--
And ælc þara þe gehierð þas min word, and þa ne wyrcþ, se bið gelic þæm
dysigan menn...

Maybe I should of staid out of you're discussion, aye?

My dictionary (1943 Concise Oxford; none of that misspelled American
rubbish) actually gives "fewer" as a definition for "less", along with
a sentence involving "less men" as an example of use (which is
precisely equivalent to "less parentheses"; QED)

If you're going to flame grammar, complain about people using "they"
when they mean "he", or "who" when they mean "whom", etc. :-)

--
Nomina stultorum in parietibus et portis semper videmus.      -- Cicero

And so what if I had such priorities. Learning isn't
the most important activity

--
Chris Page
Mac OS Guy
Palm, Inc.

  The amount of effort required is highly dependent on the person.  To
  some people, the existence of a nude image of a woman somewhere in
  the world is an extreme personal affront, and you cannot get through
  to them no matter how hard you try.  Others are similarly unable to
  deal with the existence of whatever "offends" and ticks them off.

  I'm arguing that the more effort it takes for you to learn something
  from a disagreeable source, the less you _will_ learn and the lesser
  human you are because you are distracted by qualities in others that
  would render yourself without support from others if it weren't for
  the fact that others are not so uptight and irrational as yourself.

  But then again, I'm not exactly a right-wing Republican.

| Pearls of wisdom are not so rare that one must reach into the toilet
| to grab them.

  Your feeling of having to reach into the toilet _is_ your problem.
  If you feel "dirtied" by the world in general, it is a psychological
  disorder you should seek help to get rid of if it gets out of hand.

  Please listen carefully, now.  You're still in the frame of mind
  where people who know something that others don't _teach_ it and
  where learning means listening to someone who communicates what they
  know that whoever listens presumably don't.  Learning isn't like
  that at all.  It isn't like that even in schools and universities.
  Learning is, to repaet myself, a profoundly _personal_ experience,
  and it's about your relationship with the world around you, and that
  _includes_ people, but they are far from primary.  Knowledge does
  not reside in the communications of knowledgeable people.  _Your_
  knowledge exists in _your_ brain.  It's _your_ responsibility to
  stuff _your_ brain with knowledge any way you can.

| Anyhow, I find it humorous that you redefined what it is to be
| "human" again.

  It is consistent with your idea of learning that concepts have only
  one meaning, and that people "define" humanity as one single aspect
  every time they point to some essential feature.  I am, however,
  quite amazed by this mode of thinking.

| Irrelevant, you implied the importance of activity on the part of
| the one sharing knowledge, yet you turn around and say you can learn
| from them without having them *teach* you.

  No, I certainly did not imply the importance of any activity on the
  part of the one "sharing" knowledge.  Even if I did, I'm very far
  from turning around: I have never said or implied that "learn" is
  _only_ the passive, receiving end of "teach".  Quite the contrary:
  Learning is an _active_ process.

| In other words, you somehow pointed out that you should be nice to
| those who have knowledge to share, while still arguing that *they*
| don't have to do anything for you to learn from them.

  No, I have never argued for anyone being nice.  I wonder if your
  world isn't coming in only two colors and that if I deny something,
  you automatically think that the contrary has been asserted.  This
  is just not the case.  I have argued that if you are _hostile_ to
  someone who knows more than you or are skillful and competent, they
  won't share anything with you.  Nothing in that implies being nice.
  Just be normal.  Nice is nicer than normal.

| There's a clear contradiction here, perhaps related to your changing
| definition of what "learning from someone" means.

  Nope, the contradictions are your own quite amazingly sloppy work.
  "Not nice" doesn't mean "hostile", just as "not hostile" doesn' mean
  "nice".  Both concepts imply the presence of a quality, and it is
  that presence that is denied in with "not", meaning that a
  contradition of either concept means that the quality is _absent_,
  not that some other quality (which one?) is present.

| Ridiculous. You face more people than you can possibly relate to.
| You can't "actively" learn from everyone.

  I can, because I don't put people first.  You do, so you can't.  And
  I don't learn _from_ people, I learn _via_ people.  I also don't
  teach people, I teach the stuff I know.  If people want to learn,
  that's good.  If they don't, they'd better not pretend to know what
  they don't.

| And so what if I had such priorities. Learning isn't the most
| important activity

  Thank you.  This is what I have wanted you to come out and say,
  because clearly you put something, and my guess/hunch/view on that
  is that that is people relations, first.  Then you'll never really
  learn, because you learn what other people tell you at best, not the
  stuff they are talking about.

| >  You know, the very essence of the ad hominem argument, which most
| >  people don't exactly take pride in the way you do, is that you don't
| >  want to listen to the argument because of the person.  I consider it
| >  an incredibly unintelligent approach to both people and arguments.
|
| Irrelevant.  If you're engaged in a formal debate, then you are
| simply not allowed to dismiss an argument based on the lack of
| credibility on the part of the opposition.  On the other hand,
| there's more information than you can possibly imagine, and it's
| okay to dismiss certain sources that you consider unreliable or
| offensive.

  Oh, great, so unless you're in a formal debate, ad hominems are
  perfectly OK?  Well, I tend to think there's something wrong with
  the people behind an argument quite often, but I still don't dismiss
  their _arguments_ as such.  You do.  I consider that moronic at best.

  However did you manage to confuse "unreliable" with "offensive"?
  And if this isn't saying "only nice people are reliable", nothing is.

| For example, when you're looking for a book in a certain area, do
| you not pay attention at all to who wrote it?  Do you read every
| single newspaper in the world?

  Highly irrelevant, and stupid too boot.

| >  I'd rather dismiss the person for his arguments any day.
|
| That on the other hand, would, vaguely qualify as "ad hominem" if
| you dismiss other aspects of a person based on his "arguments" in a
| specific area.

  Perhaps you should to look up what "argumentum ad hominem" means
  before you make a bigger fool of yourself?

  Dismissing the person means just that: I don't want to have to deal
  with the _person_.  Since you obviously have not yet grasped the
  very important distinction between a person and his actions and work
  or whatever his professional role, but still speak in terms of
  people when you want to gain knowledge of whatever you experience as
  the real world, there is no hope for you until you realize that in
  your quest for knowledge, people are just _media_.  (People are, of
  course, very nice to be around as such, but if you can't deal with
  the two functions of always learning and being with other people,
  you aren't really with other people, either.)

| Perhaps that's not how you meant it, but would you dismiss a
| Political Science professor on what he has to say about the world
| politics simply because he was unable to give coherent arguments for
| his ideas on the design of a LispOS.

  Irrelevant, and an incredibly stupid example.  Is this really the
  best you can do if you have to ridicule your opponents?  Clearly,
  learning is so far down on your list, I'll bet you'll have to go to
  classes to get into it, and that probably doesn't work well, either.

| >  As I have belabored, if you can't learn from the harsh parts of
| >  life, what do you expect to learn from the soft and kind?
|
| Why do you assume that he didn't "learn?"

  Why do you assume that?  Can't you deal with conditionals, either?

| Then don't deal with it.  If you find it necessary to deal with
| incompetence, then it's your problem.  Find a better place to work,
| hire better people, etc, etc.

  Oh, geez.  Spare me such infantile naïvité!  Show me a country where
  incompetent people are banned from power, private or public, and
  I'll pack up and move.  If it doesn't exist (which, since you have
  so problems with conditionals, it doesn't), there's no such thing as
  "go start your own country", or "go live on your own planet" unless
  you're just as moronic as I'm beginning to suspect you are.  (That's
  an instance of dismissing the person for his arguments.)

  I think you're assuming much too much.  Just because you can't stand
  something someone does, doesn't mean you can't stand that someone as
  a whole.  Even incredibly obese slobs who stink of last week's sweat
  and drool on their dirty clothes may have something useful to say or
  do, but "I can't stand this smell" is a perfectly valid statement.

| I know that I don't speak perfect English but I think most people
| can understand what I say.  If you speak so perfect English then be
| happy.  You certainly won't reached that level of ability without
| hard learning and many mistakes.

  I'm trying to tell you that you're so amazingly mistaken in how you
  deal with people who speak English reasonably well.  I tried very
  hard to point out that speaking better English than most native
  speakers is _not_ an accomplishment.  Speaking better Norwegian than
  most Norwegian native speakers is not an accomplishment, either.  So
  your _accusation_ about speaking perfectly is offensive because it
  is so incredibly irrelevant.

  Of course language training for a non-native speaker involves a lot
  of mistakes, and if it weren't for retards like Barry Margolin who
  only use other people's mistakes to shoot them down when he feels
  his hatred is justified, it's possible to identify specific mistakes
  and not repeat them.  Otherwise, you'll have to pay _very_ close
  attention to how other people write.  Of course, if you're _really_
  good, some people _will_ hate you for that, too, and then try to
  kill you or at least harrass you to death if you make a mistake.

  However, since there are so many people who go ballistic every time
  you tell them how something is supposed to be said/written/used, you
  have two types of reactions: the getting-irritated-until-you-explode
  and suppress-it-and-take-it-out-on-someone-else types.  Of course,
  there are people who wouldn't know a mistake from a correct usage,
  and thus don't care at all, and some of those go ballistic even at
  exposure to the concept that something might be _wrong_.

  I really thought that by highlighting the uselessness of comparing
  the _relative_ skills in two languages through an example with
  Swahili and Mandarin Chinese, you would understand that someone who
  is able to correct someone because of frequent mistake, does _not_
  have to be "perfect" or any other popular accusation against the
  skillful and competent, and he may in fact _be_ just as good in
  German or whatever, without being anywhere _near_ perfect.  In my
  particular example, "I speak Swahili _exactly_ as well as I speak
  Mandarin Chinese", this is true only because I speak both of them
  _not_at_all_.  Get it?

| In my opinion the way the original poster wrote is scornful to the
| posters that don't speak perfect english.

  Nobody in their right mind is scornful of someone who doesn't do
  something "perfectly".  I assume that people are irritated by
  repeated and unfixed mistakes, which is quite another thing.
  However, it is so alien to me that someone should have something
  against a _person_ merely because of his actions that I cannot even
  fathom how one can see scorn towards a repeated mistake as scorn
  towards those who make it.  A lot of people can't deal with the
  distinction between person and action, but that always seemed such
  an obviously serious character flaw that it cannot be assumed.

| >  I find such scorn towards competence to
| >   be _fantastically_ offensive.
|
| I find scorn towards the people who want to learn but haven't reached the
| state of being perfect _fantastically_ offensive.

  But whence this  obsession with "perfect"?  And how the hell do you
  know that he addressed "people who want to learn"?  That's a highly
  unwarranted assumption if there ever was one.  I hope your "want to
  learn" does not excuse every mistake people make as long as the
  underlying _motive_ is whether they want to learn.  (I always argue
  that if you try something too often and you consistently fail, it's
  better to give it up.)

| But on the other side if all corrections would be made this way  I'm
| sure fewer and fewer people would overcome themselves to post at a
| newsgroup that uses a language that they are not very good in.

  Only if they take it personally.  That's a bad idea on USENET.  Only
  if someone is really after _you_, should you consider that, and you
  know that for certain only when they prove that it doesn't matter
  what you _do_ -- they'll criticize _you_, anyway, and for the really
  hard evidence: look for criticism of what you _haven't_ done.  False
  accusations are the best proof ever that it's highly personal, and
  that the person on the other end is a deranged lunatic, too.  That's
  so infrequent that you have to wait for solid evidence, though.

| (I personally know many people who don't ever tried to post because
| they think they are not good enough in writing English)

  I have seen a lot of really weird posts by people who effectively
  say "I can read English, but I can't write squat, so pleae have me
  excused".  It's something hard to figure out what they mean, but
  at least they're aware of their predicament.

| But again - You're right that my posting was not very fair, so
| please excuse me.

  Sure, excused.  :)  But drop the "perfect" obsession, please.

  If you can no longer improve your English, that's an indictment of a
  dysfunctional brain that _I_ certainly would not have made public.

Shouldn't the word be "indication", not "indictment"?  An indictment is a
formal accusation, not the evidence that leads to it.

  The argument you made is usually made by people who _want_ to be
  sloppy and incompetent, and who are consequently scornful of whoever
  actually know their stuff.

Are you, or are you not, ridiculing the person you addressed with these
comments?  And do you deny that you take this tone frequently with posters
who don't measure up to your expectations of language or technical
precision?

BTW, if you didn't use such an ideosyncratic quoting style, I would be less
likely to prejudge your posts.  I wouldn't know who they're from (I usually
page past the headers quickly, and only look back at them if I need to).
But your posts virtually scream "Here comes another Naggumism!".

(And the royal "we".  Thus we have pronouns in
all three persons that are both gender- and
number-unspecific.  ;-> )

  That's because when you see it's from me, Barry, you can't see
  anything else.  You say so yourself: You prejudge my articles.
  Whatever you claim to see is certainly no excuse to accuse me of
  what _isn't_ there, which is what I'm reacting to, and which I'm
  challenging you to defend.  Your hatred is legendary, but it should
  stop short of false accusations.  Why doesn't it?  Are you insane?

  Now, give me some message-ID's where I "dish out" spelling and
  grammar flames or go kill yourself in shame, will you?

| Shouldn't the word be "indication", not "indictment"?

  Why do you _continue_ your spelling/grammar/etc bashing when you
  have _yet_ to prove that you have the right to do so?  Do you even
  remember by now that all this is predicated on your false accusation
  against me that _I_ dish out same so you can retaliate against me?
  So what is this?  Proactive retaliation, Barry Margolin style?  You
  have already established that you are more than willing to accuse
  people wrongly without remorse, as if your own psychosis is excuse
  enough to do whatever you want.  Have you killed any people because
  they "might" do you harm if they were as bad as you have conjured up
  your insane visions that they are?  Do you kill people, Barry?

| And do you deny that you take this tone frequently with posters who
| don't measure up to your expectations of language or technical
| precision?

  So _this_ is your justification for false accusations against me!
  I'm _so_ impressed.  What does it take for you to realize that what
  you keep doing is evil no matter what anyone else does in this world?

  Come on, now, give me some message-IDs where I "dish out" spelling
  and grammar flames!  You can do it, Barry, you can even figure out
  the checksum in my message-IDs and post some fakes, can't you?

| BTW, if you didn't use such an ideosyncratic quoting style, I would
| be less likely to prejudge your posts.

  No, I don't think so.  I don't think you are at all able _not_ to
  "prejudge" my posts.  It's all in your mind, Barry.  Please get some
  professional help to stop prejudging my posts.  It has nothing to do
  with the quoting style.  Seek professional counseling, Barry.

  And what, precisely, has kept you from reading my posts if they are
  so easily identifiable to you?  Are you so far into psychosis that
  you have lost whatever remnant of free will caused your evil, Barry?

  I'm looking forward to the message-IDs, so people can look at the
  whole article in context, because you sure can't, as that would
  deflate the entire defense for your incredibly evil behavior.

  You're much worse than I am, Barry: You hate.  You'll kill if you
  could get away with it, and I suspect that one day, perhaps in the
  past, you really will kill someone in that blind hatred of yours.

Rather than actually containing grammar criticism, it seems to be
insulting the other poster for his unwillingness to accept unsolicited
grammar corrections.  Not a significant difference, IMHO.

But I guess if I'm really psychotic as you said, I wouldn't know it, so my
response obviously means nothing.

"Scorn them, and they will not try again with you,
and perhaps not with others."

If learning was a process that you describe as above,
why would I care if they will try again with me or
with others?

"Scorn them, and they will not try again with you,
and perhaps not with others."

Confusion orients from my attempts to try to write
in your own lingo, which of course confuses and
upsets you greatly, because of the inherent
contradictions you discover.

Note a paradox in the sentence I'm referring to in your
own website.

Where you get "psychotic prejudice" from is not clear.

It seems like quite a leap for you to jump to accusative phrases like:
  "Is this your psychotic prejudice running amuck again?"
  "Your hatred blinds you"
  "You're so overpowered by your hatred"

Quoting the full context, with **emphasis added**:

"I think the relevant point here is that knowledge is available from a
wide variety of sources so **it is not necesary to go to all the trouble
it takes communicating with people who dump alot of person[a]l crap into
otherwise normal conversations. **

Pearls of wisdom are not so rare that one must reach into the toilet to
grab them."

It is left as an exercise for the readers of c.l.l to puzze out who it
could be who would "dump alot of person[a]l crap into otherwise normal
conversations." It's no use pretending that "the world in general" is as
routinely abusive as this sort of person.

Ralph

--

  Oh, geez, this is _so_ pathetic.  No _actual_ criticism, of course!,
  certainly _no_ dishing out, of course!, but something which Barry
  Margolin, the ultimate hateful psycho, claims is not "significantly
  different" because that way he can keep believing he's in the right.
  You really are devoid of reasoning abilities behind all that hatred.

| Would you please stop using that word?

  No.  Provide some evidence of sanity and absence of hatred on your
  part.  _All_ you're doing is making it harder and harder to pretend
  you aren't so hateful that you can't see or think straight.  I don't
  change my mind in the face of sheer lack of evidence the way you do,
  so you have to _do_ something that can alter the impression you
  leave that no matter _what_ I do, your psychotic hatred will "see"
  something that isn't there but which you can accuse me of, and then
  when you're exposed as a liar, fraud, and psychotic, the best you
  can come up with is something that is "not significantly different"
  to _you_.  Well, big surprise, there!  _Nothing_ is _significantly_
  different from what you accuse people of, unjustly and falsely.

  You don't _have_ to read what I post, you sick psycho.  If you do,
  it's because you need to feed your insanity and hatred and need to
  take it out on me whenever there's something else that triggers your
  psychosis.  More importantly, there's _nothing_ I can do to make
  these insane accusations of yours stop.  Your hatred is eternal, and
  no longer based in reality.  We established that the first time you
  _admitted_ that you couldn't see anything I did unless it fit your
  preconceptions.  I was stupid to accept your apology.  You're not
  the kind of person whose apologies can be accepted, Barry Margolin.

  I suspected you wouldn't understand that and resort to some idiocy
  like "learn English" when you clearly can't grasp a concept of
  medium complexity in logic.  I'm sorry I wasted any effort on you.
  It was obvious that when you didn't clue in on "ad hominem".

  I hope you figure out the concept of negation in your next life.
  All your crap about contradictions have one root cause: That you
  can't grasp the nature of negation.

  Why don't you explain the obvious one more time?  I'm sure nobody
  figured it out by themselves the first time, so your continued help
  and guidance would be most welcome!

  I guess you would blame the victim of hatred elsewhere.  It's all
  too common for bystanders to do that, but that's the kind of thing
  that keeps the hatred going.  Defend hatred, and you end up with
  people who kill because they can no longer control it and whole
  movements of people who blame some _group_ of people or just someone
  for every ill on the planet.  Remember the lynch mobs?  Guess who
  they would blame for their ills.  You know this evil in progress
  when you see a false accusation that is not corrected, but instead
  reinforced, when criticized, and when the concept of justice is
  discarded in favor of following the hateful emotions.  Barry
  Margolin has even admitted to be that kind of person previously.
  He has learned exactly nothing.