Subject: Re: OT: Usenet lack of civility (was Re: Logical pathname hosts.)
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1998/12/27
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Barry Margolin <>
| You referred to Sam a "helpless moron" in the post I was replying to.

  sure, but let's see _how_, which I think is important for _meaning_:

    the group therapy here, led by Barry Margolin, is about it being OK to
    be a retarded jerk, so would I please stop hitting them because they
    cannot possibly improve or stop doing what they do; in particular: Sam
    Steingold is a helpless moron and has no other option than to post
    idiotic drivel, so now I be nice and not hurt him, OK?  (I could never
    be as mean to Sam as I think Barry is with his defense for him.)

  I was describing _your_ defense of Sam Steingold, Barry, and why you
  don't want "helpless" people flamed, while you feel entirely free to
  attack me with the most bizarrely irrational accusations.  but I see now
  that once you've made up your moralistic mind, it cannot change.  you
  cannot even _read_ in that state of moral outrage you're in, can you?

| If you now claim there's no such thing, then this whole "discussion" is
| totally hopeless.

  I claim that _you_ think in terms of helplessness.  I criticize people
  both softly and very harshly because I think they can, in fact have an
  _obligation_, to stop doing stupid things and perhaps start doing smarter
  things.  you want me to stop flaming them because your belief system is
  about people who cannot improve their own condition, and thus should be
  protected.  this is a view I do not subscribe to in any form.

| Actually, I realized it was driveal after I made the mistake of my last
| reply, and this will be my final message.

  so, once again, you learn absolutely nothing.  how annoyingly predictable.

  why _is_ it that the fools who criticize other people for criticizing yet
  others feel so morally superior that they would never listen to anything
  that has to do directly with their criticism?  is it because it takes a
  particularly closed mind to feel morally superior to begin with, and that
  only moralistic assholes fail to see that there is just as much intent to
  see improvement in the criticism of others as there is in theirs?  _or_
  did Barry only wish to paint as black a picture as possible, regardless
  of facts or anything remotely relating to reality, so he could feel
  morally vindicated _himself_, rather than have any useful impact on the
  world?  well, if the Republicans in Washington can think that way, I'm
  sure they have constituents who back them up on it, and a culture that
  allows that kind of institutionalized hypocrisy.

  I'm waiting for those two rude lines in your .signature to go away and
  show that you have understood that you are _much_ worse than what you
  criticize in others, because you assume without knowing that the people
  who are the intended audience of those two lines would annoy you.  I deal
  with individuals who do something wrong, when they do it, and only then,
  whereas you are happy to _presume_ wrongdoing from strangers and the
  public at large.  if you have any ethics at all, I don't think you do
  when you are free to suspend it, I wouldn't want anyone to be the victim
  of it.