Subject: Re: CMU CL vs. CLISP? From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> Date: 1999/08/09 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3143227329979631@naggum.no> * Erik Naggum | I don't always get such confirmations, but I have yet to see any evidence | of malice behind that. of course, if you don't _need_ evidence of | malice, but assume it by default, [and the rest of the sentence, which | you elided for reasons only you can fully understand:] which you do if I | read you right, you would need evidence of its absence, and three | instances of malice-by-default is pretty good evidence that Franz Inc is | maliciously ignoring you. * Pierpaolo Bernardi | Malice? Erik, please stop attributing to people intentions which are | only products of your fantasy. for one who gives advice, you sure are lousy at taking it, but if you think the best way to deal with stuff you don't agree with is to do the same to other people, I have all the evidence I need of any malice at work, and it is neither at Franz Inc nor my fantasy. if you don't understand that conditionals like the one you reacted so blindly to are intended to make you think about your position, and instead start to defend it as if the condition were true, what am I supposed to think but that it is indeed true? if you want to argue against what you call "products of your fantasy", at the very least: do yourself the favor of not denying them so vociferously. if they are indeed products of my fantasy, even only for the purpose of getting to know a little better what kind of person I'm dealing with, it behooves you to _do_ better, and it's a lot simpler than defending yourself, too. in this particular case, I wanted you to think about the implication that you don't need evidence of malice because you act as if the lack of a response to a bug report was somehow a serious flaw that you could and should blame somebody else for. common reasons not to get replies are: that you send from a broken mail system, use some stupid spam-avoiding fake mailbox, or other faults with the initiator of the mail. assuming faults with the other party is sometimes something it is important to learn if someone does habitually. I guess I know that that's precisely what you tend towards, now, as in the following: | *I* am attacking personally you? After all the name calling that you | did in this thread towards me? yes, Pierpaolo, you were actually attacking me. that's a fact. if you think it is excusable, or defensible, or irrelevant compared to other things, that's an entirely different issue, even if you don't understand such simple ethical issues. the fact remains, and I'm just enjoying the spectacle of someone who claims to be so ardently opposed to personal attacks even try to deny the fact of his own behavior, even defending his denial as the fault of he whom he attacks. I find such behavior fascinating to watch, but at the very least, I don't conflate clean and simple facts with my wishes, whatever else you may fancy accusing me of. | I could find this funny, if I were the kind of person that takes fun | at other persons serious problems. you already started with a curious case of projection in the article I'm responding to, then denial of facts, and now you're trying very hard to get an upper hand by blaming me for everything. funny, indeed, but then again, I _do_ think it's hilariously funny to expose people who try _so_ hard to appear above reproach. next time, Pierpaolo, just grow a clue and consider that you do yourself a favor by doing something that cannot be attacked in ways you don't like, such as not attributing malice to people you don't know at all, and above all: don't let so much of _your_ personal response patterns show through -- there's no fun in people who are _actually_ mad. #:Erik -- suppose we blasted all politicians into space. would the SETI project find even one of them?