* Janos Blazi | My grandparents died in Auschwitz. Thank you very much.
good, I got your attention, so maybe NOW you can FINALLY realize how incredibly offensively YOU are behaving towards me, and JUST STOP IT! thank you very much, indeed, for your COOPERATION in this regard.
What exactly do you mean by "good"? That two of my grandparents were killed in Ausschwitz? Or you have taught a jew a lesson?
All this clearly shows youe mentality and I am not going to qualify your behaviour as the facts speak for themselves.
But the point is, that by now everybody who visits this newsgroup regularly, should know it and they should be shouting with horror. Their only excuse is that you are one of them and they are so few.
But is this a good excuse?
Janos Blazi
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 3150565802951...@naggum.no...
> * Janos Blazi > | My grandparents died in Auschwitz. Thank you very much.
> good, I got your attention, so maybe NOW you can FINALLY realize how > incredibly offensively YOU are behaving towards me, and JUST STOP IT! > thank you very much, indeed, for your COOPERATION in this regard.
* Janos Blazi | But the point is, that by now everybody who visits this newsgroup | regularly, should know it and they should be shouting with horror.
this is exactly what I have been trying to make you realize about _your_ behavior, and it _should_ be sinking in by now, since I managed to offend you sufficiently to jump-start your otherwise dormant brain. what amazed me with you is that you are so dead set on proving that you are free of all forms of fault. only people who are actually evil have this need.
the question before me is this: _when_ will you realize that you cannot _both_ proclaim that you are opposed to rudeness and ill behavior _and_ be one of the most despicably disgusting people on this newsgroup, going after people who have been "rude" to your stupidity. I have told you before, and I'll say it again: GET OVER IT! (that seems to apply to more things than just having experienced rudeness, however.) if someone is not "sufficiently" kind to you, it is stupid beyond belief to go after them, because you prove that you deserve whatever you got and more. you, however, are the kind of person who goes after people, not their actions: you can't even see the difference between calling an action stupid and the man stupid, a difference any intelligent man can see. normal people don't _identify_ with every one of their actions to the point where they lose their sense of dignity if one of the actions is criticized -- but you do, and then attack others for having shown this fact to you. you should fix that, because you're seriously broken in they way you react to criticism, and the criticism you hand out to others is _really_ stupid, missing the mark by miles, such as the extraordinary lame attempt to once again shift all blame for your lack of intelligence and good behavior over on someone who "made you do it". but, hey, for all I know, that could be your "cultura" and your "tradition" and you can't change it without seriously damaging your ability to join your people. let me know if this is the case, and I'll get off your back. at least as long as you keep off mine, which I have come to trust you won't unless I zap you with a cattle prod every time you climb back, but stranger things have happened.
now, just behave well, Janos Blazi. it's you who want people to be nice to eachother -- so just start with yourself. like right now.
I do not know why you are doing this. First you said I am a nazi. It did not work so now you are taking an antisemitic attitude, if I understood you correctly. But why? I have not hurt your feelings. I have not even talked to you. O.K., you may have misunderstood my remark about "Ericking", but it had nothing to with you, it was an unfortunate coincidence and even the spelling was different. I did not hink of you (I usually do not) and I did not even notice. But anyway, I am sorry for that. But again I assure you, it had nothing to do with you. Otherwise the reference to Englishmen from the last century would make no sense.
So you said I was a stupid idiot. Yes, you did not say that expressis verbis, but you hinted that I was not able to order a book, you hinted that I was one of those stupid idiots who are manipulated by the mass media (thougf we all are) etc. But that was all right. But then you started giving me this filth, you started with the Nazis and swithced to the jews. When I told you about my grandparents you were happy and did not show the slightest remorse. What kind of man are you? How much filth is in you? Is nothing sacred for you?
But all right. This is my last response to you. You may response once and I shall read your response and I shall not answer any more. So please do not talk to me again (bur for your last response).
János Blázi
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 3150576159369...@naggum.no...
> * Janos Blazi > | But the point is, that by now everybody who visits this newsgroup > | regularly, should know it and they should be shouting with horror.
> this is exactly what I have been trying to make you realize about _your_ > behavior, and it _should_ be sinking in by now, since I managed to offend > you sufficiently to jump-start your otherwise dormant brain. what amazed > me with you is that you are so dead set on proving that you are free of > all forms of fault. only people who are actually evil have this need.
> the question before me is this: _when_ will you realize that you cannot > _both_ proclaim that you are opposed to rudeness and ill behavior _and_ > be one of the most despicably disgusting people on this newsgroup, going > after people who have been "rude" to your stupidity. I have told you > before, and I'll say it again: GET OVER IT! (that seems to apply to more > things than just having experienced rudeness, however.) if someone is > not "sufficiently" kind to you, it is stupid beyond belief to go after > them, because you prove that you deserve whatever you got and more. you, > however, are the kind of person who goes after people, not their actions: > you can't even see the difference between calling an action stupid and > the man stupid, a difference any intelligent man can see. normal people > don't _identify_ with every one of their actions to the point where they > lose their sense of dignity if one of the actions is criticized -- but > you do, and then attack others for having shown this fact to you. you > should fix that, because you're seriously broken in they way you react to > criticism, and the criticism you hand out to others is _really_ stupid, > missing the mark by miles, such as the extraordinary lame attempt to once > again shift all blame for your lack of intelligence and good behavior > over on someone who "made you do it". but, hey, for all I know, that > could be your "cultura" and your "tradition" and you can't change it > without seriously damaging your ability to join your people. let me know > if this is the case, and I'll get off your back. at least as long as you > keep off mine, which I have come to trust you won't unless I zap you with > a cattle prod every time you climb back, but stranger things have > happened.
> now, just behave well, Janos Blazi. it's you who want people to be nice > to eachother -- so just start with yourself. like right now.
> In my Larousse: > "Ésoterique: (gr. esoterikos, réservé auc seuls adeptes). Qualification > donnée, dans les écoles des ancien philosphes, á leur doctrine secrète. || > Incompréhensible aux personnes non initiées..."
> In dictionary.com: > esoteric \Es`o*ter"ic\, a. Marked by secrecy or privacy; private; select; > confidential; as, an esoteric purpose; an esoteric meeting.
> esoteric \Es`o*ter"ic\, n. (Philos.) (a) An esoteric doctrine or treatise; > esoteric philosophy; esoterics. (b) One who believes, or is an initiate, in > esoteric doctrines or rites.
> So I think this is pretty much the same as what I meant. I did not looked it > up before. I had not consulted my LAROUSSE.
> (2) > You always attribute the worst possible sense tp my words and the you > respond with personal attacks.
> (3) > "C/C++/Java/Perl/etc are for people who want to make things that work. > Common Lisp is for peple who want to make things that don't break. > "
> So what kind of generalisation is this? And all the other stuff you have put > forward?
> (4) > You said my first letter was stupid and boring. Well, the newsgroup is not > your property. Neither is it my property. I came up with a question or with > a group of questions that were very important to me. I received a lot of > interesting, constructive and informative responses. And I received personal > attacks (like the question whether I smoked (drugs I supposed)).
> But it is your unquestioned right to get bored whenever you want to. Then > please skip the thread. > To judge by the numbers of letters that were published many people did not > find this topic boring.
> (5) > When I visited the university bookshop in my own town and there was only one > book on LISP and when after that I visited the big Harry Deutsch university > bookshop in Frankfurt and I found NOT A SINGLE VOLUME on LISP there, I new > that something must have gone wrong with LISP. And now I have found out the > reason.
You have been to the wrong bookstore in Frankfurt. Next time, check out "Staak und Beirich, Fachbuchhandlung für Informatik", Braubachstrasse 36, 60311 Frankfurt/Main. They are having a great overall selection of titles and also an AI section in the basement. E.g., Graham's books "Commmon Lisp" and "On Lisp" and others are available there.
regards,
Klaus.
> (6) > I indeed questioned an attitude but I had not launched any personal attacks. > Never. There is absolutely no excuse to respond with such. There is no > excuse to use rude language ever.
> I have not responded to you as I am a very peaceful man and I only wanted to > be told about the current state of affaires.
* Janos Blazi | I do not know why you are doing this.
to stop you in mid-action and make you think about what you're doing.
my purpose was to give you a few hints on how you are seriously annoying people with a whole bunch of actions which you would be a smart person to cease and desist performing. in other words: YOU COULD CHANGE YOUR BEHAVIOR TO BE LESS ANNOYING TO PEOPLE. however, you are hintproof -- you don't even understand that you are annoying people in the first place. if you get criticized for something, you take it personally, no matter what people were _actually_ saying to you, and then go on to make a whole lot of really insane comments about others and what they have said, which _really_ annoys people. you don't see the difference between "you behave like an X" and "you are an X", for _any_ value of X, which makes it impossible to talk to you, because analogoy is a fundamental means of communication. the way you respond now indicates to me that you're hurting so badly inside that any further attempt to make you reflect on yourself and your behavior towards others would probably make you insane. your retaliatory actions were fantastically out of place and counter-productive in the extreme, as the evidence would suggest you also make an effort to understand your part in. you COULD have helped suggest to us all that you weren't a bad guy by _actually_ behaving like a decent human being, instead of switching to a moronic attack mode. it's your choice. you chose the attacking moron. now, please understand that you were criticized for some of your actions (and then your defense of them), while you yourself have been spewing a lot of personal attacks at others in "retaliation". if you don't want personal attacks, stay above them. that is not what you did, and it caused what you have seen.
there are lots of people here who are willing to help anyone who wants to learn Lisp. there are also lots of people here who have no patience with those who do not want to learn Lisp but instead waste everybody's time with a whole bunch of idiotic claims and "questions" that can be found by anyone who does their own homework, including a little net searching, reading recommended books, etc. patience with stupidity is not a virtue.
now, let's see if you can actually talk about any relevant issues.
Oh, THAN YOU! When I asked at Harry Deutsch they told me there was another bookshop SOMEWHERE but nobody knew where it was. I even asked some customers there! Though I should have a plan of Frankfurt somewhere, it would be nice to give me a hint where this Straße is.
Is there still another bookshop in Frankfurt I do not know about?
Thx in advance, Janos Blazi
<klausm...@my-deja.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 7vov4b$gn...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article > <aborigine-7vcqle/INN-2.2.1/al...@broadway.news.is-europe.net>, > "Janos Blazi" <jbl...@netsurf.de> wrote: > > (1) > > Now I have looked ip the word "esoteric":
> > In my Larousse: > > "Ésoterique: (gr. esoterikos, réservé auc seuls adeptes). > Qualification > > donnée, dans les écoles des ancien philosphes, á leur doctrine > secrète. || > > Incompréhensible aux personnes non initiées..."
> > In dictionary.com: > > esoteric \Es`o*ter"ic\, a. Marked by secrecy or privacy; private; > select; > > confidential; as, an esoteric purpose; an esoteric meeting.
> > esoteric \Es`o*ter"ic\, n. (Philos.) (a) An esoteric doctrine or > treatise; > > esoteric philosophy; esoterics. (b) One who believes, or is an > initiate, in > > esoteric doctrines or rites.
> > So I think this is pretty much the same as what I meant. I did not > looked it > > up before. I had not consulted my LAROUSSE.
> > (2) > > You always attribute the worst possible sense tp my words and the you > > respond with personal attacks.
> > (3) > > "C/C++/Java/Perl/etc are for people who want to make things that work. > > Common Lisp is for peple who want to make things that don't break. > > "
> > So what kind of generalisation is this? And all the other stuff you > have put > > forward?
> > (4) > > You said my first letter was stupid and boring. Well, the newsgroup is > not > > your property. Neither is it my property. I came up with a question or > with > > a group of questions that were very important to me. I received a lot > of > > interesting, constructive and informative responses. And I received > personal > > attacks (like the question whether I smoked (drugs I supposed)).
> > But it is your unquestioned right to get bored whenever you want to. > Then > > please skip the thread. > > To judge by the numbers of letters that were published many people did > not > > find this topic boring.
> > (5) > > When I visited the university bookshop in my own town and there was > only one > > book on LISP and when after that I visited the big Harry Deutsch > university > > bookshop in Frankfurt and I found NOT A SINGLE VOLUME on LISP there, I > new > > that something must have gone wrong with LISP. And now I have found > out the > > reason.
> You have been to the wrong bookstore in Frankfurt. > Next time, check out "Staak und Beirich, Fachbuchhandlung > für Informatik", Braubachstrasse 36, 60311 Frankfurt/Main. > They are having a great overall selection of titles and > also an AI section in the basement. E.g., Graham's books > "Commmon Lisp" and "On Lisp" and others are available there.
> regards,
> Klaus.
> > (6) > > I indeed questioned an attitude but I had not launched any personal > attacks. > > Never. There is absolutely no excuse to respond with such. There is no > > excuse to use rude language ever.
> > I have not responded to you as I am a very peaceful man and I only > wanted to > > be told about the current state of affaires.
> Oh, THAN YOU! When I asked at Harry Deutsch they told me there was another > bookshop SOMEWHERE but nobody knew where it was. I even asked some customers > there! Though I should have a plan of Frankfurt somewhere, it would be nice > to give me a hint where this Straße is.
> Is there still another bookshop in Frankfurt I do not know about?
Oh come on ... I've seen "off topic" before, but this is just plain silly.
In article <381F1D3E.D5E28...@pindar.com> w.dea...@pindar.com wrote: > No, since this is not what I said, I was pointing out that employers are > interested in nothing more that a computer science degree.
And, what do they think that they are getting?
After being on the other side of the desk, and talking to others similarly situated, I said that we/they are expecting little more than "can learn something about Computer Science".
> > Likewise, asking 15 out of 90 people to find another field of study > > doesn't suggest that a University is all that interested in weeding out > > people who are just wasting space, particularly if we're discussing a > > physics program.
> What does it mean then?
15 out of 90 in physics isn't weeding (unless, perhaps, we're discussing about final year PhD students - it certainly isn't weeding for 1st year University) - it's window-dressing.
Andy Freeman wrote: > And, what do they think that they are getting?
Well, shaved monkeys probably. Or not. On re-reading, I should have added the caveat "some employeers..."
> After being on the other side of the desk, and talking to others > similarly situated, I said that we/they are expecting little more than > "can learn something about Computer Science".
Yup. No argument there.
> 15 out of 90 in physics isn't weeding (unless, perhaps, we're discussing > about final year PhD students - it certainly isn't weeding for 1st year > University) - it's window-dressing.
che cosa? non capisco! What percentage of people is weeding then?
> > 15 out of 90 in physics isn't weeding (unless, perhaps, we're discussing > > about final year PhD students - it certainly isn't weeding for 1st year > > University) - it's window-dressing.
> che cosa? non capisco! What percentage of people is weeding then?
I misread your original message, because you mentioned the word weeding. I interpreted your sentence as saying only 15 stayed and 75 had to find another area of study. I learnt about what you really referred to as 'weeding' when Andy responded to you.
By the way, universities (or courses) are varied in terms of the difficulty of getting in versus the difficulty of surviving. I think it's preferable to make entry relatively easy and weed out a large portion of people later, as it gives a chance to people who do better at higher level teaching than the comparatively superficial way of teaching in grammar school, and weeds out people who can not meet the requirements despite good marks or a successful exam.
An example: when you study physics in a grammar school, you are required to _learn_ things like E=1/2mv^2. At university, you learn about derivation and you can forget about all these specific expressions as you can get them (and much more complex things) any time, and you move on to learn about tensors etc. (OK, in some grammar schools, derivation and some integration may be part of the curriculum.)
This is a bit like Lisp vs. le langage du jour - Lisp gives you powerful and general tools, while Perl, PHP etc. give you specific tools (in form of built-in facilities or available libraries) that are easy and handy for simple tasks (e.g., making your program download your mail into a database).
Robert Monfera wrote: > I think it's preferable to make entry ... easy [,] and weed out ... people > later, as it gives a chance to people who do better at higher level teaching > ...
I have an Italian friend who complains about this method and prefers the UK University system. This makes it a little harder to get into college in the first place. But you lose a lot fewer (i.e. 15 out of 90) when you get there. I don't know, I just know I spent a lot of time for three years focussed on physics and passed (more or less) at the end...I then went on to spend another 3 1/2 years after this...but this is another story...
> and weeds out people who can not meet the requirements despite good marks or a > successful exam.
This also comes down to economic stuff, like, who pays for your time at college? The State?, Scholarships?, a loan you pay off? or your folks? Or a permution of the these.
> An example: when you study physics in a grammar school, you are required to > _learn_ things like E=1/2mv^2.
Hmmm. I remember deriving stuff like this before start Uni. First, using basic calculus and then as a series expansion of E=mc^2. Whatever. As you say:
> in some grammar schools, derivation and some integration may be part of the > curriculum.
{...elided a good lisp analogy...}
It is difficult for me to really comment on this. There was a resonably steep hurdle to jump to get to the college I wanted to get to but once I got there it wasn't so hard. I don't know, only what I have experienced in my education and what I have talked about the education of other students I met, mostly from round Europe.
I suppose what I am saying is this: there is a big difference the education a degree gives dependant on where you go to school. In the UK this tends to be very very focussed on a subject (you don't usually "major" in a subject in this country, for example) but you can then end up a bit pointy. I didn't have to write any essays on geometry or have to learn any other languages, for example. But then again things are changing a bit.
there exist's even a german translation. (but apparently not on amazon.de) ISBN 3-8272-9543-2, DM 69.95 see http://www.lisp.de/books.html
de: von dem gibt's sogar eine recht gute deutsche übersetzung. (allerdings mit einigen -LaTex- fehlern)
10% zoll bei buchbestellungen von außerhalb der EU, unter ca. öS 1500.- zollfrei (in Österreich), also chunk-wise zuschicken lassen. (DM 200.- in D?) -- Reini
