Subject: Re: Negation From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 05:51:16 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * firstname.lastname@example.org (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) | I'm offended by being called an idiot, and the direct personal insults | that Erik likes to lob around. You know, the offensive stuff. I repeat myself, but please quit lying about me and what I say and do. It is becoming increasingly clear to everyone here that you favor your own personal attacks at me so highly that any consistency in your ethics is no longer possible: What you do is right and what I do is wrong. Yet what you do is clearly wrong no matter how much moral righteousness you can muster. Governor George W. Bush was of the moral caliber that reacts like "What!? He _murdered_ someone? Let's kill him!" and then he became President and went "They harbored terrorists who were so angry at the U.S. policies over many years that they _murdered_ 2500 of our people!!? What horrible terror! Let's make it U.S. policy to murder 100,000 of their people, and maybe they will stop wanting to retaliate!" I am quite sad that such a _moron_ can become president of a country I once looked up to, but with the approval rating that _idiot_ receives, I wonder what is wrong with the entire culture and the American population. It also explains why being an utter idiot in public is somehow more acceptable among Americans, who now muster the most retarded moral justification for their out-of-control anger and misdirected desire for revenge of the people who _dare_ harm them because they act like idiots. Idiots on USENET have become worse after the supreme idiot became president. FYI: I do not _like_ to make people aware of their idiotic behavior. It is necessary, because otherwise they get away with it (which they have always done before, hence their current idiotic behavior) and behave even worse. For most people, this works remarkably well -- they stop short of being idiots long before anyone has to drag out large caliber "insults", and they actually grasp what criticism of their behavior means and entails. Only the idiots get called idiots, and they go on to prove it with a vigor that, IF IT WERE REDIRECTED TO THINK CLEARLY, would earn them a Nobel Prize in something. So, Thomas Bushnell, just stop behaving like a stupid child who has never experienced rejection of your beliefs -- it is not somebody else's fault that you believe something that they do not accept. Scheme is no good outside of comp.lang.scheme. Deal with it. If you do not, and repeat more childish and stupid lies about other people, you must be corrected each and every time. Acknowledge that you are exceptionally bad at understanding what people say when they do not agree with you completely from the outset, but we already have at least one example of a retard who "completely agrees" with something, yet has no concept of what it means to make use of his agreement. People like that have _serious_ mental capacity problems, and the common phrase for this is precisely "idiot". However, it is not something you _are_ for the rest of your life. JUST ACT SMARTER AND DISPROVE THE CHARGE and you can even succeed in putting it to shame. The more you keep confirming it with idiotic counter-attacks, the more right I am about you. Non-idiots do not act that way. It is that simple. Now, START TO THINK, DAMNIT! Stop doing things that need to be corrected and criticized and you will not be corrected and criticized. if you turn to _attack_ those who correct and criticize you, you _are_ an idiot. Listen, learn, use your brain. Above all, do not lose sight of the purpose you have when you take part in a newsgroup community: It is _not_ to fight against those who criticize you. I fight you morons out of necessity, because idiots are more destructive than anything else: They make it harder for people to share their insight: having to respond to idiots who do not understand anything but think they know more than others, is taxing on people, even if they do not actually respond to them. Even the presence of one idiot in a group of smart people can cause the whole group to deterioate. Nothing mankind has done is worse than tolerance of idiocy, and that is basically what "manners" are for, since intelligent people figure out what they want from what they do and do not fight merely _against_ something they do not like. I think Thomas Bushnell precisely _keeps_ fighting me because he fights _against_ me and he has yet to figure out what my signature means. On the other hand, I assume that you actually like to keep doing what you do. It betrays a strange lack of ethics that depends on respecting people before you can respect them, and if you suddenly do not, well, you have no ethics at all. It also confirms something I believe very strongly -- that some people are in need of a credible counter-force or counter-threat in order to behave. If they think that their enemy cannot hurt them, they use _unlimited_ force. Thomas Bushnell is the kind of person who apparently thinks that he is not hurt by what he does, and that my responses to his articles do not hurt him, either. If this does not confirm my label "idiot" as applied to him, nothing will. But let's get another round of self-incrimination from him on his journey to enlightenment. /// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.