\p
On 2009-06-24 08:14:25 +0100, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
> Let's not go overboard. He certainly contributed *something*: at least
> one conference paper, a bunch of usenet posts, some elisp code. Was
> there anything else?
He taught me that, yes, there really are people who behave in a
sufficiently stupid way that it is simply not worth engaging with them,
and what you need to do is simply make them go away (or leave
yourself). That there are a very large number of ways in which people
can behave that stupidly, a large number of people who behave like
this. That some of these behaviours are common enough to spot them
quickly. And finally, that, tragically, however hard you try, these
people will overwhelm you and drive you away.
In article <·······················@tfeborg>,
Tim Bradshaw <···@tfeb.org> wrote:
> On 2009-06-24 08:14:25 +0100, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
>
> > Let's not go overboard. He certainly contributed *something*: at least
> > one conference paper, a bunch of usenet posts, some elisp code. Was
> > there anything else?
>
> He taught me that, yes, there really are people who behave in a
> sufficiently stupid way that it is simply not worth engaging with them,
Then either you did not learn your lesson or you think I'm worth
engaging. I wonder, which is it?
rg
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>> He taught me that, yes, there really are people who behave in a
>> sufficiently stupid way that it is simply not worth engaging with them,
>
> Then either you did not learn your lesson or you think I'm worth
> engaging. I wonder, which is it?
Even if you consider yourself to generally behave in a stupid way, do
you really think you've reached a _Naggumic_ level of stupidity?
-miles
--
A zen-buddhist walked into a pizza shop and
said, "Make me one with everything."
Ron Garret wrote:
> In article <·························@cv.net>,
> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret wrote:
>>> In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
>>> Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
>>>>> I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
>>>>> his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
>>>>> he made contributions that I was not aware of.
>>>> Yes, that is it precisely.
>>>>
>>>>> What exactly is wrong with asking what those might be?
>>>> Nothing. Unfortunately, the path to wisdom is very thorny for you, and it
>>>> depends a lot on your own dedication if you will achieve it. Nobody can
>>>> answer your question easily for you. Nevertheless, below I will set up a
>>>> learning program with which you can find the answer.
>>>>
>>>> 1. The first thing is to analyze where your own main problem was during
>>>> your discussions with Erik.
>>> This is a non-sequitur. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the
>>> question I asked. Whatever issues I may have had in my dealings with
>>> Erik are completely irrelevant to the question of what contributions he
>>> made to the community that made people hold him in such high regard
>>> (unless you're saying that his interactions with me *were* those
>>> contributions? In which case, wow, I never realized I was that
>>> important).
>>>
>>> But since you brought it up, I feel compelled to respond:
>>>
>>>> 1. The first thing is to analyze where your own main problem was during
>>>> your discussions with Erik. At some time, I thought that Erik baited
>>>> stupidity. However, it became clear to me some time ago that the real
>>>> problem that Erik's method brought to light was a serious lack of humour in
>>>> his contrahents. His contrahents, and especially you being the most
>>>> unrelenting among them, were not able to step back and look at their own
>>>> behaviour with a smile, when they were attacked in a rude way. Keep this
>>>> in mind when you follow the next steps.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The most cumbersome part of the program is to go through all your
>>>> exchanges with Erik (I remember that you once said that you had saved all
>>>> of them, so this should be possible for you) and reread them in the
>>>> following way: Try _not_ to find errors on Erik's part (you already know
>>>> much more faults in Erik then are real), but ask yourself only: "What did I
>>>> write wrong in this message?", "Why was Erik right when he treated me in
>>>> that way?" [And, while going through your exchanges in this manner, please
>>>> try to suppress your hatred against Erik which you have shown at many
>>>> places. Otherwise, it will become much more difficult for you to
>>>> understand.]
>>>>
>>>> 3. I think step 2 will take you quite some time. I would estimate that you
>>>> will need at least take a week of otherwise completely free time to analyze
>>>> these conversations carefully.
>>>>
>>>> 4. Doing all this, you will meet a lot of very good argumentation and
>>>> brilliant wordplay from Erik's side. Also, you will learn a lot of human
>>>> psychology, especially your own. And these gains will be simultaneously
>>>> the answer to your above question which you won't have to ponder any more
>>>> in the future.
>>>>
>>>> 4. Come back here and report. If the above program should be successful,
>>>> your post will probably read something like "People, I'm sorry."
>>>>
>>>> 5. If the program should not be successful, we are ready to help you in
>>>> understanding things. For this, you should compile a link of Google group
>>>> references listing all your exchanges with Erik. Then we will pick out
>>>> some of them (or all of them one-by-one if you want) and will show you
>>>> where you went awry, why Erik was allowed to act as he did, etc. Maybe we
>>>> even find some points where Erik was wrong, but my guess is that there
>>>> won't be a lot of them.
>>> I'm glad to hear that you're willing to help. You should know then,
>>> that I've already undertaken the program that you suggest. In fact, my
>>> entire dealings with Erik were marked by almost continual self-analysis,
>>> starting from even before I posted my first response to him. Like I
>>> told you before, I never said anything to Erik for which I could not
>>> find precedent in Erik's own writings. The reason Erik despised me was
>>> that I modeled my behavior after his.
>> Ah, this was the aggression Erik always complained about. You remind me
>> of the bit Lenny Bruce used to do about the cop testifying against Lenny
>> at his obscenity trial, repeating Lenny's material and butchering it.
>>
>>> Maybe it's *you* who should undertake the program you suggest above.
>>> Erik's biggest problem was an inability to seriously consider the
>>> possibility that he might be wrong. It appears that you may suffer from
>>> the same malady.
>> Here's a malady: deciding you are the one to change someone else by
>> aping them. It was just aggression, why dress it up?
>
> I don't care what label you put on it. Whatever it was, it was the
> result of following Erik's example.
>
>>> Note that nothing I've said has anything to do with actually *being*
>>> wrong. Erik was actually wrong fairly regularly, but that is an
>>> entirely separate issue. Even if Erik were never wrong about anything,
>>> everything that I just said would still be valid.
>>>
>>> I note for the record before we veer too far off topic that my actual
>>> question (which you have conceded was a valid one) has not yet been
>>> answered.
>> You are being too aggressive. A pattern is confirmed.
>
> And you, like many others, are rather pointedly avoiding answering my
> question, preferring instead to change the subject and dredge up the
> distant past. There is indeed a pattern here. What conclusions should
> I draw from it?
It's not the same, is it? This must be quite a blow for you.
kt
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
> Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>>
>> > I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > and I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond
>> > what his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this
>> > is that he made contributions that I was not aware of.
>>
>> Yes, that is it precisely.
>>
>> > What exactly is wrong with asking what those might be?
> [...]
> I note for the record before we veer too far off topic that my actual
> question (which you have conceded was a valid one) has not yet been
> answered.
Please note the following:
1. You said your question was posed in all seriousness.
2. Your question (what others have profited from Erik) has been answered in
many times in this thread and before (also by me):
People (including me) have
* learned Computer knowledge from Erik,
* enjoyed his thoughts about whatever,
* have enjoyed his rethoric qualities,
* have enjoyed watching him bash trolls,
* maybe some (I did not) have even enjoyed the spectacle of a mouse
(you) thinking that it was fighting the cat (Erik) with his own
weapons,
* etc.
3. Your problem is simply that you do not accept all these answers. Thus,
the problem lies merely on your side. I (and probably also noone else)
can give an answer to your question which you would understand and
accept.
Nicolas
In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > In article <··············@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
> > Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> > and I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond
> >> > what his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this
> >> > is that he made contributions that I was not aware of.
> >>
> >> Yes, that is it precisely.
> >>
> >> > What exactly is wrong with asking what those might be?
>
> > [...]
>
> > I note for the record before we veer too far off topic that my actual
> > question (which you have conceded was a valid one) has not yet been
> > answered.
>
> Please note the following:
>
> 1. You said your question was posed in all seriousness.
Yes, it was.
> 2. Your question (what others have profited from Erik) has been answered in
> many times in this thread and before (also by me):
>
> People (including me) have
>
> * learned Computer knowledge from Erik,
>
> * enjoyed his thoughts about whatever,
>
> * have enjoyed his rethoric qualities,
>
> * have enjoyed watching him bash trolls,
>
> * maybe some (I did not) have even enjoyed the spectacle of a mouse
> (you) thinking that it was fighting the cat (Erik) with his own
> weapons,
>
> * etc.
That may be an answer to some question, but it is not an answer to the
question that I asked.
> 3. Your problem is simply that you do not accept all these answers. Thus,
> the problem lies merely on your side. I (and probably also noone else)
> can give an answer to your question which you would understand and
> accept.
No, the problem is that people keep answering a different question than
the one that I actually asked.
The question that I actually asked was: *besides* the things I'm aware
of (one technical paper, usenet postings, and some elisp code) was there
anything *else* that Erik contributed that might account for the high
esteem in which he is held?
The answer to that question is, apparently, "no", though no one, not
even you, has actually come out and said so yet.
rg
On Jun 24, 9:57 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> The question that I actually asked was: *besides* the things I'm aware
> of (one technical paper, usenet postings, and some elisp code) was there
> anything *else* that Erik contributed that might account for the high
> esteem in which he is held?
This should answer your questions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Naggum
When I saw this, I was like "you GOTTA be shitting me, Naggum was a
skinhead!"
I know that he had strong opinions about the menorah in CLISP, but I'm
not sure exactly what they were. His expletives are a little hard to
decipher.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:28:53 -0700, fft1976 wrote:
> This should answer your questions:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Naggum
>
> When I saw this, I was like "you GOTTA be shitting me, Naggum was a
> skinhead!"
>
> I know that he had strong opinions about the menorah in CLISP, but I'm
> not sure exactly what they were. His expletives are a little hard to
> decipher.
I was also a bit surprised the first time I saw a photo of Erik. I'd
always pictured him as a sort of real-life Hagar the Horrible. A
redheaded Viking with an enormous unruly red beard. The sort of Norwegian
who would as lief chop your head off as look at you. I have to admit that
my first thought on seeing a picture of him was "Pshaw- I could kick his
ass even if he had an axe." Not that I wanted to kick his ass. Just
saying.
Did Erik really have a grudge against the menorah in Clisp? Iirc he was
mainly annoyed about Chinese time zones in Clisp, and I think he was
right about that. I was a Sinologist before I was a programmer, and I
think no one who knows much about me would accuse me of being an
apologist for the old men in Beijing (I've actually risked things
important to me by stating my views on the Beijing regime, but I also
know enough about China to know that this is not as black and white as is
commonly thought), but messing with the time zone code for China was
unfathomably dumb. It did get fixed pretty fast, to the credit of the
CLisp developers.
Erik did have some strong opinions about Israel and the middle east. They
aren't opinions I share. I think in this instance Erik was guilty of
something he often accused others of- he failed to take context into
account. But iirc he didn't make an issue of those views on c.l.l. until
other people brought Israel up. He didn't think it an appropriate
discussion in a technical newsgroup, and he was right about that.
Crosspost trimmed- followups to c.l.l.
In article <············@news.eternal-september.org>,
Duncan <··································@togivemyaddressout.com> wrote:
...
>
>Erik did have some strong opinions about Israel and the middle east. They
>aren't opinions I share. I think in this instance Erik was guilty of
>something he often accused others of- he failed to take context into
>account. But iirc he didn't make an issue of those views on c.l.l. until
>other people brought Israel up. He didn't think it an appropriate
>discussion in a technical newsgroup, and he was right about that.
Man, you want to see strong opinions about Israel, try Dershowitz (sp?) (harvard
law school)!
I saw him debate Chomsky about Israel, on cspan2's BOOKTV -- jeez,
it was strange, his face was always contorted into some kind of a
MASK. Weird.
He might be calm and logical and knowledgable of LOTS of subjects,
easy to talk to, to listen to, to watch, but when he gets on
to Israel, WOW! TAKE COVER! :-)
David
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> The question that I actually asked was: *besides* the things I'm aware
> of (one technical paper, usenet postings, and some elisp code) was there
> anything *else* that Erik contributed that might account for the high
> esteem in which he is held?
>
> The answer to that question is, apparently, "no", though no one, not
> even you, has actually come out and said so yet.
>
As a semi-interested outside observer, it seems to me that one answer
that has been given is "Erik instructed, entertained, and/or enlightened
me." Those are certainly things for which someone can be held in high
esteem.
YMMV.
Bob Felts wrote:
> As a semi-interested outside observer, it seems to me that one answer
> that has been given is "Erik instructed, entertained, and/or
> enlightened me." Those are certainly things for which someone can be
> held in high esteem.
If I, as someone who is only lurking here, were to name two people who
drew me into the Lisp world and made me stick around, it would be Erik
Naggum and Edi Weitz.
Erik, because he made me think -- especially rethink my preconceptions
about many technical things I wouldn't have questioned otherwise. These
fundamental technical discussions have always been something that set
this newsgroup apart and made me enjoy reading it.
Edi, because he contributed the libraries that enabled me to code. Edi's
contributions might fit better Ron's narrow view of what is substantial,
but for me both are equally important.
--
Wolfgang Mederle
<URL:http://mederle.de/>
>>>>> "RG" == Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
RG> It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what his actual
RG> contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that he
RG> made contributions that I was not aware of.
Erik Naggum's arguments on Emacs mailing lists convinced me that CL may
be more than an irrelevant obscurity and that I should look at it
seriously. Although this wasn't world-wide contribution of course,
attracting me to the CL world was one of the most important
contributions to my professional life.
På Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:15:13 +0200, skrev Nicolas Neuss
<········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de>:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
>> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
>> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
>> (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
>> -- very little provocation.
>
> Ron, I'm shocked. Someone really told you in a public forum to "fuck
> off"?
> Terrible indeed. Although you asked only this honest question (and were
> not satisfied with the answers, played dumb, and asked it again):
>
> "I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he
> contributed
> so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
> who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness:
> other
> than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot
> of
> rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"
>
> Yes, such foul speech should really be avoided.
>
> Nicolas
To be fair Naggum could really be a nuisance. He could fly off the wall
for the smallest thing and be a real pain. For that matter I feel about
the same about Bean.
That does not mean I don't respect them. Just that they need handling with
care, like explosives. (That's pedantics for you.)
I regarded Naggums aggravated post's with some degree of humor. Such
passion, such determination. He had a drive I have rarely seen in anyone
else.
Anyhow, I am in the group that has missed him..
---------------------
John Thingstad
Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> writes:
> "I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
> so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
> who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
> than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
> rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"
He did contribute positively to making Emacs handling of multibyte text
better, albeit only after quite a bit of sometimes inexcusably nasty
ranting.
I get the feeling he was basically a smart guy but just couldn't control
his emotions...
-Miles
--
Inhumanity, n. One of the signal and characteristic qualities of humanity.
On Jun 22, 7:02 am, Miles Bader <·····@gnu.org> wrote:
> Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> writes:
> > "I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
> > so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
> > who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
> > than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
> > rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"
>
> He did contribute positively to making Emacs handling of multibyte text
> better, albeit only after quite a bit of sometimes inexcusably nasty
> ranting.
>
> I get the feeling he was basically a smart guy but just couldn't control
> his emotions...
I disagree somewhat. His rants, to me, demonstrate a very fine control
of his emotions. His posts are not the result of an angry guy pounding
the keyboard in a rage, but rather somebody who took great pains to
correct, *by argument*, the inanities, sloppy thinking and falsehoods
that he despised. I know from experience that emotions such as anger
make that difficult to do. In this way an Erik Naggum rant was always
a public service, not - as he is wrongly accused - just vandalism of
the commons.
I *pray* for the kind of constructive restraint Erik drew upon, when
dealing with "idiots". :-)
>
> -Miles
>
> --
> Inhumanity, n. One of the signal and characteristic qualities of humanity.
toby <····@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
>> I get the feeling he was basically a smart guy but just couldn't control
>> his emotions...
>
> I disagree somewhat. His rants, to me, demonstrate a very fine control
> of his emotions. His posts are not the result of an angry guy pounding
> the keyboard in a rage, but rather somebody who took great pains to
> correct, *by argument*, the inanities, sloppy thinking and falsehoods
> that he despised.
You've clearly never seen him at his nuttiest...
-Miles
--
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Miles Bader wrote:
> toby <····@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
>>> I get the feeling he was basically a smart guy but just couldn't control
>>> his emotions...
>> I disagree somewhat. His rants, to me, demonstrate a very fine control
>> of his emotions. His posts are not the result of an angry guy pounding
>> the keyboard in a rage, but rather somebody who took great pains to
>> correct, *by argument*, the inanities, sloppy thinking and falsehoods
>> that he despised.
>
> You've clearly never seen him at his nuttiest...
I would say "angriest". ERonn is a master at being stupid in flamewars,
always saying transparently idiotic things easily refuted and then
coming back with three more idiotic things for evey good point one
makes. Terribly hard resisting replying, and Erik never could with
anyone, so he just became more and more beside himself trying to
penetrate folks' idiocy shields.
I finally ascribed this to a positive impulse within him: he respected
others /too much/. He could not just brush off someone as worthless,
because anyone once encountered was important to him. He was not
anti-social, he was too social. The sociopath is the one who does not
really know the other exists.
Erik went the other way, always wanting more out of us than we were
capable of.
kt
In article <·························@cv.net>,
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Miles Bader wrote:
> > toby <····@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
> >>> I get the feeling he was basically a smart guy but just couldn't control
> >>> his emotions...
> >> I disagree somewhat. His rants, to me, demonstrate a very fine control
> >> of his emotions. His posts are not the result of an angry guy pounding
> >> the keyboard in a rage, but rather somebody who took great pains to
> >> correct, *by argument*, the inanities, sloppy thinking and falsehoods
> >> that he despised.
> >
> > You've clearly never seen him at his nuttiest...
>
> I would say "angriest". ERonn is a master at being stupid in flamewars,
> always saying transparently idiotic things easily refuted and then
> coming back with three more idiotic things for evey good point one
> makes.
Wow, Kenny, I'm amazed to see you concede that I actually made good
points.
The sad fact of the matter is that Erik was often wrong on technical
issues, and often stated opinion and speculation as if it were fact. He
appeared to be right more often than he actually was because he stated
his views in such a way that made disagreeing with him, right or wrong,
a very unpleasant undertaking, and so it is not surprising that not many
people undertook it. In that, you and he are much alike.
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
> In article <·························@cv.net>,
> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Miles Bader wrote:
>>> toby <····@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
>>>>> I get the feeling he was basically a smart guy but just couldn't control
>>>>> his emotions...
>>>> I disagree somewhat. His rants, to me, demonstrate a very fine control
>>>> of his emotions. His posts are not the result of an angry guy pounding
>>>> the keyboard in a rage, but rather somebody who took great pains to
>>>> correct, *by argument*, the inanities, sloppy thinking and falsehoods
>>>> that he despised.
>>> You've clearly never seen him at his nuttiest...
>> I would say "angriest". ERonn is a master at being stupid in flamewars,
>> always saying transparently idiotic things easily refuted and then
>> coming back with three more idiotic things for evey good point one
>> makes.
>
> Wow, Kenny, I'm amazed to see you concede that I actually made good
> points.
That is too stupid for you to be a joke so I will presume a misreading.
>
> The sad fact of the matter is that Erik was often wrong on technical
> issues, and often stated opinion and speculation as if it were fact. He
> appeared to be right more often than he actually was because he stated
> his views in such a way that made disagreeing with him, right or wrong,
> a very unpleasant undertaking, and so it is not surprising that not many
> people undertook it. In that, you and he are much alike.
>
> rg
Don't make me hold a contest to pick your next name.
hth,kt
On Jul 7, 1:40 am, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article <·························@cv.net>,
> > Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Miles Bader wrote:
> >>> toby <····@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
> >>>>> I get the feeling he was basically a smart guy but just couldn't control
> >>>>> his emotions...
> >>>> I disagree somewhat. His rants, to me, demonstrate a very fine control
> >>>> of his emotions. His posts are not the result of an angry guy pounding
> >>>> the keyboard in a rage, but rather somebody who took great pains to
> >>>> correct, *by argument*, the inanities, sloppy thinking and falsehoods
> >>>> that he despised.
> >>> You've clearly never seen him at his nuttiest...
> >> I would say "angriest". ERonn is a master at being stupid in flamewars,
> >> always saying transparently idiotic things easily refuted and then
> >> coming back with three more idiotic things for evey good point one
> >> makes.
>
> > Wow, Kenny, I'm amazed to see you concede that I actually made good
> > points.
>
> That is too stupid for you to be a joke so I will presume a misreading.
I think there's a 99% chance it was an accidental or intentional
misreading. Erron has demonstrated with certainty a tendency to
make factual errors regarding what others and even himself write
and even in the shortest possible scale of a single thread. This
tendency contributed to his problems with Erik.
In this case Ron misread "for every good point one [other] makes
[to Ron]" as "for every [one] good point [Ron] makes [to other]".
KHD
In article
<····································@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 1:40 am, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ron Garret wrote:
> > > In article <·························@cv.net>,
> > > Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Miles Bader wrote:
> > >>> toby <····@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
> > >>>>> I get the feeling he was basically a smart guy but just couldn't
> > >>>>> control
> > >>>>> his emotions...
> > >>>> I disagree somewhat. His rants, to me, demonstrate a very fine control
> > >>>> of his emotions. His posts are not the result of an angry guy pounding
> > >>>> the keyboard in a rage, but rather somebody who took great pains to
> > >>>> correct, *by argument*, the inanities, sloppy thinking and falsehoods
> > >>>> that he despised.
> > >>> You've clearly never seen him at his nuttiest...
> > >> I would say "angriest". ERonn is a master at being stupid in flamewars,
> > >> always saying transparently idiotic things easily refuted and then
> > >> coming back with three more idiotic things for evey good point one
> > >> makes.
> >
> > > Wow, Kenny, I'm amazed to see you concede that I actually made good
> > > points.
> >
> > That is too stupid for you to be a joke so I will presume a misreading.
>
> I think there's a 99% chance it was an accidental or intentional
> misreading.
Accidental. I thought it said "he makes" not "one makes."
OK, Kenny thinks I'm a complete idiot. All is right with the world.
rg
On Jul 7, 1:52 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
>
> OK, Kenny thinks I'm a complete idiot. All is right with the world.
What surprises me (changing the subject) is that nobody has pointed
out the ambiguity of the thread title.
-- Scott
Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> writes:
> What surprises me (changing the subject) is that nobody has pointed
> out the ambiguity of the thread title.
:-) Indeed, this explains a lot of our misunderstandings.
Nicolas
Nicolas Neuss wrote:
> Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> What surprises me (changing the subject) is that nobody has pointed
>> out the ambiguity of the thread title.
>
> :-) Indeed, this explains a lot of our misunderstandings.
>
> Nicolas
I only now even see the ambiguity. Scott may be too literal-minded if
his broca did not convert "rip" to R.I.P. so seamlessly there could be
no ambiguity. Now if he were not a native speaker I could see it.
Anyway, I am reminded of a Gahan Wilson cartoon showing two servers
cowering inside a diner looking out the window at an approaching 500ft
tall monster. Over the diner we see a big neon sign saying "Eat", and
one server is saying, "My god. Do you think it can read?"
kt
2009-07-09
it is curious, that over the web, you see Erik's obituaries are almost
all titled like “RIP ...”. e.g.
“Erik Naggum, R.I.P.” Kent Pitman
“RIP, Erik Naggum” by Zach Beane
“My Dinner with Erik” by Ron Garret
“RIP Erik Naggum” by Rolf Marvin Bøe Lindgren
“Erik Naggum” (2009-06-20) by Hogne Bø Pettersen
“Erik Naggum (1965-2009) RIP” by “Kjetil”
“Erik Naggum, 1965-2009 RIP” by Ruben Olsen
“Erik Naggum, 1965-2009 RIP” by Tim Bray
When i was writing a memorial of Erik, i also needed a title, and
thought about it.
“RIP ...” is a customary phrase to indicate someone just died. It is a
euphemism of sorts. RIP stands for Rest In Peace. Digging into it, the
phrase Rest In Peace implies some belief in a soul, that when a person
dies, this “soul”, or perhaps the dead body, would take the action of
“rest”, with the hope of “peace”.
on writing this, i looked up Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiescat_in_pace
oh, so it actually is latin in origin, standing for “Requiescat in
pace”, but basically just means rest in peace too. However, the
article did not give any etymology from social aspects. That is, why
did people say “Requiescat in pace” when a beloved died. Was this a
custom? When? in what region?
When writing, my question is, why should we follow this customary
phrase, other than the sake of tradition? For example, a obituary, or
memorial, could be titled “Beloved Erik Naggum is Dead”, “In memory of
Naggum”, etc.
For me, when i wrote my essay on Erik, i thought about this, and in
the end decided to title it “Death of a Troll”. To me, this is quite a
fitting title for Erik. The title suits my style of writing as well.
(me, am known as a troll; my newsgroup style of writing, is catered to
irritate a particular group of people who are tech-savy but socially
illiterate, of which i term the tech geekers). My title is fitting
because Erik is, perhaps, best known as a Troll. One may have many
definitions for the word troll, or that the word is too much abused
and has become just a derogatory epithet... but in any case, Erik is
known, perhaps best known, as a troll, possibly even the biggist one
in newsgroup history, and now he's dead. Thus: “Death of a Troll.”. In
obituaries, usually there's a tacit convention to avoid the term
“death”. For example, instead saying directly “John is dead”, people
say “passed away” or “1950-2001”. The invocation to the concept of
soul or even religious beliefs, and the euphemism aspect of these
conventional obituary titles, annoy me. Erik, being a direct,
confrontational, type of person (at least his online persona), and
being not religious, am pretty sure these phrasiosogies are probably
not something he'd be fond of neither.
I dig into these seemingly trivial details of english usage, because
i'm a independent thinker, and perhaps also due to the fact that
English is not my native tongue. Of Erik's writings, perhaps the
aspect i appreciate the most, is his english writing style and diction
usage. They are quite unusual and unique, that showcases a mastery.
This is what i appreciate Erik the most — his independent mind.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
On Jul 8, 6:29 am, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nicolas Neuss wrote:
> > Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> What surprises me (changing the subject) is that nobody has pointed
> >> out the ambiguity of the thread title.
>
> > :-) Indeed, this explains a lot of our misunderstandings.
>
> > Nicolas
>
> I only now even see the ambiguity. Scott may be too literal-minded if
> his broca did not convert "rip" to R.I.P. so seamlessly there could be
> no ambiguity. Now if he were not a native speaker I could see it.
> Anyway, I am reminded of a Gahan Wilson cartoon showing two servers
> cowering inside a diner looking out the window at an approaching 500ft
> tall monster. Over the diner we see a big neon sign saying "Eat", and
> one server is saying, "My god. Do you think it can read?"
>
> kt
Xah Lee wrote:
• Erik Naggum And The Phrase RIP
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/bangu/RIP.html
Addendum:
Carlos wrote to me about the social origin of RIP:
Hi. It comes from the prayer said by Catholic priests in the
burial
service:
Requiem aeternam dona ei (eis) Domine.
Et lux perpetua luceat ei (eis).
Requiescat (requiescant) in pace.
Amen.
Give him (them) eternal rest, Lord.
And let the eternal light shine on him (them).
May he (they) rest in peace.
(free [probably not very accurate] translation)
Apparently it wasn't a popular epitaph on protestant countries
until
advanced XVIII/XIX century.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
On Jul 9, 8:35 am, Xah Lee <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009-07-09
>
> it is curious, that over the web, you seeErik'sobituaries are almost
> all titled like “RIP ...”. e.g.
>
> “ErikNaggum, R.I.P.” Kent Pitman
>
> “RIP,ErikNaggum” by Zach Beane
>
> “My Dinner withErik” by Ron Garret
>
> “RIPErikNaggum” by Rolf Marvin Bøe Lindgren
>
> “ErikNaggum” (2009-06-20) by Hogne Bø Pettersen
>
> “ErikNaggum(1965-2009) RIP” by “Kjetil”
>
> “ErikNaggum, 1965-2009 RIP” by Ruben Olsen
>
> “ErikNaggum, 1965-2009 RIP” by Tim Bray
>
> When i was writing a memorial ofErik, i also needed a title, and
> thought about it.
>
> “RIP ...” is a customary phrase to indicate someone just died. It is a
> euphemism of sorts. RIP stands for Rest In Peace. Digging into it, the
> phrase Rest In Peace implies some belief in a soul, that when a person
> dies, this “soul”, or perhaps the dead body, would take the action of
> “rest”, with the hope of “peace”.
>
> on writing this, i looked up Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiescat_in_pace
>
> oh, so it actually is latin in origin, standing for “Requiescat in
> pace”, but basically just means rest in peace too. However, the
> article did not give any etymology from social aspects. That is, why
> did people say “Requiescat in pace” when a beloved died. Was this a
> custom? When? in what region?
>
> When writing, my question is, why should we follow this customary
> phrase, other than the sake of tradition? For example, a obituary, or
> memorial, could be titled “BelovedErikNaggumis Dead”, “In memory ofNaggum”, etc.
>
> For me, when i wrote my essay onErik, i thought about this, and in
> the end decided to title it “Death of a Troll”. To me, this is quite a
> fitting title forErik. The title suits my style of writing as well.
> (me, am known as a troll; my newsgroup style of writing, is catered to
> irritate a particular group of people who are tech-savy but socially
> illiterate, of which i term the tech geekers). My title is fitting
> becauseErikis, perhaps, best known as a Troll. One may have many
> definitions for the word troll, or that the word is too much abused
> and has become just a derogatory epithet... but in any case,Erikis
> known, perhaps best known, as a troll, possibly even the biggist one
> in newsgroup history, and now he's dead. Thus: “Death of a Troll.”. In
> obituaries, usually there's a tacit convention to avoid the term
> “death”. For example, instead saying directly “John is dead”, people
> say “passed away” or “1950-2001”. The invocation to the concept of
> soul or even religious beliefs, and the euphemism aspect of these
> conventional obituary titles, annoy me.Erik, being a direct,
> confrontational, type of person (at least his online persona), and
> being not religious, am pretty sure these phrasiosogies are probably
> not something he'd be fond of neither.
>
> I dig into these seemingly trivial details of english usage, because
> i'm a independent thinker, and perhaps also due to the fact that
> English is not my native tongue. OfErik'swritings, perhaps the
> aspect i appreciate the most, is his english writing style and diction
> usage. They are quite unusual and unique, that showcases a mastery.
> This is what i appreciateErikthe most — his independent mind.
>
> Xah
> ∑http://xahlee.org/
>
> ☄
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 00:50:19 -0700 (PDT), Xah Lee <······@gmail.com> said:
> ...
> Requiem aeternam dona ei (eis) Domine.
> Et lux perpetua luceat ei (eis).
> Requiescat (requiescant) in pace.
> Amen.
> Give him (them) eternal rest, Lord.
> And let the eternal light shine on him (them).
> May he (they) rest in peace.
> (free [probably not very accurate] translation)
Quite accurate.
Pax vobiscum,
Vassil.
--
"Even when the muse is posting on Usenet, Alexander Sergeevich?"
Ron Garret wrote:
> In article
> <····································@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> Keith H Duggar <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 7, 1:40 am, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ron Garret wrote:
>>>> In article <·························@cv.net>,
>>>> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Miles Bader wrote:
>>>>>> toby <····@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
>>>>>>>> I get the feeling he was basically a smart guy but just couldn't
>>>>>>>> control
>>>>>>>> his emotions...
>>>>>>> I disagree somewhat. His rants, to me, demonstrate a very fine control
>>>>>>> of his emotions. His posts are not the result of an angry guy pounding
>>>>>>> the keyboard in a rage, but rather somebody who took great pains to
>>>>>>> correct, *by argument*, the inanities, sloppy thinking and falsehoods
>>>>>>> that he despised.
>>>>>> You've clearly never seen him at his nuttiest...
>>>>> I would say "angriest". ERonn is a master at being stupid in flamewars,
>>>>> always saying transparently idiotic things easily refuted and then
>>>>> coming back with three more idiotic things for evey good point one
>>>>> makes.
>>>> Wow, Kenny, I'm amazed to see you concede that I actually made good
>>>> points.
>>> That is too stupid for you to be a joke so I will presume a misreading.
>> I think there's a 99% chance it was an accidental or intentional
>> misreading.
>
> Accidental. I thought it said "he makes" not "one makes."
>
> OK, Kenny thinks I'm a complete idiot. All is right with the world.
I presumed a misreading now confirmed. That does not make you a compleat
idiot, and in fact that makes you nothing: we all misread. Hope you are
not disappointed.
kt
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:04:53 -0400, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> ...
> Erik went the other way, always wanting more out of us than we were
> capable of.
This is a fine epitaph.
---Vassil.
--
"Even when the muse is posting on Usenet, Alexander Sergeevich?"
On Jul 6, 10:04 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Miles Bader wrote:
> > toby <····@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
> >>> I get the feeling he was basically a smart guy but just couldn't control
> >>> his emotions...
> >> I disagree somewhat. His rants, to me, demonstrate a very fine control
> >> of his emotions. His posts are not the result of an angry guy pounding
> >> the keyboard in a rage, but rather somebody who took great pains to
> >> correct, *by argument*, the inanities, sloppy thinking and falsehoods
> >> that he despised.
>
> > You've clearly never seen him at his nuttiest...
>
> I would say "angriest".
> ... Erik ... just became more and more beside himself trying to
> penetrate folks' idiocy shields.
>
> I finally ascribed this to a positive impulse within him: he respected
> others /too much/. He could not just brush off someone as worthless,
> because anyone once encountered was important to him. He was not
> anti-social, he was too social. The sociopath is the one who does not
> really know the other exists.
>
> Erik went the other way, always wanting more out of us than we were
> capable of.
Well said!
--Toby
>
> kt
toby wrote:
> On Jul 6, 10:04 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Miles Bader wrote:
>>> toby <····@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
>>>>> I get the feeling he was basically a smart guy but just couldn't control
>>>>> his emotions...
>>>> I disagree somewhat. His rants, to me, demonstrate a very fine control
>>>> of his emotions. His posts are not the result of an angry guy pounding
>>>> the keyboard in a rage, but rather somebody who took great pains to
>>>> correct, *by argument*, the inanities, sloppy thinking and falsehoods
>>>> that he despised.
>>> You've clearly never seen him at his nuttiest...
>> I would say "angriest".
>> ... Erik ... just became more and more beside himself trying to
>> penetrate folks' idiocy shields.
>>
>> I finally ascribed this to a positive impulse within him: he respected
>> others /too much/. He could not just brush off someone as worthless,
>> because anyone once encountered was important to him. He was not
>> anti-social, he was too social. The sociopath is the one who does not
>> really know the other exists.
>>
>> Erik went the other way, always wanting more out of us than we were
>> capable of.
>
> Well said!
I don't know, I ended the sentence with a preposition, Erik would not be
pleased.
kt
Miles Bader <·····@gnu.org> writes:
>>> I get the feeling he was basically a smart guy but just couldn't control
>>> his emotions...
>>
>> I disagree somewhat. His rants, to me, demonstrate a very fine control
>> of his emotions. His posts are not the result of an angry guy pounding
>> the keyboard in a rage, but rather somebody who took great pains to
>> correct, *by argument*, the inanities, sloppy thinking and falsehoods
>> that he despised.
>
> You've clearly never seen him at his nuttiest...
BTW, even when _not_ at his nuttiest, "fine control of his emotions"
seems a rather questionable label for Naggum's behavior.
Control of one's emotion seems to imply that one knows can choose when
to flame and when not to flame, but Erik inevitably seemed to choose
insults even when doing so was obviously counter-productive. He seemed
to value _feeling_ like he was "winning", even if in the process he
entirely obscured his actual arguments and alienated all of his
opponents, thus making it far less likely that he could convince
anybody.
While he certainly seemed to have a lot of technical knowledge (though
from what I've seen, he was not nearly so insightful or knowledgeable as
his defenders here seem to think), his argumentative style for the most
part seemed downright childish; "in control" is not the phrase I'd use
to describe it...
[BTW, my exposure to Naggum is largely not on c.l.l, but rather to his
early ranting about SGML, and later about Emacs. Maybe (hopefully!) he
matured a bit in recent years...]
-Miles
--
Love is the difficult realization that something other than oneself is real.
[Iris Murdoch]
On Jul 6, 10:24 pm, Miles Bader <·····@gnu.org> wrote:
> Miles Bader <·····@gnu.org> writes:
> >>> I get the feeling he was basically a smart guy but just couldn't control
> >>> his emotions...
>
> >> I disagree somewhat. His rants, to me, demonstrate a very fine control
> >> of his emotions. His posts are not the result of an angry guy pounding
> >> the keyboard in a rage, but rather somebody who took great pains to
> >> correct, *by argument*, the inanities, sloppy thinking and falsehoods
> >> that he despised.
>
> > You've clearly never seen him at his nuttiest...
>
> BTW, even when _not_ at his nuttiest, "fine control of his emotions"
> seems a rather questionable label for Naggum's behavior.
>
> Control of one's emotion seems to imply that one knows can choose when
> to flame and when not to flame, but Erik inevitably seemed to choose
> insults even when doing so was obviously counter-productive. He seemed
Flame != insults. I don't see much sign that Erik lost rational
underpinnings in posts where he seems "angry". The "insults" seem like
a rhetorical device.
> to value _feeling_ like he was "winning", even if in the process he
> entirely obscured his actual arguments and alienated all of his
> opponents, thus making it far less likely that he could convince
> anybody.
Sounds like blaming the victim. See "penetrating idiocy shields"
above. You don't pierce armour by throwing marshmallows. So the worst
one could say of Erik is that he picked unwinnable battles - as we see
from the grave dancing by the antagonists who, by pure luck, outlived
him.
> ...
--T
>
> [BTW, my exposure to Naggum is largely not on c.l.l, but rather to his
> early ranting about SGML, and later about Emacs. Maybe (hopefully!) he
> matured a bit in recent years...]
>
> -Miles
>
> --
> Love is the difficult realization that something other than oneself is real.
> [Iris Murdoch]
On Jul 6, 9:38 pm, Miles Bader <·····@gnu.org> wrote:
> toby <····@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
> >> I get the feeling he was basically a smart guy but just couldn't control
> >> his emotions...
>
> > I disagree somewhat. His rants, to me, demonstrate a very fine control
> > of his emotions. His posts are not the result of an angry guy pounding
> > the keyboard in a rage, but rather somebody who took great pains to
> > correct, *by argument*, the inanities, sloppy thinking and falsehoods
> > that he despised.
>
> You've clearly never seen him at his nuttiest...
Why would it bother me? It wouldn't change my view that speaking truth
to bullshit is a public service. That people like Erik exist(ed) might
be USENET's saving grace.
If his "nuttiest" is that private email which has been bandied around
in attempts to tarnish his memory, then I don't see the big deal.
--T
>
> -Miles
>
> --
> We live, as we dream -- alone....
On Jun 20, 5:08 pm, d p chang <······@meer.net> wrote:
> maybe old news on this group, but saw this float by on HN
>
> http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
>
> bummer.
>
> \p
> ---
> Wit is educated insolence. - Aristotle
(Since, apparently, motzarella doesn't actually work anymore or posts
seem to take days to get through - I'll try the horrible Google
interface.)
I will miss him. I enjoyed and often gained new insights from his
posts.
I read his rants about C++ at a time when it had already ever so
slightly begun to dawn on me that "something was very wrong here".
He really hit the nail on the head both regarding the social and
technical aspects of C++. He did this more than once; not just wrt. C+
+.
I think he had a more direct connection with the/his/"our"
subconsciousness and could bring its subtle and too often ignored
voice, "I'm here - and I'm trying to tell you, something", to light.
Again, I will miss him -- and I'll add, as another twitter said; "the
world can fuck off."