* Raffael Cavallaro | As for me, I don't understand why posters to this forum take Erik's posts | at face value, and don't consider the probability that he'll squirm 12 | ways from sunday just to avoid losing an argument on usenet.
funny, that's how you look to me, the way you invent more and more things to accuse me of. if you had been willing to stick to a single point and ride it through, you might make it possible to win or lose, but since you try one thing, then try another when it fails, and yet another when that fails, it's hard to conclude otherwise than that you refuse to admit to have lost at every junction. and now it is of course my fault that you have made a huge stink about your opinion of me (the "With friends like Erik" thread of your). don't you see that you could just shut the fuck up with your insane drivel, and nobody would need to respond to you?
so, instead of pontificating about the motives of others, answer this question: why do _you_ keep going on, Raffael Cavallaro? and please throw in an analysis of why your posts contribute to the well-being of this newsgroup while you're at it. I'm looking forward to your insight into your own behavior, who has so much to offer about that of others.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > As for those who _really_ believe that Erik was _actually_ asking an > honest question above (not those stating the theoretical possibility that > some abstract speaker could have meant those words as a real question), I > suggest that you have either an enviable lack of exposure to Erik's c.l.l > vitriol, or a lamentable inability to discern a speaker's real meaning.
I am a native English speaker. My understanding of my language and of the way it is used is unusually good. I have been reading c.l.l for quite a while, and have read plenty of Erik's vitriol (and plenty of his non-vitriol, too). I see no good reason to think that Erik was being rhetorical when he said he didn't understand why employees behave as they do.
<rant> This whole argument is a total waste of time, energy and bandwidth. It's perfectly clear that neither of you is going to convince, or get any sort of concession out of, the other. No one else is taking much notice. The only effect any article either of you posts to this thread has is to diminish others' regard for the person posting it. Give it a *rest*, both of you. </rant>
-- Gareth McCaughan Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com sig under construction
In article <raffael-1909992248280...@raffaele.ne.mediaone.net>
raff...@mediaone.net (Raffael Cavallaro) wrote: > this to me!" Try as you might to make this a jesuitical dispute, your > meaning is clear. You deride the opressed just as you deride and abuse > posters to comp.lang.lisp, because you are a verbally abusive, disdainful > person.
Interestingly enough, there is a standard, albeit latin, name for that argument form. (Of course, we are not discussing dogs or logicians, so maybe that's an appropriate form, but it's not often that someone will defend that choice.)
However, even the "Naggum is evil" premise seems ill-founded.
Naggum's language isn't always as easy to understand as one might prefer. That difficulty isn't due to a lack of precision, he's very precise, but to somewhat odd (from a native "American English" speaker's point of view) construction. In the worst case, that construction is an intentional "fool trap", so tripping it repeatedly is ..., and things aren't better if some other reason applies.
Yes, Naggum is willing to "fight" with anyone who insists on fighting with him. However, even if he had written "people who need unions are stupid", what's the purpose of the fight? (That's an honest question, but I doubt seriously that anyone will believe answers other than "I'm looking for a fight", "I always attack evil people", etc.) BTW - "he wrote something evil in the past, therefore it's fair to interpret <new thing> as evil" isn't all that convincing, especially when it's surrounded by a bogus argument.
However, suppose that Naggum is racist scum. How is comp.lang.lisp an appropriate place to "deal with that"? Is it "no place to hide"? While the result of that strategy may well be good, I doubt that that it is intended.
* Raffael Cavallaro | Your implication is clear; they are foolish for not standing up for | themselves in the first place as _you_ do.
I wondered what would make this a true implication. I came to conclude that one would have to dispense with the concept of time, such that I could not look back at things past and wonder why without, at the same time, being with the people who did it at the time and saying they are (present tense) foolish. with a working concept of time in place, most people are able to look back at a time past and wonder why they didn't see things differently. if they dare to examine the causes (which you don't, by the way), they may be able to avoid similar problems in the future. passing judgment on the past with future information, knowledge, insight or wisdom is so moronic that I don't even consider the option that someone is thinking in that mode, but you appear to be lacking a concept of time that would make you see it as just that: moronic.
what we see, historically, is that people grudgingly accept some pretty bad conditions, which for some reason continue to appear better than all other conditions, even though they aren't with a more objective point of view, also when considering the transition costs, and then, after a while, when they have realized that a lot of people are just as unhappy as themselves, they object in a way that makes a difference. of course, they also overreact a lot, my guess is to make up for the feeling of shame for not doing anything sooner, but the whole sequence of events suggests that the core problem was not speaking up and letting others know how you feel when and as you felt it.
for the above implication to be true, the concepts of cause and effect also need to be dispensed with. my observation is that people who are unhappy with something don't even admit it to _themselves_ unless others validate their feelings. so somebody has to start saying it, for labor unions and all kinds of protest movements to work. to some, this means that people will _start_ to feel unhappy and whoever speaks up is the cause of the unhappiness, implying that people would have been happy with their abysmal working conditions if nobody let them know. this is cleaerly false, but still groups of people need someone to speak up and on their behalf. well, I am that person. I speak up. ironically, stupid people like Raffael Cavallaro object to the part, yet embrace the whole. what's even more ironic is that Raffael also speaks up, and then others too timid or whatever to even think aloud can chime in after someone has "dared" to speak up, usually without a clue and usually unable to voice a reasoned opinion but stay with "yeah, I agree".
what bothers me is that those who ignite the masses are so stupid and miss the point so often and so often cause so much pointless destruction in the process.
| No matter that you run no risk of being beaten, tortured, or murdered, or | of starving if you express your wants directly to your prospective | employers.
no, I don't run that risk, Raffael Cavallaro. I really don't. I'm going to be labeled a racist by you again, but what the heck: this is not the reality of the people I esd talking about. also, you have to be pretty dumb to voice your concerns in such a way as to be beaten, tortured, or murdered. if that's a likely consequence, shut up. however, the reason it so often _becomes_ the likely consequences is that those who protest believe it will be, and then choose a form of protest that only works in an extremely antagonistic way, like riots. "oh, my, you really are upset about the working hours, aren't you? now, let's see what we can do about that, shall we? incidentally, would you be so kind as to burn down as few buildings as possible while we discuss these matters?" is _not_ a likely response to a riot with massive destruction of life and property. the problem is of course that when reason doesn't work, (the threat of) violence may be called for, but the assumption that reason won't work is rampant. the concept that there is a class struggle and that people _can't_ talk across "class lines" is one of the most self-fulfilling there is. it's like certain forms of racism -- the one where you accuse people of being racist because you _prefer_ to think it's because of your skin instead of examining the many much more likely causes. keep it up, and what you experience will be indistinguishable from what you believe.
| You deride people who would forfeit their lives and/or their loved ones' | lives if they stood up to their employers, for not being independent | consultants.
this is, again, an insane accusation with no possible link to reality.
| Your post is offensive.
no, it isn't. not to you, nor to anyone else. what's offensive is what your disturbed psyche produces when you see certain words or phrases.
| My understanding of it is not faulty, as evinced by the responses of | others, who pointed out, with no little sarcasm, that the reason such | people don't stand up to their employers is that they would become | destitute or dead if they did so.
I'm interested in why the same behavioral pattern exists even when the chances of being beaten, tortured, murdered, or becoming destitute are exactly zero. explaining the behavior under such conditions is so trivial that it has no value to discuss it at all. it occurs to me that some people have not gotten their anger out of their system enough to be able to deal with such things rationally, and therefore are concerned _only_ with the impossible situations. not unlike my irritation with people who seem to _value_ ignorance and non-thinking and stupidity.
| You deride the opressed just as you deride and abuse posters to | comp.lang.lisp, because you are a verbally abusive, disdainful person. I | believe a very good case can be made that you actively drive people | _away_ from lisp because of the tone of your posts to c.l.l. Though you | have said "lisp is better off without them," I'm sure others believe with | me, that c.l.l might well be better off _with_ them, and without your | abusive posts.
so your _real_ reason for posting insane accusations and other drivel was to "prove" how bad I am, is that it? and now that you have figured out that you won't be able to win that way, your real purpose behind all the crap shines through, despite the fact that I have been _responding_ to the biggest asshole on comp.lang.lisp in a really long time, who has not only posted insane accusations, but has shifted his insane accusations around every time they were countered and dismissed.
I have strong disdain for cowardice, too, Raffael Cavallaro, and you're the worst kind of coward I have seen in a really long time. if you have been a coward for as long as your expertise in it suggests, it's a pity that you have been beaten up verbally for it much sooner, but, hey, maybe that's it? your defense of cowards everywhere to be sneaky character assassins instead of doing anything useful and constructive takes the shape of accusing others of favoring beating and murdering other cowards, and now you, Raffael Cavallaro, the super-coward, speaksup. hooray! let the masses of cowards be ignited with emotional abandon!
a likely conclusion from this debacle is "you can't post to c.l.l without political fanatics with a coward's agenda attacking you for all sorts of irrelevant things."
I finally understand why you couldn't confine yourself to Lisp, Raffael, but had to use all sorts of really stupid tricks to attack me. if you had been brave enough to state your actual opinion up front, it would not have made anyone react, so instead of you had to go through all the stupid theatrics that only cowards find necessary. and now I see that all the rabid accusations were only means to this end: to be able to grow big enough in your anger to be able to say what little wimpering whine you had for a real complaint.
I pity you, Raffael Cavallaro. I really do. and what I feel for you is not disdain, it's disgust, at such a despicable waste of care and love that brought you into this world and to the point where you could get a Ph.D to sign your pathetic sniveling posts with.
* Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> | What a pointless argument. Especially since each of you has said | to the other "Stick to Lisp in comp.lang.lisp". Is winning the | argument really so important?
he has since made it clear that his real purpose was only to point out how bad he thinks I am. like so many before him, if he couldn't do it with facts, he had to try with a whole bunch of his own inventions. I don't think it's a waste of time to respond to false accusations. neither is it a waste of time to expose cowards and frauds who play games with people's feelings. in consequence, there never was an argument for him to win, it was all for demonstration. I don't consider having shown what a disgusting coward someone is and what that leads to is winning.
> > If you _really_ thought otherwise, it might explain your confusion as to > > the reactions of others in this forum. But it is _certainly_ not the case > > that any native speaker understood you to be asking a real question.
> He wasn't asking a question at all, idiomatic or otherwise. > But as to the question of how his words were interpreted by > native speakers ... Erik said this:
> | nor do I understand why people individually accept so horrible working > | conditions that they have to form labor unions so they don't have to > | accept them, anymore, but I digress.
> I am a native speaker of English. I understood him to be saying > simply that he doesn't understand why people accept conditions > individually that bother them so much that they organise into > unions so that they can refuse them. Nothing more and nothing > less.
It seems to me that this statement contains somewhat of a paradox, however.
If they are forming unions, then it would appear that they are resisting the poor conditions that they have accepted, and therefore they haven't accepted them, but merely tolerated them until they found a way out of them. My meager knowledge of the industrial revolution and third world countries in general would indicate that poor working conditions are a known symptom of industrialization, and if people refuse to accept poor (by our standards) wages and working environments then they have to turn to non-techonological advancement or enter into a war in order to manage their ever-growing population.
I woudl suggest that people do not individually accept horrible working conditions but instead are placed into such positions by the machinations of society & economics, adn given a choice they all woudl have stayed "on the farm" and grown beets (or whatever alternative is supposedly available).
>* William Tanksley >| But you yourself state that a few people are enough. > look again. "at first" are the operative words, here. if you stay put > at "a few people", it is obviously not sufficient to make a difference.
You're right; I missed that. It's also true that if you stay put with only a few people it's obvious that you'll never have more than a few -- but that's begging the question.
>| The conclusion you're working towards here is that the people who say >| Lisp is dying are deluded. This is a good conclusion, but doesn't >| address your topic sentence: that there must be positive momentum in >| order for dynamic software to beat static software. > sigh. my topic sentence is that people choose the path of least > immediate resistance, and therefore will think that source access to > static software is an improvement in their needs.
By definition of "improvement", it certainly is one.
> in the long term, it > isn't, because what they _need_ is dynamic behavior in their software, > and they can't get that in the long run by tweaking some source.
In other words, what they need _in the long term_ is dynamic behavior.
They can't actually get dynamic behavior in any term, long or short, by tweaking the source, right?
> they > think they can, because in the short term, they can make fixes and get > the behavior they want, but the more of these there are, the harder it > gets to upgrade.
Right. So their short-term ignorance is costing them more every day. Each person who fails to figure out the reason for this cost will become less inclined to continue in the computing field in the long term.
>| Open Source ensures the availablility of software, so we who find dynamic >| software to be superior should be making it Open Source whenever possible. > this is not supported by either evidence or any logical premises I know > about. how did you arrive at the conclusion that open source ensures > _availablility_ of software?
I'm not sure what logical premises or evidence you're looking at, then.
Open source software is available -- completely available -- to anyone who has posession any portion of it, regardless of the status of the original author, publisher, and/or copyright owner. If the author dies or the company goes bankrupt, any person using the software is still free to give copies of it away. This is explicitly not true for non-open source software.
I do have to add, though, that all of these advantages (and many others) can be achieved with _dynamic_ software which is released under a freeware system (i.e. any distribution and modification allowed, but no source). But I've never been one of those Open Source fanatics, so I'm not ashamed to say that :-).
At that point, though, it's hard to see the reason to not publish the source code as well.
>| Commercial funding helps advertisement, so we should also be frequenting >| companies which support dynamic software (especially open sourced >| versions thereof). > I have been arguing for the view the source access is not necessary, and > can indeed be harmful, and now you want to support people predicated on > doing needless, harmful things to what people really need. I'm not sure, > but it doesn't seem that you have understood one iota of what I written.
Why do you perceive that? Perhaps I'm basing that support on my own opinion rather than on your opinion, and my use of my opinion indicates that I haven't _accepted_ yours (as opposed to not understanding what you write). I'd like to understand your opinion, though.
>| Don't forget -- this language has the long view. I've never seen its >| like before. If we do our job by keeping it alive and available, and if >| your premises are correct, Lisp will in time win. > I'm arguing that if people get too much source access, dynamic software > will not win, because they will be "satisfied" with the static software.
The only proven basis for this type of conclusion with which I'm aware has to do with searching for global minima (and getting trapped by local minima).
But this kind of system requires that the true global minimum be not already found. And clearly, Lisp users have found it. We're not going away,
(Also, you've done nothing to show that dynamic software isn't more "satisfactory" when open sourced than when proprietary. This is^H^Happears to be a significant hole in your argument, since even you agree that open source gives an almost dynamic advantage to closed source.)
>| In the meantime, we get to write -- but sadly, seldom use -- dynamic >| software. Odds are we'll still be alive when the superior alternative >| becomes the commonly used alternative, so the wait will not be forever. > nothing just _happens_, William. everything worth doing takes a lot of > effort. my point about changing the habits of a few AT FIRST, means that > we have to change the habits of a few AT A TIME. the road to defeat is > to accept to wait for somebody else to do something.
> but enough of this, I'm tired of repeating myself.
This is the wrong thing to become tired about repetition. Please don't stop repeating that dynamic software is better than static software. Okay, perhaps you have no need to repeat at here... :)