Subject: Re: ACL 6.0 Trial Edition ships with non ANSI reader behavior.
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 2000/11/09
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* John Foderaro <>
| You don't flame  someone if you want to seriously send them any
| information.  The intended use of a flame is to vent hostility in
| the writer and to amuse everyone else but the flamee.

  Let me rephrase this: If someone is angry at you, you ignore them,
  because anger is with the sender and has nothing whatsoever to do
  with you, what you have done to them, or most importantly of all:
  what you could do to reduce or remove that anger.  Instead, engage
  in passive-aggressive behavior to ensure that people get ever more
  infuriated by your attitude and actions.  This is a winner, John!

  This attitude problem tells me one thing above and beyond anything
  else: John Foderaro never makes mistakes, especiall not ones he is
  willing to admit could piss people off.  If anyone is angry at you,
  it's their problem, and you are entirely free to piss them off more
  and more, because John Foderaro is _right_ and the whole goddamn
  world can go fuck itself if anyone disagrees, is insulted by your
  attitude (which it is impossible not to be considering your selfish
  arrogance), or wants to change your mind.  On top of that, you are
  blabbering about Kent being selfish and that that's horrible, which
  tells me that you aren't a very honest or even introspective person.
  People who aren't primarily concerned with their own interests _and_
  aware of the extent to which they are, are dangerous, because they
  think they actually speak for and on behalf of somebody else,
  somebody "higher" than themselves, which sanctifies their position,
  although _they_ themselves (almost) never want anybody else to speak
  for or on behalf of them without _their_ consent and influence.  All
  the tragedy in the world that has been perpetrated by people who
  selfishly (in the short-sighted, narrow-minded way) _wanted_ to
  think they were just acting in somebody else's interest has told me
  one thing: People who think selfishness and looking out for #1 is
  the problem are dishonest people nobody should trust.  Once they get
  beyond that stupid holier-than-thou attitude and realize that it is
  _which_ interests you hold as your own that is the issue, there is
  hope, both of _including_ them in a community (which means a lot of
  people who have usefully similar interests acting together in each
  their own interests, always free to leave if theirs differ too much
  from the community's, and in having that community work to solve its
  real (and not imagined) problems because somebody "unselfishness"
  prompts them to think about people who are _not_ in the community.
  (John argues about "target audience", but invalidates the whole
  concept by rejecting acting in your own interests, obviously not
  seeing the glaring contradiction that by excluding those who are not
  in the target audience by means we shall never know, he is acting in
  a very selfish manner, himself.)

  Moreover, reacting in this passive-agressive way is a sure-fire way
  to get people who respond to legitimate concerns while your attitude
  problem prevents reasonable communication with you, to consider you
  an asshole on the personal level, removing any desire to take _you_
  seriously enough to discuss anything technical with ou, as you have
  done your very best already to tell people that if they don't agree
  with you, you can basically just ignore them, _especially_ if they
  get angry for so being ignored in the first place.

  I flame people to get them to realize that they have done something
  wrong.  _Very_ few fail to get this message, but those who do fail,
  get this notion that they are right _because_ they are being flamed,
  and I just added John Foderaro to that list.  The smart ones, in
  contrast, figure out that even if they would like to believe they
  have done nothing wrong, that belief _may_ be wrong and they _can't_
  ignore the incoming signal that they may be doing something wrong in
  somebody else's eyes.  Now I get the signal that John Foderaro does
  _nothing_ wrong, so please don't flame him because he can't take it.
  Your first comment was that I was your friend and you were "shell-
  shocked".  I'm sorry to say that won't consider you a friend after
  this, because nowhere along the line did you ever pause even to
  _consider_ what you had done to "shell-shock" _me_.  You shattered a
  trust I had very precariously built in you, in Allegro CL, and in
  Franz Inc, with a few really stupid moves, and _you_ get sore when I
  call attention to this fact.  How incredibly _inconsiderate_ of my
  and other people's feeelings and reactions you are, John.  How
  _selfish_, in your terminology, most probably, since you don't seem
  to distinguish between inconsiderate behavior towards others and
  being concerned with your own interests.  You prove this, too, sadly.

  No _friend_ has ever insulted me so much as you have in the past few
  days -- but I'm sure you don't even realize it, because you don't
  care what anybody else thinks at all.  There is nothing more to say
  to you after this, because if a person is so pig-headed and arrogant
  and just plain stupid he doesn't even realize that when people care
  deeply about something, they _will_ get angry at each other if some
  action or decision or comment poses a threat to that which has been
  precariously built over many years, such as a community consensus on
  a specification (which you don't share, anyway), even if that threat
  is only perceived by one person.  The most intelligent course of
  action is to try to reduce that perception of a threat, not escalate
  it like you do with your "I'm never wrong, you're just nuts because
  you want upper-case, and that's insane" attitude.

  Ironically, the blanket rejection of people who get angry includes
  John Foderaro, who still harbors hatred and other forms of strong
  animosity towards both people and decisions in the group of people
  who defined the Common Lisp language a really long time ago.  If we
  take his word for it, that must mean that _he_ did not intend, and
  probably _never_ intended, to seriously send the committee members
  any information but only wanted to vent his own hostility towards
  their decisions.  I have had people who side with his view tell me
  in private communication that they think people who want all upper-
  case symbol names _are_ nuts.  Sure, _that's_ going to help you get
  a good standard and community consensus for a compromise!  The jury
  is still out, I guess, but my impression after watching John in
  action consistently refusing to get any point of view but his own,
  is that _he's_ nuts, not for wanting something other than other
  people have wanted, but for never relenting enough to make room for
  them so they _wouldn't_ have to fight him and he them.  It's just
  like watching Israel and Palestine, the most unintelligent peoples
  to engage in hostilities after WWII.  Even beliggerent, supposedly
  legandarily impatient _me_ have room for people being a lot smarter
  and knowledgeable and experienced and competent and what not than
  myself in some specific areas, they only need to show me what they
  are, and trust that I have some such areas,too.  John Foderaro
  doesn't have that space for other people's competence with differing
  views that makes it possible to work within a community setting.  I
  cannot trust someone who does not even understands _what_ people are
  objecting to in what he has done to be able to make any _correct_
  decisions, either.

| This one-to-many communication medium is flawed.

  *laugh*  Right, John!  Right!  You just can't handle it, but that
  doesn't make it anywhere near _flawed_.  One-to-many communication
  media have always been hard to master, and very few really do, but
  that lies solely with the communicator, not the media.  But sure,
  blame the medium -- that's so _frighteningly_ consistent behavior!

| We've gotten calls from people who got the wrong impression from
| reading the newsgroup.

  Really?  So the damage control team has discussed your damaging
  behavior and you're now receding into oblivion because "the medium
  is flawed" and people get "the wrong impression" from what you're
  saying?  There's _still_ no relation between what you have done and
  people's reactions, apparently.  That's just _too_ pathetic.

| One to one communication is far more effective.

  That's right, John, at least 3000 years of propaganda machinery and
  the _very_ successful techniques developed by thoroughly evil people
  like Joseph Goebbels and less evil but still as manipulative people
  in the advertising and popular culture to make hundreds of millions
  of people behave exactly same way are using techniques that are not
  as effective as one-to-one communication.  This has _nothing_ to do
  with your communication skills, of course.  You don't make mistakes
  at _all_, John, do you?, especially none that would cause people to
  laugh in disbelief, be insulted by your very, very low opinion of
  people in general or feel strong animosity towards your willingness
  to destroy their trust in the language they love and the tools they
  really would want to use.  So of course it's obvious to you that if
  we only communicated with people one to one, we would have much more
  _effective_ communication in politics and sales and entertainment
  and just about everything.  Let's shut down _all_ the mass media and
  the churches and the public meetings, too!  Clearly, it is much more
  _effective_ to have each person talk to each other person on a one
  to one basis because there doesn't have to be any consistency to
  worry about and if you say something that is actually wrong, you can
  probably fool whoever you told it to.  Not to mention that nothing
  would be embarrassing, anymore, since if you give "wrong
  impressions" when you clearly state your opinions, surely you will
  continue to do so in one-to-one communication, only nobody else will
  be there to share with the hapless victim of what you told them.

  Matter of fact, one-to-many communication media are much, much more
  _effective_ than one-to-one communication, both to influence people
  and make people change their minds.  What's required, however, is a
  lot less ego investment in what is being said.  This requires that
  people are fairly intelligent or willing to think more before they
  act, as really stupid people tend to think that if someone changes
  their mind, that'a a drawback and a problem you can pull out of the
  hat if you want to hurt them later because it is somehow shameful to
  have been wrong in the past.  The shameful thing, however, is to be
  wrong in the _present_ when you have sufficient information to know
  what's right and act accordingly.  When you don't want to do that,
  and lots of people see it, of course one-to-many communication is a
  serious problem.

  I would have been impressed if you had been able to express regret
  that you angered people so much, had at least been able to exercise
  sufficient introspection and observational skills to realize that
  _you_ have pissed someone off who once considered you a friend, too,
  so much so that he is unlikely to want to deal with you again, and
  actually consider you a liability to his future dealings with Franz
  Inc because of your rabidly anti-standard, anti-community stance and
  utter unwillingness to listen enough to contrary opinions to even
  understand what people are objecting to.

  The saddest part of this is that I cannot trust technical arguments
  from you after this, either, because I have seen what happens when
  you make mistakes and never, ever admit it: It's everybody else's
  fault, the whole communication medium is _flawed_, for crying out
  loud, and _nothing_ is learned from a negative process.  My trust in
  people relies on their processes of learning and fixing mistakes,
  not in what they specifically think is right, and I have _no_ trust
  in your mistake-fixing processes at this time, John.  _None_.

  I will support Franz Inc _despite_ John Foderaro's influence after
  this, but if he is not curtailed and limited from destroying more of
  the trust I still have in the company and their products, I shall
  need to look elsewhere pretty soon.  

  What would make _me_ happy?  I have decided to post that separately
  to avoid the stupid attitude problem that pissing me off gives me no
  right to have technical opinions, which John Foderaro harbors.

  Does anyone remember where I parked Air Force One?
                                   -- George W. Bush