Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts? From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> Date: 02 Sep 2002 07:22:41 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3239940161620721@naggum.no> * Coby Beck | If you do read me so carefully, why in the world do you never respond to the | content of what I write? Rather you insist on attacking false presumptions | about my motivations. What /possible/ objections can you have against this? You base your entire line of attack on me and on others who criticize people on false presumptions! If you find it annoying, learn something from it and quit doing it yourself. However, I maintain that what information you have given me have indeed given me grounds for what I say. I do not think they are false presumptions, I think you are unresponsive, arrogant, deflective, evasive and non-thinking. | Erik, let me teach you something. This only holds for people who have | discussions with the goal of "winning". Clearly you understand nothing of what is going on when some idiot like ilias keeps posting. Winning is /ilias'/ goal. I see his position and methods for what it is. You naïvely think he has noble goals. He could not possibly have had a noble goal if his life depended on it, or he would simply have behaved much, much better long ago. The problem is, you see good in people who are bad, and bad in people who are good. This warped view has reasons, and one of them you gave away -- you detest something you overinterpret from academia, and the most likely reason is that you were hurt, the next most likely reason is that somebody you felt a need to protect was hurt, and now you feel a need to protect others who are hurt by what you think is the same process and attitude, but which it actually is not. | If winning is your goal, then I can understand why you feel attacked when | your "opponent" is supported. But this is entirely your own problem, in | your own mind. Somehow you managed to confuse my desire to see you not feed ilias support with a desire to win on my part. I consider this evidence of your willfull evasion and purposeful lack of understanding on your part. You could not possibly be so stupid as to miss the point, so it must be intentional. | As for your points about criticism, I think they follow from your premise | above and my response is there. You did not understand my premise. That you manage to invent such a premise and impute it to me is part of your on-going problem of perceiving your own role in the conflicts you create by being holier-than-thou about criticism. That you think I should magically adjust my thinking just because you self-servingly say it is false goes a long way to understand your severe lack of empathy with those who do get exhausted from trying to deal with idiots. | I think we established quite a long time ago that you and I have very | different ideas about what it means to be an idiot. You have no choice but | to accept that. I hope to convince you to keep from pouring gasoline on every conflict just because you have to speak your mind. That you keep posting instead of just getting the fucking idea this time, is not helping, however. | Yes, it does. Interesting that you chose not to support you opinion but | rather just attack your incorrect interpretation of my motivations. Ah, so it is OK for you to impute an idiotic desire to "win" to me, but not OK for me to understand your habit of evading and deflecting as a desire to throw all blame on those you attack? How interesting that you chose to find faults with me, again, instead of trying to THINK! | I don't hate you, you really should believe that. After what you find yourself capable of posting about other people's intentions, you have lost all credibility when it comes to presenting your own intentions. They have, rather, to be inferred from your actions as judged by someone not on your side. Just as you infer intentions from the postings of others, including, but not limited to, "winning" and "putting down" people in order to feel better. Both are indicative of your severe lack of empathy with those who respond harshly and a pathological empathy with the "victims", who are really the perpetrators. Some people will always defend the criminal against the police no matter what they have done. I consider you that kind of personality, with a totally warped idea of good and bad people. | I continue to insist you misunderstand both my point and my motives and must | suggest that you consider that your problem with me is about you and not the | newsgroup. You keep insisting that everything is somebody else's problem like a good old criminal who just cannot accept that his actions is part of the problem. Your point is that criticizing idiots is wrong and being an idiot should be perfectly acceptable. Your motive is to keep the idiots of the world alive and well at the cost of punishing what you still think are representatives of the academia you so detest. It has been clear for years that you will attack anyone (not just me) who dares get irritated at the idiots of the world and see it as your mission in life to stop criticism of idiots who destroy the usability of public fora. In short, you are the idiots' /enabler/ and seek to cause fora that were once usable /because/ they were elitist to become less usable because you want the idiots to feel at home with their insane drivel, too. Instead of being just an idiot, you are the person that the idiots can look to for defense and support. This makes you much, much worse than the idiots you defend from criticism. | You and I disagree on who the noisy idiots are. Sorry. (Though I am sure | there some overlap there...) Yes, we do. You are one of the noisy idiots, for instance. | You already put forward your ridiculous theory about what I must have lived | and I told you it is not the case. Insisting on arguing from this false | premise is dishonest. No, it is not. You brought up how you detest academia in this discussion, and it is wholly irrelevant to our current noisy idiot, but it must have been relevant to you, and that relevance can be inferred from painful experiences and suffering that you mis-remember when something close to it crops up. You have repeatedly declined to offer any alternative theories for the relevance of your personal attitude problem towards academia. | It is a wild extrapolation indeed to go from one recent article I replied to | to "all" instances of criticism. Not when one has read them all and have had to deal with you over a long period of time. You yourself seem to revel in memories and character flaws that you attack with a vengeance, so now that you offer me evidence of your own screwed-up attitude towards academia which explains how you can think of yourself as some sort of Revenging Angel for the hapless idiots of the world, I found reason to speak up against your flawed vilification of your victims. | It is either laziness or dishonesty for you to imply I respond to "all" | posts that contain what I have complained about. All critical posts, not all posts. Please, some honesty here if you ask for it from others. However, I am quite certain that you know you would "lose" immediately if you were truly honest and therefore try to evade and deflect criticism as much as possible. Like you do not give people the benefit of the doubt, you shall have none. If you do not like this, stop being such a moralistic arrogant asshole and realize your own role and function. | I hold my tongue all the time out of respect for differing opinions such as | yours and out of the realization that it is better to let most of these | things slide. Geez, you have kept posting so many hateful comments about me and others who have complained about noisy idiots that I would /really/ hate to see you not hold your tongue. Thank you so very much for your recalcitrant tongue! | I am 37 years old, intelligent, intuitive and interested in language and | social constructs. I am a native speaker of English. I do believe that | when some one on a newsgroup says to another the word "we" absent of any | clearly implied or explicit context, it means "the people who post on this | group." This includes me. This does not lead to the urge to respond publicly that you must exclude yourself from the group you feel included in. That urge has deeper roots. You may not be fully aware of them. I intended to change that by showing you how what you present to me have given me reason to judge you the way I have. You could take that to heart or you could scream "unfair" and not get the point. Guess which option I /expected/ you to choose. | You have the right to a different opinion on this, it is not something one | can check up in a reference, but it takes a lot of gall to suggest my mind | is unhealthy because of this. Much less gall than it takes to impute the kinds of evil intentions that you impute to those who "offend" you with an inclusion that you must "correct". | That you think I must be "pathological" and posess an "unhealthy mind" | because it disagrees with what you think is...well, pathological and the | sign of an unhealthy mind. Maybe you were being rhetorical... It is not because I disagree. Get past this stupid disagreement issue and understand that there are obvious underlying reasons for your need to voice your concern about not being included in a group that nobody would have thought you were included in had you not said a word. The fact that you need to raise your voice and proclaim this distance from that rhetorical "we" strongly suggests a fear of being included on the "wrong" side of an issue that you mis-remember as detestible from your experience with academia, but which has nothing whatsoever to do with the current issue. It is not your opinion that matters here, it is that you need to publicly post it and implicitly brand the person who used "we" in an offensive way to you was in the wrong for doing so. Something is clearly wrong with you when you have to voice this opinion publicly. It is not good for you to feel this need to distance yourself from groups you were not /actually/ included in to begin with. Learn to deal with it. Someone will say something somewhere all the time that implicitly includes you if you feel like it, and you would go nuts (if it has not already happened) if you need to "correct" these statements that you overinterpret to include yourself. | The premise for your conclusion is incorrect. The evidence for it is amply supplied by yourself. -- 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.