Subject: Re: moderation (was Re: Nagging Naggum)
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 20:50:57 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Jean-François Brouillet <>
| I didn't expect Naggum to stay silent at all.  I wished he would; see
| the world of difference?

  Do you even remember how I responded to your insane outburst of
  uncontrolled rage?  Shall I refresh your memory a little?

  What an _interesting_ display of personality problems.  Get help, OK?

  Do you remember this?  What was _your_ response?  Do you need another
  memory refresh?  It was a new thread with subject "Nagging Naggum" in
  which you proved that you are irrecovably _psychotic_.  If you think you
  will recover honorably from this episode, rest assured that I have a
  rather long memory when it comes to asswipes like you.  People who make
  mistakes or believe something too strongly but who fix them or get
  convinced of the rationality of the opposing view (without necessarily
  agreeing with it), I forgive and forget, and the same seems to be true of
  most other reasonably rational people.  I think it is vitally important
  that past mistakes not be used against people who have made a reasonable
  effort to correct them.  But those who stage massive attacks because they
  are enraged by what they do not understand, have already shown such an
  incredible lack of sound judgment that one must expect it to show up
  again at some point and nobody should trust such a person to grow a brain.

  People who think critically about the world they live in are full of
  surprises, but since most of the hypotheses we come up with on our own
  are wrong, just like you can extrapolate in any direction from a single
  data point, it is important to expose one's ideas to the world.  What
  differentiates a rational and critical thinker from an irrational nutjob
  is that the thinker seeks and embraces counter-information -- stuff that
  can offer an alternative view or invalidate what one believes.  Now, as
  it turns out, viewing information one receives this way causes a lot of
  waste of time because most of the people who have unusual information are
  nutjobs who have not exposed _their_ ideas to others for their critical
  comments or who have never sought any of the available counter-evidence
  or ignored all that which floated their way.  The argument you usually
  hear from the nutjobs is that other people cannot deal with disagreement
  -- because that is what makes _them_ the most queasy, and which they
  think they cope with by trying not to disagree with others -- but the
  problem is that most people do not deal well with challenges to their
  _unstated_ beliefs.

| The only (huge) mistake of Naggum is his language.  And probably the fact
| that he can't control his bile.

  On the contrary, you and things like Israel Ray Thomas cannot control
  your bile.  I do control my bile very much, thank you.  Dealing with
  psychos like you requires intimate control over my own reactions.  The
  fact that I am measured and precise in how I exact my retribution is what
  drives _you_ wild, is it not?  The fact that I am _right_ about you is
  what makes you erupt in even more flames.  I think the only proper
  reaction to an insane nutjob like yourself is to push you to and
  optionally over the brink.  There is a word for this: brinkmanship.

  Take a look at how you erupted here.  _That_ is evidence of your not even
  being _able_ to control you bile.

| Write me a private email if you wish, but it is not my desire to add any
| more noise than strictly necessary to this NG.

  You are still mistaken in what you believe in necessary.