Subject: Re: How do you organize your source code?
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 16:05:40 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Stefan Schmiedl <>
| 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
    <>, 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.