Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping (Was Re: Lisp in Python) From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> Date: 03 Oct 2002 20:57:28 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3242667448709403@naggum.no> * Erann Gat | What are you expecting? Someone to say, "Good boy, Erik, you were polite | today!"? I expect civility beyond compare from people who demand it from me. If they have a "right" to become hostile and agressive because they see something they do not like, they actually validate in action what they criticize in words, but it is probably more annoying that they do not realize just how much they do this, because the misguided notion of feeling "justified" in their actions completely cloud their vision. I expect that people who post in public want dialogue, but the cretins want only condemnation. I do not accept this. I accept even less that these same guys come back to attack me even though I have done nothing whatsoever to /them/. Furthermore, they are completely above reproach in their own eyes, and therefore have nothing whatsoever to offer anyone. The treatment I get at the hands of these cretins is so fucking annoying that I doubt that anyone else understands it. | The fact that you are so smart makes it all the more annoying that you | don't realize how counterproductive some of your debating tactics can be. What amazes me is that people who know statistics do not realize that they are more productive than not. People come around, realize early on in an exchange that they have been criticized for something specific and for a reason. More often than not, people get the idea pretty fast. I keep track of this because it obviously matters a great deal to me, but those who only count the artillery rounds make the same mistake those who think Israel is at blame and the Palestinians are only victims do. In any battle, the defensive force will appear stronger than the attacking force for the obvious reason that they must not only stop attackers, but ensure that they know that attacking has higher costs than benefits and if defeated once, will meet even harder defeat next time around. If you are a naïve bystander, you will believe that the party that uses the most force is the agressor, but if you actually want to stop the attacks, you cannot fail to understand that the aggressor will /continue/ as long as he are not sufficiently discouraged. For a truly large number of cretins and aggressors against me (and no amount of "defense" rhetoric will get anyone who has not been attacked in any way off the hook when he makes the first aggressive move towards me), this works wonderfully. Many people are mortally afraid of engaging me in combat. This is only good! Imagine the number of fucked-up basked cases who would waste everyone't time and disturb the peace if they were not discouarged. However, some simply do not get it, just like so many Palestinians, probably because they have never spent the modicum of mental effort required to see that what they regard as attacks are /reactions/ to something quite definite. If random bystanders really wanted peace, they would acknowledge the /problem/ that is being reacted to and help fix it. If they attack the party that is only defending itself, they make things much, much worse. So in the spirit of dialogue, why do the cretins not realize how counter- productive /their/ efforts are? Can they actually show /one/ case where it has helped to attack the party who defends itself? Why can they not understand that their attacks legitimatize defense reactions? What could be so wrong with people that they attack and attack in a frenzy of moral indignation without understanding that their victim has a right to a rebuttal? It is when they deny that right that things turn most ugly. -- 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.