Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 2000/12/01 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Marcus G. Daniels | Where did this notion about creating and imposing rules come from? Since forever, in every single article you post whenever you feel it safe to crawl out of the woodwork to repeat your completely pointless moralism about others, when you clearly do not understand what you are saying and how it affects the forum. I must admit to have a problem with deeply religious and moralistic Americans. I do not approve of bombing abortion clinics in the name of "pro-life" views, for instance, but in the minds of a lot of deeply religious moralistic Americans, it is perfectly acceptable to suspend _all_ notions of ethics and commit any level of atrocity in order to "safeguard" some miniscule "good". An ethical framework that does not even _apply_ when under pressure is worthless, and the kinds of people who have moralistic qualms about something but who show the world that they are willing to suspend their ethics in _reacting_ to what they do not like, are more _destructive_ than any other evil. There is always a lot of hostility building up whenever some moron goes postal, but I have yet to find anyone who exudes more _evil_ than you, Marcus G. Daniels. You do not want to be constructive in any way at all. You post out of an unmistakable lack of good intentions. It is all about destroying something bad you don't like, never building something good you would want to see. _That_ is why comparing you to abortion-clinic-bombing _lunatics_ is entirely appropriate. From what you have written in the past several years, you have consistently been pretending to hold the moral high ground, despite saying the opposite this time, always ready to _denounce_, never able to _contribute_. I think the presence of evil like you destroys the forum much more than the presence of violence if you want to view my actions as that. There are _very_ few _bad_ people here, but you and Raffael Cavellero are certainly competing for first place among them. I keep holding out for the view that bad actions are the results of non-thinking that is the result of lack of incentives to snap out of the morose coziness that comes from never being sufficiently challenged to have to think. Some people commit bad actions with _intent_ to destroy only, and the more moralistic, the more destructive. That's you, Marcus G. Daniels. You have of course considered in all relevant depth how healthy your own contributions are and what it takes to amortize the cost of your behavior (which has not included positive contributions for very long) on this newsgroup. I'd prefer if you were honest about your pure and unadulterated destructiveness and come out and say what you really think and what you really want. Here's my take on it: You do not _want_ anything at all, except to destroy something you do _not_ want. #:Erik -- Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000: Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.