Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 29 Oct 2002 17:25:38 +0000
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Pascal Costanza <>
| Look, you *stupid idiot*: Mel is not a misbehaving slut.

  Glad to see you actually condone her behavior and attack me, again.
  It is very informative to see how you make your choices.

| Most of her actions are very natural reactions.

  Of course it is to /your kind of people/, the emotionally immature people
  who fail to grasp that other people are not there to make you feel good.
  I find it rather amusing that you think you can use her.

| If you can't deal with this, then just leave it to other people who are
| more capable!

  And just /why/ do you think the misbehaving slut keeps attacking me after
  she put me in her kill-file?

  Have you succeeded in curbing her misbehavior or have you encouraged her
  to continue to inslut me?  One has to wonder when reading your rationale.

| Furthermore, there are many people out there for whom Common Lisp is
| _not_ the most important thing in the world.

  Pascal, listen carefully, because this will shock you: Common Lisp is not
  the most important thing in the world for /anyone/.  It is, however, the
  most important thing /here/.  Your failure to understand contexts is
  quite alarming, but I have become used to your inability to grasp key
  concepts by now, so nothing shocks me about you, anymore, I am even
  getting pretty good at predicting you.

| For most people, programming languages are just tools among a range of
| other tools.

  Sure, but not while discussing them with other people where the specific
  topic is programming languages.

| So when someone enters "the world" of Common Lisp we have to face the
| fact that they don't share the same enthusiasm as most of us do.

  Ah!  This yielded some valuable understanding.  Clearly, those who enter
  the world of Common Lisp do not have to "face any facts".  Amazing.

| When they see people who praise Common Lisp beyond everything else, who
| are extremely defensive of "their baby", and who attack everyone who is
| not "enlightened" yet (and who therefore ridicule what they don't
| understand), they will almost inevitably think that we're just a bunch of
| idiots and will probably back out.  Now, is this what /you/ want?

  But this is not what happened here.  That you see it this way is quite
  predictable, however.  Your failure to understand your opposition is
  quite interesting.

| You still haven't understood what I want to encourage. I don't think that
| you even have any clue.

  Yes, Pascal, I understand /perfectly/ well what you want to encourage.
  It is the kind of good vibrations that you need in a caring relationship
  with one caretaker and one cared-for.  I once worked with gifted children
  and saw just how necessary it was to encourage them and just to be there
  when they met with problems they were unprepared for and how important it
  was to make them confide in someone than to try everything on their own.
  I have a cat, a very trusting and well-behaved cat that does one thing my
  veterinarian has not seen before: She accepts anything as long as I talk
  to her and hold her, and absolutely nothing if I am not in the room.  I
  have also worked as a teaching assistant and know extremely well what it
  takes to make someone want to overcome problems and be happy to have
  solved them.  I have designed and given many courses that all have got
  rave reviews by people who took them.  It is because I like to teach that
  I still hang around here.  The problem is that you do not understand this.

  You think you are this master of another realm, do you not?  That your
  immature emotions provide you with a different reality from the thinking
  and that your New Age approach is superior to thinking rationally and
  behaving like an adult in public fora.  You actively "understand" only
  people who are beneath you, and hate those who think people should grow
  the hell up before they enter public spaces.  Your selective empathy and
  emotional sharing does not extend to people in general, or you would have
  been able to understand me, too, but is restricted to children that you
  can feel better than by "helping" them feel better and who look up to you.

  Do you think you are anything /novel/ in this world?  Your kind are all
  over the place!  The anti-intellectual, emotionally immature, insecure,
  overgrown babies who think that the rational world is harsh and demanding
  and impersonal and cold.  Why do you think your feelings towards me are
  so intensely negative as they are?  I deny your right not to think.

  What I expect from people is something you cannot imagine that anyone
  /could/ expect: I expect people to think, and I respond to them as if
  they did, but some people are incapable of independent thought.  They
  need someone like you to validate their stupidity, and you are here to
  make every stupid person feel validated and to go on being stupid.
|  >   You, the master of feel-good egoism,
| Fuck you.

  Great!  I take that as an admission of the short-sighted, self-absorbed,
  fuck-others emotional state you are in.  You do not care whether I feel
  good at all, even with all your disgusting and creepy emotionalism and
  all the blathering nonsense about encouraging emotional well-being.  For
  a person as unevolved as yourself, attacking those who do not share your
  emotional immaturity is perfectly all right.  The fact that you join the
  attackers is such a blemish on your personality that you should feel so
  much shame that a personal phone call with an apology should be in order,
  but I expect no such thing from you.

  If there had been /anything/ to the emotionalism that you favor, you
  would have made it your most significant point to prove that it worked on
  me, and that would have convinced even me of your ways.  That you
  completely fail to target this crucial point means that you /know/ it
  does not work, except on immature children that can look up to Uncle
  Pascal with gratitude and servitude.  Yours is not a recipe for building
  independent thinkers, but dependent feelers.

| Yes, I rather prefer to hang around with "this kind of people" than to
| hang around with you.

  Glad to see it in writing and that I could predict this so well.

  The fact that you fail to get along with me with your emotion-dropping
  nonsense should really have been a wake-up call to you, but if you ever
  /think/ in addition to your disgusting emotions, I suspect that you will
  implode.  Or put more generally, when your emotion-dripping nonsense does
  not work on some people, there is something wrong with the methodology.
  Your preferred response will instead be to label those people it works on
  "normal" and those who reject your blathering nonsense as "not normal",
  which is not quite in line with encouraing people, is it?

  The fact is, your methodology is one of /unequals/, where you get to be
  the master and everybody you care about be your slaves who are in need of
  your validation before they can be anything.  Your methodology is the
  methodology of people who seek personal power over other people, the
  power to make other people feel good without cause is the power to abuse
  them and lead them into misery for fear of losing your favor.  To make
  people feel good even while they do something bad, which is precisely
  what you do in this newsgroup and have confirmed so eloquently, is the
  path of the Devil in the Christian mythology.  The Sirens in the Greek
  mythology lured sailors to their death with their songs.  Various and
  sundry other supernatural creatures in all other mythologies around the
  world have lured the innocent (newbies) with temptations they could not
  withstand, the one danger that people be taught to look out for.  And
  what is it that Christians around the world pray for -- "lead us not into
  temptation, but deliver us from evil"?  What worse temptation is there
  than to have some master of feel-good egoism tell them that they should
  /not/ think, that misbehaving like a seriously dysfunctional child is not
  only acceptable, but /natural/, and what worse evil is there than a person
  who actively condones and encourages the wrong-doers to continue to
  harrass those the master does not want to exist?

  The past evil people on this newsgroup have not had your philosophical
  underpinning and "mission" to their destructiveness here.  You, Pascal,
  have chosen to make this a war where you want the Mels and the Lens to
  harrass those you do not like and you seek to destroy other people because
  they do not validate stupidity and other vices.

  Please take your misbehaving disciples and go somewhere else.

  Alternatively, cause your misbehaving disciples to behave well, and get
  off that high horse of yours and just show us how well it works, and not
  just for people of your own low-brow kind, but for /everybody/.  Show me
  that you care about /people/ not just /people you like/.  Everybody can
  do the latter and it is no challenge at all.  And before your brain goes
  into hyperdrive in self-defense: I respect every single person who has
  chosen to /think/ no matter what they think about.  Personal like or
  dislike is indecent to make a public issue the way you do.

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.