Subject: Re: type safety in LISP
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 09 Dec 2002 22:57:16 +0000
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Pascal Costanza
| Why don't you just stop posting messages that are essentially free of
| any content?  Don't you have something more substantial to offer?

  "You"?  You do not quote anyone, so does that mean you talk to the
  mirror that is your computer display?

| Or are you just full of hot air?

  I asked for proof of his kinder, gentler method of dealing with
  people when he dislikes what they do.  I see that he has accepted
  my invitation to show us the Pascal Costanza that he really wants
  us to remember.  The kinder, gentler Pascal Costanza method of
  compassionate communication boils down to "or are you just full of
  hot air?" -- /that/ is what Pascal wants us to remember about him.

  I, for one, have never believed the self-serving crap he has posted
  about being nicer to people.  He cannot do it himself when it would
  save his ass, hence it is nothing but bullshit.  Anyone can be nice
  when not under any sort of pressure, internal or external.  He now
  demonstrates what happens to someone who is inexperienced at
  dealing with his uncontrolled negative emotions and particularly to
  someone who checks his emotions first and only /maybe/ thinks if he
  feels like it.  It is /not/ a pretty sight.  The worst part is that
  he is doing even more self-serving recovery to feel better by
  pretending none of this is his own fault.  This is what broken
  people look like, shirking responsibility for their own behavior
  and going "look what you made me do!" when they clearly started the
  whole thing themselves.  Coming out on top and feeling good is all
  that matters to these emotionally broken people.

  You have behaved like a retarded, uncontrollably emotional child,
  Pascal Costanza, and it looks like you will learn nothing from it
  because you can blame someone else for how bad you feel about it.
  You /should/ feel bad, however, and you /should/ think about it,
  because you could have avoided the insane accusations, the moronic
  "can you read" questions and commentary that only highlights how
  uncontrollably enraged you were.  You have been an idiot, Pascal,
  and nothing on this planet can erase that from anyone's memory.
  What matters now is whether you are able to accept responsibility
  for your own behavior or whether you still have to blame someone.
  Please realize, even if you are mentally unprepared to accept the
  full ramifications of it, that I am /extremely/ annoyed with your
  incessant need to blame /me/ for /your/ malfunction and misbehavior.

  If I am right about you, you have /never/ accepted responsibility
  for your own emotions in your whole entire life.  My guess is that
  somebody has always been there to make you "feel better" and tell
  you that the people who "hurt" you (i.e., pretending they /caused/
  you to feel hurt, further avoiding responsibility for your emotions)
  were wrong and bad but /you/ were a good kid, no matter what you
  did to anyone.  That never was true, was it?  It was you who hurt
  people, was it not?  Because you were never made responsible for
  your reactions to what you only /perceived/ to be wrong-doing (and
  we already know that you lack the ability to distinguish between
  your impression of something and that something, effectively not
  knowing how to distinguish an observation from a conclusion), you
  got the misguided notion that as long as /you/ thought something
  was wrong, /you/ had the right to attack people with no checks and
  balances and contrary opinions accepted, right?  Parents who teach
  their children that they can retaliate and are never responsible for
  their own actions because they were only retaliating produce people
  who are /fantastically/ evil.  The institutions of due process and
  rule of of law was instituted to keep such people from acting on
  their revengeful emotions, but some people never undestand what
  this is all about because they actually believe that their emotional
  response is all they need to determine who is good and who is bad.
  The simple-minded attitude you have towards everything, that there
  is one correct answer and it is the one you have, betrays a history
  of mistakes that somebody else covered up for you.  No one is more
  certain than the person who has never had to pay for his mistakes,
  and the worst of that lot are those who could get away with blaming
  and making someone else pay for their mistakes.  You may infer that
  those who have been on the receiving end of blame or who have been
  forced to pay for the mistakes of others have a very low tolerance
  for new people who try the same -- and consider people like Pascal
  Costanza, who have the /gall/ to pretend to be champions of "nice"
  when they are in fact only unable to accept responsibility of their
  own malfunction and misbehavior, to be the worst of the worst, as
  they are the kind of people who go through life feeling good about
  themselves solely because they were able to blame someone who does
  not /matter/ to them, combining irresponsibility with dehumanizing
  the victims of their blamethrowing.

  A person who preaches "nice" and acts the way Pascal Costanza does,
  even when repeatedly urged to act the way he has demands of others
  and has very strongly argued is the right way to deal with people,
  is not just a despicable hypocrite, he has a double standard: There
  are those people that Pascal Costanza will be nice towards, and the
  people he will be downright evil towards -- the worthy and the not
  worthy -- the human and the not quite human, the undeserving of
  human empathy from the great benefactor, Pascal Costanza.  To see
  this behavior from a German is /frightening/.  To see this behavior
  from a person who has spent so much time and effort arguing against
  the way he himself chooses to act when he needs to blame someone
  for his own evil is actually enormously, engulfingly /fascinating/.

  It is actually possible for a person like Pascal Costanza to live a
  life of ignorant bliss where he rises to defend ways he himself
  does /not/ employ when it could have saved him and to attack the
  ways he himself chooses when he feels revengeful, hateful, and
  destructive towards another human being.  When the champion of
  "nice" resorts to this kind of behavior, which he himself has spent
  countless hours attacking, vilifying, the only result that one can
  predict with some degree of certainty is that this person /must/
  blame someone else for his own evil behavior.  It is not possible
  for Pascal Costanza to stand up and accept that he has indeed been
  behaving the same way as, and even worse than, what he has been so
  strongly against.  And over what?  "Correct terminology"!  The mind

  I can hardly /express/ the disgust I feel towards Pascal Costanza.
  The magnitude of the hypocrisy of this unthinking, evil bastard
  whose only goal is to feel good about himself defies description by
  normal means.  I may request the literary services of J.K.Rowling
  to describe the monstrosity of the badly broken mind that is Pascal
  Costanza and his willingness and deeply rooted personal need to
  blame someone for his own evil so he can escape the consequences,
  scot free, once more, and so he can go on to argue that /others/
  should be "nice" without feeling the pain of his conscience telling
  him that he, of all people, should shut the hell up about telling
  /anybody/ to be "nice".  But I believe it is impossible for someone
  like Pascal Costanza to have a conscience.  It is not possible for
  a person to do what he has done in this thread and not be /aware/
  that he has denounced his own behavior extremely strongly in the
  past.  In the single most pronounced failure of his own method of
  dealing with other people, Pascal Costanza has shown us just how
  /irrelevant/ the "be nice" is.  If Pascal Costanza cannot keep his
  own standards of conduct, at the very least nobody /else/ should
  feel guilty for not managing to do what he has told them to do.

  I bet, however, that he will come back with more blame-throwing,
  yet more evasive measures to dodge responsibility for what he has
  done, he will yet again blame me for his malfunction, like those of
  his ilk are wont to do when they realize what they have done and
  need, desperately, for someone to tell them that they are good kids
  and somebody else "made them do it".  Helplessness at the scale we
  have witnessed in Pascal Costanza's behavior is simply not credible,
  however.  The reason he acted the way he did was that he believed
  that he could blame someone else all along, that he would not be
  remembered for what he had done if he could blame someone for it.
  Sadly, there are people who accept this line because they hope they
  will benefit from it themselves some day.  I hope I have put an end
  to the chances Pascal Costanza has to blame someone for what does
  for the rest of his miserable existence on this newsgroup and maybe
  even elsewhere as search engines match his name to this article.

  And to think he staged this war over something as fundamentally
  stupid as his severely misguided notion of correct and accepted
  terminology and his idiotic insistence on a contradiction.  Sheesh!

  And, now, we get to watch the dipshit try to save face.  Stay tuned!

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.