Subject: Re: type safety in LISP
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 09 Dec 2002 12:26:29 +0000
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Pascal Costanza
| This doesn't make it right.

  What is wrong with you?

| Some people actually benefit from reading.

  You are not one of them.  Please cut the unwarranted arrogance.

| I am looking forward to an alternative suggestion of yours.

  What is wrong with you?  Please cut the unwarranted arrogance.

| BTW, I am still interested in the foundation (papers, links, etc.)
| that you base the following claim of yours on.

  What the hell makes you think that I will do anything to satisfy
  you apart from causing you to shut the fuck up?  You malfunction
  when you do not get things exactly the way you want them, and you
  are perfectly happy to derail discussions so you can point out what
  is "right", as if anyone needs to hear this from you.  You need to
  learn to deal with disagreement and rejection, Pascal, and you
  /really/ learn to deal with the fact that people do not accept what
  you think is the only right thing, and be satisfied to explain your
  views a limited number of times and let other people discuss things
  even though they do not use every term /exactly/ right by your
  standards.  If you make it your life's mission to correct everyone
  who misuses a term for which you have the right meaning, you are no
  better than any other deranged fanatic who cannot change his mind
  and refuse to change the subject (to use Churchill's definition of
  a fanatic).

| ...or have you also chosen to take on a liberal meaning of the term
| "empirical"?

  What is wrong with you?  Please cut the unwarranted arrogance.

  Why do you have to be such a snotty asshole when you are faced with
  rejection of your pet peeves?  You seem so utterly unable to deal
  with rejection that there is no telling what /would/ cater to the
  underlying psychological needs you obviously have.

  You turn into an extremely annoying, combative little neurotic when
  you are told that you annoy people, instead of trying to get the
  point and stick to the topic at hand.  Where is that friendly style
  of yours when it could be put to the test?  It works only when you
  feel superior to other people, does it not?  And when you do not,
  indeed /are/ inferior, you turn into a hostile dipshit instead of
  doing as you preach.  Be /nice/ when it counts, or shut the fuck
  about your holier-than-thou attitude about "style".  You are worse
  than most people when it comes to turning hostile, but you do not
  realize that, do you?  Other people of your ilk have staged /wars/
  on newsgroups when their sensibilities have been offended, like the
  mad muslems who rioted in Nigeria and killed hundreds of people
  because some journalist said something these deranged lunatics were
  unable to cope with rationally.  You remind me of such people.

  There is something seriously broken in you, Pascal Costanza.

  Unless you start to behave courteously and nicely even when your
  arguments are rejected, I have to conclude that you function only
  under very specific conditions and turn into a lunatic when those
  conditions are not met, just like religious fanatics.  Long ago, I
  concluded that the only reason you want all this "niceness" is that
  you cannot handle real objections to your misguided notions and
  therefore turn hostile in the face of failure.  Many "nice" people
  are nice only because they are downright evil when they do not
  strictly control themselves.  I think you are one of those, and you
  do not exactly help to refute this conclusion.

  Now, be specific, and tell me exactly what would make you happy and
  would make you shut up /forever/ about this neurotic non-issue of
  yours.  What do you want to call statically typed languages except
  those with type inference that you need to bring up to destroy a
  line of argument?  You answer this now, once, and I will call them
  "statically typed languages (or foo according to Pascal Costanza)",
  for the value you provide of "foo".  You can choose anything you
  want, as everyone will know who to ask what it means.  I want you
  to shut up about this so bad that I am willing to accept absolutely
  anything you call it, but I will also make sure that the terminology
  points back to you, because I do not want to be associated with the
  bogus psychological needs you have that you refuse to keep personal.

  I also think you should go repair yourself, and above all, /think/,
  even though it obviously hurts so much you much prefer to act on
  your emotions.  Once you start to /think/ even in when it hurts,
  you will take on a very different appearance, one that I will most
  likely accept and treat with respect.  Emotionally disturbed people
  with an axe to grind and a fanatic outlook on what is "right" do
  not, in general, encourage me to treat them nicely.  I cannot fathom
  why you do not grasp this and adjust your behavior to something
  that at least could have /some/ hope of achieving what you want.
  You see (or, of course you do not), when you insist that something
  is /right/ when it is also out of place, people will object to it
  regardless of the truth of your claim, and the more you insist, the
  /more/ they will object simply because you are out of place and do
  not grasp that it is not about how "right" you think you are.

  So, let us have the "Pascal Costanza terminology" for the statically
  typed languages that enables discussion of relevant aspects of them,
  so that we will never, ever, hear any complaints from you again!

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.