Subject: Re: MD5 in LISP and abstraction inversions From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.net> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:58:18 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3214835893672745@naggum.net> * John Foderaro | To all readers except Erik: Thank you for _proving_ that you had _no_ intention of ceasing your posting. I knew that, everybody else knew that, but now you know it, too. But do you remember this paragraph in the article you reply to? By replying to this post, you acknowledge that you are mentally ill and have a severe need for self-affirmation that you do not get from anyone around you because you regard yourself as the single most brilliant person to inhabit the entire West coast of the United States. Thank you for following up and acknowledging this. I am happy that I was right about you, once again. But, geez, pathetic intimidation actually _is_ part of your psyche. I actually expect to get a "wuz I talkin to you?" back, now. | Now he's arguing against proofs, the foundation of science. USENET is a branch of science? *LAUGH* I am arguing against the applicability of proofs to "win" arguments on USENET, you idiot. That "technique" is only used for intimidation by the _really_ insane, here. | I don't care what Erik thinks. Oh, you pathetic liar. | I haven't cared for a long time but I've made the mistake of trying to | reason with him since I thought that I could get through to him. How is it possible to reason with someone you do not care what thinks? How would you _know_ if you got through to anyone if you do not care what they think? _Why_ would you try to reason with someone you do not care what thinks? This is _so_ stupid and pathetic. | With each message he gets further and further away from reality so that | was a bad strategy. Yup, John Foderaro is the judge of what reality is and not. The insane have a strong tendency to want to monopolize what can be considered "reality". Their _only_ claim to living in reality is that they are able to create it all on their own. Congratulations, John. Good work. | I was only asking one simple thing: If he stated that I said something | that he show via a link to an article on Google where I did that. This is a pretty fascinating request for a person who does not even cite which news articles he is responding to. When you do get such references, you just shut up for a while. Everybody here knows that. It is very, very annoying. Incidentally, the way we do references on USENET is with message-IDs. | I only made that request because he started repeatedly telling you that I | said things that I didn't say. Really? Where are all the references to articles where I did that? Should you not have provided a lengthy list of message-IDs that shows all of this, yet proves absolutely nothing because you are known to omit all the evidence that goes against your arguments. | The link in my last message was to the cap of the thread where I'd made | that request for proof of those quotes, which of course Erik failed to | then come up with since he had invented the whole thing inside his head. I would like some references and some proof of this, please. Can you _prove_ that it was invented inside my head? If not, it is not only some false crap, it is a disingenious lie, right? And you wanted proof that you were lying. So now you can either prove what you claim, or accept that lack of proof means you lie. Because that is what you think a lack of "proof" means, is it not? Even though this is astonishingly stupid and anti-scientific, I think it is fun demonstrating that you are not able to meet the demands you make of others. | I think that all of us say enough things on this newsgroup to make into | an interesting discussion. There's no need to invent quotes just to | argue against. Then why do you do it? You made a large number of claims that I said things that I did in fact not say. What was that? For instanace, you said that I said _you_ could not use the if* stupidity, but what I have actually and repeatedly said is that publishing code is done not by you, but by your company. You never replied to that, did you? Just as you never reply to anything that demonstrates you are wrong. | It's a great disservice to this newsgroup and it's pure character | assasination to continuously libel someone. Erik desperately needs an | enemy to fight against and if he gets his wish and convinces me to leave | this newsgroup then he may well go after one of you, so don't think | you're safe. Funny you should talk about character assasination in that paragraph. I am beginning to think you are actually so incredibly unconscious that you fail to understand what you are doing. | I was able to shut Erik's liess up a few months ago when I asked to to | prove that I'd said certain things. You were? Can we have the message-IDs and some other references for this? And are you sure _you_ were able to do anything at all? You ask people to prove things all the time, and nobody does, because it is such a pathetic stunt, but just like an overly mystical person who prays to his pet rock every night, whatever he prays for has to come true some day, but there is no causal link. Taking credit for something like that without proof is so _unscientific_. And USENET is a science, right? | Now like a bacteria that's mutated he is back in a form that's impervious | to my requests for that he prove the quotes he attributes to me. Yes, I am sure you are the only person on the planet who can use Google. But we do not engage in such childish behavior on USENET, you moron. The reason you do not get a response to your intimidation is that it is so fucking stupid that people look at you and wonder what you are made of. You see, your style of intimidation is incredibly _unintelligent_. It would be self-destructive for anyone to take you seriously. That is what you want, obviously, but you are not the lone genius you think you are. You are in fact quite stupid and considering that you do not figure even the simplest things out until it is too late, probably not particularly intelligent, either, just the smartest among those you could intimidate. Considering that you are unable to read code that uses when and unless and loop and normal if, people are free to think you have a very limited intellect, and that the if* stunt is a necessary counter-measure so you can deal with code not in the _only_ style you can handle. Everybody else is able to read and deal with code in a variety of styles, but you are not. What do you think this says about you? You have never thought about it, have you? | What he has in his mind is correct whether it happened or not. No, that is only yourself, John Foderaro. Other people are not like you. | So all I'm asking is that you realize that what he states are fact may | well be false (and if the facts are about me there's a 99% chance that | they are false and simply a rhetorical device he'll use to draw some | crazy conclusion). No, that is only yourself, John Foderaro. Other people are not like you. Thank you again for proving that you had no intention of quitting unless you could pretend to be on top of things. It is quite amusing to watch how you lie about wanting to quit. "Let's call it over" is a direct quote from you, in an article where you, as always, begin by attempting to insult me. What, precisely, did you _mean_ by "let's call it over"? I think it means "Let's let the pathetic loser John Foderaro win, pretty please!". Now, please let us see you back up your claims with references and proofs. If you recognize, as I think you actually do, that this is an intimidation technique and nothing else, which you will acknowledge by not providing _any_ message-IDs, the time has come to "out" John Foderaro as a person who is unable to follow his own advice, simply because it is not advice, it is _only_ his incredibly stupid bullying. So let's call it over, John. Do not reply to this message. OK? Good. /// -- Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate. -- Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.