Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts? From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 02 Sep 2002 01:14:58 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Coby Beck | I didn't. If you read what I wrote a little more carefully I'm sure you | will see that. I did not voice support for his behaviour, I did not attack | anyone, I did not respond to a criticism of his behaviour. Coby, please quit being such a snotty arrogant shithead and start to think. Of /course/ I read you carefully. It is /because/ I read you carefully that I respond to you in the first place. Had I read you less carefully, I would have kill-filed you for your immense lack of contributions to this forum and you incessant whining about the behavior of critics and never of those who misbehave in the first place. But let me tell you something you must have missed in your life. When a person is criticized for something, he will interpret any and all /public/ criticism of his critics as implicit support. If you do not intend this dual function with your criticism, send it by mail. By making the criticism public, you make it clear that you want to distance yourself from the criticism, and there is no way you can escape the consequence that you thereby support that which is being criticized. If you think you should be able to escape such an obvious consequence, you need to say so up front. For instance, you just /had/ to comment negatively on me. That shows that you know how to do it, yet you chose only to criticize the critic. You have done this very often. There is no way you can possibly hope to escape the conclusion that you are on the "victim's" side of the criticism and scold only those who want this to be a forum that is valuable to people who are not idiots. That makes you strongly pro-idiot. If you are not, speak up when you see something you do not like other than just criticism of those who speak up. | If you were sincere about this advice, why did you not follow it yourself | and reply to me via email? (I don't say you should have, but it follows | from your argument to me) No, it does not. You would realize this if your main concern was to understand and not to throw blame away from yourself. | Again, you will have to show me things I have written that have given you | this impression so I can correct your misunderstandings or apologise for | what I have said. How about everything you have ever written to me in this newsgroup? You have attacked me most unfairly on so numerous occasions and are so unapologetic about your lopsided ethics that I consider you an evil person. Your apologies would not help. You are destructive towards this forum when you always criticize those who want the noisy idiots to keep quiet. You are part of the problem. | Why don't you simply make a point, such as "I do not believe this is a | problem in the academic world" instead of all this fabrication of what I am | thinking and why? It would make it possible to have a discussion with you. I am utterly amazed. It is a problem in the academic world. This is not the academic world. That you are reminded of a problem in the academic world when you see an idiot get criticized is your personal problem and you should stop bothering other people with it. I suggest you seek professional help to get over your problems with rejection in academia. It was immensely educational to see you speak of what you actually detest. It has nothing to do with this forum at all. That you should even bring up what you detest in "academia" is very interesting. It shows that you never got over it and are constantly bothered by memories of it. That you need to distance yourself from all /perceived/ instances of inclusion in such criticism explains so much about your personality as you have shown it to us here. Please think about what I have written to you instead of dismissing it out of hand. | Well, I think this little bit started because I was bothered by Paul's use | of "we" in saying "we have concluded you are an idiot" or something. That you think you would be included had you not spoken is pathological. That you need to speak in order to distance yourself from others is likewise not a sign of a healthy mind. | I doubt I would have replied except for that. Paul did not seem to feel | attacked by me, I don't know why you feel threatened. You keep imputing intent to people where you should not. I wonder why. I do not feel threatened. I consider you damaging to this forum because you always rise to object when somebody makes a serious disturbance and he gets criticized for it. You make things far worse with your incredulous desire to speak up just to be excluded from a rhetorical "we". It looks demented. Everybody knows that a rhetorical "we" is not all-inclusive. Lots of people never feel included by rhetorical "wes" and never have to speak up about it. I suggest that you become one of those people by getting a better grip on what you really object to and get over whatever horrible thing happened to you that made you need to make such distance. | I have been "practicing what I am preaching" wrt ilias, so your advice is | unnecessary. Then you both practice and preach hypocrisy. I find that fascinating. -- 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.