Subject: Re: CLOS is hard. Let's go shopping  (Was Re: Lisp in Python)
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 03 Oct 2002 20:57:28 +0000
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Erann Gat
| What are you expecting?  Someone to say, "Good boy, Erik, you were polite
| today!"?

  I expect civility beyond compare from people who demand it from me.
  If they have a "right" to become hostile and agressive because they see
  something they do not like, they actually validate in action what they
  criticize in words, but it is probably more annoying that they do not
  realize just how much they do this, because the misguided notion of
  feeling "justified" in their actions completely cloud their vision.

  I expect that people who post in public want dialogue, but the cretins
  want only condemnation.  I do not accept this.  I accept even less that
  these same guys come back to attack me even though I have done nothing
  whatsoever to /them/.  Furthermore, they are completely above reproach in
  their own eyes, and therefore have nothing whatsoever to offer anyone.
  The treatment I get at the hands of these cretins is so fucking annoying
  that I doubt that anyone else understands it.

| The fact that you are so smart makes it all the more annoying that you
| don't realize how counterproductive some of your debating tactics can be.

  What amazes me is that people who know statistics do not realize that
  they are more productive than not.  People come around, realize early on
  in an exchange that they have been criticized for something specific and
  for a reason.  More often than not, people get the idea pretty fast.  I
  keep track of this because it obviously matters a great deal to me, but
  those who only count the artillery rounds make the same mistake those who
  think Israel is at blame and the Palestinians are only victims do.  In
  any battle, the defensive force will appear stronger than the attacking
  force for the obvious reason that they must not only stop attackers, but
  ensure that they know that attacking has higher costs than benefits and
  if defeated once, will meet even harder defeat next time around.  If you
  are a naïve bystander, you will believe that the party that uses the most
  force is the agressor, but if you actually want to stop the attacks, you
  cannot fail to understand that the aggressor will /continue/ as long as
  he are not sufficiently discouraged.  For a truly large number of cretins
  and aggressors against me (and no amount of "defense" rhetoric will get
  anyone who has not been attacked in any way off the hook when he makes
  the first aggressive move towards me), this works wonderfully.  Many
  people are mortally afraid of engaging me in combat.  This is only good!
  Imagine the number of fucked-up basked cases who would waste everyone't
  time and disturb the peace if they were not discouarged.  However, some
  simply do not get it, just like so many Palestinians, probably because
  they have never spent the modicum of mental effort required to see that
  what they regard as attacks are /reactions/ to something quite definite.

  If random bystanders really wanted peace, they would acknowledge the
  /problem/ that is being reacted to and help fix it.  If they attack the
  party that is only defending itself, they make things much, much worse.
  So in the spirit of dialogue, why do the cretins not realize how counter-
  productive /their/ efforts are?  Can they actually show /one/ case where
  it has helped to attack the party who defends itself?  Why can they not
  understand that their attacks legitimatize defense reactions?  What could
  be so wrong with people that they attack and attack in a frenzy of moral
  indignation without understanding that their victim has a right to a
  rebuttal?  It is when they deny that right that things turn most ugly.

Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.