Subject: Re: Yet another discussion of Erik Naggum (was: So, where's the "Javadoc" for COMMON Lisp?)
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 20:57:17 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* "Coby Beck" <>
> Thse lines are exactly why I harbor no hopes of you ever understanding your
> own behaviour in any terms shared by human society.

  The people who engage in the unceasing vilification of everything I do
  are quite few in number, but _very_ vocal.  The two most recently active
  specimens are "Fernando" and "raj", more or less anonymous as one would
  expect.  You are a vocal and annoyingly persistent critic, but at least
  you abstain from senseless vilification.  If you think I have a greater
  responsibility because my articles carry more weight, the people I refer
  to who have made it their purpose to destroy any and all value in what I
  write.  _That_ is the incredibly unfair part.  That is what I *hate* that
  people do.  If I do something bad, tell me, flame me, yell at me, but try
  to make something I do that is _not_ bad, even good, into something bad,
  and you will not doubt that you would be dead if it were only up to me.

  Now, unlike what everybody tells others about me, I do not consider it
  _good_ to flame people who resort to vilification.  It is a _necessary_
  evil, but evil nonetheless.  Some of the people who spend an enormous
  amount of energy vilifying me from here to the end of the world, have
  made it clear that they think it is _good_ to attack me, that they do it
  because they believe they are morally _justified_ in doing it.  This is a
  huge difference.  There is no stopping someone who is morally justified.

  The interesting thing about real life is that people realize very quickly
  how much evil they can get away with towards somebody else.  This means
  that by signalling to others what you will not accept, they refrain from
  doing it in the first place.  Rational self-interest makes people think
  twice about hurting someone if they sense that they can get hurt back.
  This unreduced will to hurt anyone who attacks you is the reason people
  form peaceful societies and human advances such as trust and justice --
  without it, bad people can get away with absolustely anything they want.
  This is the case on the Net and the reasons there are so many bad people
  who abuse it -- take all the worms and viruses and denial-of-service
  attacks with all the bad USENET and WWW cultures.  Ignorants blame the
  absence of real faces and empathy and all kinds of gobbledygook, but the
  _real_ reason is that you can laugh at somebody's fist instead of getting
  hurt by it if _you_ do something bad to somebody else and they hit you
  back.  The absence of a credible threat of violent response fosters evil,
  because those who have evil intentions are in fact only stopped by force.

  The same applies to how people react to corrections.  I may be getting
  worked up at times, but I make a point of not insulting people first, I
  do not think people are stupid, I do not consider or call them morons --
  I simply state what I consider to be true, on technical or philosophical
  matters.  Still, some morons _are_ insulted, because in real life, _they_
  would have signalled a violent response to the prospect of having ideas
  or opinions of that kind presented to them, or particularly the fact that
  they might be wrong.  To some people, a minority of perhaps 5%, it is
  _much_ more important to defend their inflated ego than anything that
  could make their ego _recover_ (such as actually listening to the critics
  and fix what they do wrong) and they will not back down until their ego
  is vindicated.  Obviously, some people will think this applies to me, but
  look carefully at how these vilifiers jump at every opportunity to make
  things much, much worse.  It is impossible for me to make these insane
  guys stop their attacks.  _That_ is the core of the problem.  It has
  nothing to do with what _I_ do, anymore.

> Please show me any post telling any one what you claim, if it is mine I will
> apologise.

  I cannot recall that it has been in your articles.  Take a look at what
  "Fernando" and "raj" do.

> By the way, the best way to refute any attack on your behaviour is to
> respond maturely or not at all.

  Not any more.  Not with these guys around.  Not with silent acceptance of
  their behavior and an enormous outburst of hatred when I respond in any
  way at all, which is what _really_ tells me that even you think this is
  my fault, and that "Fernando" and "raj" are innocent little fucks who
  should be allowed to get away with it.   ///