Subject: Re: Yet another discussion of Erik Naggum (was: So, where's the "Javadoc" for COMMON Lisp?)
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 21:59:19 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* (Marc Spitzer)
> You are correct and I apologize for not checking out the details befor 
> opening my mouth.  

  Well, this is certainly getting moderately difficult.  When I implied
  that people tacitly approve of the abuse, I did not mean that people
  should defend _me_.  I do not like defense speeches for people in the
  first place.  I would have been happy if a few people had just asked, in
  a moderately hostile voice, the lunatics to can it.

  Part of the problem is that people have this counter-productive notion of
  "taking sides".  Getting involved all too often means taking a particular
  side, but by so doing, you cut yourself off from the most rational course
  of action: To _understand_ what is going on.  It also makes it harder for
  you to respond to actions as opposed to people, which is simply wrong.
  It is a good thing to form alliances with people, but it is not a good
  thing to form them on such a fickle basis as USENET fights.

> My previous attatude is that you did a much better job defending your
> self then I could do defending you so I realy could not do much good.

  Well, thank you, sort of.  I try not to defend _myself_, though.  This is
  not always an easy task, but what I do object to is the unfairness in
  misdirected and false accusations and the idiocy of people who think they
  can speak for other people's intentions without that bothersome _doubt_
  that would have held them back.

> I have no reason to insult you Erik and I did try to support you when
> you asked for it.

  OK, I see that you wanted me well, and I still took it negatively, but it
  was because by implying that I could not have done it myself unless it
  was yet another reflection of my purportedly bad character, you made it
  just that much harder to say I did.

> It looks like I did a bad job but the reason I got involved at all was
> becaused you said that the silence in this group about the abuse that is
> directed at you incourages and perpetuates that behavior in this group.

  Cool, but the reason it failed was again connected to the will to see my
  intentions.  It is just as false to think I have only good intentions as
  to think I have only bad intentions, because you cannot know.  However,
  you can _sometimes_ see how some people have bad intentions by their
  choice of reaction to being criticized.  If they get on their high horse
  and proclaim their right to commit evil in the name of some irrelevant
  but self-serving good, you know they have bad intentions all the way down.

> I did not find any evidence of "evil-geniusites" in your posts was my
> point, I must not have made it clear enough.

  It is clear now, and I do appreciate it.   ///