Subject: Re: 3 Lisps, 3 Ways of Specifying OS
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:53:57 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Rajappa Iyer
| I don't know what else one calls posting email to newsgroups, but hey,
| whatever floats your boat.

  If you send me a message, I can do whatever I want with it until I agree
  to some particular terms, such as by replying privately to it, in which
  case I have _agreed_ to make the exchange private.  You may not have
  noticed, but I made no such agreement with you at all, and certainly no
  promise or claim that I would not post it.  That you think this has
  anything at all to do with dishonesty betrays an utter failure to grasp
  what honesty is and applies to, which is hardly surprising, considering
  how you attempt to insult people by making up one thing more idiotic than
  the next instead of at least _trying_ to hit the target.  Sheesh!

  As for _your_ intentions, you simply failed to communicate them.  Lots of
  people send mail when they wanted to post and some even the reverse -- it
  is a common mistake and smart people know this.  It is therefore a very
  good idea to label messages _intended_ to be private as such, but you did
  not do that, did you?  I repeat, and I mean it: the message was obviously
  intended for public consumption, by the very nature of the contents
  (private flames are _so_ idiotic that a sender _must_ be presumed to have
  made a mistake lest be presumed completely braindead), by continuing a
  public flame (no difference from anything you _have_ posted), by _not_
  being labeled private, and by coming from a person very likely to be
  careless enough to make such a mistake and stupid enough not to admit it,
  but instead attempt to take advantage of it, which you also have done,
  which is really quite amazing.

  _If_ I had replied to you in private and _if_ I had agreed to keep it
  personal, I would have lied about it being intended for public view.  The
  problem here is that you failed to understand which options you had and
  chose among -- I fault you most of all for not exercising _any_ of the
  smart options, but going _only_ for the really retarded ones.

  Incidentally, have you noticed anything in the news lately about how
  unwelcome personal mail is handled?  So far, the sender of these letters
  has at least been smart enough to refrain from jumping up and accusing
  the news media of publishing them.

| I always thought that the conventional advice in a flamewar was for the
| concerned parties to take it to email.

  It means "take it outside", you doofus, an attempt at being polite when
  really yelling "GO AWAY!", but polite does not work with some people --
  they have to be yelled at to grasp the slightest little thing, and most
  of them do not even get it after _several_ attempts, like you.  It is not
  a recommendation to be taken literally.  Geez, some people!

  Why would anyone want to send, much less receive, flames by mail?  Flames
  received by mail can be used for only one thing: public posting, like on
  web pages or in newsgroups.  Otherwise, trash them, like spam, and forget
  them.  If they actually hurt, public posting is the only option, because
  the person behind it needs to be exposed and punished, and one cannot do
  that in mail.  Just look at you, you do not even grasp that you have done
  something wrong in this thread even though the whole world is watching
  you self-destruct while you deny it.  If you can sit there and continue
  to behave as if you were right in all your whining about Debian, imagine
  what _lack_ of public exposure does to a drooling idiot's conviction that
  he is in the right and everybody else is in the wrong!

  Sending abusive messages by mail requires that the sender believes he has
  the right to _dictate_ what the recipient should feel able to do with the
  message -- indicating that abusive mail is also a power game -- such as
  respecting the sender's privacy while the sender disrespects and violates
  the private space of the recipient.  This is quite rich!  You would have
  to be really stupid and unprincipled and generally a bad person to think
  you could get away with this, much worse if you think it is a good idea
  and gives you any right to complain about what heppens to you afterwards.
  Again, some people!  Face it: Once you send a message on the Internet, it
  is out of your control.  It is even true for good old paper-based mail.

  The only thing you can do is to try to make sure people who receive your
  private messages actually _do_ feel bound by a sense of privacy in the
  communication, and that means being _nice_ in private communication.  Why
  does this take more brainpower than some people have at their command to
  figure out?  Don't they _ever_ think?

| I certainly do not wish to stop the flaming

  I'm glad to see that you can admit _something_.

  Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
  Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
  The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers.   -- Richard Hamming