Subject: Re: Understanding Erik Naggum From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 12 Oct 2002 12:37:42 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * quasi <firstname.lastname@example.org> | 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 good. | 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.