Subject: Re: less parentheses --> fewer parentheses
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 2000/08/29
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* (Christopher Browne)
| It doesn't seem to be obvious based solely on _headers_.

  Yes, it does.  Please think.

| Were the flaming cathartic, such that things would settle down with
| everyone feeling a bit better, this would be well and fine, but that
| is clearly _NOT_ the case, as the sequence seems to [according to
|] have resulted in a goodly 15-20 followups as you and Barry
| continue to bash at one another.

  Oh, they don't settle down?  Why can't people who have this urge to
  comment _please_ pay at little attention?  That way, they could at
  least help avoid fueling the flames by some silly non-observation.

  I'm sure it's cathartic for you to rip this case open and attempt an
  autopsy, but it's rather stupid.  If hostility has reasons, and I
  suggest you adopt that view, even if foreign to you, _repeating_
  something that has caused some hostility is like reopening a wound.
  I have to assume that you are either out to hurt more, or are so
  stupid that you don't realize what you're doing.  You choose.

|  BTW, I suggest that Erik proofread his posts better.  I don't
|  ordinarily post spelling/grammar corrections, but I feel that
|  spelling/grammar correction posts are fair game -- if you dish it
|  out, you'd better be able to take it.
| The critical thing is that I don't see this as any _MAJOR_ "bash" on
| you; it seems to me that it did not anywhere _NEAR_ justify your
| response of:

  If you _still_ haven't grasped that I respond to false accusations,
  in this case that _I_ dish out spelling/grammar corrections, what
  use could we possibly have with your fairly stupid "observations"?

| Based on the language I've seen emitted, I've got a strong idea as to
| whom _I_ consider more hostile.

  I'm glad you share this with the world.  Will you please explain how
  it _helps_?  Thank you.

| Unfortunately your comments in "softer" areas seem to easily bias
| towards hostility, and if people proceed to disagree with you, you
| can get _extremely_ hostile.

  Sigh.  It is simply _not_ disagreement.  _Moronic_ remarks like that
  are good "triggers" for my reactions: Say something that is so
  utterly untrue, so utterly unsupported by facts, and so completely
  insane that it _has_ to be corrected, and not only that, I have
  stated what I think about agreement and disagreement so often to you
  agreement-based retards that if you don't get it, it's because it
  serves an evil purpose to pretend you don't.  You'd actually _have_
  to be seriously braindamaged and devoid of good observational skills
  to even think about disagreement as a primary.

  A similarly moronic comment is if you were black and all you could
  manage to come up with if someone criticized you for anythying at
  all were "it's because of my skin".  Yes, you would have been black
  and you can't avoid that.  Yes, disagrement is a common symptom, but
  if you weren't quite so retarded and judgmental based on surface
  properties, you would have observed strong disagreement _not_
  leading to any of your "hostilities", just like people can make
  mistakes and get criticized for them regardless of skin color.

  Judgmental retards is the problem: People who think only long enough
  to form a judgment and don't ever examine the rest of the evidence.

  Thinking takes effort, but less than having to defend yourself
  because you haven't.  At least that's my policy when I flame the
  fucking idiots who are too sloppy to engage their _brains_ before
  they post some judgmental bullshit, like you, Christopher Browne,
  and Barry Margolin.

  If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.