From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: OT: Usenet lack of civility (was Re: Logical pathname hosts.) Date: 1998/12/27 Message-ID: <3123734485003809@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 426107391 References: <75k4tr$uom$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3123572537117862@naggum.no> <3123648958389505@naggum.no> mail-copies-to: never Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Barry Margolin | You referred to Sam a "helpless moron" in the post I was replying to. sure, but let's see _how_, which I think is important for _meaning_: the group therapy here, led by Barry Margolin, is about it being OK to be a retarded jerk, so would I please stop hitting them because they cannot possibly improve or stop doing what they do; in particular: Sam Steingold is a helpless moron and has no other option than to post idiotic drivel, so now I be nice and not hurt him, OK? (I could never be as mean to Sam as I think Barry is with his defense for him.) I was describing _your_ defense of Sam Steingold, Barry, and why you don't want "helpless" people flamed, while you feel entirely free to attack me with the most bizarrely irrational accusations. but I see now that once you've made up your moralistic mind, there's it cannot change. you cannot even _read_ in that state of moral outrage you're in, can you? | If you now claim there's no such thing, then this whole "discussion" is | totally hopeless. I claim that _you_ think in terms of helplessness. I criticize people both softly and very harshly because I think they can, in fact have an _obligation_, to stop doing stupid things and perhaps start doing smarter things. you want me to stop flaming them because your belief system is about people who cannot improve their own condition, and thus should be protected. this is a view I do not subscribe to in any form. | Actually, I realized it was driveal after I made the mistake of my last | reply, and this will be my final message. so, once again, you learn absolutely nothing. how annoyingly predictable. why _is_ it that the fools who criticize other people for criticizing yet others feel so morally superior that they would never listen to anything that has to do directly with their criticism? is it because it takes a particularly closed mind to feel morally superior to begin with, and that only moralistic assholes fail to see that there is just as much intent to see improvement in the criticism of others as there is in theirs? _or_ did Barry only wish to paint as black a picture as possible, regardless of facts or anything remotely relating to reality, so he could feel morally vindicated _himself_, rather than have any useful impact on the world? well, if the Republicans in Washington can think that way, I'm sure they have constituents who back them up on it, and a culture that allows that kind of institutionalized hypocrisy. I'm waiting for those who rude lines in your .signature to go away and show that you have understood that you are _much_ worse than what you criticize in others, because you assume without knowing that the people who are the intended audience of those two lines would annoy you. I deal with individuals who do something wrong, when they do it, and only then, whereas you is happy to _presume_ wrongdoing from strangers and the public at large. if you have any ethics at all, I don't think you do when you are free to suspend it, I wouldn't want anyone to be the victim of it. #:Erik