Subject: Re: What Lisp needs to beat Java, etc.
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 2000/11/28
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

| I thought that this was comp.lang.lisp, and not:
| 	comp.lang.bile,
| 	comp.lang.curmudgeon,
| 	comp.lang.trigger-happy,
| 	comp.lang.shoot-first;ask-questions-later,
| 	comp.lang.only_erik_knows_anything

  This line of "argumentation" is proof positive of a brain that has
  ceased working a very long time ago.  Only physical pain can cause you
  to restructure your alarmingly non-thinking brain, now, but unlike
  you, who threaten to burn down my house in personal communication, I
  have this notion that the kind of pain you need is best administered
  by having you expose as much of yourself as possible, making it nigh
  impossible ever to recover once you understand what you have done.
  Until then, it's pure entertainment to watch a dysfunctional brain so
  amazingly hard at work to prove just _how_ dysfunctional it is.

| Funny, Erik, I thought that you espoused thinking to be an objective,
| unemotional process.

  "Unemotional?"  What the fuck gave you that completely insane idea?
  Objective, yes, but if you can't deal with emotions while thinking,
  you aren't human and your results will be just as bad as you have made
  us all suffer through watching.  When you respond emotionally, you are
  no longer able to think, and that is the root cause of your problems.
  You are a severely emotionally disturbed individual whose intelligence
  is reduced to that of a five-year-old when under emotional pressure.
  You also think everybody else have to be that dysfunctional, which is
  a pretty good sign you have only ever been dealing with people who do
  not challenge your views in any fundamental or meaningful way, which
  would explain why you miss every point possible and do not understand
  even the slightest concept beyond what you fully expect to hear.

| To bad that you reveal yourself to be, in Nietzsche's term, "common,
| all-too-common" in your hypocricy.

  Do you have a cute term for people who accuse others of holding views
  they actually do _not_ hold only to accuse them of hypocricy, too?

| You know, regardless of what or who you may think I am, the way you are
| being is very unpleasant.

  So you are finally catching on.  You are supposed to feel differently
  than in the cozy, unchallenged world you normally live in that gave
  you no reason to examine your conclusions, premises, or assumptions.
  The fact that you are now facing someone who cares enough about your
  pathetic arguments to try to force you to zoom out and perhaps for the
  first time _think_ about your position and how you got there, may be a
  good reason to stop defending your right to live in an unchallenged
  world where people are mainly _pleasant_ to each other, including
  people who espouse such incredibly idiotic ideas as you do.

| Perhaps you don't consider the Buddha a good example of enlightenment,
| and would choose instead, someone along the lines of Hitler.

  Your mind has snapped.  You really should seek psychiatric counseling
  and stop posting.  People have done dramatically stupid things after
  their minds have snapped due to exposure to ideas their puny little
  brains could not deal with.

| Well, then, I'd say we could never see eye to eye.

  Of course you say that: It is entirely in character for your emotional
  prejudice to conclude so much about what you have no way to see.

| It would be a sad world indeed, were it fully populated with people
| who feel justified, as you apparently do, to treat their fellow humans
| with the amount of disrespect that you do.

  If _you_ feel disrespect, I apologize.  It is your insanely idiotic
  opinions, your choice not to have exercised your brain for the past
  decade at least, your severely retarded and unthinking reaction to
  counter-information and unpleasant news, as well as your inability to
  restrict yourself to what you have an established ability to know with
  a preponderance of probability, that I disrespect, but that is not
  you.  _You_ have a choice to act differently, to think, even though
  this is going to be really, really painful to you, but much less so
  than posting more insanely idiotic drivel and have me hang you out to
  dry every time you do.

| Maybe you have some friends.  Maybe they can barely tolerate your
| behavior.  Maybe they share your beliefs, and you engage in a non-stop
| one-upmanship display for each other. Maybe you embrace each other as
| loving equals. All I can say is that from this end, at present, you
| appear as a lonely, angry soul.p

  Maybe you have no reason even to speculate about this unless the point
  of your insanely idiotic rant is to relieve yourself of responsibility
  of your own actions, which caused what you receive.

| And, Erik, if you are so interested in not continuing this
| conversation, why do you feel that you must?

  It could be that some insane idiot keeps demanding replies to put him
  in his place, such as requiring corrections to his telling me what I
  think when I have given you solid evidence to the contrary, to his
  accusations of hypocrisy as if none of what I have said matters, only
  what the insane idiot himself believes, etc.  It could be that you
  have taken a route of escalation that highlights the fact that you
  need to be slapped so hard your head would make a couple turns before
  it stopped.

| I'm actually interested in talking Lisp.

  So talk Lisp.  Or is this "I'd love to talk Lisp, but ..."   :)

| It would take a great deal more effort to respond with generosity, a
| willingness to clear up any misconceptions that you believe anyone has
| about the subject at hand (including me), or not at all, than to dish
| out another shovel of bile.

  I _am_ generous to you.  I am _exceptionally_ generous to you.  I have
  taken a very good look at you and your insanely idiotic opinions and I
  have established that I care enough about you to try to make you think
  through your position, which takes much, much more effort on my part
  than being "generous" in _your_ terms ever would require, which would
  basically entail _not_ challenging your fundamental choice _not_ to
  think, but to deal with people on _pleasant_ terms.

| If you truly think me an idiot, then all you display by posting a
| response my way is that you either enjoy looking so much more
| intelligent or witty than an idiot, which displays a severe
| insecurity/egoism on your part, or, being an idiot, you enjoy dialogue
| with idiots.  Or, I suppose, thirdly, you are a sadist who specializes
| in abusing idiots.  Then I will know we are truly not equals.

  The fourth option is that you are hopefully an idiot by _choice_, more
  or less made in an environment of non-challenge and pleasantness, and
  being a choice, you could make another choice.  Many an idiot before
  you have made a different choice than to remain a non-thinking idiot.
  Some have not, but hey, what loss could that possibly be?  Any form of
  punishment may cause two kinds of outcomes: Either the person refuses
  forever to believe that he has done anything wrong and insists on
  doing what he was punished for, or he can stop and _think_ about the
  fact that he got punished "out of the blue" relative to his current
  understanding which to a thinking individual means that his current
  understanding is in dire need of an update.  I do enjoy the fact that
  most of the people punished make a turn for the better after they have
  understood and recovered from the blow.  Some never do, but I do not
  consider them a loss at all, especially considering the insanity of
  their attacks back at me, not quite limited to threats to burn down my
  house, you understand.  My sympathy for people who threaten with crime
  to get their way is gone for good and can never be recovered.

  Please learn how to delete irrelevant portions of article you quote.
  Qutoing in extenso is not conducive to changing the impression that
  you can't quite make reasonably intelligent choices.  Thank you.

  Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000:
    Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their
    very first President.  All parties, states would rejoice.