Subject: Re: Questions about Symbolics lisp machines From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:41:51 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Erik Naggum > I do not post hostile thing to or about you. * Thomas Bushnell, BSG | So far you've called me an idiot, a moron, intellectually dishonest, | an asshole, and an evil person, among other things. You are so amazingly hypocritical and stupid, too, since you failed to get the point that you you only wrote your crap in response to what I wrote, except when you did not, which was such a truly stupid thing to say that I had at least hoped you were chuckling when you wrote that ludicrous lie, but now I see you actually meant it. | And they are not true; indeed, if you thought they were true, you would | do more than repeat them here. If you had the courage of your words, | you'd repeat them in a letter to the graduate advisor responsible for me. _Really_, Thomas, your graduate program is not part of your news persona, nor is your news behavior any business of your graduate advisorb, unless, of course, you _make_ them so. You have invoked your graduate program as evidence that you are not a non-thinking, evil brute several times. You effectively want your ability to get into a graduate program to prove that you are able to think when you are not thinking _here_, which is what matters _here_. Who _cares_ if a wife beater does not beat anyone else or is nice to his dog? However, a wife beater who argued in his defense that he was nice to his dog would not exactly be seen as having a fully operational conscience. But I have had enough of you this. Please post the name and address of your graduate advisor. I shall certainly write a letter you will not forget, _especially_ since you invoke your graduate advisor to "prove" something about you. I will use the focus on the fact that you have held the graduate program at University of California Irvine up as a shield and a defense for your behavior here, which, if you had not requested this several times over in a stupid game of chicken to you, but a very serious thing to everyone else, would not even have been an issue. If I were you now, I would begin explaining your behavior here to your advisor and the funders of your program and start to lay the ground for _why_ they are evidence of anything at all regarding your behavior here. If you are actually posting here with your advisor's permission and sanction, please let us know, as there are a lot of people who need to be informed about what their resources are used for. Your advisor can get into very serious trouble if he has officially approved of your behavior and has associated the reputation of University of California Irvine with you. You less so, since they can at least get rid of you in a hurry. Effectively, everything you have said here would be the _responsibility_ of your graduate program, advisor and university. Even at the very liberal University of Oslo, if you tried to implicate the instituion in _any_ way, you would get into serious trouble. I cannot imagine anything else being true for University of California Irvine. So I not only accept your challenge, I shall investigate if I can channel this through the American Embassy in Oslo. I know some people there who might be able to make this exceptionally embarrassing for the University of California at Irvine, and you _have_ asked for it three times, so there is no way back for you. And if you think you are _not_ an idiot at this point, think again. I just took a look at your headers in order to see if you posted anything about your affiliation, and I found this gem: X-Reply-Permission: Posted or emailed replies to this message constitute permission for an emailed response. _That_ is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in a _long_ time. Here are my rules for a mailed exchange: If you drag your public hostility into a private exchange, it is no longer a public hostility between two public positions and two public personas, it is a private and personal matter, and in your case, that means that you actually have a severe behavioral problem when you cannot even refrain from continuing your behavior, which is disgusting enough in news, to e-mail. When you make the conscious choice to write someone personally during a public debate, it is no different from picking up the phone and calling them, or requesting a private aside in the debate, or even visiting the person in question. When you do that, you have a fresh start. If you use that opportunity for a fresh start to mindlessly continue your attacks, you have shown the other part that your public attacks have _all_ been personal, not part of any public debate. I have no interest at _all_ in engaging you on a personal level, but you have decided to continue to behave like the retarded brute you are in mail, which is why I have put a reject rule in my mailer, to try to keep your idiotic behavior a public matter. But my God, Thomas Bushnell, you really are severely unintelligent. Not only do you ask people to ruin your academic career by implicating your degree-granting institution and your advisors in the defense of your posts here ("Look! I can think! I got into University of California Irvine and their graduate program! I couldn't think before I got in, but now I have proof I can!" looks like a line in the Drew Carey Show, except you mean it), but you actually _believe_ that you have a non-worthless mental capacity because you got into a graduate program. When was the last time I saw such charming naïvité? Must have been that episode of The Simpsons where Lisa loses her belief in the American System. It was a funny episode. It is not funny when some idiot uses a university to prove the power of his mind. IF YOU HAD A MIND AND COULD USE IT, YOU WOULD HAVE USED IT HERE, TOO! *sigh* Seldom has "moron" been a more applicable label. /// -- 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.