Subject: Re: MD5 in LISP and abstraction inversions From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 05:34:34 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * John Foderaro | I live in what's called the real world though. Yes, this is indeed every psychotic's favorite line. People who need to point out the dichotomy between the "real world" and somebody else's line of arguments has already established that _they_ believe in the dichotomy to begin with. People who actually share the same reality with everybody else know that such a dichotomy is prima facie evidence of a psychosis. So when a person invokes the "real world" argument, you know a few things about that person: He has _personal_ experience with "non-real worlds" _and_ he is either so stupid that he thinks such an argument will hurt anyone but himself _or_ he thinks that his audience is so stupid they will not see through his pathetic attempt at an insult. All in all, a fantastically _idiotic_ thing to say. | In my world you can find references and actually prove things. Yes, I am quite sure that your world is like that. This admirable "real world" of yours looks like a term paper. It probably only consists of that which can be proven, and that which cannot be proven from "first principles", i.e., John Foderaro's personal belief system, does _not_ exist. In other words, the "real world" you live in is a figment of your imagination because it only consists of things you can prove within it from things you believe to be true _without_ evidence. This desire for "proving things" is _also_ quite pathological. Lots of nutcases have become that way because they can prove all _sorts_ of weird things. The set of truths that cannot be "proved" is vastly more interesting than those that can. The desire to "prove" certain claims is simply a desire to move the point of trust to something else, a process that terminates at something that people agree to take for granted. However, they do not agree to a whole lot of things when push comes to shove, and most people are generally unaware of their thinking processes to such an extent that they do not recognize fairly obvious idiocy. Some are even so goddamn stupid that they think invoking the "real world" argument helps them. In our particular case, my several years of philosophy studies will beat you into a pulp before we get to these first principles, because you are so unaware of yourself that your desire for proof and evidence looks lika a joke you play on people for effect, if it is not evidence of arrested development, but I am generous today and do not think so. I mean, people who are not trained in philosophical thinking will probably regard your statement above as pretty clever. To "prove things" has such high merit in our scientific society that many people tend to think of it as an unconditional value. However, human _understanding_ does not go by way of proofs, but by way of things making _sense_. Only a very small number of fields are subject to lines of argumentation that can look like they "prove things". In fact, the biggest problem we have is that the most important fields of human endeavor are _not_ subject to such proofs, like what and how we _value_. If I understand your previous rantings and ravings correctly, you consider such things to be "religion". This is, again, an _amazingly_ stupid attitude. Only a nutcase will think reducing _everything_ to the point where proving things is of value in a _discussion_. Now, can I _prove_ this? Or is it sufficient to argue for it so people believe it makes sense? To most intelligent people, proving things like that means showing that it follows from more fundamental findings and principles. The problem is that those are usually _more_ contentious than the conclusion, because the people who are into this kind of stuff are _professional_ quibblers and this stuff is actually tremendously hard. There is no point at all in formalizing the process. It is _only_ used by people who think that they will not be exposed as nutcases for "requiring" proof of everything, but instead succeed in bullying people into shutting up if the cannot cough up the "proof". The way to deal with such nutcases is to point out that a proof means exactly _nothing_, and lacking a proof means exactly as much, in a debate, that is. Reducing a particular argument to its most fundamental premises is a useful exercise, but it has absolutely nothing to do on a USENET newsgroup. This is evidenced by the fact that Mr. Proof himself, John Foderaro, never proves anything of importance, and especially not why proving things is so valuable -- that is just taken for granted. Well, I disagree, so where does that leave us? Oh, John Foderaro has the answer: Either I am "religious" or I do not live in the "real world" or something like that. Only nutcases argue that way. | In the past I've asked you to back up statements you've claimed I've made | and each and every time you have failed to do so (because you couldn't do | so). But curiously, you are not backing up your own statements. This claim is in fact false -- and people do remember it. It is fascinating that you set yourself up to be shot down so easily by using one of the incompetent rethorician's favorite words: "every". A single counter-example, and you are _dead_ as far as your "proofs" and arguments go. The counter-example is when you claimed that I had said that you could not use if*. I have pointed out that I had in fact asked _Franz_Inc_ not to _publish_ code with if*. You go find it, who are so good at googling. Incidentally, there are a number of really wacky people out there. They read google like the Devil reads the Bible, and love every minute of it: If you are sufficiently insane, you can "prove" anything by picking news articles. One of the most interesting things about people who argue with other people is that if they actually are able to learn from the debates they engage in, they will change their views. Amazingly, to the google- lovers, this is considered "proof" that they are inconsistent! Can you even _imagine_ a worse abuse of logic than this? The whole _purpose_ of a discussion is to change people's minds, to impart information to people who use it to form and reform their opinions and conclusions. The only reason someone does _not_ change their views is if they do not _listen_. _This_ is the hallmark of the nutcases: Their minds are closed, fixed, frozen. Now, add to this point how difficult it is to "prove things". For something to be proven, you have to have a solid chain of arguments that each are proven valid and true _all_ the way down. If you change your mind, that means your previous conclusions were wrong, because your previous conclusions were not fuzzy opinions that could be "uncertain", but _proven_. To revise an opinion thus proven means that something far more important must be revised, and that has serious repercussions for a lot of other things, so "proof people" are much harder to convince than people who argue by the seat of their pants, as it were. A person who lives by proofs, will die by proofs. The more you prove, the less freedom you have to be wrong. The less freedom you have to be wrong, the less you can hold in limbo and allow to be _uncertain_ and "for further study", yet still treat as valid enough to base hypotheses on that can be tested. The problem for people who think that "to prove things" is a value is that _if_ they are wrong, it has far-reaching consequences for their belief systems. Therefore, a person who believes that "to prove things" in an open discussion is a value is a person who is willing to _bet_ a very large part of his belief system on being right. This is dangerous, because whatever you _have_ believed in the past was based on what you knew then. The more you know, the less likely it it that your old conclusions will continue to hold. It should be obvious that this translates to a psychological dilemma: Shut down your brain and protect your sanity, or keep accepting new information from the outside world and see your proofs crumble and need to be rebuilt over and over, going insane sooner or later. The most common solution to this problem is not what you would expect: To drop the silly notion that everything be proved or at least provable, but to deny new information that challenges one's existing conclusions. At one point or another, "proof people" will make the mistake of valuing past conclusions higher than future conclusions. In our case, we have a certifiable nutcase who invokes the "real world" and who calls those who disagree with him "religious", who also needs to "prove things", but who does not _accept_ any of the proof he receives. We have a person who is in deep denial of his own wrongdoing, of the fact that he really _is_ a very, very bad guy, and of the fact that if he really is concerned about good behavior, he has a lot of cleaning up to do at home before he can dole out credible advice about it. | I have no interest in learning about the world inside your head. It | looks like a very dark place. You obviously speak from personal experience, but listen to people close to you who tell you that your experience is not usable for extrapolation about any other person without further justification. Just because you experienced it does not mean it was not _because_ of you and therefore not valid for anyone else -- that part has to be established separately and independently, especially if you are serious about "proving things". | I'm sure that everyone on this newsgroup is sick of this 'discussion' | between you and me. If you _really_ thought so, you should simply have avoided replying. But you never seem to grasp that anything you say applies to yourself, as if you are a mindless cretin who just has to respond and can blame someone else for everything you do. This is actually one of the reasons it is hard to believe you are not mentally ill. Part of the problem is that you cannot accept that you do bad things. Tell you what: Only really bad people have a problem with that. Good people _know_ that they do bad things now and then. Several religions have this notion of "forgiveness" (not just Christianity, as Christians believe), and it has a reason: People who insist on doing only good things, will destroy themselves from within if they do something bad and cannot rationalize it away or deny it or somehow come to grips with it. Repentence and forgiveness are very important for people to stay good, because they would _become_ bad if they could not "let the air out". Bad people do not admit to their wrongdoing, because they think it gives away that they are bad people, but, ironically, they _become_ bad people because they keep it all inside and _defend_ their bad deeds as good in a sick and warped ethical system that acts like quicksand: the more people struggle to "always be good", the quicker and deeper they sink. | Let's just call it over. No, no, John, _you_ call it over. Just practice what you preach, for once. I would really like to see you being able to take an insult and refrain from replying, because that is what you ask of everybody who disagrees with you when you insult them and apply that stupid, stupid, stupid moralistic pressure of yours to other people. It is _so_ stupid that I wonder if you have actually succumbed to it yourself and think anyone else is obliged to emulate your spinelessness. But lest anyone actually be fooled this time: When a person who is down for the count suggests that the fight be over, he is _still_ the loser. Anyone who even suggests this, tries to end as an equal because he knows he would be blown to smithereens if he opened his mouth again. There is nothing worthwhile in letting pathetic losers who start their articles with a lot of really stupid insults get away with such a despicable stunt. They are losers, and they know it. As should everybody else. | You don't mention or make references to me or and I'll do likewise for | you. What an incredibly idiotic "request"! What are you, a fucking retard? If you want to stop making references to me, that's fine, I guess -- you seem to enjoy underhanded references that you believe anybody other than yourself will not see as transparent -- but if you conditionalize this upon my doing your bidding, you are a psychopath, the worst kind of bully around, the kind who makes his _victims_ responsible for his evil. Tell you what, in capital letters just to annoy you: JOHN FODERARO AND ONLY JOHN FODERARO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR JOHN FODERARO'S ACTIONS. There is nobody to blame, you irresponsible shithead. But nothing _is_ your fault in the "real world" you live in, is it? That is why you have defended yourself with lies and misrepresentations so often, why _you_ need to point out hypocrisy in others when it would have been a whole lot more important for everyone involved if you could consider how your _own_ ethics works, and why you need to blame someone else all the time. If you want to shut up and start behaving like you have a brain, just do it! No conditions, no announcements, no moralizing, no halos, no heroes. As long as you try to recover the moral high ground by making it look as if you tried your best, you have in fact failed to do your best, because your _best_ is to start behaving as you only say _others_ should, and do it _right_away_. But what could the satisfaction be in _that_ for a pathological liar and a hypocritical moralist? Such a person would want to control only _other_ people's behavior, while he reserves whatever he desires for himself. Bad guys behave this way. Good guys do not. | You can show agreement by simply not replying to this post. Such moronic attempts at bullying! I am led to wonder what the hell kind of spineless creatures you are used to succeed in bullying around with this line of argumentation. Who do you think you are dealing with? Or has this crap _worked_ on you? If so, I _really_ feel sorry for you. | Then the newsgroup can rest easy. No, the newsgroup can rest easy when John Foderaro takes his medication and stops being a fucking retarded moralist on a mission from his deity to point out hypocrisy and things that are bloody obvious to anything with a central nervous system, but nobody _cares_ whether anyone is not 100% pure, becauase none of us are! In the "real" world, "real" _people_ are hard to figure out. In your world, they are very easy to figure out, just like _actions_ are in the real world. This is a clue to people who have read a little criminology that you _are_ a bad guy. Not caring about people as _people_ is a core feature of the arrogance that says "my will is the the only will to consider", which you have _almost_ said in plain text several times, already. So you can show agreement with your _own_ views by not replying to this. That is what I suspect that you simply cannot do. But let me continue your line of "reasoning" and bullying argumentation a bit, since you seem to think it works: By replying to this post, you acknowledge that you are mentally ill and have a severe need for self-affirmation that you do not get from anyone around you because you regard yourself as the single most brilliant person to inhabit the entire West coast of the United States. (If we included the East coast, you would have to think yourself smarter than Kent Pitman, and even _you_ could not do that. Everybody else will of course understand that I say this only to test you, since you have such a penchant for insulting Kent behind his back, another of your least valuable personality traits.) Now, let us _really_ see whether this newsgroup can rest easy, or whether John Foderaro needs help from his remaining friends to avoid embarrassing himself further. We all understood that your stupid "call for peace" was a pathetic cop-out after you had run out of arguments, and that you did not really mean it, you only tried to pretend it was my fault that you "had to" post yet another idiot response. What a waste you are, John Foderaro. Once you were worth listening to. Nowadays it is more important to you to keep publishing if*-infested code than to help ensure that your credibility is restored, and much more important to tell the world you have gone postal than to behave well. The single most important thing you can do is to stop defending yourself. /// -- 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.