Subject: Re: the naggum-mine claims another victim From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.net> Date: 10 Dec 2000 09:55:55 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3185430955084374@naggum.net> * Raffael Cavallaro <raffael@mediaone.net> | This "there's nothing personal" line is what profoundly uncaring people | say whenever they hurt others. Yes, they do it, too. No dispute there. However, it is quite typical of your lacking mental ability to mistake this for a valid implication. Do you really have a PhD? From where? McDonald's Burger University? | When you hurt another person, it is, by definition "personal." Yes, this is also true, but it is because some people choose to take things personally that they get hurt. You swap cause and effect, just like one expects from a "people person" who can't think worth a high school diploma, much less a PhD. | The fact that you think it is not shows how profoundly out of touch | you are with the social reality around you. No, it doesn't. You would need a lot more than that "fact" to show anything like that, but we have already established that you feel that single data points are better than many because you can extrapolate in your favarite direction from the single data point, and not from many. | "People like Raffael give _people_ in general way too much importance," | implies that technical matters of common lisp are more important than | the people discussing them, and this is clearly false, because without | these people, there simply is no discussion. Without breathable air, there wouldn't be any people, so clearly we should be concerned about the environment and work very hard to reduce solar activity and CO2 emissions from photosynthesis instead of talking about programming computers that only contribute to the displacement of heat into the athmosphere. | Erik's style of discourse is so hurtful that many people are driven | from the discussion altogether. This doesn't even apply to yourself since you return so often with the same old rants, so do you even have a single data point to extrapolate from this time? Have you gotten signed papers that allow you to be the advocate of the "many people" you claim to speak on behalf of? Or do we have yet another moron who feels entitled to speak for others? | People are always more important than technical discussions, because | what really is the point of technical discussions - some absract | exercise in mental masturbation? No, that would have been _your_ point if you didn't discuss people. Well, it seems it is your point even when you do, since there's no discernible contents anywhere in what you keep ranting about. | No, the point of technical discussions is to learn to use technology | to serve people better. And you serve them better with your personal attacks, I presume. I'm so impressed with your ability to stuff all of your four furry feet into your mouth at the same time. Serve people better -- SHUT UP! | One does not learn to serve people better by gratuitously abusing | their feelings in a relatively insignificant technical discussion. So stop doing it, or is it better not to have any technical discussion at all while doing it, like you do? But why do you exempt me from your rules? Why can't I make up my own rules about whom I think deserves to be hurt when you can do it and feel so strongly about it that you are fucking blinded by your hatred? As long as you post your insane hostilities, you validate and legitimize everything I have ever done and ever might do, because you prove that it is _correct_ to hurt people who do something you don't like. If you don't like this and have the retarded emotional response that I'm hypocritical, you are reacting and behaving like an outsider to what you do here. I'm not, so as the outsider, you should refrain from any shred of hostility, and that includes Marcus G. Danielisms, passive aggressiveness, etc. See if you can calm down completely and consider if you have anything worth posting when you have done so. Posting an insane attack on me for the fourty billionth time is not a sign of your good mental health but is in fact detrimental to your ability to do something that might actually be conducive to your goals, if you _have_ any goals except shooting your wad off into cyberspace, of course. | Erik's narrow minded focus on what is technically correct at the | expense of other people's feelings displays a foolish lack of | perspective on technical matters and their place in the world. I don't have any focus on what is technically correct. I do have a focus on avoiding technical mistakes. If you do not understand the difference, return your PhD for kindergarten vouchers and try to learn this time around that you are encouraged and rewarded for any kind of constructive activity and punished for any kind of destructive activity, you are _not_ punished unless you do some _specific_ things. I must wonder if you have ever managed to learn anything from anybody else at all the way you manage to miss the point. Oh, of course, the people stuff -- You sucked up to your teachers and advisers and got some other impressionable people-person to do the real work for you? I do have a focus on precision. You are out of focus, the antithesis of precision. Blurred nonsense is better for people than precision, because precision requires thought and care and not everybody can "share" in that elitist requirement, so you have naturally optimized yourself towards blurred nonsense and you _succeed_, too, but that does _not_ mean anybody has to applaud your success or agree with your goal. In fact, most people consider senile dementia or Alzheimer a disaster to a working brain, but maybe you can donate your brain to such research and argue that they should find ways to _give_ you those illnesses so you can become a _better_ blurry people-person. | Technolgy, and discussions of it exist _only_ because they are useful | to people, not the other way around. That is your opinion. I'm just aching to see Marcus G. Daniels come rushing to my rescue with "enforce one guy's particular definition of technology", but he's probably been taken care of by now. You need to figure out that not all people are Raffael Cavallaros and you should probably ask for medication to help calm you down while you listen very carefully to people who explain in monosyllabic words that you are not ruling the world and not deciding what's true or false. If you cannot even manage to keep your calm when you disagree over which is more important of people and technology and breathable air, there's a word for you: Lunatic. Since you keep ranting and raving about the exact same thing no matter what happens, you already fit one major criterion for an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Now, let me see how a mature PhD can calm down and post something that does not hurt or irritate me, because you most certainly understand that such reactions are all _your_ fault when you try to blame me for how everybody under the sun feels hurt by what I do. What really irritates me about such retards as Raffael Cavallaro is that they would have been perfectly OK as pets if they only packaged that useless brain in a lap dog. Reincarnation is so cruel sometimes. You have a _choice_ to take this personally or not, punk. If you do not have that choice, recycle yourself immediately. A lonely old lady in Florida who regrets indenting for Buchanan needs a lap dog, _now_! Since I maybe think it's a mistake to think that people ought to have engaged their brain if they actually manage to _write_ anything in a complex language like English, here's a simple clue for PhDs who have not quite grasped that scientific method: There are questions that you could ask that go approximately like this: "What did I (i.e., Raffael Cavallaro) do to cause this reaction? What else can I do? Will it cause a different reaction if I do ...?" Fill in the ... with one of the incredibly obvious options that someone who can manage to cow-tow with an adviser and fullfill academic requirements _must_ see by now. Now, I don't really think you have the brains of a lap dog, I just wish the yapping from my neighbor's retarded mutt was less irritating than you are, so it seemed fitting to swap you two and lo and behold, it shut up. I think you would make a _smart_ lap dog. #:Erik -- "When you are having a bad day and it seems like everybody is trying to piss you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle." -- Unknown