Subject: Re: Preventing a class from being instantiated
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:32:14 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Andreas Bogk
| Well, how would you feel if someone keeps calling you retarded, a
| lunatic, an idiot, a fool, imbecile?  For no other reason than that you
| disagree on a certain point?

  It is never about disagreement.  You were not called anything at all as
  long as you _disagreed_.  But this is quite typical.  Those who actually
  _are_ retarded think it is about disagreement, and they always resort to
  this idiotic "argument".

  A person who is a pathological liar does not just _disagree_ with others.
  A thief who breaks into a person's house, does not merely _disagree_ with
  him on the concept of property rights.  Someone who drives under the
  influence of drugs or alcohol does not just _disagree_ with the limits
  and traffic rules.  Yes, they probably _also_ disagree, but the criminal
  mind is indeed marked by the failure to understand that disagreement is
  not a reason for anybody to react harshly.  Breaking rules and acting on
  false premises, however, is.  However, since you have a criminal mind,
  and go on to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, you think that you are
  being attacked for _disagreeing_ with the prevailing rules, as if it were
  a free speech issue or you should have been respected for your "opinion".

  Some people are so amazingly smart (by your standards) that they wonder
  what happened when something unexpected occurs.  You are not that smart.
  That means that you react with an urge to defend yourself when you think
  you see something hurtful to yourself.  Only insecure _and_ stupid people
  do that.  Only people with _inflated_ egos respond violently when others
  challenge their inflated egos with _facts_.  Only people with _inflated_
  egos respond violently when people _disagree_ with them, and therefore
  think that others react to disagreement.  Spread of disinformation is not
  disagreement.  Osama bin Laden does not "disagree" with George W. Bush on
  the policies of the United States in the Middle East.  Yet you can bet
  that if he were half a smart as he is rumored to be, he will argue that
  he "only expressed his disagreement" when defending himself and cannot
  understand why he caused Afghanistan to be bombed.

| As soon as one brings in an argument that's contradicting Eriks, he
| starts calling people names, assuming that the only explanation is that
| the guy on the other side is too stupid to understand *his* argument.

  This is again the typical defense made by retarded people.  That it is in
  fact false, that there is lots of available counter-evidence and that it
  is so stupid a thing to say that it is more self-incriminating than
  anything they have previously said or done, does not bother them.  This
  is about _making_up_ things to attack other people for, and then getting
  more insistent when their victim objects to it.

  Exaggeration is the favorite tool of the dysfunctional mind.  And you who
  made such a stink about _logic_.  That I demonstrated that you are devoid
  of logical thinking skills, has caused you to take this personally, but
  at least you have stopped bragging about logic.  That is good, and
  probably goes to show that I was indeed right: You have never been
  challenged on your thinking skills, but had a hugely inflated ego that
  has been cut down to size.   This is good for you, provided that you do
  not develop a cancerous growth of arrogant ignorance, but you are on the
  way there.

| I did.  His intelligence seems to be above average, so some of the things
| he writes actually make sense.  It is unfortunate that this makes him so
| arrogant that it is impossible to have a discussion with him.

  You only observe it from this point of view because you are too stupid to
  recognize your own arrogancae from _ignorance_.

| If somebody behaved like that in my team, I would fire him without
| thinking twice about his intelligence.  The possible damage to the team
| is a bigger threat than having to find a replacement.

  If you behaved the way you have in any professional setting, you would be
  fired for incompetence before I had time to react.

| I will do as several people suggested to me in personal communication:
| I'll just stop taking Erik seriously.

  This only reflects very badly on yourself.  Like a few other prize morons
  here, you may never understand what happened.

  If you have a working brain, use it to go back over and re-read your
  _own_ contributions, and accept the blame for your own behavior.  This is
  what morons are unable to do, and intelligent people figure out quickly.

  I have _never_ met a person of reasonable intelligence who failed to see
  how he could make every piece of criticism go away.  Indeed, I have come
  to make it a test for reasonable intelligence that they do, and it works
  amazingly well.  You failed.  Lots of people have realized this already.
  _They_ would not mail you and tell you that you are a moron, however.

  The past is not more important than the future, despite what your culture
  has taught you.  Your future observations, conclusions, and beliefs are
  more important to you than those in your past ever will be.  The world is
  changing so fast the balance between the past and the future has shifted.