[snipped due to badwidth limitations]

I have a better theory: people like you, who understand their intellectual
inferiority and inability to provide substance, often try to overcompensate
by providing volume.

Most all, I value the detailed critiques of both specific Lisp syntax and
generalized programming -- not just from Msr Naggum but the whole cll
community.

If he writes code the way he writes his posts, his programs must be pages
after pages after pages of long-winded repetitive drivel.

The issue is not whether he is a decent coder however, but what makes him so
long-winded and verbally abusive. I don't know about the verbal
abusiveness, but I think his long-windedness is a product of
  a) low intelligence, resulting in his inability to express himself tersely
or
  b) same, resulting in a desire to overcompensate
In private email, two people who will go unnamed [1] suggested
  c) narcissism
and
  d) "[the fact that] Erik sucks" (which pretty much sums it up ;-)

Oleg

--

Regards,
--
Nils Gösche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."

  "Oleg" is not insulting me.  He is trying to communicate to me that
  he feels a debilitating powerlessness to respond intelligently to
  me.  I can feel his pain.  I have presented him with a model of the
  world with which he cannot begin to grapple, and I present this
  model with such force that he can only feel rage and rebellion; all
  he can do is succumb to a desire to shriek "no!  no!  it isn't so!".

  "Oleg" is not the first person to encounter a text that presents the
  reader with two simultaneous impossibilities: (1) a different view
  to a reality he does not recognize but feels he should, and (2) such
  a powerful model (or set of models) that the reader has two choices:
  (a) to bow to and accept it, or (b) be steamrollered by it.  The
  failure to deal with such impossibilities causes people to take to
  the street to protest against high prices of necessities, to fight
  globalization with riots, etc.  The /right/ way to deal with it is
  of course to challenge the underlying model, but this requires both
  skill and intelligence; hence his profound sense of powerlessness.

  "Oleg" is the kind of person who needs texts that are squarely in
  the mainstream, such that every idea is expressed with few words and
  requires no thought of its readers.  Because he is not intelligent
  enough to recognize when other people are more intelligent than he
  is, he truly believes that those who disagree with his models of the
  world are wrong, or mad.  People of that category have risen to the
  role of president of the nation he posts from and probably lives in.

  The impotent, futile rebellion of "Oleg" exemplifies the inability
  of the illiterate and uneducated to deal with the expression of
  ideas that require a background different from the one they barely
  succeeded in securing.  (Hence his preoccupation with high-school
  drop-outs.)  Now, contrary to what some people believe, you can be
  illiterate and uneducated and still have an academic degree -- the
  system is not bullet-proof in weeding out the useless.  One may hold
  a PhD and yet be culturally illiterate, unable to place information
  in a larger context, much less question it and see it questioned.
  Yet the more "approved" such a maleducated person is by his peers,
  the more he may believe that the /exclusive/ models characteristic
  of those of meager resources is also the fundamentally correct way
  to approach models, i.e., that alternative truths threaten all the
  established truths and that those who offer additional models have
  intended to dethrone the accepted models, violently.

  "Oleg" has also watched me try to shake people out of their sleep,
  so he believes that being brutal is the acceptable method of getting
  somebody's attention.  The problem is that he has yet to figure out
  when to apply this methodology and behaves much like a president of
  one country who has memorized that the military could free a country
  from an oppressor and therefore becomes an oppressor and attacker of
  another country's leader because he is too goddamn stupid to figure
  out the difference between attack and self-defense.  We should
  therefore give people in the formerly great United States of America
  a lot of lee-way at this crucial time in history.  Their bumbling
  moron of a leader has been elected and is supported by the "Oleg"
  category of people.  It is about as fruitful to ask these people to
  get a grip on themselves as it is to ask an illiterate to go read a
  million words before he opens his mouth again.  It may be the best
  advice they could get, but it would take years to do it, and the
  recipient of the advice would not grasp its benevolent nature.

  If the United States of America cleans up the systemic flaws that
  led George W. Bush to the presidency, perhaps its ignorant masses
  will quiet down and once again accept that if somebody does not
  agree with them, it could be because they know better, but as long
  as this dangerous retard is their leader, we should expect that a
  large number of miscreants want to be taken seriously like their
  president, who is one of them.  "Oleg" is just a symptom of a
  tragedy unfolding on continental scale.  His powerlessness and his
  clear expression of /fear/ of something superior to himself that he
  cannot control is simply to be expected.  He posts from Columbia
  University, in New York City, so he is probably still reeling from
  the shock of finally having to deal with reality.

  So be nice to "Oleg" and his like for the time being.  When their
  stupid president has gone to war and their currency has become so
  cheap we Europeans can buy up the whole country instead of paying
  for more members to the European Union, we have to act like true
  gentlemen towards the infirm and the losers in battle.  After all,
  it was we Europeans who subjugated war to the rule of law, which the
  uncultured Americans and their doddering lubbard of a president has
  yet to grasp what means.  An angry American who hurls insults at
  this time is really an incredibly pathetic display of an attempt to
  reach out and ask for approval and validation of his helplessness.
  History will judge "Oleg" and "Dubya" much more harshly than we
  could do here in a newsgroup supposedly about programming languages,
  so the illness should just be allowed to run its course.  With any
  luck, the population of the United States wakes up before the next
  election.  Most of us can wait patiently for them to regain their
  senses, so we should sit by their sickbed rather than beat them up
  when they have violent fits.

  I strongly recommend that whoever can still read this in the heavily
  censored United States try to band together resistance groups so you
  can recuperate some of your nation's glory.  The right to bear arms
  was instituted precisely to protect against wayward presidents and
  politicians who led the country astray.  It is not too late, you can
  still be a civilized country.  If you think other countries need to
  get rid of bad leaders, set an /excellent/ example by removing the
  single most dangerous man on the planet from power, so maybe Saddam
  Hussein will resign nicely because he saw how effectively it worked.

  We can deal with "Oleg" and his like after the important matters.

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

And BTW, the last time I posted anything about Lisp here was in the recent
"Two Do questions" thead. Flat-out lying would be bad for your credibility,
if you had any.

I was, in fact, in downtown NYC on 9/11/2001, but what does this have to do
with ANYTHING, sicko?! If the above isn't the most textbook example of
overcompensating logorrhea, what is?!

Oleg

Email it to Seinfeld !

--
natsu-gusa ya  / tsuwamono-domo-ga / yume no ato
summer grasses / strong ones       / dreams site

--
natsu-gusa ya  / tsuwamono-domo-ga / yume no ato
summer grasses / strong ones       / dreams site

Maybe I should have asked in private. Please tell me if I really should
have. Thanks.

  The Geneva Conventions.

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

Do you suggest that those Conventions did help make the 20th century
european wars more human and less cruel ? That they did anything to
prevent an escalation in the scale and cruelty of 1st (mass-murder of
civilians enrolled by force in the "patriotic armies") , 2nd world wars
(like 1st + mass-slaughter of civilians according to so-called racial
criteria), not to mention the decolonisation wars... ?

We in Europe didn't subjugate anything. The Geneva Conventions are a very
bad joke in the face of the very million of people who died by forced
enrollment / work / displacement, guns, canons, flak, bombs, fire,
torture, provoken illness and starvation, gas, and any combination of
those.

So, it may not be a good argument to raise with Oleg or whoever, as Idiot
and Fierce and Dumb Patriotic United-States-ian as he might be...

Or maybe you were just trolling. But that doesn't look like you (fwik).

  And I feared you did in fact know and were only trolling.

| We in Europe didn't subjugate anything.

  You are now mixing your opinion with legal fact.  You also appear to
  confuse the existence of a system with some desirable results, in
  effect denying that the system exists if it has not produced all the
  results you desire.  You may find it surprising, but I do not wish
  to entertain a discussion with you on such premises.

| Or maybe you were just trolling. But that doesn't look like you (fwik).

  I thought you were.  I know nothing about you, but you have shown a
  lack of willingness to distinguish important historic facts from
  your opinions based on human suffering.  That is very troll-like in
  my book.  Bringing up human suffering is generally dishonest and
  anti-intellectual.  It is like discussing health care systems and
  bringing up a suffering baby and asking "would you kill this baby?".
  Those who do that kind of thing tend to explode in irrationalities
  when I would answer "yes".  I take it for granted that you now wish
  to explode with hatred and will hurl accusations against me for
  supporting genocide and what not at this point -- I have seen what I
  believe to be your kind several times before -- so you do not have
  to actually do it.  If you wish to make a different point, such as
  showing that you understand what "rule of law" means, I may respond,
  but the way you have chosen to argue, any future silence on my part
  simply means that I am too exasperated to deal with you.

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

I oppose legal facts with facts.
Facts are.
Legal facts are on paper, until someone enforces them. That was part of my
point.

Tom Lord said a few days ago :

Reread my post. It is not an opinion based on "human suffering" in
general. It is an assertion of the scale of the wars we had un Europe in
the 20th century, and some of their, hmmm, features. Maybe I write badly.

Although being rational is supremely important, there are cases were it
doesn't help.

But this is probably not what you mean.  Often when people say
there are cases where rationality ``doesn't help´´ they mean that
in those cases irrationality would be more appropriate
(environmentalists often argue that way).

What do you mean?

# Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country
# from  those in a  country under  arbitrary government  than the
# observance in the  former of the great principles  known as the
# Rule of  Law.  Stripped of all technicalities,  this means that
# government  in all  its actions  is  bound by  rules fixed  and
# announced beforehand -- rules which make it possible to foresee
# with  fair certainty how  the authority  will use  its coercive
# powers  in given  circumstances  and to  plan one's  individual
# affairs on the basis of  this knowledge.  Though this ideal can
# never be perfectly achieved, since legislators as well as those
# to whom the administration of the law is intrusted are fallible
# men,  the essential  point,  that the  discretion  left to  the
# executive organs  wielding coercive power should  be reduced as
# much as  possible, is clear enough.  While  every law restricts
# individual freedom  to some extent by altering  the means which
# people may use in the pursuit  of their aims, under the Rule of
# Law  the government  is prevented  from  stultifying individual
# efforts by /ad hoc/ action.  Within the known rules of the game
# the individual is free to pursue his personal ends and desires,
# certain  that  the  powers  of  government  will  not  be  used
# deliberately to frustrate his efforts.

Regards,
--
Nils Gösche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.

But, I am in agreement with you. All those who do not follow our
(remember, I'm on your side) point of view (that, I think, is everyone
except us) must be banned from using cll. They don't even know lisp,
that they claim to have been using it since before we were born proves
that their knowledge of lisp (and hence CS) is pathetically
inadequate. We are the programmers, we are the lispers, we are new
generation: going to take over [on] the world. Erik and his cronies
(i.e. those who do not agree with us) are the bad guys. What kind of
people would point out errors in us that we do not have (e.g. [they
say that] "we are unable to accept our errors")? Obviously they are
fools. And they attack upon our person (they, of-course, claim that
they don't, but we know better), and since such acts are so vile, so
despicable, the only way to counter it is to fling similar attacks
upon them ourselves. Wait, how about ignoring it? or worse actually
reading it and (still worse) /understanding it/? Yech! Only fools, and
cowards would bow down from the stand they've taken. Not us: men of
all men. (Refer Dave Barry's "Complete Guide To Guys"[*]) We
personally cannot understand how men like you (usually Erik) exist in
this world (now that we do, we simply refuse to acknowledge it, and
continue disbelieving) (quite similar to the belief of God that most
of us hold on to), trying to make this world a better [1] (er... I
mean worse) place to live in, we refuse to stand numb. We shall prove
that stupidity (oops, I meant superior intelligence), anger, rage,
violent instincts, and bombs in our control, will not be subdued. Ha!
You think Hitler was bad! Watch the new rage of hatred on the rise.
[2]

Ole![g]

[*] Guys, while stupid, do no harm (or so Barry sez) :)

[1] As is said in Catch-22 (or something close to it) One good apple
can spoil the rest.

[2] Oscar Wilde was right when he said that one is more intellectual
when being cynical. That paragraph was surprisingly easy for me to
write, primarily, I think, because I don't believe most of what I
wrote.

Thanks,

And then...

How do your intentions (iow, your ENDS) relate to rationality ? This is
the hard part of the discussion...

This has nothing to do with "irrationality", fuckin'Jesus !
FWIK, irrationality = madness (sort of), or a great tool to manipulate
people (by weakening their ability to reason), etc...

The Rule of Law seems to be an important concept of yours. But I'll have a
hard time to map it onto what I already know. So Hayek's citation isn't a
great help.

At first look, I just find it all unsound and full of void... (so unreal
and ideological).

Many people believe that man causes ``global warming´´ and we are
supposed, and able, to do anything about it.  There is absolutely
no scientific proof for this -- by applying as much rationality
as possible, we still can't come up with any conclusions of what
steps have to be taken, or if any at all (never mind the question
whether a significant ``global warming´´ is indeed going to
happen at all).  So far, so good.  Let's do nothing about it, I
say.  However, the typical environmentalist, people like, say, Al
Gore, believe in ``global warming´´ anyway and argue that this is
a case where rationality ``fails´´ (it is very interesting that
people like that also often claim that the market ``fails´´ in
some regard -- which seems to be a totally meaningless statement
to me, too.  The market just happens -- it cannot ``fail´´; much
like the rule of gravitation).  So, as rationality ``fails´´ do
give the desired result, we have to disregard it and wreck our
economy anyway by taking all kinds of socialist measures that
will supposedly save the earth.  Where does Al Gore know that?
This is what I would like to understand -- how do we magically
obtain truths like that without employing rationality?
(Obviously, I think you can't)

Yes, the ``gap´´ /is/ huge.  To build some bridges, one has to
start at the very basics and discuss for years.  I don't think we
can do that here.  If you really want to know what motivates
``evil right-wingers´´ like me to make so stupid and evil
statements, you might start reading their books.  Hayek's ``The
Road to Serfdom´´ might actually be a good start.

And of course: I am just guessing here, too.  Actually, I cannot
infer all I did about you from what you've written.  I apologize
in advance if I totally misjudged you.  Take it as a working
hypothesis :-)

Regards,
--
Nils Gösche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.

b) Naggum didn't just mention WTC. His message was that Americans "finally"
got what they deserved for electing Bush, not listening enough to Erik,
disagreeing with Erik, etc. :

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=325121060...

He calls me uneducated for disliking him, and then he writes that I may have
a Ph.D. [1], and still be illiterate. Doesn't this make for a very "narrow"
definition of education?

BTW I don't believe I mentioned my views on the American foreign policy on
USENET once. His having written that long Nazi-like facts-distorting
European supremacist tirade is a clear indication of mental issues.

Oleg

[1] Which I do expect to earn later this year.

What to employ instead ? Nothing off course.

[cut]

I really don't see how economy can be more than a part of sociology,
were most researchers (hmmm, those I read anyway) 1) sample vast aspects
of their domain 2) try to build some piece of theory, not the other way
around.

If liberal economists were to redesign physics on their own, we would
learn in school how great the ptolemean system is (with lots of maths to
"prove" their fictions), wouldn't we ?-)

But liberal economists sit here for a reason : they are extremely useful
as an ideological shield and pseudo-scientific caution for (liberal,
so-called socialist or whatever) politicians.

I would like to be proved wrong, off course, but I suspect that will be
hard.