Subject: Re: Understanding Erik Naggum
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 10 Oct 2002 17:47:12 +0000
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Adam Warner
| In an amazing display of continued restraint Pascal never stooped to your
| level of abuse Erik.

  Now that you have had time to calm down a bit, I want you to consider
  your own behavior for a moment.  You were replying to an article that had
  a lengthy and sound argument, yet you /only/ emoted in response.  This is
  fundamentally indecent of you and tells your intelligent readers that you
  lack self-control.  You may wish to /think/ before you react in this way
  in public.

  In response to arguments, one expects counter-arguments.  Let us see how
  your counter-arguments even come close to the arguments to which you have

| Pascal Costanza has already contributed exceptionally to the Lisp
| community through his great "Highly Opinionated Guide to Lisp" available
| at

  This is a non sequitur.  One can certainly be ungrateful for things that
  others do while doing something else for others.  My argument is that
  Pascal Costanza demands that those who help others put up with all kinds
  of shit from those who have been helped voluntarily and he argues that
  those who help them should use more effective communication techniques,
  and should behave like educators and psychotherapists, professions he use
  to defend his idiotic policy of dealing with ungrateful miscreants.  In
  so doing, he has placed the entire burden of how advice is received on
  the shoulders of those who voluntarily and without compensation help
  another human being in good faith.  Instead of gratitude for this aid to
  the undeserving, Pascal Costanza demands that they take responsibility
  for how the recipient of their advice "feels".  He wants people to use a
  "warm" language that caters to the readers' emotoins and lists several
  technical books that those who favor an emotion-free, neutral language
  that is also devoid of condescension and patronization, would describe as
  /not/ particular "warm" books, but rather technical and to-the-point.  It
  is thus hard to imagine any measurement of what "warm" means, but Pascal
  Costanza has also eschewed measurement entirely, and discards the notion
  so prevalent in science that some method of quantification of results is
  a good thing in order to know whether you have indeed done better when
  you feel you have.  More often than not, people feel well about their own
  sense of control, not about the results, so even if people feel better,
  that does not mean they actually /do/ better.  Devoid of measurements and
  objective standards, Pascal Costanza becomes the arbiter of how people
  "feel" about the communication.  Living up to his demands for a "warmer"
  languages therefore means contacting him to see how he "feels" about it.
  I would rather go find water with a divining rod than succumb to this
  mystical, anti-rational, feel-good policy of communication.

  Your entire argument is that he is a nice person who helps others and
  should not be subjected to fair criticism of his actual arguments and his
  actual position.

| It is an extremely helpful guide that also contains many links to
| worthwhile material, some that I was surprised to discover for the first
| time.

  Following up on the previous non-sequitur, you now think you can improve
  your idiotic non-argument by backing it up with more on how you feel.

| Pascal Costanza is "the most ungrateful shithead this newsgroup has ever
| seen" because he doesn't worship you.

  Now, this is where your rationality, if any, has left you.  It is clear
  from this moronic non-argument that you experience too much emotion for
  your own good.  Your lack of self-control has moved you into a position
  where you spew hatred and invent things you think will hurt other people.
  This is a supposed counter-argument to behavior you could not condone by
  your silence.  I'll say.  Wow, man.  You really know how to argue against
  bad behavior that you cannot condone by your silence.

  Where /does/ a moron like yourself find reason to believe in "worship"?
  Did you "worship" me when I offered you advice?  Did you feel that one
  person you "worshipped" should have been nicer to another person you
  "worship"?  Is that it?  How /did/ you come upon this "worship" idiocy if
  you do not feel this kind of thing yourself?  Do you think it is /bad/ to
  worship other people?  Do you think it is the /recipient/ of your worship
  that should be branded as a bad guy because of your worship?

  How on earth could you even come up with this fantastically moronic shit
  when your goal was to speak up against someone else's bad behavior?  Are
  you as insane as you appear to me right now?  Are you really fucking nuts
  the way you appear to me?  Now, why should I even for a moment consider
  the criticism about my behavior from some lunatic who invents "worship"
  as an argument in his favor?  Just how dumb do you think I am that would
  look at your pathetic excuse for an emotional outburst and think "oh, my,
  Adam Nut sure has a great argument!"?  People who behave the way you do
  when you think you are arguing against bad behavior really show the
  entire world how /appropriate/ it is with emotional outbursts when you
  get really pissed off by something.  But the staggeringly unintelligent,
  such as Adam "the Nut" Warner, do not manage to produce /arguments/ when
  they feel many things at the same time.  Perhaps your favorite melody of
  the entire previous millennium was "Words don't come easy to me" by
  F. R. David?

| You are unable to maintain neutral language around him because he is the
| newest threat to your perceived status as dominant male.

  This is /so/ fascinating.  We gain a unique insight into a person's value
  system when he gets angry.  I, for instance, consider stupidity and too
  low intelligence for the task at hand to be one of the most dangerous
  threat that can befall the human race.  Consider momentarily the prospect
  of the most powerful man in the world, wielding a larger armory than any
  person before him in the history of the planet, and he is just as dumb as
  the high-school dropout who got a job at McDonald's only because of his
  father: He is a much greater threat to the civilized world than the super-
  terrorist, as he will most certainly continue the legacy of destroying
  the nation in order to save it.  Adam the Emotional Nut, however, appears
  to believe that nothing is worse in this world than the idiotic behavior
  of sports fans and primitive people.  However, in his emotional zeal, he
  also forgot everything I have said about dangers of the same thing, that
  I consider people whose high testosterone levels are only made up for
  their lack of intelligence to be the most interesting living archeological
  specimens from the stone age, that the group mentality is the most base
  and most useless properties of the human psychology after all our basic
  needs were covered.  Your life, livelihood, or even food supply is not at
  stake when you have the luxury of going on the Internet to engage in an
  intellectual meeting of minds.  To bring homo-erectus-style psychology
  into this forum the way that Adam the Emotional Nut does here is so out
  of place that we have to remind ourselves that he actually tries to argue
  against a position that the person who helps another on Usenet should be
  held responsible for the emotional development of the person helped.

  There is one way to look at this from the point of view of an actual case
  and argument: Adam the Emotional Nut /demonstrates/ what happens when the
  person who helped him with technical matters does not hold the poor
  fool's hand when he continues to read articles by the person who helped
  him.  Scratch up one point for Pascal Costanza here!  A beneficiary of
  voluntary assistance on the Internet, Adam the Emotional Nut depends on
  others for his emotional well-being, and the hero he worshiped because he
  helped with his technical problems fails to live up to his standards as
  hero, and the hero-worshiping idiot who looks upon the dominant male must
  lash out at his idol for not being nice enough.  Lacking the intellectual
  capacity to deal with his emotions, we see that a combination of worship
  and the dominant male theory of group dynamics produces a person who
  feels so ill at ease that he has to tell the group that he shall no longer
  worship the dominant male because he did not make him feel good enough.
| While you have the goal of "Immortality in our lifetime" the only thing
| you are achieving is infamy.

  Another /excellent/ argument against my position.  The moron now wields a
  stupid /threat/ instead of using whatever little intellectual capacity he
  has to argue against a position we are increasingly suspicious that he
  did not understand at all.  But what does understanding matter when you
  can talk about worshiping and dominant males and make stupid threats like
  this?  Hah!  Intellect be damned!  Adam the Emotional Nut shows us the
  way out of our predicament.  This is a forum where suck-ups worship the
  dominant male and where little piss-ants like Adam the Emotional Nut get
  to vote on who is the dominant male.  Let's roll back history about 50,000
  years to the time when the emotional equivalent of Adam the Emotional Nut
  roamed the lands, no strike that, huddled together in little bands of
  feverishly insecure proto-humans long before their brains grew big enough
  to become a burden with its excess capacity, and let us look at one small
  member of the band lash out at the dominant male and for the brief
  remainder of his miserable life gets to threaten the man with the club.
  Then fast-forward 50,000 years to see Adam the Emotional Nut sitting
  behind his computer and feeling oh so smug, because all the way from New
  Zealand, he can challenge the dominant male that he once worshiped and
  claim that all he his achieving is infamy.  Pity Adam the Emotional Nut.

| Though I have no desire to pollute this newsgroup with further arguments

  As previously remarked, this is the typical behavor of the typical loser
  who has done something clearly wrong.  His lack of intellectual capacity
  to deal with an argument when he feels something at the same time has
  made him do some of the smartest things he could be suspected of doing
  when he felt mad, but it still is a far cry short of imbecilic.  The
  abnormal failure to argue coherently is briefly overshadowed by all the
  moronic emotions he cares to share with his fellow travelers, but lest we
  think that he is the moron he makes a serious effort to appear to be, has
  has no desire to pollute this newsgroup with /further/ -- and let us just
  pause here for effect because the next word is really big -- /arguments/.
  Adam the Emotional Nut appears to think he has provided us with arguments
  -- is that fascinating or what?  We clearly look at a person who does not
  even know the difference "having an argument" and "giving an argument".
  To Adam the Emotional Nut, there is no distinction.  The ability to argue
  coherently for anything is quickly replaced by his inability to think.
  At least, we have to commend this fantastic moron with the introspection
  that goes into realizing that he has polluted this forum.  My goodness,
  is he not a real charmer who both realizes that he pollutes the forum and
  promises not to do it any more?  We just /have/ to see a rationalization
  of his massive lack of thinking ability coming up soon.! 

| (and will refrain from responding even if soon provoked)

  Wow!  Amazing!  He promises to curtail his pathetic emotional response
  pattern even if he is soon provoked!  That sure is ground for applause.
  How could anyone think this unthinking, dominant-male-worshiping brute of
  a screwd-up polluting asshole is a shithead now that he dons his halo and
  gives us all his most angelic little smile because he will do us all a
  huge favor and refrain from acting out his inability to argue against
  anything other than how he feels.

| I could not continue to condone your behaviour by my silence.

  This, however, is the real gem in this godforsaken moron's reaction.  I
  am just in awe of the ability of some people to both act like world-class
  assholes themselves when they seek to exact retribution against others
  for some behavior they could not condone and to justify their evil acts.
  There is something like the confession of a serial killer in this kind of
  behavior.  He has to both promise that he will not do it again /and/ make
  everybody else responsible for his actions.  For what does it mean when
  Adam the Emotional Nut is the only person in a huge crowd to speak up
  because he could not condone some behavior with his silence?  I mean,
  everybody else have kept quiet, and although I am fairly sure that we
  will hear from the other emotional nuts pretty soon, that means that Adam
  the Emotional Nut is the only one /not/ to condone the behavior with
  their silence.  By virtue of this truly unintelligent statement, Adam the
  Emotional Nut has not only tried to justify his own evil behavior, he
  makes everybody else responsible /and/ himself the smallest minority
  there is!  Look around you, Adam!  Everybody else condones my behavior
  with their silence.  You /lose/, you insufferable dimwit.  Instead of
  being the one who speaks up, you phrased your position so poorly that
  everybody else turned against you in your very own words!

  But does anyone condone anything with their silence?  Of course not!  My
  goodness, what kind of endless chatter would we have on Usenet if people
  were forced to speak up lest they be presumed to condone everything that
  the did /not/ comment on!  We would have several messages every single
  day from every one of tens of thousands of people who could not condone
  the behavior of others by their silence.  Everything from misinformation
  to using words from a taboo word list to not being Christian enough and
  not being kind enough to the mentally handicapped, there would be no end
  in sight of the endless number of abusive and hateful messages that would
  flow from the hands of those who could not condone the behavior or others
  by their silence, and then everybody who thought that Adam the Emotional
  Nut went overboard need to express their hatred for that fucked-up moron,
  too.  It would never end.

  The fact is that by his most reprehensible act of /cowardice/, Adam the
  Emotional Nut has not only derailed the argument, letting the most
  ungrateful bastard this newsgroup has seen in a long time go scot free by
  virtue of the inability to continue discussions in the presence of such a
  goddamn asshole as Adam the Emotional Nut, he has put everybody in the
  awkward position of having to voice their concern lest he think they all
  condone the "behavior" that could not.

  But perhaps it is possible for Adam the Emotional Nut to understand that
  he has hurt himself really badly this time.  Perhaps this insufferable
  dimwit can grasp that his lack of ability to express himself intelligently
  caused him to become the lone nut in the minority of people who does not
  condone what everybody else condones.

  Adam, you should realize that you are not the dominant male here, either.
  (In fact, the very concept is an insult to your intelligence, and nobody
  is any such stupid thing.)  You should realize that you were the only one
  to speak up and everybody else implicitly approve of the behavior you do
  not approve of and you should take this to heart.  People are not as dumb
  as you are, they are not as brutally unintelligent as you are, and they
  do not think it is a good idea to derail discussions because you /feel/
  more than your pathetic excuse for a brain can deal with.

  Adam, the fact remains that you chose to attack me most viciously.  That
  is what I shall remember you for, and you will not be let off the hook.
  You had time to think before you posted your idiotic article, so no
  apologies will be accepted.  Your action was premeditated, and even
  though you would most likely be able to defend yourself with temporary
  insanity and lack of full control of your faculties at the time you
  spewed your hateful message, I am not going to accept that, either.  You
  are the kind of person this forum needs much fewer of.

  And if you thought you were arguing /against/ my point that this stupid
  positive reinforcement first bullshit is condescending and patronizing,
  you have shown the entire world what /you/ choose when you need to make a
  comment on somebody's behavior.  It most certainly was /not/ positive
  reinforcement.  So not only did you make a fool of yourself, you made a
  fool of Pascal Costanza, too, with your moronic emotional behavior.

  Die in shame, Adam Warner.

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.