Subject: Re: Understanding Erik Naggum
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 12 Oct 2002 12:37:42 +0000
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* quasi <>
| And my point what(why) does it matter by what I sign myself.

  It is a matter of politeness to you fellow travelers.  I find it quite
  odd that you do not understand this.  Some newsgroups do not seem to need
  full names, but others do.  Look around you.  There is no need to stand
  out as the one who does not sign with his real name.  The others who do
  this are morons.  That you demand the right to continue, does you no

| You have bypassed my question that even if I sign with a /seemingly/
| legal name, you have no way to acertain if it indeed is my legal name.
| Which beats your point above.

  No, it does not.  It is a non-issue.  The fact is that you make things
  /worse/ than they need be.  Just because you cannot obtain perfection is
  no excuse to violate every moral precept in existence.  It is, however,
  the typical response of people who /want/ to do something wrong.  The
  question is not: Would it be perfect?  The question is: Would it make
  things better.  You do not seem to understand this simple idea, and you
  do not argue that it would not be better, only that it would not be
  perfect, as if anyone could possibly disagree with that or think it would
  be perfect.

| Can you, for example only, tell me if you are certain that Pascal
| Costanza is the legal name of the person who uses it here?

  You are not listening.  I /am/ certain that your legal name is /not/
  "quasi".  It is much easier to be able to ascertain that something is
  /not/ true than that it /is/ true.  When people publish misinformation,
  it can be corrected without having perfect omniscience.  Some people
  believe that since you cannot know everything (the typical phrase is
  "have monopoly on truth"), you should not correct other people, because
  everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's.  Note that Pascal
  Costanza has made several arguments in that direction, too.  Lots of
  people believe in nutty things because they do not accept that it is
  possible to know with absolute certainty what is wrong without knowing
  with any certainty at all what is right -- all one knows is that all the
  crap that has been disproven, that does not follow, that has been tested
  and failed, etc, are /not/ right.  Weed out the wrong for an extended
  period of time, and you will most probably hold a lot of real truths.
  Some people think that if you weed out the wrong and that hurts people,
  the community is served by pretending people should not have known better
  to begin with and should be respected for telling lies and spreading myth
  and misinformation.  This only slows people and the community down.
  Likewise, having to prove to you that a full name is better than a fake
  name is a waste of time.  Therefore, what I try to do is see if you are
  able to understand this on your own without going down the idiotic path
  of criminals and the mentally deranged who reject the community-view that
  something is wrong and believe it anyway and typically insist on doing it
  like some fanatic.

| Or is it just because it /seems/ legal you are satisfied?  Bah.

  Actually, yes.  Just at some people seem to believe that it is OK if you
  seem to be polite and respectful even when you are neither.  You do not
  seem to reject this idea, do you?  Why not?  Do you only respect others
  when they agree with you?

| One's judgment of others affect one's own self.  If people want to add me
| to their killfiles I have no control over it nor any interest in it.

  Yes, you have control over it.

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.