Subject: Re: MD5 in LISP and abstraction inversions From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:54:04 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * 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. <technical 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 snapped. 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.