Subject: Re: CMU CL vs. CLISP?
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1999/08/09
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Erik Naggum
| I don't always get such confirmations, but I have yet to see any evidence
| of malice behind that.  of course, if you don't _need_ evidence of
| malice, but assume it by default, [and the rest of the sentence, which
| you elided for reasons only you can fully understand:] which you do if I
| read you right, you would need evidence of its absence, and three
| instances of malice-by-default is pretty good evidence that Franz Inc is
| maliciously ignoring you.

* Pierpaolo Bernardi
| Malice?  Erik, please stop attributing to people intentions which are
| only products of your fantasy.

  for one who gives advice, you sure are lousy at taking it, but if you
  think the best way to deal with stuff you don't agree with is to do the
  same to other people, I have all the evidence I need of any malice at
  work, and it is neither at Franz Inc nor my fantasy.

  if you don't understand that conditionals like the one you reacted so
  blindly to are intended to make you think about your position, and
  instead start to defend it as if the condition were true, what am I
  supposed to think but that it is indeed true?  if you want to argue
  against what you call "products of your fantasy", at the very least: do
  yourself the favor of not denying them so vociferously.  if they are
  indeed products of my fantasy, even only for the purpose of getting to
  know a little better what kind of person I'm dealing with, it behooves
  you to _do_ better, and it's a lot simpler than defending yourself, too.

  in this particular case, I wanted you to think about the implication that
  you don't need evidence of malice because you act as if the lack of a
  response to a bug report was somehow a serious flaw that you could and
  should blame somebody else for.  common reasons not to get replies are:
  that you send from a broken mail system, use some stupid spam-avoiding
  fake mailbox, or other faults with the initiator of the mail.  assuming
  faults with the other party is sometimes something it is important to
  learn if someone does habitually.  I guess I know that that's precisely
  what you tend towards, now, as in the following:

| *I* am attacking personally you?  After all the name calling that you
| did in this thread towards me?

  yes, Pierpaolo, you were actually attacking me.  that's a fact.  if you
  think it is excusable, or defensible, or irrelevant compared to other
  things, that's an entirely different issue, even if you don't understand
  such simple ethical issues.  the fact remains, and I'm just enjoying the
  spectacle of someone who claims to be so ardently opposed to personal
  attacks even try to deny the fact of his own behavior, even defending his
  denial as the fault of he whom he attacks.  I find such behavior
  fascinating to watch, but at the very least, I don't conflate clean and
  simple facts with my wishes, whatever else you may fancy accusing me of.

| I could find this funny, if I were the kind of person that takes fun
| at other persons serious problems.

  you already started with a curious case of projection in the article I'm
  responding to, then denial of facts, and now you're trying very hard to
  get an upper hand by blaming me for everything.  funny, indeed, but then
  again, I _do_ think it's hilariously funny to expose people who try _so_
  hard to appear above reproach.

  next time, Pierpaolo, just grow a clue and consider that you do yourself
  a favor by doing something that cannot be attacked in ways you don't
  like, such as not attributing malice to people you don't know at all, and
  above all: don't let so much of _your_ personal response patterns show
  through -- there's no fun in people who are _actually_ mad.

  suppose we blasted all politicians into space.
  would the SETI project find even one of them?