See my http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/usenet-freedom.html

Manners and freedom are, like it or not, enemies of one another.
That's not to say manners aren't sometimes (even often) a good idea,
nor is it to say there aren't messages of Erik's I wish he'd write in
a different tone.  But only just to say I see it as more of a slippery
slope than perhaps some others do, and, to mix metaphors, far from a
black and white kind of issue... plenty of grey in there where I think
others are not perceiving it.

The burden would seem to me to be on you, not on Erik, to demonstrate
something: that this is an appropriate forum in which to be creating
and imposing all sorts of artificial rules.  Usenet certainly does not
seem to me to be designed for that.  By explicit design of the usenet
paradigm, your options as a newsgroup reader when you don't like
something are limited to choices you can personally make, not choices
you can force on another.  If it's forced manners you want, I would
much rather see an alternate forum created, either a moderated lisp
forum here, or something in some other venue entirely, than I would
like to see usenet become a place of forced manners.

Erik has been asked to be nicer to people.  Maybe he should and maybe
he shouldn't.  Maybe he even tries, or maybe he doesn't.  But whatever
the case, what can be done in this regard has been done.  None of this
discussion seems likely to affect further change.  It only seems
likely to pollute the newsgroup still further, and to no good end.

   a) often justified
   b) results in no permanent damage (bruised egos don't count)
   c) to be expected of this type of venue

and that asking questions like `is it right' and `must it be so' is
more than a little absurd.  In particular, I'd say that this sort of
social interaction between people inevitably involves flaming.  So,
yes, it must be so:  we are human.

I'll retract my analogy about antarctica, though.

(Besides, in all the ones that i've cared to read, he had a valid point.)

--
Glauber Ribeiro
theglau...@my-deja.com    http://www.myvehiclehistoryreport.com
"Opinions stated are my own and not representative of Experian"

KP> This presupposes a pre-existing and universally agreed on meaning
KP> to the word "abusive", a "court of competent jurisdiction" in
KP> which to have concluded that he is in fact being abusive, and,
KP> further, a requirement of participation in this group to be that
KP> one not be abusive.

I'm not suggesting that introducing such a requriement would be
desirable.  I'm not suggesting that everyone agrees what "abusive"
means.  However, since quite a number of people have reported that his
behavior is in line with their idea of what "abusive" means to them,
and since this discussion comes up over and over again, and since the
discussion usually results in a lot of characteristic name calling, I
think it is reasonable to ask Erik whether this is really such a "healthy"
kind of confrontation.

KP> The burden would seem to me to be on you, not on Erik, to
KP> demonstrate something: that this is an appropriate forum in which
KP> to be creating and imposing all sorts of artificial rules.

Sigh.  Where did this notion about creating and imposing rules come from?
How is it any worse to object to Erik repeatedly calling people
idiots and morons than it is for him to do it?

In my view, there is no higher moral ground here.  And perhaps if Erik
wants this list to be a certain way and is prepared to pour energy
into it, then, in some sense, it _should_ be that way.  It's a
well-known rule of Usenet that there's _always_ someone with more time.

KP> It only seems likely to pollute the newsgroup still further, and
KP> to no good end.

Well, that's probably true.  Yet, I do think Erik is behaving like a bully,
and that putting up a bully will come at a cost.  Of course,
bullies can get things done, and that can amortize their cost.  If that's
the situation with comp.lang.lisp, then so be it.

  Since forever, in every single article you post whenever you feel it
  safe to crawl out of the woodwork to repeat your completely pointless
  moralism about others, when you clearly do not understand what you are
  saying and how it affects the forum.

  I must admit to have a problem with deeply religious and moralistic
  Americans.  I do not approve of bombing abortion clinics in the name
  of "pro-life" views, for instance, but in the minds of a lot of deeply
  religious moralistic Americans, it is perfectly acceptable to suspend
  _all_ notions of ethics and commit any level of atrocity in order to
  "safeguard" some miniscule "good".  An ethical framework that does not
  even _apply_ when under pressure is worthless, and the kinds of people
  who have moralistic qualms about something but who show the world that
  they are willing to suspend their ethics in _reacting_ to what they do
  not like, are more _destructive_ than any other evil.

  There is always a lot of hostility building up whenever some moron
  goes postal, but I have yet to find anyone who exudes more _evil_ than
  you, Marcus G. Daniels.  You do not want to be constructive in any way
  at all.  You post out of an unmistakable lack of good intentions.  It
  is all about destroying something bad you don't like, never building
  something good you would want to see.  _That_ is why comparing you to
  abortion-clinic-bombing _lunatics_ is entirely appropriate.  From what
  you have written in the past several years, you have consistently been
  pretending to hold the moral high ground, despite saying the opposite
  this time, always ready to _denounce_, never able to _contribute_.

  I think the presence of evil like you destroys the forum much more
  than the presence of violence if you want to view my actions as that.
  There are _very_ few _bad_ people here, but you and Raffael Cavellero
  are certainly competing for first place among them.  I keep holding
  out for the view that bad actions are the results of non-thinking that
  is the result of lack of incentives to snap out of the morose coziness
  that comes from never being sufficiently challenged to have to think.
  Some people commit bad actions with _intent_ to destroy only, and the
  more moralistic, the more destructive.  That's you, Marcus G. Daniels.

  You have of course considered in all relevant depth how healthy your
  own contributions are and what it takes to amortize the cost of your
  behavior (which has not included positive contributions for very long)
  on this newsgroup.  I'd prefer if you were honest about your pure and
  unadulterated destructiveness and come out and say what you really
  think and what you really want.  Here's my take on it: You do not
  _want_ anything at all, except to destroy something you do _not_ want.

Wow, you really do have a very active imagination.

EN> I'd prefer if you were honest about your pure and unadulterated
EN> destructiveness and come out and say what you really think and
EN> what you really want.  Here's my take on it: You do not _want_
EN> anything at all, except to destroy something you do _not_ want.

The software industry came up with the warranty that "This is a floppy
disk, and is warranted to remain so for ninety days.  Here's the long
list of things you can't do with any software that might happen to be
on it."  They're masters at avoiding responsibility for their products,
and if they can't dodge it in court they'll lobby Congress.  (There are,
of course, companies that are honorable.  For now.  As Kent Pitman has
pointed out, this can change at any point.)

Now, suppose you had an open-source program.  You could, perhaps, pay
somebody to support it for you.  That person is then legally responsible
for support, and you've got more leverage on him or her.

I've had an assortment of car problems over the years.  I've taken my
car to various different sorts of places.  The thing I have noticed is
that I get consistently good treatment from places that get their money
from taking care of cars, as opposed to service stations or dealers.

So, I suggest that open source software with a support contract with
a reputable software person is as good a way to go as buying software
from a company.

In order to do this, the software has to have some sort of source
availability.  I can learn to fix problems in the Linux kernel, but
I'm not going to learn to fix problems in MS Windows internals.  For
that, you have to go to Microsoft.

What part of this is stupendously unintelligent?

Having just returned from three months in Europe, I can acknowledge
the truth of many of the stereotypes of Americans.  It's pretty
depressing to be back here in many ways.  But this example goes too
far.

* Marcus G. Daniels
| Wow, you really do have a very active imagination.

  Really?  So you _do_ understand how what you are doing affects this
  forum; is that what you're saying?  And you're _still_ doing it?  What
  sort of "imagination" do you think is necessary to judge your "special
  contributions" from these simple premises?

  I'm frankly _astonished_ by the sheer arrogance that you command.  It
  is clear that you have a severe problem respecting _people_ for all
  your disgusting moralism and have made up your mind that just about
  anything is OK as long as you do it towards me.  This is not exactly
  imagination on my part.

  It isn't the violence by the few, it is the acceptance by the many.
  What I find truly astonishing is that people who seem to harbor the
  kinds of religious fervor towards incivility that some of those nuts
  harbor against abortion are equally willing to dispense with ethics
  and do just about anything when morally outraged and justified enough.

| Be careful about generalizing based on the few yahoos you see through
| your local media source.

  Thanks, but I suggest you also be careful about generalizing from the
  unwarranted assumption that people elsewhere in the world do not track
  U.S. politics very, very closely.  Not only do I work for a news
  agency with numerous other news feeds that my system processes, I have
  worked with newspapers and the news media basically forever and it's
  the only industry I own stock in.  E.g., I probably know more about
  the most recent U.S. election than 98% of Americans do, which is not a
  feat in itself, mind you.

| Having just returned from three months in Europe, I can acknowledge
| the truth of many of the stereotypes of Americans.  It's pretty
| depressing to be back here in many ways.

  Just be glad you aren't returning from the U.S. to Norway.  You don't
  even _know_ depressing until you've tried that a few times.

I have no problem with the use of harsh words (but I wasn't setting out to
express a personal opinion anyway).

What I responded to was (I felt) as much an insult to you as it was a
defence of your aggression: ie. that when these storms blow up on c.l.l.,
it's just Erik being Erik, we just suffer it like we'd suffer an Antarctic
blizzard. (Thanks for clearing that one up Joe. The rest I agree with).

If that were the case, that attitude would suck for the same reason you feel
intractable idiocy or toothless civility sucks: It absolves both flamer and
flamee of responsibility (deserving of condemnation or credit as the case
may be) for their opinions/actions. IMO, it's worse than saying: "this guy's
an arsehole who deserves to be (verbally) shot down for what he's done" -
because at least the latter would imply judgement for what you've said, not
for who you are.

Indeed I have.  My behavior was to follow-up an thread with content
relevant to the subject line.  Readers that are interested in pure
technical content would be ignoring this thread from the beginning.
Thus, I'm effectively invisible to anyone that would find me pointless.

You are different because almost any message could a Naggum Mine
waiting to go off.  Hygienic technical questions quickly turn to
controversies and explode with seconds of notice.

That's the objection that comes up about you over and over again.

"Kent M Pitman" <pit...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:sfwelzsy402.fsf@world.std.com...

I don't think that I or the other few who object (very occasionally in
proportion) to Erik's vicious attacks are trying to say that all hostility
or agression is Wrong, with a capital W.  The real problem, is that Erik, by
his own profession, is attacking this same freedom you are defending.  His
expressed motive is to drive people out and/or make it so painful for them
to express their opinions that they stop.  How does this promote freedom of
expression?

I respectfully suggest that your efforts to stop others from objecting are
misplaced.

"Kent M Pitman" <pit...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:sfw3dg8sz6h.fsf@world.std.com...

I'm sorry, but I see absolutely no grey area with lines like "you're a
disgusting little fuck, Aaron Johnson."  Discussing whether this is or is
not abusive is as interesting as trying to prove I'm not a duck-billed
platypus.

  This is an interesting case of your amazingly moronic "opinion" being
  an instance of what should not be allowed to pass without severe and
  harsh criticism for being manipulative, instigatory, and much worse
  than false: it's malicious slander.  Great fucking example, Cody Beck!

  Your first mistake is to misrepresent my expressed motive, you stupid
  liar.  Lies are not protected by freedom of expression.  I cannot say
  that you are child molestor and hope to get away with it, nor should I.

  _You_ are a people-person, and I'm not.  If you have to _restate_ my
  expressed motive, at least engage the puny little excuse for a brain
  that people-oriented people possess enough to recognize that some
  people are _not_ people-oriented, indeed are extremely hostile to any
  such accusation.  Putting people first is the primary idiocy that we
  must to overcome to achieve a technical forum, indeed any technical
  progress at all.

  My _actually_ expressed motive, not the Coby Beck rewrite, is to drive
  _stupidity_ out and make it so painful to act stupidly that people
  stop being stupid.  That someone can be so amazingly retarded as to
  confuse people with stupidity is not my problem, and Coby Beck can go
  to hell as far as I'm concerned for being that retarded.  He's made
  the same moronic mistake and false accusation previously, and it does
  not help to tell him anything, so he's probably _unable_ to adapt to
  facts and situations he does not already agree with.  He also believes
  whatever he wants to believe about me and feels much freer than he
  should to post his incredibly stupid "opinions" about something he
  only _feels_ is true.  It is precisely that kind of moronic behavior
  that should be stopped.  Unfortunately, Coby Beck is the kind of
  person who is unwilling to change his behavior but rather continues to
  defend it because he has felt hurt by the fact that he never was right
  in his false accusations and moronic rewrites of other people's ideas.
  Such people should be punished every time they repeat their mistakes.

  It is downright _pathetic_ how Coby Beck implicitly argues for the
  value of stupidity, of moronic misrepresentations of facts, of false
  answers to technical questions, of idiotic and inflammatory "opinions"
  like trolls, etc.  That is what he welcomes to comp.lang.lisp, and if
  he could drive me out in favor of people of his intellectual level, he
  would feel a lot better here, free to fail to exercise his brain as he
  would then be, like the people he implicitly invites.

  I want a technically stimulating forum.  When push comes to shove,
  that is what most other people want here, too.  However, USENET is a
  virtual _magnet_ for idiots and opinionated air-heads, the kinds of
  people that Coby Beck welcomes.  These are people who _don't_ pull
  themselves together and _don't_ drop their stupidity when they see
  that it is not welcome, because they, like Coby Beck, think they have
  a God-given right to be stupid and still be respected and treated
  well.  But we don't treat guests well who take a piss in the living
  room, not even if they are someone's pets.  People who are interesting
  to talk with get up and _leave_ if the group rewards stupidity, but we
  live in a culture that defends, promotes, idolizes, and rewards the
  stupid and unintelligent.  How could it possibly work to sell any
  products at all by insulting people's intelligence with the kind of
  stupefyingly moronic advertising that fill bill-boards, broadcast
  media, etc, if people were not willing to accept that stupidity must
  be tolerated and indeed rewarded?  Microsoft is multi-billion-dollar
  empire _built_ on the stupidity of people who bought their hype and
  their lies.  Every grain of disgust for liars and stupidity in the
  market costs that company a billion dollars in lost sales, just as
  every grain of admiration for frauds and crooks who manage to outsmart
  people with the operating intelligence of dogs earns them a billion.

  Most people accept stupidity and incompetence in every form they come
  across because they would rather be seen as easy-going and friendly
  than to get what they pay for and want.  But the really easy-going and
  friendly people are found where _competence_ is rewarded, stupidity is
  an accident to be ignored, and incompetence has a cause worth fixing.
  If you _actually_ care for the people around you, you don't allow them
  to be stupid, and if you _respect_ people, you are not afraid to have
  zero respect or tolerance for (some of) their actions.

  You are wrong.

| That's the objection that comes up about you over and over again.

  No, it's is your mind blowing up over and over again.

| [Naggum fan club aside.]

  Oh, Christ!  Are you so _disrespectful_ of people that you have to
  think in terms of "fan clubs"?  I thought you at least _had_ a brain!

  As long as manners are supposedly about _self_ control, you must hold
  the position that you should control somebody else's "self" if their
  manners are not to your taste, otherwise it would not even be valid
  for you to be concerned about the manners of others.  In other words,
  you are _actually_ favoring dictatorship and tyranny of "manners", in
  which everything that you disagree is "good manners" is subject to a
  fantastically stupid ad hominem attack: "Because you don't speak nice,
  your arguments and everything else you might say, is worthless."  This
  is a kind of snobbery that has been used to suppress people for ages.

  Your façade of good manners cannot hide what is inside: You truly
  believe that people who have what you consider bad manners are bad
  people, and probably (even though this is so idiotic it hurts) that
  people of good manners are good people.  The opposite is true: Bad
  people _need_ good manners _much_ more than good people need them.

| I'm sorry, but I see absolutely no grey area with lines like "you're a
| disgusting little fuck, Aaron Johnson."  Discussing whether this is or
| is not abusive is as interesting as trying to prove I'm not a
| duck-billed platypus.

  So discuss, with your excellent manners, how it came to be that that
  single line apparently embodies everything this forum has to offer to
  your anal-retentive need for good manners.  Cause and effect are of no
  use to you as long as you find a lack of good manners, right?

| This is certainly not *my* goal.  I would only try to improve the
| atmosphere through my own actions and be sure I am not sanctioning
| atrocious behavior by my silence.

  Your "improvement" is that of good-mannered passive agressiveness,
  which you should have been smart enough to realize pisses people off
  like nothing else if you have tried it in real life, instead of only
  in your good-mannered fantasies.  People who walk into fights, wearing
  halos and notions of moral superiority through their refined manners,
  have a bad habit of getting killed in real life.  The reason is quite
  simple: Their _condescending_ manners are not at all good manners.

One might argue that thinking intraverts might well seek social
stability and civil environments, lacking the inclination to
repeatedly hash-out the detailed foundations of their private (and
potentially alienated) world view.  You know, hang out in bookstores,
develop their art, build their robots, that sort of thing...

In this model, a deeply intraverted person wouldn't care about being
understood by any large number of people.  Yes, one might say that's
because they are insecure in their conclusions.  One might also say it
is because they are private people.  But to insist the former is mere
speculation.

A loud, abrasive, and volatile environment tends to amplify the chance
that non-technical topics appear and that this hypothetical intravert
will get entangled in technical debate intertwined with other
unwelcome stuff.  Meanwhile, the extravert gets an audience to work.

EN> Putting people first is the primary idiocy that we must to
EN> overcome to achieve a technical forum, indeed any technical
EN> progress at all.

  Are you trying to help in any way, or did I understand you?

EN> Are you trying to help in any way, or did I understand you?

the following is, in my opinion, a better example for your purpose:
many conservative christians believe firmly that governmental
restrictions on behavior and speech should be minimal, yet seemingly
abandon this position to promote their religious agendas, e.g., in
seeking to force all children to sit through prayer periods and in
working to replace the teaching of evolution with the teaching of
pseudoscientific creationism in science classes.

[snip]

my point was that the media tend to magnify the fringe elements of
the groups they cover in search of compelling sound bites and video
footage.  from just what the (US) media portrays the middle east, i
would be forced to conclude most moslems are terrorists or support
terrorism as a means for change.  i doubt that's the case.  similarly,
while media coverge of conservative american christians paints them
as violence-loving folk, that doesn't square with the reality that
i've experienced.  (which is not to say that they're not hypocrites-
when-outraged on other points, such as the non-violent examples i
offered above.)

* Marcus G. Daniels
| This presupposes a pre-existing and universally agreed on meaning to
| the word "help", a "court of competent jurisdiction" in which to
| have concluded that I am in fact being not being helpful, and, further, a
| requirement of participation in this group to be that one be helpful.

  Not at all, Marcus G. Doofus, it "presupposes" that you wouldn't be of
  any help even if you knew how, unless you were seriously misunderstood.
  Get a grip, dude.  You're the one who's laughing all the time.  Laugh!