Subject: Re: Unwelcome mail from the stalkers
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:14:09 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Jean-François Brouillet <>
| How easy it would be for me to comply.


| If only the same could be said from some other people.

  _You_ are championing politeness and courtesy as not an option.  At this
  particular time, nobody else does that, simply because most other people
  figure out that behaving like a certified lunatic who stages massively
  insane attacks on other people is not how you get a polite and courteous
  discussion.  So this is about _you_, now.

  If the big champion of politeness and courtesy cannot follow his own
  "rules of engagement", he has demonstrated that politeness and courtesy
  are _ineffectual_ in dealing with other people.

  All moralists who have ever walked the earth have failed to understand
  that everybody else figure out very quickly that the only role a moralist
  wants is that of _judge_ of ethics, morals, and good behavior.  The
  moralist would not _be_ a moralist if he were willing to abide by and
  obey the rules he thinks that other people should follow.  Those who are
  smart enough to figure out the need for and the nature of very complex
  human creations like legal procedures to protect both guilty and innocent
  from the amazingly strong need for revenge and the irrationality of the
  morally outraged, have understood that we cannot leave behavior control
  to those who are most obsessed about it, because they are invariably more
  destructive than whatever they want to see.

| The reason I started all this is because _your_ non-compliance.

  The reason you broke your own rule that "politeness and courtesy is not
  an option" is that somebody else does not follow your rules?  This must
  mean that I am allowed to do the same.  This also means that the only
  time that politeness and courtesy are actually valuable is when everybody
  already follow all the rules.  If someone, somewhere, thinks somebody
  broke a rule, dispense with politeness and courtesy and attack viciously!

  The problem here is that politeness and courtesy is most certainly an
  option, but _only_ for Jean-François Brouillet.  _He_ can use any means
  necessary to bully people into submission.  _He_ can break all rules of
  engagement and social etiquette and attack people viciously who do not
  obey his rules.  _He_ can shoot people in the back if they walk funny.
  Jean-François Brouillet thinks he has a _reason_ to break his rules, and
  therefore it is perfectly OK that he is a stark raving mad aggressor.

| So let's agree on this: I won't reply any further, or if I do, I'll do it
| in the most pleasant way...provided you do the same.

  You have never had the right to make demands on anybody else.  You have
  the right to make demands on your own behavior, and you have said that
  politeness and courtesy is not an option.  So follow up.  Do as you say.

  That you refuse to _start_ to be polite and courteous, even when it is
  not an option, is very revealing, as if anything more needs revealing.
| Fair enough?

  No.  It is this simple: _You_ want polite and courteous, so _you_ start
  behaving as you say.  _You_ say politeness and courtesy is not an option,
  so _you_ behave accordingly.

| So here's the deal: I apologize for "Nagging Naggum" to the extent that
| Mr Naggum himself apologizes for his past rudeness.

  Conditional apologies are the instrument only of the psychopath.  Mature
  men apologize because they feel bad about something they understand has
  been hurtful, _not_ because they want to "bargain" with the victim of
  their evil deeds.  The more you keep this behavior up, the more the whole
  world gets to see what a sick person you are, Jean-François Brouillet.
  Why do you need this public humiliation?

| Square, isn't it?

  No, it is not.  You attack me out of the blue, and you blame me for it,
  and this is, quite frankly, insane.  You have been exposed as a very,
  very bad person, and your apology hinges on _forcing_ people to behave as
  you demand.  None of this is even _remotely_ acceptable.  If you were
  honest about your insane ranting and raving about "politeness and
  courtesy", you would simply _be_ polite and courteous, even when under
  attack, _especially_ when you are under attack..  But just like Erann
  Gat, who has been astonishingly evil and destructive in _his_ stupid
  "quest" for polite and friendly discourse, you, too, need to control
  other people when you demonstrate that cannot even control yourself.

| First, it is not because you have tried to be helpful even though people
| do not recognize it to its true value that you have to be rude after
| them.  After all, no one _asked you_ to be helpful to anyone in the first
| place.

  Oh, this is rich.  If having anyone ask you to do something is the key,
  who asked you to become the champion of politeness and courtesy?  You are
  so stupid, Jean-François Brouillet.  You dig a grave for yourself with
  every sentence you utter.  Why do you need this constant humiliation?

  But you failed to get the point, of course.  On USENET we do things
  because we want to.  You are on the demanding end of USENET, so of course
  you do not understand this.  You get to _offer_ something on USENET, not
  _demand_ anything.  When you demand, you are abusing the hospitality of
  those who offer something.  Demanders should be shot and their useless
  carcasses dragged off the Net.

| Second, it is true that some people are cheaters, clueless, <whatever>.
| But again this is no reason to get mad at them: remember what you say
| yourself: by their attitude (cheating/abusing/etc...) in the end, they
| only harm themselves.

  I am trying to make this clear to you, but it seems you are exceptionally
  hard of learning.  Why do you need to have this pointed out in public
  after you demonstrate again and again that you do not understand what you
  are saying, cannot do what you say "is not option", and continue to blame
  others for your behavior?

  But you failed to get the point, of course.  You are on the demanding end
  of USENET, not the delivering.  Until you have delivered, you have no
  business commenting on how other people should behave.  Yet more demands
  just make you a disgusting whining loser.  You could have offered us good
  and nice and constructive behavior, but instead you chose to demand it
  from other people when you cannot deliver it yourself.  You are the kind
  of shit that every person who chooses to offer something on the Net will
  run into, sooner or later.  Dealing nicely with shit like you is only
  more demands from you, and you do _not_ deserve to be treated nicely.  If
  anyone does that, it is out of the excessive goodness of his heart.

| Finally, not shouting at people will prevent the occasional blunder of
| aiming at someone who would deserve a better treatment, weren't it for a
| shared misunderstanding to start with.

  Is _this_ your real "reason" to come flying in my face like a rabid dog?

| BTW: this means that you started contributing to comp.lang.lisp
| in...1987?!?!

  No, it does not mean that, since I did not restrict _your_ 15 years of
  "public service" to comp.lang.lisp, either.  Why do you have such severe
  difficulties reading what people write to you?  Why do you open up for
  and virtually _beg_ for so much humiliation of yourself?

  Tell you what, Jean-François Brouillet.  The reason you refuse to behave
  as you say is that it would be _extremely_ humiliating for you at this
  point if you did -- it would be the ultimate defeat for you, who came out
  of your little cave to attack people who "misbehaved" in your view, and
  now you get punished for it and are required to behave yourself.  You are
  no longer the judge of good behavior, you are simply required to exhibit
  good behavior, according to your own standards, which are taken out of
  your control, too.  This is absolutely intolerable to a psychopath, of
  course, because the whole point of your "politeness and courtesy" is to
  _control_ others, not just to speak your own mind, just as with every
  other "politeness and courtesy" freak on USENET.  The conditional apology
  is what _really_ gave you away.

  If you were not a dickless little wimp, this would never have been a
  problem to you, because you could just have shook it off and moved on.
  But it is in fact even more humiliating to do as you say than it is to
  have me point out what an incredibly bad person you are after every
  pathetic attempt to attack me.  The reason you will not let this go is
  that you want to walk out of this free after saving face and thinking you
  did the right thing, after all.  Well, you are not going to get a pat on
  the back from me.  You did _not_ do the right thing -- not according to
  your own rules, not according to my rules, not according to anybody
  else's rules.  You did in fact do a very, _very_ bad thing.  Attacking
  people like you did is _not_ right, no matter what stupid excuse for a
  "reason" you think you have.  The more you defend yourself, the worse
  person you must be.  Here is how this works: You are a bad person, who
  have done an unforgivably bad thing towards me, and I will _not_ let you
  save face and walk out of this free.  When I said you would not be
  allowed to recover from this, I _really_ meant it.  If you continue to
  behave the way you do, you will most likely face more humiliation until
  you have experienced total defeat.  You see, I am not going to change my
  ways just because some terrorist attacks me.  You and Osama bin Laden may
  well think something is wrong with whatever you attack so viciously and
  extremely, but that does _not_ make it right, it does _not_ mean anyone
  will _ever_ change their behavior when you attack something other than
  that behavior.  If you had had the mental capacity to pay attention to
  what happens here over a sustained period of time, you would have seen
  that I criticize individual items of behavior very specifically and only
  when they occur, and if they get fixed, I do not hold grudges.  This is
  beyond the ability of some people to understand, and the more they are
  "into" politeness and courtesy, the less they grasp that harsh words can
  actually have a constructive purpose and work constructively -- this is
  why _they_ use harsh words only destructively themselves and why _they_
  have to count "bad words" as a measure of politeness and courtesy.

  Insulting people nicely, politely, and courteously is an art.  It can be
  quite entertaining, but it requires people who are worth it.  People like
  you are not even worth that much.  People who think apologies are no more
  than bargaining chips are worthless scum and you in particular should be
  remembered for your demanding attitude and your unwillingness to deliver
  what you demand from others.  In particular, you cannot even deliver when
  you are asked to do what you think is not an option, but admit things
  like "How easy it would be for me to comply" to indicate that you are a
  very bad person because you think a demand for politeness and courtesy is
  a _weapon_ and the person required to obey is humiliated by it.  That is
  why it is so _important_ to make you obey your own demands.  You need to
  learn an important lesson and it will not be complete until you are
  completely humiliated -- or you figure out that what you have done is so
  bad and stupid that you simply leave us alone until the shame wears off.
  Note, however, that I do not forget and forgive scum like you at _all_.