A note to newbies.  Don't sumbit to this hysteria.  Don't be afraid to
post "simple" questions.  Just do your home work, show your
willingness to learn and you will get real help from this group (in
fact, from any other forum inhabited with responsible grown up
people).

So who does more damage to this group?

Erik obviously cares about Common Lisp a lot, contribute a lot of
technical expertise and is actually helpful to people that are willing
to learn and do their homework.  And in good conscience he protects
this forum so that it could continue to function as a place were
techical discussion and education can be done in a sane and productive
way.

Now you and your ilk crawl out of nowhere and start your old clownery
knowing fully well that Erik will be after you to sanitize this forum.
And when he does - you start your predictable "grow up" and "civilized
people" demagogy.  You have already managed to force away Kent Pitman.
Congratulations!  Surely you must have fulfilled your stated goal to
make c.l.l. a "better" place, <expletive deleted>.

Some of your ilk make derogatory remarks about "Erik in real life".  I
don't know Erik in real life, but let me tell you a story.  I was
lucky to be a classmate and a friend of Al Viro, who now works on
Linux filesystem fulltime at Red Hat.  There was a stunningly similar
mud-slinging "grow up" campaign against Al on linux-fs (and it was
even featured on Slashdot) with predictable derogatory "Al in real
life" remarks.  I do know Al in real life.  He's not a "plesant"
person and is not "easy" to get along.  But he's absolutely integral
person.  He has contributed to Linux a lot, he has a lot to learn from
and he is absolutely intolerant to your ilk and the psychologizing
demagogy you drag into technical discussions.  Since I know Al, when I
read Erik's post I can see a real and integral person as well.

So if you need a company of "plesant" people and if you think that
"civility" is when nobody gives a damn about you screwing up and
continue to greet you with stupid hollow smiles - just go find or
found a club where you can vegetate in you "plesant" company of
anencephalic "friends".

Stop destroying c.l.l. with your childish provocations.

  I already do what you want, you disrespectul little fuck.  Where do
  you get off posting so much insanely defamatory shit about me when I
  already do what you claim would satisfy you?  You're so dishonest it's
  libel, you goddamn piece of shit!  I always _start_ explaining to
  people what's wrong and usually why, too.  I don't need to start doing
  this as if I don't: I have done it all my life.  95% of the time,
  people accept and usually thank me for the response because it solves
  their problems, of course despite my being "utterly misguided and
  wrong" in _your_ broad and completely unfounded generalizations.  (How
  about you explaining why sometime, huh?)  Go check the _record_, you
  disrespecting dickhead!  To see that what you have been attacking _is_
  only your own deranged imagination makes me really angry.

  If you could try to snap out of your psychosis and actually try to
  _observe_ reality for a change, you should have no problem seeing that
  I do what you claim you would have been satisfied with.  God, I'm so
  fucking tired of psychotic morons like you who can't even see past
  their own deranged prejudices when they spend so much effort vilifying
  me and portraying me as this monster that really lives only in their
  own imagination.  You're no better than a _racist_, Marcus G. Daniels,
  the kind of morons who cannot wrap their tiny little brains around the
  fact that their images of the people they hate are _caused_ by their
  _disrespect_ for them.

| If someone persists in posting questionable or untrue statements, if
| you wish, persist in correcting them.  Just do it without the attacks.

  I already do that.  It's when I'm attacked that I don't hold back.
  You act and reason _exactly_ the same way, so shut the fuck up about
  it being wrong.  Now, go take your anti-psychotic drugs and snap back
  into reality, will you?  Find yourself a recent thread you think is my
  fault went bad, and actually expend the effort to _read_ it and pay
  attention to what actually goes on.  I suggest the Aaron K. Johnson
  thread, since it should still be on a nearby server and it started
  with a reply that from me that shouldn't have ignited anyone, but it
  _did_ ignite an emotionally disturbed moron.  Big deal.  Help get that
  kind of people out of the way instead of blaming me for their existence.
  I do _not_ cause the Raffael Cavallaros and Tom Bretons and I most
  certainly have not caused your psychosis, either.

  At worst, I provoke morons into identifying themselves, but take a
  real good look at that piece of shit fan of yours Israel Thomas.  Take
  a look at Tom Breton and Raffael Cavallaro.  What do they do towards
  me?  What do _you_ do towards me, Marcus G. Daniels?  Do you post some
  shit that is easily explained as "wrong"?  You don't exactly have a
  very good grip on explaining why yourself, either, do you?  "Utterly
  misguided and wrong" without evidence, as a sweeping generalization.
  How fucking impressive _that_ is for one dishing out advice on what he
  would be satisfied with from others.

  God _damn_ you, Marcus G. Daniels!  You've been spinning your own yarn
  for so many years and making up a monster in your imagination that you
  should really go see a good psychiatrist to help you get rid of.  For
  once I really mean that as a _personal_ advice to a person that I do
  think has become criminally insane, it's not just a stupid act you
  could change of your own will, any longer.  Get professional help!

  And self-centered?  You're fucking _obsessed_ with your fantasy of me!
  You're the one centered around me.  Do you think I _like_ the retarded
  discussions about me from psychotics like you, Tom Breton and Raffael
  Cavallaro?  Do you think _I_ invite you sick fucks to talk about me
  for weeks when you get your ire up?  _You_ turn this newsgroup into a
  flame-fest against me.  And what could I _possibly_ do to mollify your
  rage when you are so blinded by your hatred and disrespect that you
  don't even _see_ what would have quieted you down and satisfied you?

  What the hell does what you do have to do with anything that could
  possibly be countered with "no, that's wrong and here's why?"  It is
  not possible to acquiesce you, because _you_ are the destroyer of this
  forum.  You try to make it my fault, but I already do what you want.
  _You_ help people feel justified in attacking me.  _You_ condone the
  lynch mobs, the ganging up on me.  _You_ fuel the hostility towards
  me.  What does that make you, Marcus G. Daniels?  Criminally insane!

  FIND AN OFFENDING THREAD AND READ IT FROM THE _START_, NOT JUST FROM
  WHEN YOUR UPTIGHT SENSIBILITIES GET TRIGGERED INTO BELIEVING YOU SEE
  WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE!

  I suggest you talk to Barry Margolin about what it took him to snap
  out of his imaginary world and start to see what was really going on.
  He was also posting unfounded shit about me for a _long_ time before
  he realized that reality was a _little_ more complex than he wanted it
  to be and kept trying to make it by posting vilifying crap about me.

  What I actually do _ought_ to have been enough to go on, but such
  psychotic fucks as you and Tom Breton and Raffael Cavallaro don't stop
  at reality because it just isn't bad enough to justify what you do.

  I've fucking _had_ it with you, Marcus G. Daniels.  Stop pouring your
  purified bile into this forum and start saying something that doesn't
  reek of your particularly stinking brand of abject disrespect so
  intense that you can't even see anything but your own prejudice.

Many lurkers _do_ read Erik's postings - I know because I have received
emails from them which generally say something like "thanks for saying
that, I was beginning to think everyone in c.l.l was insane, because
they all come to the defense of this vicious guy Erik..." These people,
as is true of lurkers in general, are as great, or greater in number
than those who post. Many have written me to say they are _afraid_ to
post, because they don't want to be beaten up on by Erik.

You seem far too concerned with some questionable notion that long
threads calling attention to Erik's abusive behavior will somehow cause
damage to lisp's reputation, without being much concerned at all about
the demonstrable, present damage of having the better part of the
posting newsgroup community come to the defense of a viciously abusive
poster. This atmosphere sends out a definite message - "we don't really
want you here." And it seems to succeed, because almost no new posters
stick around.

Ralph

--

Ralph

--

  If you want to claim that I have _stated_ something, you're obliged to
  make sure that you do not put your own words and intentions in my
  mouth, if politeness and rules of order mean anything to you at all,
  and isn't just lip service.  If you stick to what you understand, it
  can be corrected if wrong, because you are still responsible for what
  you have understood and said.  If you make it look like I'm saying
  something, you write off your own responsibility for any mistakes and
  implicity if not explicitly blame me for what you feel, which is wrong
  of you, and you ought to know this before you post, so I _will_ infer
  malicious intent on your part as if you were fully concious of your
  choice of actions.  That is why I arrest people who do stupid things,
  too: Only by treating people as if they were conscious of their
  actions and choices can you expect them to respond responsibly.
  Sadly, some people are virtually unconscious and have no introspective
  ability at all, and do not respond if other people take them seriously.

  Your debate specialists know this.  It is a severe transgression to
  misrepresent your opponent.  In circles where paying attention to what
  people say is the norm (i.e., _not_ a forum where nutballs respond in
  knee-jerk manners to their own fears and prejudices), it is strongly
  self-discrediting to get caught lying about your opponent's position.

  Politeness is not just nice words, like many fools believe.  Rudeness
  starts with disrespect for people, not with harsh words.

| Anyone who says something stupid (i.e. who disagrees with Erik) will
| get flamed so as to fry the stupidity out of them (i.e. until they
| agree with Erik or leave the newsgroup).

  This "summary" is a figment of your imagination that does not even
  attempt to capture what I have actually said.  _You_ want to see a
  flame-fest, and you ask for a flame-fest with your behavior and your
  sorry inability to distinguish stupidity from such a fantastically
  stupid thing as "disgreement".  Agreement has nothing to do with it.
  In any forum worth joining, people do not _agree_ on much anything if
  you push them.  That is why there are so many complex rules of
  (parliamentary) order and why procedure is important in legal matters.

  The stupid idea that agreement is a goal is shared by the critics who
  can't be bothered to read what I write before they attack me, like you.

  I don't know what causes people of obviously severely limited skills
  at argumentation to think that the issue is agreement, but something
  in the school system is probably at fault for never educating the
  public about logic sufficiently that they can distinguish validity of
  reasoning from the contents of arguments.  Stupidity is about the
  failure to reason.  Agreement is about matching contents.  Any fucking
  moron can _agree_ with anything, and they do, too.  Not everybody can
  reason and argue coherently and constructively and in a way that is
  not stupid.  That's why we have a _representative_ democracy.

| This is not conducive to having any kind of discussion.

  Listening to what people actually write and avoiding misrepresentation
  of their points of view would be quite conducive, though, but you do
  not seem to bother much about such things, so you will of necessity
  offend those who care about whether they are misrepresented by you.
  Maybe you simply have something very important to learn before you can
  begin to teach qanyone?

| My point is that we should let Erik know that we don't appreciate
| his behavior when he follows through on his scorched newgroup plan.

  Let me know when you have managed to properly identify what you do not
  like.  As long as you are materially wrong in what you attack me for,
  you are the one that should back up and rethink your position, not me.
  If you hit the nail on the head and actually manage to be honest about
  how _you_ understand something and do not claim somebody else _states_
  what they do not in fact state, you might be able to _communicate_.

| Email privately to Erik isn't going to help ...

  And how the fuck do you know that?  You have made up your mind about
  something you have no possible evidence to support.  That kind of
  _idiocy_ is what I primarily attack.  _That_ is the stupidity that I
  want to drive out of this and every other forum, and I do _not_
  tolerate it in real life, either, but most people figure it out when
  they get negative feedback from something other than their computer.

| Instead just politely tell him that you would appreciate him acting in
| a more civilized manner.

  Yeah, but why didn't you _try_ that first?  Some introspection into
  why _you_ chose to attack me and post vile shit about me might be a
  lot more interesting, because any goddamn moron can mouth rehashed
  advice that nobody follows, anyway.  The interesting part is why you
  didn't.  I'll treat you nice when you follow your own goddamn advice.
  As long as you only want others to follow your advice, it means you
  think your advice sucks, and everybody recognizes that immediately.

| Many people have privately told me that they appreciate my making this
| point, but private email to me isn't going to convince Erik.  Everyone
| has to stand and be counted.

  Everybody can claim to have received supportive mail.  It is therefore
  utterly inadmissible as evidence, even diminishing your argument.  If
  you were honest, you would know this and not make stupid mistakes like
  making unverifiable claims.

  I don't know about you, but I'm not convinced by the number of people
  who agree to something.  Agreement is completely irrelevant to truth.
  People's minds are changed by TV commercials, for crying out loud, and
  people agree in large numbers to all kinds of obviously false stupidity.

| I would consider a 'victory' being Erik staying with the newsgroup and
| his posts arguing using logic rather that personal attacks.

  Then motivate me to do so, you piece of shit: Don't post lies about
  me, don't attack me, and don't fucking spend the newsgroup talking
  about me.  As long as you nutballs lie about me and post your stupidly
  unwarranted assumptions about me as if they were soundly supported
  facts, I will continue to think and say that you are pests and should
  shut up.  You have _nothing_ to tell me if you can't pull _yourself_
  together first.  Take the whole Marcus G. Daniels fucking fan club
  with you and realize that _you_ have some cleaning up to do before you
  can utter the slightest little peep about what other people should do.

  You want me to be polite a bunch of leaking douchebags and unwiped
  assholes who go out of their way to hurt, terrorize, lie, disrespect,
  and misrepresent me.  Show me that you can be polite and even kind to
  me first, or your stupid advice is nothing more than an insult.  Shrug
  off the abuse which you rightly recognize that you _deserve_, and turn
  the other fucking cheek.  If _you_ can't do it, don't expect me to sit
  and take your insanely unfair attacks on me, either.

  Here's a fucking clue for you and the other retards who gang up on me:
  Think of something that is likely to _reduce_ my hostility to what you
  disgusting morons keep doing.  The more you keep attacking me, the
  more I have a _right_ to see attacking people on newsgroups as a
  perfectly valid means of communicating dislike of something.  You can
  do something _else_ if you want me to "learn" something.  How obvious
  can this be, huh?  The only but _big_ difference is that I don't like
  your behavior and you don't like me, and while it matters to me that
  people change their behavior, you keep attacking me no matter what I
  do or don't, because you attack me for something you _imagine_ I do
  but _don't_, and you're too fucking _stupid_ to figure out that if you
  attack people for something they don't do, they will _never_ listen to
  you, because you are actually just a ranting lunatic who has lost
  touch with reality.  (Now, some people close their mind to any and all
  criticism that doesn't come with a spoonful of sugar for every drop of
  vinegar and don't listen anyway, but they are also the problem here.
  Everybody else, the remaining 19 out of 20 people I have suggested do
  something else, in small or big terms, recognize that listening to
  other people is a good idea.)  Let's see you punks do it, let's see
  you calm down while you feel "provoked" and justified to return with
  violence, and _you_ start being polite and nice, OK?  If you can't do
  it, don't ever expect anyone else to do what you can't for the rest of
  your miserably hypocritical lives.  Let me see an apology from you.
  What the fuck had I done to _you_ before you attacked me?  Explain
  that to yourself and _think_ about what it means to have somebody you
  have never seen in your entire life come up to you and start to beat
  you senseless.  Wife beater and child abuser, huh?  Do you _realize_
  what kind of person you are and what you have done, you piece of shit?
  It's time for you to wake up and smell the fucking coffee!  _You_ are
  the destructive force, here.  Go away, die, whatever, just get lost.

  Have you, now?  And I always respond identically to all kinds of
  e-mail, presumably?  That's just too fucking nuts to believe, but it
  probably serves your personal need to work up the hostility here.

| With a single e-mail, you'll get "stop harassing me, I'll call the
| police" or he'll use it as something indefinite and inaccessible to
| exaggerate about, as in the most recent case.

  Excuse me?  What the fuck are you lying about, now?

| Then it is all the more important to point-out the objectionable
| behavior -- to make it visible.

  It doesn't work on you, who keep posting ever increasing amounts of
  destructiveness.  Just show us that it works on you first, and you
  might gain what is called "credibility".  (Look it up.)

| It is easy to keep thinking that, so long as a cost is not exposed to him.

  Yeah, you would know, as you keep thinking you are perfectly in your
  right to keep doing what _you_ do, never grasping that you aren't.
  Now, show us that you realize what you are doing, and that unknown
  concept "credibility" might gain some meaning for you.

kirk

Here's my read:

1) Aaron suggests that GUI and integration features are an important part
   of a language environment's success.

2) Erik draws the distinction between languages vs. tools and
   standardized vs. non-standardized languages.  He suggests using
   Allegro CL's GUI builder.  

   He signs his message with "#:Erik, seriously annoyed".

3) Aaron expands on the notion of bells-and-whistles, and provides
   three links, including the well-known good-news-and-how-to-win-big
   Gabriel article.  He says he'd try Allegro CL's builder, but points
   out is not free.  

   He asks that Erik not be annoyed, and says "Peace".  Then he
   comments on Erik's signature in a friendly way.

4) Erik says:

     I suggest you find a street corner and cry "just which language are
     you trying to insult" to passers-by who don't give you a nickel.
     That'll make them about as positive to your requests as I am now.

   Erik quotes Aaron's don't-be-annoyed plea, with a somewhat cryptic
   "You're underestimating both of us, now.  Don't do that."  However,
   he then reassures with a smiley.  Erik never explicitly answered
   Aaron's "just which language are you trying to insult", question --
   the conspicuous absence might have seemed dismissive to Aaron.
   (Aaron probably should have been sticking with a term
   "language-specific development environment", or something like.)

5) Aaron says in response to the first remark:

   "I didn't throw the first punch, but you just did."  
   He restates his question, making it clear that he is talking about
   environments and not languages per se.  Aaron says "No need to be nasty."
   He quotes the previous transactions, and then attaches a reply to
   Kent Pitman that is apologetic for potentially offending, ending with
   "I certainly don't mean to deflate any of you who have devoted so much
   effort.  So thanks."

[IMO, earlier Kent Pitman made some good remarks about why the situation
is the way it is, and explains why someone like Erik might be annoyed, which
Aaron acknowledges.]

6) Erik says:

     So you are the kind of person who throws punches and thinks in such terms.
     That is valuable to know, but not conducive to your case.

   Quoting the "No need to be nasty":

     So drop it, then.  It's your choice to be nasty in return to
     something that is _not_ nasty towards you to begin with, but you
     just love to blame others for your own behavior, don't you?
     That's why you have to get everything for free and can't use Lisp
     because you don't get it.

     Beware of people who say "I love Lisp, but ...".  They do not
     actually love Lisp, they love getting great things for free, and
     Lisp is great, so if they _could_ get it for free, they _would_
     love it, but there is no real love, because real love means
     commitment and people who do not want to contribute time and
     money do not commit themselves to whatever it is they claim to
     love.

     Just stop defending yourself, and you won't feel under attack,
     either, but you make this what you want to make it, and I am
     unimpressed with the way you choose to respond.  You show us that
     what you really are about is getting other people's good stuff
     for free.

7) Aaron comments on the fact that Erik has started to assign motives
   to his stated concerns and is making generalizations about people who
   have a qualified interest in Lisp.  In his second to last paragraph,
   Aaron seems frustrated that the conversation is becoming combative.

8) Erik mentions his policy of trying to influence people to rethink
   their positions by making it painful to hold "idiotic opinions".

   He concludes with, "You are a waste of space and should be recycled."

  Let them speak for themselves.  You are not a trustworthy reporter.

| These people, as is true of lurkers in general, are as great, or
| greater in number than those who post. Many have written me to say
| they are _afraid_ to post, because they don't want to be beaten up on
| by Erik.

  Do you perchance get e-mail from people who have at least _slightly_
  different opinions from those you hold yourself or do they all just
  happen to _agree_ with everything you do?

| This atmosphere sends out a definite message - "we don't really want
| you here."

  That is indeed the atmosphere that _you_ fucking abusers of this forum
  have created.  Say something that the Marcus G. Daniels fan club does
  not like, and what happens?  Abuse?  You bet!  You take it from there.

  Clean up your own act.  Quit _your_ personal attacks and abuse.

  He also says "Just which language are you trying to insult", which I
  notice that _you_ don't notice.  How _amazingly_ observant of you!

| 5) Aaron says in response to the first remark:
|
|    "I didn't throw the first punch, but you just did."  

  You missed the fact tha he did throw the first punch.

  Thanks for showing us that you don't see what you don't want to see.

1. agree with me that you are so offputting that they will

2. never post to this forum, for fear of having to deal with you.

You effectively limit the posters to c.l.l to people who either agree
with you, or have been here so long they are used to ignoring your rants.

In practice, this means you almost eliminate new participants to this
newsgroup.

--

  That'd be the people who agree with _you_ first, and _then_ your two
  categories.  I feel entirely comfortable dismissing and scaring off
  anyone who agrees with _your_ style, however, so if anything, I have
  succeeded in chasing off some massive stupidity.

| In practice, this means you almost eliminate new participants to this
| newsgroup.

  Well, this is a testable hypothesis, and very easily falsified, too.

Gee, who's not paying attention?

AJ> Just which language are you trying to insult

EN> I suggest you find a street corner and cry "just which language are
EN> you trying to insult" to passers-by who don't give you a nickel.
EN> That'll make them about as positive to your requests as I am now.

AJ> I didn't throw the first punch, but you just did.

EN> So you are the kind of person who throws punches and thinks in such terms.
EN> That is valuable to know, but not conducive to your case.

Now Erik says:

EN> You missed the fact tha he did throw the first punch.

Right, right...  So you are the kind of person who throws punches and
thinks in such terms.  That is valuable to know, but not conducive to
your case.

EN> I suggest the Aaron K. Johnson thread, since it should still be on
EN> a nearby server and it started with a reply that from me that
EN> shouldn't have ignited anyone, but it _did_ ignite an emotionally
EN> disturbed moron.

Ok, you are pointing to the "just what language are you trying to
insult" remark as being when Aaron, the "emotionally disturbed moron"
was ignited.  

Is "emotionally disturbed moron" is the appropriate term for Erik to
be thinking at that first juncture when, in response to the text
below, Aaron asks Erik "Just what language are you trying to insult
here?"  Sure, Aaron could have said, "Are you talking about Python?",
or simply restated the question, but given that Erik was speaking in
generalities and not immediately addressing the original question of
integration and GUI features (which is a strength of Python and other
scripting environments and absent or hard-to-get-going in free
implementations of Common Lisp), I think this small degree of
irritation is to be expected.  Aaron didn't respond in any more
abrasive terms than Erik did, supposing you want to read the exchange
that way.

EN> Well, this is a testable hypothesis, and very easily falsified, too.

  It's a non-rhetorical _question_ in need of _answering_?  Geez...

  It's so delightful to watch your faked concern for Aaron when you
  clearly lack the ability to be concerned with people other than
  yourself..

EN> It's so delightful to watch your faked concern for Aaron when
EN> you clearly lack the ability to be concerned with people other
EN> than yourself..

  We can perhaps use the data on how many rational and smart people
  leave when they see that a newsgroup is about the Marcus G. Daniels
  fan club ganging up on and beating a noted and long-term contributor
  to death for weeks and months and years on end because they don't like
  some part of his style.

  _I_ get mail from Lispers world-wide, too, and while I think referring
  to personal mail is indecent in a public forum, I can relate that some
  don't post because they are afraid to be pegged as "members of the
  Naggum fan club" by such fucking evil-doers as _your_ fan club simply
  because they happen to enjoy how I help them use and understand Common
  Lisp.  I thrive on eyes that shine up with that sign of understanding
  that you see in bright children who have struggled to figure out some
  hard problem.  Nothing give me more personal pleasure than to make a
  difficult connection that simplifies something, be it for myself or
  someone else.  I don't know what you thrive on, but I have a guess:
  Vanquishing that sign of intelligence and enjoyment of one's ability
  to master problems.  Many people of just-above-average intelligence
  think high intelligence is phenomenally scary.

  Example: rec.org.mensa is a fantastic display of morons throwing rocks
  at people they hate simply because they are more intelligent than the
  stupid stone-throwers, and that really doesn't take a lot, does it?
  Some of those rock-throwing morons are just as periodic and persistent
  as our local Marcus G. Danielses.  All over the media, we find people
  who are scared shitless of letting "experts" make decisions, probably
  because they cannot follow their reasoning, and who spend all their
  energy on denouncing experts as such.  You, Marcus, make so many
  stupid simplifications and retarded short-circuited conclusions that
  all you have left is a moronic complaint that I say some "utterly
  misguided and wrong" things sometimes.  Let me guess: You are so
  _average_ in intelligence and intellectual powers that you would't
  even know it if you did, or you never have any ideas advanced and
  complex enough that _anybody_ would disagree with you, hence you think
  having different ideas than yourself is relevant to judging people's
  thinking ability.  Well, moron, you're wrong.

  I really hope nobody here believe for a minute that I would keep going
  and help people and discuss and promote Common Lisp with all sorts of
  people, even those who have been stupid and evil in the past, if _all_
  I met in this forum were the likes of you and your fan club, Marcus G.
  Daniels.  You're a cost that I have simply become used to, like taxes.
  To see a bright person understand something means suffering a Raffael
  Cavallaro.  To solve a really hard problem costs an Israel Thomas.  To
  explain something that involves difficult prioritation and scheduling
  of resources costs a Tom Breton.  To point out that somebody has made
  up his mind that something is complex because he doesn't think in the
  right terms costs five snide remarks from Marcus G. Daniels.  I still
  make a windfall profit, emotionally, from seeing people understand.
  It's like caring for a sick cat (or baby), who pukes and shits and
  urinates without control for several days (or years for the babies :)
  because you know you have a very loving companion when it's over.

  The morons who abuse this forum the way you condone, encourage, and
  instigate them to do are _irrelevant_ to how I feel at the end of the
  day if I get but a single e-mail or a followup saying that somebody
  understood something or solved a problem.  If the evil and stupidity
  in this world, and yours in particular mattered to me, personally, I
  cannot imagine how I would have the energy to keep going for so long.

  You, Marcus G. Daniels, are as irrelevant as a dog turd in a beautiful
  park on a sunny day.  That you follow me around and insist on stinking
  like hell is a fucking nuisance, to be forgotten like all other evil
  and stupidity in this world as soon as you go away.  That you don't
  quit betrays a level of destructiveness on your part that I really do
  hope you get shot and killed for some day, but only because it doesn't
  seem possible to clean up this park without the death of the dogs who
  has been trained to shit in it.

  You do not understand your own role, but you do not in fact contribute
  anything but hostility and destructiveness, and that means that your
  energy must come from a pure desire to destroy.  Nobody could keep
  going like you do and have on _constructive_ energy.  All that talk
  about "cults" also tells me that you are on a mission from a deity of
  limited powers and insight to destroy a competing religion.  So I boil
  you down to stupid envy of intelligence, combined with a thoroughly
  evil religious motivation to destroy what you covet and know you can
  never have: Enjoyment from understanding anything truly complex.

This is so touching, Erik!  Balloons, teddy bears, frolicking in the park!
Wonderful!  Let's make an after-school special, shall we?

If I wanted to vanquish intelligence, there would be dozens of targets
in comp.lang.lisp, and you wouldn't be my first choice.  

  Can the owner of that bitch please pick up its last droppings and get
  the hell out of here?  Thank you.

....

Just one more data point.