Subject: Re: hashtable w/o keys stored...
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1999/01/16
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Barry Margolin <>
| You're venomous in practically every post, and I have a hard time
| attributing it to anything else.

  I have a very hard time attributing what you see to anything but the way
  your mind works, and you have given me an important clue today: the key
  to the way it works is that you attack _people_ and react to _people_.

  _you_ see me as venomous in practically every post because that's what
  you _expect_ when you see my name and since you cannot even read a
  helpful reply in an Emacs group without misrepresenting what I write and
  vilifying me, and this you have been doing for _months_, you see me
  _really_ pissed at you in return.  you see what you want, and if it isn't
  there you either invent or provoke it.  if you could have seen something
  else, you turn away and effectively ignore it.

  you're a fucking _pest_ the way you follow me around and are venomous to
  _me_ at every opportunity for things I _don't_ do.  I don't attack you.
  I don't follow up to your articles.  I stay out of your way, until and
  unless _you_ post some of _your_ venomous drivel about _me_, but you just
  keep doing it, over and over and over, like a sick moron.  you attack me
  for things I _haven't_ done and you portray me as something _way_ beyond
  what you could ever have observed or even extrapolated from what you have
  observed.  like the true evil in the history of mankind has been for some
  "good cause", I'm sure there's a fucked-up idea of a "good cause" in you,
  too, but it's gone _completely_ out of control.  there's nothing I can
  do, anymore: your mental image of me is so cast in stone that you will
  continue to provoke me to get confirmation that I'm bad because your
  fucked-up mind can't deal with invalid generalizations.  this is really a
  matter between you and your shrink, not anybody else, but as long as you
  keep pestering me with your idiocy, I'll continue to expose you for what
  you are: a destructive being.

  now, I'm dead certain that you are incapable of reading anything I write
  at all, and that you'll continue to think you're free of all possible
  guilt in this matter.  you'll go home and polish your glory and feel
  morally superior because once again, you have poked a bad guy in the eye,
  and by god, he did not forgive you this time, either, but would have
  killed you on the spot if he could, so _he's_ bad and you're innocent.
  still, if there's a single shred of decency left in you, you'll at least
  hear what the object of your vilification and misrepresentation and your
  baseless accusations has to say.  but I wouldn't be surprised if you do
  what you have done so far: damn the objections, full speed ahead: you're
  on a mission to destroy, and if he objects, that's because he's guilty.
  I'm sure you would have been a witch hunter if you could.
| Perhaps it's because you don't bother posting unless something riles you,
| so all we ever see is the negative side.  Or maybe I'm just a poor judge
| of character.

  or perhaps it's because you cannot even _see_ what you don't already
  think is there.  I'm already guilty according to your ethics, so why
  bother with contrary evidence?

  you have proven incapable of comprehending anything I write without
  imputing evil intentions or _introducing_ faults in it that never would
  have been there if you had read it carefully (which you admit you don't
  do in the first place), so I wouldn't be surprised at all if you have so
  strong mental blocks you cannot even comprehend that _you_ do something
  evil towards me that I have every right to object to.  whatever you
  perhaps once thought could be accomplished with criticism is irrevocably
  lost because you become the aggressor, who responds not to something I
  do, but to something within yourself: nothing I do could ever make you
  change your mind, so it is in fact not something I do that you criticize
  or react to, it's your mental image!  you have also proven that you will
  never relinquish that mental image no matter _what_ happens.  this is
  something that only fucked-up religious nutcases do, like Scientologists
  who are instructed to suspend all ethics and destroy whoever criticizes
  them by whatever means available.  fairness and justice would be an
  impediment to speedy execution, so you just dispense with it.

| That's a possibility, but I think people who know me will confirm that
| I'm pretty easy going, and it takes someone who's really annoying to get
| on my bad side (as you said, I'm amazingly forgiving).

  well, gee, I could say the same thing, with two very important exceptions:

1 I never latch onto "SOMEONE who's really annoying".  I latch on to
  SOMETHING that's really annoying.  then I let go once that something goes
  away.  but you don't let go, because your fucked-up psycho brain attacks
  _people_, not _actions_.  there's no way for you to let go, because you
  judge what you imagine and cannot see, and you're always free to assume
  that when there's something that doesn't fit, you can ignore it.  for me,
  that is inherently never an option, I judge actions, and all I do is hold
  the person responsible as if it was done consciously if I cannot find a
  constructive element that indicates that there's a simple and easy way to
  achieve what was _really_ desired.  stop doing it; my criticism vanishes.
  do something else that shows that the old wrong will not be repeated; my
  criticism will never be repeated or even remembered: mission accomplished.

  a related difference is that I attack actions _immediately_.  you attack
  people a _long_ time after you were first annoyed by them, because it
  builds up within: you _collect_ their sins.  I respond right away, and
  then don't remember it until the _same_ thing happens again that shows me
  that they haven't learned since last time.  you will remember it when
  something _unrelated_ happens, and you will use it against the _person_,
  preferably to maximize the pain and the destructive effect.  I optimize
  for getting their attention and not letting them go until they listen.
  you want to destroy, I reprimand.  I guess you hate people, while I hate
  some of their actions.  I don't deal well with people who hate people.
  that's why I don't deal well with Barry Margolin's unfair accusations.

2 I don't forgive, because I have no need to, because I don't go around and
  remember people's "sins".  granting forgiveness is a stupid pretense that
  something didn't happen so that the object of your forgiveness is free to
  try again, but only because you're willing to deny some part of history.
  this is a _great_ means to keep people in debt to whoever is forgiving.

  people who forgive are also likely to withdraw their forgiveness if they
  are once again morally outraged by something the same person does.  they
  are also extremely subjective in whom they forgive and for what.  the
  typical example is hypocrites who forgive mass murderers, but not people
  who don't stop on red lights when there's no other traffic.  generally,
  only the really big evil is forgiven, while the petty evil is denounced
  very heavily.  Bill Clinton is wanted impeached for lying about a sexual
  affair that was nobody's business but his own, not for killing lots of
  innocent people in Iraq.  _that's_ how the forgiveness ethics works.

  such forgiveness ethics is, however, _very_ important in religions where
  your sins are being tallied and used against you.  that I consider to be
  the singularly most evil way to treat people ever invented by either man
  or any sick, revengeful god ever invented in their image.  it could not
  have "prospered" without a religion and some supernatural "god" figure to
  back it up, because people just aren't that evil over extended periods of
  time when left to themselves.  they grow up.  religions never do, because
  with a religion, you are expected not to grow up, and you're thrown out
  of them if you do.  peer pressure keeps people unmatured for millennia.

  the problem is that there _is_ no need to forgive anybody to begin with.
  people _are_ already free to learn from their mistakes and try again
  without having somebody else "forgive" them first or using past mistakes
  against them.  the key is to learn.  if you learn, whatever you did
  before you learned should never be held against you.  (of course, you may
  need to prove that you have indeed learned if the risks of you not having
  learned is too high.)  this view is inconsistent with the very revengeful
  religious views and the view that people _are_ somehow evil.  it's that
  view that caused society to _punish_ people, too, which has been known
  for several hundred years to cause _more_ criminal behavior.  but facts
  don't matter when you've made up your mind about _people_.

  Barry Margolin judges your character and forgives practically everything
  and defend you against all kinds of criticism if you're his sort of good
  person, i.e., pretty stupid, but I judge your actions and expect you to
  improve your act and do the best you can.  all is forgotten if you do.
  if you don't learn, even more shame on you.  Barry Margolin goes after
  _people_ he thinks are bad and he suspends his ethics if he thinks that
  person is bad enough.  this he will continue to do no matter what you do
  in response, and if he can't prove that you're bad, he'll be a good witch
  hunter and invent something that works just as well: vilification and
  innuendo.  I don't go after people in the first place (even people like
  Barry Margolin; if he stops doing his shit, I'll leave him alone, as I do
  _between_ every time he rears his ugly head).

  if someone is _always_ free to try again and nobody will hold their past
  against them, there is no need to _fear_ that anybody will use irrelevant
  past information against anybody out of an evil desire to destroy them or
  what they have done, either.  Barry Margolin, however, sees destruction
  of _people_ as his moral obligation, and _nothing_ will deter him from
  his destructive task, nothing at all.  it's the Barry Margolins of the
  United States Senate who want to impeach William Jefferson Clinton: the
  religious, conservative Republicans who are so blinded by their moral
  outrage that they cannot see anything but their own mental images, and
  especially not themselves, not even the voice of the voters, which used
  to be most important.

| I'll also admit that I'm prone to generalizations, sometimes
| inappropriate ones.

  what's wrong with your generalizations is that they are not rescinded
  when they prove inappropriate.  that you refuse to rescind them when you
  receive contrary information is all I need to know about you -- I shall
  just have to deal with your inappropriate generalizations and their
  consequences for me as long as you continue to post your insane drivel
  about me.  you have proven that nothing whatsoever will ever make you
  change your mind, so all I can do is fight you back every time you try
  one of your stunts, and this has been obvious for months, now.

  however, had I been inclined to think that you could not change this
  behavior if you somehow woke up from your insanity at the hands of
  trained professionals, I would have been forced to think _you_ were evil
  and that you should be destroyed.  I don't think that way.  all I want is
  that your evil _actions_ not hurt me or anybody I know, but as long as
  you continue to accuse me of things I have not done, as long as you
  misrepresent what I write and make me look bad out of _your_ malice, and
  as long as you act on your inappropriate generalizations, I will _have_
  to fight you.  but even if you learn from this, there is nothing you can
  do to repair the damage you have done.  an apology from people who act
  out of moral outrage is a contradiction in terms: it's the morally
  outraged version of themselves that needs to apologize, not the timid
  little fuck who will do the exact same thing again the next time he's
  morally outraged.  so far, it doesn't seem that people who become morally
  outraged and act during that state of mind are legally sane, and thus
  they cannot change their ways except for being stopped from being morally
  outraged.  I still hold out for that being under volitional control if it
  hasn't gone too far.  however, moral outrage is a product of a religion,
  and people seem to have a very hard time rescinding their religions no
  matter how much evidence they receive that it's really bad for them, just
  like some people can't rescind inappropriate generalizations.

  to summarize: not revoking an accusation against somebody for doing
  something they have not in fact done is unforgivable.  misrepresenting
  others in _order_ to hurt them is unforgivable.  Barry Margolin does
  both, systematically.  on top of it, he forgives everybody else anything,
  but goes after those he does not forgive for anything at all, real or,
  preferably, imagined, since myth is so much harder to kill than fact.

  here's my advice to you, Barry Margolin: just fucking quit it.  if you
  can't, and I strongly suspect it will take serious effort to stop, at
  least limit yourself to what I actually do wrong.  there should be plenty
  to choose from, but somehow, I don't think I can do _that_ much wrong
  when you have to invent something to attack in order to make me look bad.

  SIGTHTBABW: a signal sent from Unix to its programmers at random
  intervals to make them remember that There Has To Be A Better Way.