Subject: Re: ACL, CLISP and pathnames
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1998/05/17
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Sam Steingold
| First of all, I would like to thank Barry and Rainer for defending me.

  they weren't.  Barry was critical of the force of my reactions, and
  Rainer agreed.  I have a very hard time reading them as defending you or
  lending your moral support for the kind of followup you produced to my
  response to Barry.

  interpreting Barry's article as defense for your behavior is just as
  unwarranted as every other unwarranted assumption you make and for which
  I have criticize you.  if I had stood up to make the kind of response he
  did, I sure as hell would be deeply _embarrassed_ if the person I had
  implicitly "defended" had come back to make all the vile personal and
  completely _irrelevant_ insults that you suddenly feel free to make, now.
  at least I "insult" you for what you _do_ that has relevance to this
  newsgroup, not for something you supposedly _are_.  however, the latter
  is unavoidable, now.  you _are_ a bad person, Sam Steingold.

  you had beeter learn that just because you have been "defended" doesn't
  mean you are right or that you can start to attack people.  if you think
  people "defend" _you_ and will remain on your side if you abuse their
  "defense", you are gravely mistaken about the nature of their gesture.
  if anything in a tenous situation, you should at the very least make an
  effort to be smart enough not to cause people to dislike _you_ instead of
  just some of the things you do.  gloating and grinning and strutting like
  you do here is evidence of somebody who knows he's been under _rightful_
  attack and thinks he can get away with it.  it's sickening to watch.
| In addition to the emotional support, their defense brought Erik to state
| his accusations without his usual insults (almost), so I can answer them.

  you really are a piece of garbage, Sam.  I am civil to Barry because
  Barry is not the stinking moron that you prove yourself to be in the
  message I respond to now.  in fact, I have great respect for Barry and
  his work, and none at all for you or yours.  you appear to think the
  civility of my response to Barry had some other cause than the fact that
  Barry has not in any possible way offended me.  I wonder what kind of
  sick mind you have that fails to realize at this point that I don't like
  what you do because of something you actually _do_.

  what I see from you now is the stupid kid who some smart, caring adult
  thinks should be given a break, only to observe that the stupid kid goes
  on the rampage with insults and worse back because he thinks the caring
  adult won't leave him to himself and get what he deserves.  the stupid
  kid thus shows an utter lack of understanding of any of the dynamics
  involved, and instead hurls forth such stupid lines as these:

| Erik, you are always interpreting everything in a detrimental manner.

| Not every statement qualifies as a complaint, unless, of course, you are
| looking for an opportunity to insult me.

| I wonder what else you were about to invent about me.

| It is sad that I have to post this (obviously `noise'-type) article.

| Unfortunately, there is little hope that Erik will ever learn to be civil

| Why don't we create a special newsgroup
| comp.lang.lisp.moral-support-for-victims-of-naggum's-abuse?  :-)

  I have a _real_ low tolerance for idiots everywhere, as determined by
  their behavior in context I have to deal with it, which is _all_ I care
  about..  while I try to give some fairly strong hints that I dislike
  somebody's behavior as long as I care enough about their input and what
  they might do _other_ than being despicable morons and this sometimes
  looks ugly to some sensitive people, I feel nothing towards the _person_
  in question.  if I do, I have to get rid of the person from my context,
  which on USENET is fortunately possible with kill and score files.  the
  key to understand this difference is that if and when they change their
  behavior, my criticism ceases, indeed I never criticize unless the
  specifically annoying behavior is present.  if I were to dislike the
  _person_, that _wouldn't_ go away.  however, it has become clear to me
  that Samuel Steingold is not the kind of person who should be given any
  benefit of doubt at all, anymore.  his rejoinder to my response to Barry
  is sufficient evidence of a despicably bad _person_.  his insanely broad
  generalizations about areas he knows nothing about proves that he is not
  of the kind who knows the difference between his own projections and
  facts, which simply means that he is producing _only_ noise, and it was
  the incessant noise that I tried to stop or at least limit.  I have
  failed in that regard, of course, seeing that some of the really bad
  morons out there aren't able to introspect sufficiently to realize that
  _maybe_ what they observe has _something_ to do with their own behavior.
  I can only hope that Barry and Rainer find that it is worth their while
  to teach the stupid kid they care about why he was being treated harshly
  and how he can do something about it himself.

  guesswork, randomly disconnected assumptions and wild generalizations
  have been the underlying problem in my dealing with Samuel Steingold for
  a very long time.  I have helped this stinking moron with Lisp problems,
  with Allegro-specific problems, with Emacs problems, and all I get back
  is "you are ALWAYS interpreting EVERYTHING in a detrimental manner".
  gee, thank you.  I have responded to many of his questions without any
  trace of hostility, instead with helpfulness, concern and a desire to
  make what he fails to be able to make work, work for him, and I daresay I
  know how to be civil and were in the beginning, yet what I get back is
  "there is little hope that Erik will ever learn to be civil".

  creep like Samuel Steingold deserve to be ostracized from the Net, not
  for their moronic attitude problems, but for how they deal with people
  who stand up for them.

  Barry, Rainer, I hope you take it upon yourself to explain to this creep
  what exactly you critized in my reactions towards him and what you do and
  do not "defend".  I have reason to believe that you are sufficiently
  upright people to make it plain and clear to this creep that you do not
  in fact condone or defend the behavior he shows in the article I respond
  to now.  please do it by mail, as he has proven to be the kind of person
  who believes a public form warrants somewhat less than decent behavior
  and responses as soon as he thinks he has an advantage over somebody.

  exit Sam Steingold.

  Support organized crime: use Microsoft products!