Subject: Re: hashtable w/o keys stored... From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> Date: 1999/01/16 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3125516603637810@naggum.no> * Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> | You're venomous in practically every post, and I have a hard time | attributing it to anything else. I have a very hard time attributing what you see to anything but the way your mind works, and you have given me an important clue today: the key to the way it works is that you attack _people_ and react to _people_. _you_ see me as venomous in practically every post because that's what you _expect_ when you see my name and since you cannot even read a helpful reply in an Emacs group without misrepresenting what I write and vilifying me, and this you have been doing for _months_, you see me _really_ pissed at you in return. you see what you want, and if it isn't there you either invent or provoke it. if you could have seen something else, you turn away and effectively ignore it. you're a fucking _pest_ the way you follow me around and are venomous to _me_ at every opportunity for things I _don't_ do. I don't attack you. I don't follow up to your articles. I stay out of your way, until and unless _you_ post some of _your_ venomous drivel about _me_, but you just keep doing it, over and over and over, like a sick moron. you attack me for things I _haven't_ done and you portray me as something _way_ beyond what you could ever have observed or even extrapolated from what you have observed. like the true evil in the history of mankind has been for some "good cause", I'm sure there's a fucked-up idea of a "good cause" in you, too, but it's gone _completely_ out of control. there's nothing I can do, anymore: your mental image of me is so cast in stone that you will continue to provoke me to get confirmation that I'm bad because your fucked-up mind can't deal with invalid generalizations. this is really a matter between you and your shrink, not anybody else, but as long as you keep pestering me with your idiocy, I'll continue to expose you for what you are: a destructive being. now, I'm dead certain that you are incapable of reading anything I write at all, and that you'll continue to think you're free of all possible guilt in this matter. you'll go home and polish your glory and feel morally superior because once again, you have poked a bad guy in the eye, and by god, he did not forgive you this time, either, but would have killed you on the spot if he could, so _he's_ bad and you're innocent. still, if there's a single shred of decency left in you, you'll at least hear what the object of your vilification and misrepresentation and your baseless accusations has to say. but I wouldn't be surprised if you do what you have done so far: damn the objections, full speed ahead: you're on a mission to destroy, and if he objects, that's because he's guilty. I'm sure you would have been a witch hunter if you could. | Perhaps it's because you don't bother posting unless something riles you, | so all we ever see is the negative side. Or maybe I'm just a poor judge | of character. or perhaps it's because you cannot even _see_ what you don't already think is there. I'm already guilty according to your ethics, so why bother with contrary evidence? you have proven incapable of comprehending anything I write without imputing evil intentions or _introducing_ faults in it that never would have been there if you had read it carefully (which you admit you don't do in the first place), so I wouldn't be surprised at all if you have so strong mental blocks you cannot even comprehend that _you_ do something evil towards me that I have every right to object to. whatever you perhaps once thought could be accomplished with criticism is irrevocably lost because you become the aggressor, who responds not to something I do, but to something within yourself: nothing I do could ever make you change your mind, so it is in fact not something I do that you criticize or react to, it's your mental image! you have also proven that you will never relinquish that mental image no matter _what_ happens. this is something that only fucked-up religious nutcases do, like Scientologists who are instructed to suspend all ethics and destroy whoever criticizes them by whatever means available. fairness and justice would be an impediment to speedy execution, so you just dispense with it. | That's a possibility, but I think people who know me will confirm that | I'm pretty easy going, and it takes someone who's really annoying to get | on my bad side (as you said, I'm amazingly forgiving). well, gee, I could say the same thing, with two very important exceptions: 1 I never latch onto "SOMEONE who's really annoying". I latch on to SOMETHING that's really annoying. then I let go once that something goes away. but you don't let go, because your fucked-up psycho brain attacks _people_, not _actions_. there's no way for you to let go, because you judge what you imagine and cannot see, and you're always free to assume that when there's something that doesn't fit, you can ignore it. for me, that is inherently never an option, I judge actions, and all I do is hold the person responsible as if it was done consciously if I cannot find a constructive element that indicates that there's a simple and easy way to achieve what was _really_ desired. stop doing it; my criticism vanishes. do something else that shows that the old wrong will not be repeated; my criticism will never be repeated or even remembered: mission accomplished. a related difference is that I attack actions _immediately_. you attack people a _long_ time after you were first annoyed by them, because it builds up within: you _collect_ their sins. I respond right away, and then don't remember it until the _same_ thing happens again that shows me that they haven't learned since last time. you will remember it when something _unrelated_ happens, and you will use it against the _person_, preferably to maximize the pain and the destructive effect. I optimize for getting their attention and not letting them go until they listen. you want to destroy, I reprimand. I guess you hate people, while I hate some of their actions. I don't deal well with people who hate people. that's why I don't deal well with Barry Margolin's unfair accusations. 2 I don't forgive, because I have no need to, because I don't go around and remember people's "sins". granting forgiveness is a stupid pretense that something didn't happen so that the object of your forgiveness is free to try again, but only because you're willing to deny some part of history. this is a _great_ means to keep people in debt to whoever is forgiving. people who forgive are also likely to withdraw their forgiveness if they are once again morally outraged by something the same person does. they are also extremely subjective in whom they forgive and for what. the typical example is hypocrites who forgive mass murderers, but not people who don't stop on red lights when there's no other traffic. generally, only the really big evil is forgiven, while the petty evil is denounced very heavily. Bill Clinton is wanted impeached for lying about a sexual affair that was nobody's business but his own, not for killing lots of innocent people in Iraq. _that's_ how the forgiveness ethics works. such forgiveness ethics is, however, _very_ important in religions where your sins are being tallied and used against you. that I consider to be the singularly most evil way to treat people ever invented by either man or any sick, revengeful god ever invented in their image. it could not have "prospered" without a religion and some supernatural "god" figure to back it up, because people just aren't that evil over extended periods of time when left to themselves. they grow up. religions never do, because with a religion, you are expected not to grow up, and you're thrown out of them if you do. peer pressure keeps people unmatured for millennia. the problem is that there _is_ no need to forgive anybody to begin with. people _are_ already free to learn from their mistakes and try again without having somebody else "forgive" them first or using past mistakes against them. the key is to learn. if you learn, whatever you did before you learned should never be held against you. (of course, you may need to prove that you have indeed learned if the risks of you not having learned is too high.) this view is inconsistent with the very revengeful religious views and the view that people _are_ somehow evil. it's that view that caused society to _punish_ people, too, which has been known for several hundred years to cause _more_ criminal behavior. but facts don't matter when you've made up your mind about _people_. Barry Margolin judges your character and forgives practically everything and defend you against all kinds of criticism if you're his sort of good person, i.e., pretty stupid, but I judge your actions and expect you to improve your act and do the best you can. all is forgotten if you do. if you don't learn, even more shame on you. Barry Margolin goes after _people_ he thinks are bad and he suspends his ethics if he thinks that person is bad enough. this he will continue to do no matter what you do in response, and if he can't prove that you're bad, he'll be a good witch hunter and invent something that works just as well: vilification and innuendo. I don't go after people in the first place (even people like Barry Margolin; if he stops doing his shit, I'll leave him alone, as I do _between_ every time he rears his ugly head). if someone is _always_ free to try again and nobody will hold their past against them, there is no need to _fear_ that anybody will use irrelevant past information against anybody out of an evil desire to destroy them or what they have done, either. Barry Margolin, however, sees destruction of _people_ as his moral obligation, and _nothing_ will deter him from his destructive task, nothing at all. it's the Barry Margolins of the United States Senate who want to impeach William Jefferson Clinton: the religious, conservative Republicans who are so blinded by their moral outrage that they cannot see anything but their own mental images, and especially not themselves, not even the voice of the voters, which used to be most important. | I'll also admit that I'm prone to generalizations, sometimes | inappropriate ones. what's wrong with your generalizations is that they are not rescinded when they prove inappropriate. that you refuse to rescind them when you receive contrary information is all I need to know about you -- I shall just have to deal with your inappropriate generalizations and their consequences for me as long as you continue to post your insane drivel about me. you have proven that nothing whatsoever will ever make you change your mind, so all I can do is fight you back every time you try one of your stunts, and this has been obvious for months, now. however, had I been inclined to think that you could not change this behavior if you somehow woke up from your insanity at the hands of trained professionals, I would have been forced to think _you_ were evil and that you should be destroyed. I don't think that way. all I want is that your evil _actions_ not hurt me or anybody I know, but as long as you continue to accuse me of things I have not done, as long as you misrepresent what I write and make me look bad out of _your_ malice, and as long as you act on your inappropriate generalizations, I will _have_ to fight you. but even if you learn from this, there is nothing you can do to repair the damage you have done. an apology from people who act out of moral outrage is a contradiction in terms: it's the morally outraged version of themselves that needs to apologize, not the timid little fuck who will do the exact same thing again the next time he's morally outraged. so far, it doesn't seem that people who become morally outraged and act during that state of mind are legally sane, and thus they cannot change their ways except for being stopped from being morally outraged. I still hold out for that being under volitional control if it hasn't gone too far. however, moral outrage is a product of a religion, and people seem to have a very hard time rescinding their religions no matter how much evidence they receive that it's really bad for them, just like some people can't rescind inappropriate generalizations. to summarize: not revoking an accusation against somebody for doing something they have not in fact done is unforgivable. misrepresenting others in _order_ to hurt them is unforgivable. Barry Margolin does both, systematically. on top of it, he forgives everybody else anything, but goes after those he does not forgive for anything at all, real or, preferably, imagined, since myth is so much harder to kill than fact. here's my advice to you, Barry Margolin: just fucking quit it. if you can't, and I strongly suspect it will take serious effort to stop, at least limit yourself to what I actually do wrong. there should be plenty to choose from, but somehow, I don't think I can do _that_ much wrong when you have to invent something to attack in order to make me look bad. #:Erik -- SIGTHTBABW: a signal sent from Unix to its programmers at random intervals to make them remember that There Has To Be A Better Way.