Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...) From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 11 Aug 2002 21:50:19 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.lisp,comp.object,comp.software-eng Message-ID: <email@example.com> * "peter_douglass" <firstname.lastname@example.org> | No, I observed the discussions on c.l.l., formed an opinion about it, and at | an appropriate prompt, shared my opinion. I only cite the fact that others | have expressed similar opinions to support the notion that it is perhaps not | due to a defect on my part that I see something wrong with c.l.l. but is | perhaps due to an actual problem within c.l.l. Why did you decide to "share" your opinion? I hazard a guess that it was precisely because you have seen others do exactly the same thing. If you had not seen any other such opinions "shared" you would have shut up. | As for my contribution to the atmosphere, I hardly see how the .00001 | percent of posts that are authored by me will have that significant an | impact. If you are afraid that my posts will help *destroy* c.l.l. then you | must be very pessimistic about the prospects for your newsgroup. You and all the others who do not understand what you do, have a cumulative effect that none of you individually understand. Think bigger. | The fact that others share this opinion adds credence to the belief that | perhaps there is something to the criticisms that have been raised. No, it /only/ adds credence to the belief that it is acceptable to post such negative meta-comments to the newsgroup. | Yes, I have a suggestion. If you wish this thread to end, don't respond. This goes to support my suspicion that you posted your negative comment because others have done so before you, and hence you do not understand what you do or the effect your article has. This is the root cause of the stream of negative postings to the newsgroup. It usually happens when there has been a longer period of calm and quiet that some hostile outsider "needs" to air his complaints. All these negative comments are self-propelling, self- reinforcing and self-referential, referring back to other series of negative comments by unconstructive, hostile outsiders who just have to "share" their opinion, however useless and destructive this is. There is nothing wrong with the newsgroup if you take away all the hostile outsiders who feel that it is acceptable to post hostile meta-comments and attack people on the newsgroup. All of the wars on comp.lang.lisp have erupted because some idiot trolling "newbie" succeeds in annoying people, usually by attacking those who do keep it productive and useful, probably because they feel excluded. I read several other comp.lang.* newsgroups, and these trolling idiots just do not post to other newsgroups. The problem is the likes of Peter Douglas who do not even understand that repeating the negativity actually worsens it. In particular, his notion that his only constitute .00001% of the posts is dead wrong. His negative attitude has accounted for about 5% over the period he has been posting them. That is what counts. We need no more than a few such people to maintain a constant 5% stream of hostilities from outsiders who do nothing but complain /about/ the newsgroup, meaning: their own bad behavior in it. The complaints have become circular: they complain about the hostile reactions to all the other stupid complaints. You do not become "right" in your "opinion" about something if you have so little understanding of what is going on and refuse to understand your own role. However, the biggest problem with all the junk that invades USENET is that they never understand their own role, thinking that they only constitute .00001% of the volume or somesuch drivel. There is no desire to /understand/ anything by someone who only gripes about other people and does not understand that his own griping contributes to the problem. There is only a desire to pronounce judgment over other people. This has a bad tendency to piss people off, quite unsurprisingly, actually. -- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.