From ... Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!isdnet!newsgate.cistron.nl!news.tele.dk!129.240.148.23!uio.no!Norway.EU.net!127.0.0.1!nobody From: Erik Naggum Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim Date: 08 Dec 2000 02:13:05 +0000 Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 800 35477; gsm: +47 93 256 360; fax: +47 93 270 868; http://naggum.no; http://naggum.net Lines: 70 Message-ID: <3185230385285854@naggum.net> References: <3184181620609081@naggum.net> <3184225976178683@naggum.net> <3184410282846018@naggum.net> <900nor$af$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3184438297633725@naggum.net> <901p7c$tka$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3184839641292968@naggum.net> <87itp12txw.fsf@forager.swarm.org> <3184874014958360@naggum.net> <87sno5ytb5.fsf@forager.swarm.org> <3184890617945702@naggum.net> <87ofypzcxv.fsf@forager.swarm.org> <3185125304004508@naggum.net> <87k89dz0ph.fsf@forager.swarm.org> <3185181412459703@naggum.net> <87g0k0yxdm.fsf@forager.swarm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 976281421 16185 195.0.192.66 (8 Dec 2000 13:17:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Dec 2000 13:17:01 GMT mail-copies-to: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.lisp:4907 * Marcus G. Daniels | I'm saying that modeling is a fine thing, but that one needs to be | able to validate modeling with data. You have a long pattern of | interpreting beyond the provided data. In response to criticism, you | construct silly stories about the motivations of others that aren't | grounded in anything but a few observables, but nonetheless throw them | up in such a way that readers might get the impression you have more | data than you do. Thanks for supplying me with more data on your need to keep posting more and more of your usual drivel, and thank you especially for not going to any length at all to falsify my conclucions about your needs. I find it downright amazing that you, of all possible people, think you have the ability, much less the data, to conclude what you do. You have never, _ever_ managed to remember anything I do except that which, for some psychological reason I hope never to understand, you have to ridicule and destroy. You seem to think that collecting data is enough, but if you can't even _remember_ counter-information that obliterates the conclusions supposedly supported by your "data", what good does it do you to collect anything at all? It only shows what kind of personality _you_ have, living in a fantasy world where you have the "option" to remove data that doesn't fit your prejudices. Instead of saying that you have not posted something intelligent and on-topic to comp.lang.lisp in the past several years, which you will dispute without evidence, I'll just challenge you to provide the data that shows that you have done something other than post followups to my articles with your typical snide remarks and snotty "humor". I'll be happy to accept that you have posted one or two articles with some real contents, out of hundreds consisting only of condescending shit. Having to deal with leaking latrines like you is what makes this forum uncomfortable at times. Most of the idiots leave or improve -- you stink like a bum who thinks it's somebody else's fault he won't change his clothes. You have to prove to everybody what a shit you are and that you have no intention whatsoever of posting anything that doesn't reek of ridicule and condescension and disrespect for people. I'm quite content that you keep proving this, but it doesn't have a place in a newsgroup. It has a place in a confidential conversation between you and somebody who cares about you, probably because you pay them to. You seem to know what you are doing and doing it on purpose, however, and that's why it is important to expose you. I appreciate your efforts to "help" me in this endeavor, of course. Just keep the data flowing in with more of your idiotic, contentless, vapid comments! Incientally, modeling _your_ behavior is the easiest thing there is. You are _much_ more predictable than the world around you, and that is not a good sign. And there's no doubt about that sufficiency of the data on your behavior, either. It would be impossible not to conclude that you are condescending, disrespectful asshole from the data you have provided so lavishly over the years. Maybe that's what you want to be and think is the best you can do, and therefore will be happy that I have identified you as just that, but somehow, I don't think so. I still think you might want to consider yourself intelligent and at least somewhat constructive, but as I said, I have a bad habit of being disappointed with people because I keep thinking they ought to have some potential to think and be conscious of what they do and how they affect other people. But some people don't have any potential left, and they usually turn to condescension and ridicule of others so it shall be hard to detect where they really stand themselves. I keep saying "do better1" to people, but I hope you don't do better, because you will only become a worse human being if you do. #:Erik -- "When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle." -- Unknown