Subject: Re: MD5 in LISP and abstraction inversions
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:54:04 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* John Foderaro -> Marc Spitzer
| Ok I'm going to now ask you to back up that claim that I posted lies.

  You post lies all the time, but you give us a clue to understand how your
  mind has deteriorated: You believe what is untrue and have become so
  deeply entrenched in your own view of things that you are disconnected
  from reality, and so you draw one insane conclusion after another from
  your own beliefs, not from anything you observe, any longer.  It is hard
  to see when you are _not_ lying, when you do not have ulterior motives,
  when anything you say actually _is_ true, and not something that you only
  say because you hope it will cause people to feel something you want them
  to feel.  This dishonesty and manipulativeness is pandemic.  _Respecting_
  the opinions of anyone else is completely foreign to you: you call people
  "religious" as soon as you are unable to argue against them; you pretend
  that the amazingly idiotic nonsense you keep saying about me or any other
  person who simply want you to respect the standard and cut the crap is
  not personal, but there is _nothing_ technical in your increasingly
  pathetic ranting and raving, and nothing to make you stop posting this
  crap.  Nobody believes you, nor should they.  The problem is that you are
  such a pathologically _dishonest_ person that you have become unable to
  distinguish what you want to believe from reality as you and others see
  it.  There is no truth to you, there is only John Foderaro's _personal_
  "reality", with a significant population of monsters under your bed.

  Pointing out to you that something you said is _wrong_ and misrepresents
  someone does not work the same way it does on normal people, because you
  will (1) never grasp that it was wrong, and (2) never admit to it even if
  you do.  You have been caught lying and misrepresenting several times,
  yet you keep clamoring for "evidence", just like a person who knows he is
  guilty as hell yet hopes nobody can prove it in court.  When you get the
  evidence you ask for, you just shut up for a while.  Several people have
  pointed this out in this very newsgroup, yet nothing happens from your
  end when they do.  This is _extremely_ suspicious.  It is if the _only_
  thing you are actually upset about is that your lies are being exposed,
  your destructiveness towards the standard upon which you and your company
  have decided to build your business.  Many _really_ bad guys react the
  same way when their criminal ways threaten to cease to pay off: They get
  really angry and blame those who exposed them, not themselves for having
  done something wrong all this time.  I am unfortunate enough to expose
  bad guys and frauds like you, so a lot of you think that it helps to
  attack me.  It probably would in real life, which is why some of the bad
  guys clearly think in terms of _physical_ bullies.  But that is not it,
  and you guys know it: You cannot avoid knowing that all that happens here
  is that I post my opinions and you get really, seriously mad with rage.

  Why do you guys not figure it out?  You expose yourself by getting mad,
  not by what I say.  Let me give you an example of how this stark insanity
  of yours works:

| And who is Marc Spitzer anyway?  There seems to be no record of you on
| the net before the year 2000.  In the past Erik Naggum has deceived the
| members of this newsgroup by posting under aliases (one we know for sure
| about was something like "GI Gunmaker").  You come out of nowhere and
| make all these moralistic claims while posting lies and hypocrisy to stir
| up trouble.  This is the  same writing style used by Erik Naggum.  I
| believe that you are either another Naggum pseudonym or are posting
| messages on behalf of him.

  It is now clear that John K. Foderaro has become completely insane.

  The observant reader will also notice that this _amazing_ paragraph just
  happened to be in the same posting as his call for claims that he lies.
  That is so ... _unexpected_ from him.  Who could have seen this coming?
  Well, I could, because I no longer expect him to be able to distinguish
  between what goes on within his deranged mind and what he observes from
  the outside world.  Such psychotic episodes have been increasing in rate
  lately, but people close to him have already suggested he gets committed
  to a mental hospital and somebody who cares about him should help him.
  The above quoted paragraph makes it evident that he has finally lost his
  mind, or, with his own wording about people he disagrees with: "you
  either didn't have the ability to reason or were just trying to make
  trouble".  And I thought he was critical of such "language", but he is
  evidently exempt from his own moralistic rules of polite behavior.  But
  why the exclusive choice?  In his case, it is clearly inclusive.  It was
  clear to me that he was irrational and had a dysfunctional brain the
  first time I heard him ranting and raving about upper-case symbol names,
  the _conspiracy_ in the committee against him, and his strong disrespect
  for central members of the committee, not to mention the whole political
  process, which a selfish, short-sighted person would fail to understand
  is necessary.  I mean, just make the problems go away as far as you see
  it.  After all, this is a technical problem, right?  E.g., Allegro CL has
  a :case-insensitive argument to apropos, which defaults to nil -- which
  is pretty silly considering the intensity he feels about the case issue;
  it is as if he _wants_ to be enraged about this upper-case symbol names,
  instead of actually solving it, like a rebel without a clue.

  As for the case-sensitive-lower issue, a readtable-case value of :invert
  _actually_ works for those who are able to deal with _technical_ issues,
  and as for the return-value of symbol-name, the solution is quite simple:
  new, improved versions of the functions that interact with symbol-names.
  E.g., in a parody of the if* stunt, we could have intern*, find-symbol*,
  and symbol-name*, which would maintain and return a lower-case version of
  the all-upper-case symbols and vice versa.  This could be accomplished
  within a conforming Common Lisp system, it would be transparent to those
  who still want conforming behavior, and lower-case and upper-case code
  can coexist in the same system without needing to convert code to only
  one mode.  The whole "mode" and conversion business is a way of locking
  people into a bogus and gratuitous deviation from the standard, to give
  them something that on the surface looks desirable (especially since the
  stuff that was necessary to make standard solutions work were left buggy
  for more than a decade) in exchange for dropping _standard_ Common Lisp.

  When I wanted to get rid of the annoying "modern _mode_", I spent only a
  couple days tinkering with variations on the theme of coexistence, and
  came up with several working solutions, whereas John Foderaro has spent,
  what, 15 years?, being _enraged_ about this issue.  So I do not think
  this solution will placate him, either, since he is so upset that the
  _standard_ does not agree with him that this is no longer an engineering
  problem to him: It is a _psychological_ problem, just like if* is.  So,
  since the standard does not agree with John Foderaro, it must be fought
  and made more difficult to use than necessary.  (Whoever wants to type in
  (apropos "foobar" nil :case-insensitive t) interactively, no matter how
  much support you get from the environment to expand abbreviated forms?)
  Sane people figure out technical ways to deal with technical problems and
  obstructions, and just move on.  Insanity lies in neither solving nor
  getting over things.

  Standards _should_ be followed, but _only_ if they are written by John
  Foderaro.  The same patholocal egocentricism is present in most of what
  you do -- when I argue Franz Inc should not publish your crufty code, you
  take it to mean that _you_ should not _use_ your silly if* stunt, even
  claim that that is what I _said_.  This world is all about John Foderaro,
  and whatever he does is right, even if he is so critical of others who do
  something much less vile than he does that he calls on the community to
  denounce their behavior in his typical mistargeted moralism.  I should be
  lambasted for being rude and to disrespect John Foderaro, but John
  Foderaro is free to misbehave without lower bounds towards me and to
  other people.  It is no wonder that this pathological liar usually only
  finds hypocrisy to criticize others for, if only by stretching the facts
  so much they would have snapped, at least in a mind that had not itself

  Please understand that _you_ are the aggressor, John Foderaro.  _You_ are
  the bad guy, here.  You have lost your moral high ground, if you ever had
  any, with the above stunt, if not several times previously when you do
  things that you want the whole community to denounce when others do it.
  You keep doing worse things than anybody else, just like those moralists
  who suspend their own morality when fighting what they always mistakenly
  believe is evil -- the evil they really fight is their own, and so too
  with you, John Foderaro.  Nobody in their right mind will believe you are
  morally justified in "defending" yourself, anymore, since you are in fact
  only attacking, not defending _anything_, anymore.  Emulating the _worst_
  of the USENET retards, indeed being one of them, you have clearly turned
  into the derelict I have long thought you would one day show yourself as,
  given your evidently criminal mind, your incredible arrogance towards
  other people's concerns, and your psychotic episodes where you cannot
  even distinguish between the monsters you want to exist and the reality
  you share with other people.  You are completely out of control, now, and
  that is pretty amazing to watch.

  On the other hand, I am actually quite _happy_ to see that you need to
  engage in these tactics and lose all control over yourself.  I tend to
  appreciate that the people I think are f*cking nuts are indeed willing to
  prove1 to the world, all on their own, that they _are_ stark raving mad.
  I do not really need to do anything more with John Foderaro, now.  He
  will do more harm to himself than I can do, anyway, because this means
  that I am a _formidable_ threat to his sense of inflated self-importance,
  that he takes this if* stunt _deeply_ personally (as if anyone doubted
  that) and also the fact that I have now called his stupid bluff when he
  lies about wanting the standard to survive.  His duplicity has alarmed
  many people, and the more his anti-standard attitude shines through, the
  more responsible programmers and other people interested in Common Lisp
  must wonder how much they can trust his code or the company that trusts
  him.  Considering hir rampant irrationality in dealing with technical
  matters, it is incumbent upon any user of his code, source or other, to
  watch for potentially destructive behavior and "political bugs" because
  he does not want to respect the standard, only the parts he "agrees" with
  -- and thus takes short-cuts when he thinks he knows better.  This is not
  unique to John Foderaro, however, Bruno Haible is equally arrogant and
  also mistakenly believes that people care what their personal opinions
  are when they are implementing something according to a _specification_.
  People who hold real jobs get fired if they cannot obey instructions, but
  for some reason we are supposed to excuse those who give away their work.

  Finally, the difference between a heated (technical) debate (which occurs
  quite frequently among people who have ideas worth exploring, especially
  in academia) and a personal fight (which occurs quite frequently when a
  moron understands that he is wrong but does not want to quit because he
  has psyhological or ego problems) is that technical debates has at least
  one point of resolution which can be reached no matter how heated the
  debate becomes -- _something_ which makes the parties able to _settle_ on
  something and move on, still respecting eachother, probably more so
  because of their strength of conviction and argumentation skills.  What
  we know about most of the people who fight me in this newsgroup is that
  they do _not_ want to resolve anything at all, fail completely to figure
  out what would end all criticism, even tough it is provided to them in
  plain text in almost every message I write, and so it is with John
  Foderaro, a person whose thinking skills are clearly too limited to be of
  use to him when he is in a conflict over a purported "technical" issues
  that really is something completely different to him.  When the objective
  is to fight, the moron will never quit, and will be held back by nothing
  when losing without dignity is his only remaining option.  Way to go for
  a Chief Scientist!

  Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
  Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
  Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.