Subject: Re: How do you organize your source code? From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 16:05:40 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Stefan Schmiedl <email@example.com> | This last paragraph is once again a rhetorical rehearsal of your | opinion that everybody not agreeing with you is stupid. You know, since you retards have such a huge problem with this, maybe you need to be told what really goes on. I doubt it will help, considering that the only people who invoke the "disagree clause" are just plain nuts, but let me at least try: First, I voice my disagreement with what I believe is misinformation, i.e., information contrary to reasonably established truth, such as stale and known falsehoods, repeated falsehoods about which people agree, etc. At this point, the person I disagree with has not yet been ddetermined to be either evil or stupid or retarded. I just disagree, and say so. Second, the person who posted the misinformation is the one who actually cannot deal with contrary views and disagreement, and takes it personally, including, but not limited to posting his opinions about me, as if that could possibly help -- now I know he is really out of his mind. Third, I probably not so gently point out that I am not interested in his personal opinions on anything, particularly not me, and could he please do something to explain or defend his position, instead of himself? The person in question generally does absolutely everything _but_ explain why what he posted should be considered true, reacting instead like a five-year old kid who is much more concerned that people do not "believe" him than to _make_ them believe him. Basic debate skills, like actually making a coherent argument, are OUT. The strong need for this person to have people agree with _him_, as opposed to his _positions_ on something, now emerges as the primary reason for posting to a public forum, and lack of such agreement backed by a rebuttal of his point is considered hostile and a personal attack, no matter how it is phrased. If the whining loser can find an excuse to think it is personal, he will seize upon it. Since the dumber you are, the more you may believe that I would dislike you from the start, which is not unreasonable considering that I have been quoted quite widely for saying this: I'm bothered by the fact that stupid people don't spontaneously combust, which they should. -- Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org>, comp.lang.lisp, 07Mar99. dumb people post with considerable angst of being verbally brutalized, and so react in advance to what they believe will happen, no matter what _actually_ happened. (Remember, they are stupid, so this monumental idiocy does not trouble them at all.) In the end, they remain defiant in believing what they believed to begin with, unchanged, and all they remember (because they are so stupid) is that (1) I disagreed with them, (2) they were both stupid and called on it, and (3) it hurts a lot. Thus is the myth they already believed to begin with self-reinforcing. However, this is what happens when I disagree with you and you are more intelligent than a cornered hamster: First, I voice my disagreement with what I believe is misinformation, etc, just like above. Second, the person who posted the alleged misinformation _either_ sees that he was mistaken and may shut up or apologize, _or_ explains what he meant and where he came from, probably fully answering my objections. Third, if there is a third, I may see his point and agree with it or at least see it as a legitimately different view on something, and may shut up or say so, _or_ I argue why the explanation does not hold water and point to contradictory information. Generally, the second stage repeats, with ever more obscure points of difference until ... Fourth, we have arrived at a philosophical point of difference that may either yield significant insight in a flash, lend more credence to the hopes of life on other planets and interstellar travel and many other wild things, or, most likely, show that either side is running out of arguments and knowledge and relevance to the forum. At no point in this exchange is the intelligence of the person who disagrees in _evidence_. More likely than not, intelligent people who discuss things, arrive at a common understanding. When the lack of intelligence on the part of either side becomes a problem, then and only then does it enter into the evidence and become an issue. Failure to grasp something after repeated explanations that other people understand and appreciate, is a problem only with the participant in the debate, and no longer the arguments. People who _continue_ to disagree with facts _are_ stupid. People who _continue_ to disagree with me because they think it is some sort of personal defeat to concede a point to me, _are_ stupid. People who do not even listen to what I say because they have made up their mind that anything I say is a personal attack, _are_ stupid. Moreover, people who are unable to defend their position, but only defend themselves (usually by attacking others), are _nuts_. People who have to make up horrible things about their opponent because reality is not bad enough that they can escape the conclusion that _they_ are the bad guy, are literally going mad and turn out to be permenantly insane more often than not. Then there are the people who think that because I do not generally post misinformation myself, I am never mistaken or _believe_ that I am never mistaken because they do, and they cannot fathom that it is possible to avoid making mistakes a lot, because they make mistakes all the time. However, the reason is: I check things before I _post_. I am the kind of guy who actually owns, reads, and uses dictionaries, reference works, standards and specifications, and I am sufficiently well aware of my level of certainty with something that I do not generally _post_ some half-cooked guesswork. I go check it on my own. I hate wasting time on idiots who post guesswork and never learn to stop doing it, so in a public forum, I do not post if I do not know the answer and am pretty sure it is a correct answer. I have a very solid reputation for knowing all kinds of stuff and generally for reporting on them with as good accuracy as would a scientist or an established authority, and this is limiting me in many ways, because it is harder for me to think aloud than for most other people. However, my true and honest distaste for people who post things that they could easily have found out on their own by expending _less_ effort than they used to post their bogus nonsense, is probably infinite. I know that it does show, but how do you avoid my mythical or real wrath? It is really very, very simple: Know your own stuff, explain it or defend it if need be, and do _not_ be the first to go personal. Stupid people cannot figure this out, of course, and the more stupidly concerned stupid people are with "proper behavior", the less they see how things start and what _merits_ nice treatment, and the more willing they are to blame me for all ills on the planet, especially if they are the retarded moralist type who _only_ posts when he can attack me for something he is too goddamn stupid to understand. You are that kind, if I recall correctly, Stefan Schmiedl. -- 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. 70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process.