Subject: Re: Understanding Erik Naggum
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 08 Oct 2002 00:59:59 +0000
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Pascal Costanza
| For example, there are people who feel uncomfortable when cold language
| is used.

  No, there is not.  Why do you have to invent such self-serving crap?  The
  point with "cold" language is to be emotion-free and neutral, business-
  like and professional.  You seem to have serious problems with people who
  do not exude personal care about you, but you know what?  Most books are
  written in this "cold" language.  If you try to publish an academic paper
  with lots of warm fuzzy feelings, it gets rejected.  But you do not even
  believe that arguments can carry their own weight, so what the fuck am I
  wasting my time trying to correct your stubbornly idiotic views for?

| The warm language approach doesn't mean that the "truth" is not spoken,
| it is just packaged in a different way.

  You have taken this cold/warm thing and twisted it out of shape.

| You seem to believe that the warm language approach is condescending at
| the same time.

  Unwanted intimacy or intimation is actually insulting and condescending.

| I know that the warm language approach can be applied without being
| condescending at the same time.

  Oh, Christ.  Your personal experience is an argument.

| I say that people who feel insulted by warm language should try harder to
| control their feelings to get things straight.

  Well, my young friend, isn't that just awfully nice of you?

| I am just convinced that the "warm language approach" is more appropriate
| than the "cold language approach".

  Of course you are convinced of it.  That has never been doubted.  What
  matters, however, is that you are wrong to demand this of others, which
  is what your entire argument amounts to.

| The former reaches more people than the latter, and more effectively so.

  This, however, is such a retarded lie that you /have/ to be nuts.  If
  this were so, publishers would have known about it and would only publish
  books that tried to be intimate with their readers and nurture warm fuzzy
  feelings instead of imparting information.  So let us know: Which of the
  books on Common Lisp use a "warm" language?  Which of your textbooks have
  used a "warm" language?  You should be able to list quite a number of
  books you have read that were intended to impart information to its
  readers that used a warm language if you are right.  If you cannot find
  any such books, please feel free to inform us that you understand that
  your entire line of argument is based precisely on what I attacked to
  begin with: Without (a method of) measurements, people will believe
  whatever makes them feel good and reject whatever makes them feel bad,
  even though the truth and the facts go in the opposite direction.
  However, you have explicitly rejected (a measure of) measurements, so all
  your blathering about "and more effectively so" amount to is only /your
  personal opinion/, based in what makes you feel good.  It does not feel
  good to be a stupid jerk who has been proven wrong in a long debate, so
  you will never change your mind unless you get rid of the stupid idea
  that you do not need measurements.  That is, until you acquire at least
  some pieces of the scientific method instead of touchy-feely opinionating.

* Erik Naggum
| What makes people of different personalities work together well is
| /professionalism/.  You seem to lack that concept entirely.

* Pascal Costanza
| No, what makes people of different personalities work together well is the
| acknowledgement of the differences.

  No?  Are you denying that professionalism is a good thing?  Jesus Fucking
  Christ, you have to be one of the most retarded people this newsgroup has
  ever set foot on.  And I mean that warped metaphor literally.  *stomp*

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.