rip erik naggum
d p chang
http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
bummer.
\p
---
Wit is educated insolence. - Aristotle
Kenneth Tilton
> maybe old news on this group, but saw this float by on HN
>
> http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
>
> bummer.
Everybody dies. Not that he has: one tweet doth not a passing make.
> ---
> Wit is educated insolence. - Aristotle
F*ck, you can't even quote him?
hth, kt
----
"If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations. "
- e naggum
Harald Hanche-Olsen
> d p chang wrote:
>> maybe old news on this group, but saw this float by on HN
>>
>> http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
>>
>> bummer.
>
> Everybody dies. Not that he has: one tweet doth not a passing make.
There seems to be more evidence:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8u5dp/erik_naggum_19652009_rip/
I too have known for a few years that he had health problems, but I
never knew until now what he was suffering from. Details in the above
link, for the morbidly curious.
If you want quotes, here is a whole pile of them:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erik_Naggum
Here is a nice one:
If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.
-- Erik Naggum
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- It is undesirable to believe a proposition
when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.
-- Bertrand Russell
Slobodan Blazeski
Slobodan
Kenneth Tilton
> Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
That would have been good for us and bad for him.
kt
ps. RIP, Erik. k
Duncan
> Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
>> Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
> That would have been good for us and bad for him.
Yep, no doubt. I'm sure there are quite a few people out there who are
very quietly not miserable at his passing, but I think they might have
misunderstood him a bit. I'm pretty sure that maintaining his c.l.l
persona (along with his persona in some other places) was a lot harder on
him than it was on anyone he flamed. I don't want to discuss the merits of
that persona in a thread about Erik's death, so I'll just say that I
appreciated it. He was full of epigrams and cogent points, and I suspect
he'll be quoted for a long time to come.
Spiros Bousbouras
I never realised he was so young , based on his rants I was
imagining some grumpy old guy. Can someone provide some links to
some of his insightful posts ? All I have seen are rants. Most of
them boring or even disturbing but here's a link to one I find
quite funny:
< http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/a7b0fb7978c079d8
>
Some great quotes in there.
--
God grant me serenity to accept the code I cannot change, courage to
change the code I can, and wisdom to know the difference.
Erik Naggum (1965 - 2009)
Vassil Nikolov
Erik Naggum, 1965--2009
His posts were _both_ accurate and precise.
May the soil be light on him.
* * *
Was it he who said that one should always be prepared to challenge
one's assumptions?
---Vassil.
Scott Burson
> Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
> That would have been good for us and bad for him.
You can't be serious.
His arrogance and hostility drove me away from c.l.l for years. I can
only wonder how many others he alienated.
He was very smart, and could be nice to those who were comfortable
with being condescended to. But he attacked me unprovoked, just for
thinking I knew as much as he did -- which I did. And then he would
hold forth on ethics, completely in denial about how he had just
violated the very principles he was enunciating. Indeed, I had the
feeling the primary purpose of his pontifications was convincing
himself that his behavior was irreproachable, when it was nothing of
the kind.
I am stunned at the number of people who think he was an asset to
c.l.l. I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
recovered yet). While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
glad he stopped posting here.
-- Scott
Kenneth Tilton
You have taken personally what was not personal to you, but only to
Erik. That suggests that you like Erik suffer not from unsociability but
from too much sociability: you care to much about people. Version two of
this mot goes the other way: being sociable means not being all that
sensitive to other people, explaining why some of us are as we are.
Yes, I have been drinking.
hth, kt
Harald Hanche-Olsen
> You have taken personally what was not personal to you, but only to
> Erik. That suggests that you like Erik suffer not from unsociability
> but from too much sociability: you care to much about people.
Hmm, I never thought of it that way before. You seem to be on to
something there. I too have been at the pointy end of Erik's ire on
occasion, and while it bothered me momentarily, I just let it pass and
found I could still enjoy much of his writing, and indeed learn from it.
(Not when he got into serious flame wars, however. I just skipped those.
But then, there are movie scenes that I cannot bear to watch, if I find
them too embarrasing. I keep telling myself it's just movie stars saying
their lines, but somehow it doesn't work, and I just look away and try
to think of something else instead.)
> Yes, I have been drinking.
Good for you! But then, what else are weekends good for?
No, don't answer that.
gugamilare
[snip]
> I am stunned at the number of people who think he was an asset to
> c.l.l. I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
> damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
> recovered yet). While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
> glad he stopped posting here.
I think you were a little too tough on him. I didn't know him, but he
must have been at least very smart. These descriptions that has been
done here remind me of the first programming teacher I had (I did
mathematics, not computer science). As a person, he was a bit rude
(for other people, not for me), and inflexible as a teacher. But he
knew how to teach. He made us do much more advanced projects than we
should do, he didn't like delays and most students just didn't do
anything. Many people cheated at his test. But, still, for the few
people that didn't cheat or copy, he made us really learn and like
computer programming. In only 6 months, 6 hours of class per week (4
of which were theoretic classes), we made a library, a curses-game of
snake and a pacman game in Glut/OpenGL, among other 7 smaller
projects.
Sometimes I look at his projects for other classes now and see that
apparently he got soft now and gives lighter projects. It at least
looks like my class was one of the first he taught, though I am not
sure about it. He looks like the kind of person that teaches as much
as you can learn.
Well, I don't mean to defend a person that isn't even part of this
conversation. I am just trying to argue that an apparently rude person
sometimes is not exactly a bad person. Sometimes this person is just
impatient, he just goes to the point and does his best to show the
things he knows to other people. No one is perfect, and, if he was
impatient, maybe it's because he had some other very good qualities.
Rest in peace, Erik Naggum.
Slobodan Blazeski
> I am stunned at the number of people who think he was an asset to
> c.l.l. I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
> damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
> recovered yet). While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
> glad he stopped posting here.
I'm sorry if he hurt your feelings but many of his posts were really
strong and insightful. And I've learned that best way to enjoy this
newsgroup is to pay attention to the good parts and skip the bad. Now
whenever trolls and spammers post some garbage I just skip them, the
worst thing is giving my limited time and attention to people who
don't deserve it.
Slobodan
Spiros Bousbouras
> On Jun 20, 12:51 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > > Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
> > That would have been good for us and bad for him.
>
> You can't be serious.
>
> His arrogance and hostility drove me away from c.l.l for years.
Why go away from c.l.l instead of simply not reading his posts?
[...]
> I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
> damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
> recovered yet).
What kind of damage did he do ?
Spiros Bousbouras
wrote:
> And I've learned that best way to enjoy this
> newsgroup is to pay attention to the good parts and skip the bad.
Substitute "life" for "newsgroup" and you have an excellent general
advice. Of course in life it can sometimes be impossible to "skip"
the bad parts but I have often seen people not do that even when it
seems quite possible that they could.
Wade
I am really saddened by this news. He was truly a
good friend.
And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
attacked you, you attacked first.
Wade
Nicolas Neuss
> He was very smart, and could be nice to those who were comfortable
> with being condescended to. But he attacked me unprovoked, just for
> thinking I knew as much as he did -- which I did.
Do you have a reference for this exchange? I know of _very_ few exchanges
where Erik attacked without a reason. I would be interested to know one
more of those cases.
And, yes, I also have been "attacked" by him once per Email. But instead
of taking it personal, I analyzed the reason of his attack and found that
it was due to a sloppy formulation in a post of mine. So I followed up my
post with a clarification.
Rest in peace, Erik, and thank you. I learned a lot from your posts.
Nicolas
Scott Burson
>
> [Y]ou like Erik suffer not from unsociability but
> from too much sociability: you care too much about people.
LOL
> Yes, I have been drinking.
Enuf said.
-- Scott
Scott Burson
> On 21 jun, 01:09, Scott Burson <FSet....@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > I am stunned at the number of people who think he was an asset to
> > c.l.l. I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
> > damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
> > recovered yet). While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
> > glad he stopped posting here.
>
> I think you were a little too tough on him.
You should have seen how he was on me -- and hundreds of others.
> No one is perfect, and, if he was
> impatient, maybe it's because he had some other very good qualities.
I already said he was very smart. Evidently some people learned a lot
from him.
But it's interesting you should point out that no one is perfect.
Erik Naggum was perfect in his own mind -- but only in his own mind.
-- Scott
David Combs
to time, browsing this group.
That Naggum -- he was SO smart, golly I've missed him all these
years.
Look, really, you guys chased him off.
In a pretty nasty way, too. VERY nasty. Not nice.
Yeah, he was unreasonable, extremely. But what's the
saying about "unreasonable men" -- that without them nothing
would ever advance, something like that. That was him.
---
By email, just after he left, I tried to get him back --
he replied (I have it somewhere), but wouldn't.
You know, maybe if a BUNCH of you had asked him back, he would have,
and we would have had the benefit of his, yes, wisdom, etc,
FOR ALL THESE MISSING YEARS! :-(
Really, really too bad. Tears actually coming to my eyes right
now.
He was so good.
(yeah, he had his problems, but who doesn't, huh?)
David
vippstar
> On Jun 20, 11:00 pm, gugamilare <gugamil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 21 jun, 01:09, Scott Burson <FSet....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > > glad he stopped posting here.
Why are you glad? Did he do anything that you couldn't avoid by
killfiling him? It was your choice (and seems, your fault) that you
didn't ignore him when you had to.
> > I think you were a little too tough on him.
>
> You should have seen how he was on me -- and hundreds of others.
He's dead now, why did you bring it up and why do you continue to
speak of it? What do you expect to achieve? To those that don't know
him well, perhaps they'll think Naggum was an asshole for a moment in
their life, and some time after forget about all this altogether. To
those who do know him, you're simply noise.
> But it's interesting you should point out that no one is perfect.
> Erik Naggum was perfect in his own mind -- but only in his own mind.
(another remark about Naggum...)
Ron Garret
<dfa66fc4-3947-468c...@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Wade <wade.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
> attacked you, you attacked first.
And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not an unprovoked
attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it been directed
at him? Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make sure that there
was not even a single instance where he attacked first? Would you
consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack you now in the
way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
(http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
-- very little provocation.
Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community *still* spends
more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead than advancing
the state of the art in Lisp. What the man truly aspired to has always
been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
rg
Wade
> I'm not a lisp programmer, but for years I've enjoyed, from time
> to time, browsing this group.
>
> That Naggum -- he was SO smart, golly I've missed him all these
> years.
>
> Look, really, you guys chased him off.
>
> In a pretty nasty way, too. VERY nasty. Not nice.
>
I am glad someone has also realized this. Yes, he was bullied
away and I feel guilty for not sticking up for him more
forcefully.
Wade
Wade
> In article
> <dfa66fc4-3947-468c-be7e-f5cc8b705...@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.
Wade
Slobodan Blazeski
Slobodan
Ron Garret
<a944629b-cfa5-4a9f...@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Wade <wade.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't realize that one was required. So was that supposed to be
funny? I'm sorry, but I don't see the humor. Perhaps you'd be so kind
as to explain it to me?
rg
Kenneth Tilton
Clever editing. Feel better? Now I am drinking Starbucks and you are
really going to get it.
Few who got their horns stuck locked with Erik's realized they were as
responsible for those mad exchanges as he. It's the well-known Problem
of Having The Last Word, which is a problem only if you take the stupid
exchanges seriously. Taking them seriously, The Other's idiocies must be
answered. The only way out is to simply stop, something Erik would start
pointing out to his tormentor as the threads grew overlong even by his
easy standards. It always sounded like, "Be quiet, I am right." but read
carefully one could see he was explaining simply that he could not
control himself enough to stop so would The Other please get them both
out of the stalemate.
Sarte said we are not free to be not free. If you had a crappy on-line
relationship with Erik, you too were responsible.
kt
gugamilare
wrote:
> Even Erik's own death provoked a flame war, as a homage from cll.
>
> Slobodan
I see no flame war here, just a normal and healthy conversation.
Nicolas Neuss
> I am glad someone has also realized this. Yes, he was bullied
> away and I feel guilty for not sticking up for him more
> forcefully.
>
> Wade
I think the main reason he left was his illness. Perhaps he would have
stayed longer, if Ga(rre)t would not have insisted in mobbing him. But I
had the feeling that he used this only as a welcome excuse for drawing a
final line.
Nicolas
Kenneth Tilton
I was wondering the same thing. My guess is your jumping all over the
word "dweeb". Maybe that was used playfully.
kt
Kenneth Tilton
Give us a minute.
kt
fft1976
I don't think Erik would have approved of your changing the subject
for no reason and implying that he was just some Lisper.
--
Von Neuman is dead, Dijkstra is dead, and Me I feel also not so good.
-- Erik Naggum 2009
Ron Garret
Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com> wrote:
I see. It is my impression (and dictionaries confirm) that "dweeb" is
pejorative. And there are no smileys or other emoticons to indicate
that the word was being used in anything other than its pejorative
sense. I also have a hard time seeing how "idiot" could have been meant
"playfully". But be all that as it may...
Is it not possible that some of those "dweebs" who "attacked first" did
not in fact "attack first" but were, like Wade, just trying
unsuccessfully to be funny?
rg
Ron Garret
Nicolas Neuss <last...@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> Wade <wade.h...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I am glad someone has also realized this. Yes, he was bullied
> > away and I feel guilty for not sticking up for him more
> > forcefully.
> >
> > Wade
>
> I think the main reason he left was his illness. Perhaps he would have
> stayed longer, if Ga(rre)t would not have insisted in mobbing him.
Me "mob" Erik? That's a good one.
I never did anything to Erik that Erik did not do to other people. I
was exquisitely careful in my dealings with never to do or say anything
for which I could not cite chapter and verse precedent in something he
had said.
If I did anything to Erik it was to hold up a mirror. It is not
surprising that he didn't like what he saw. He wasn't the only one.
rg
Aatu Koskensilta
> I see. It is my impression (and dictionaries confirm) that "dweeb" is
> pejorative. And there are no smileys or other emoticons to indicate
> that the word was being used in anything other than its pejorative
> sense.
Smileys are for dweebs and idiots, for humourless gits.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Gary Klimowicz
> Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
I feel the same way.
I was never on the receiving end of his pointed comments (and wit, I
thought). He was always unfailingly polite in private correspondence.
I learned a lot from him, and know that there is more still to learn
from what he wrote.
Even though some of his public exchanges got totally out of hand, I
thought they were often escalated by others. He just answered in kind,
but with heavier artillery.
The funny thing seemed to me that often *he* held up a mirror to others
who could not recognize what they saw in it.
Please rest in peace, Erik. You have been missed a long time already.
Vassil Nikolov
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:28:12 -0700 (PDT), fft1976 <fft...@gmail.com> said:
> I don't think Erik would have approved of your changing the subject
> for no reason and implying that he was just some Lisper.
I wish it were possible for him to say so himself, whether or not
giving me a piece of his mind at the same time.
What I implied, but did not wish to say explicitly, was my belief,
based on a post of his from a long time ago, that he did not like to
see his name in a subject line, which I wanted to respect.
Apparently, the implication failed; and the belief may be wrong.
Sadly, it seems we shall never know now.
> Von Neuman is dead, Dijkstra is dead, and Me I feel also not so good.
> -- Erik Naggum 2009
This makes me wonder mildly how the first name in the above sentence
got misspelled.
---Vassil.
Kenneth Tilton
Don't be a dork. The question is whether the put-down (I looked up
pejorative) was playful or earnest. Meanwhile, any good dictionary would
characterize dweeb as light-hearted.
>..And there are no smileys or other emoticons to indicate
> that the word was being used in anything other than its pejorative
> sense.
I am factoring in his plaint that you had no sense of humor, working
backwards to dweeb being used playfully. But I /am/ just guessing.
> I also have a hard time seeing how "idiot" could have been meant
> "playfully".
You need to come to a Lisp-NYC meeting. But not one of the church deals,
then we just pray and sing hyms.
> But be all that as it may...
>
> Is it not possible that some of those "dweebs" who "attacked first" did
> not in fact "attack first" but were, like Wade, just trying
> unsuccessfully to be funny?
In a brawl that drags on for weeks involving dozens of exchanges, who
threw the first punch is about as interesting as whether Burton picked
up Taylor or Taylor picked up Burton.
kt
MarkH
50s). Hopefully that douchebag Kenny keels over soon.
On Jun 20, 11:09 pm, Scott Burson <FSet....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 12:51 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > > Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
> > That would have been good for us and bad for him.
>
> You can't be serious.
>
> His arrogance and hostility drove me away from c.l.l for years. I can
> only wonder how many others he alienated.
>
> He was very smart, and could be nice to those who were comfortable
> with being condescended to. But he attacked me unprovoked, just for
> thinking I knew as much as he did -- which I did. And then he would
> hold forth on ethics, completely in denial about how he had just
> violated the very principles he was enunciating. Indeed, I had the
> feeling the primary purpose of his pontifications was convincing
> himself that his behavior was irreproachable, when it was nothing of
> the kind.
>
> I am stunned at the number of people who think he was an asset to
> c.l.l. I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
> damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
> recovered yet). While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
> glad he stopped posting here.
>
> -- Scott
Ron Garret
Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com> wrote:
I must not have a very good dictionary then. Could maybe recommend one
for me where I might find the correct definition?
Oh, is "idiot" light-hearted also? Can I call Wade an idiot and expect
that he would not take offense? Or is there some kind of asymmetric
rule that makes it light-hearted when he says it but serious when I say
it? I am genuinely confused by this, and I eagerly await the
instruction of those who are wiser than I.
> >..And there are no smileys or other emoticons to indicate
> > that the word was being used in anything other than its pejorative
> > sense.
>
> I am factoring in his plaint that you had no sense of humor, working
> backwards to dweeb being used playfully. But I /am/ just guessing.
>
Yes, that's the perennial dilemma of all failed comedians: was it that
the audience didn't have a sense of humor, or that the joke just wasn't
very funny? I'm afraid I have no guidance to offer, except to observe
that these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
> > I also have a hard time seeing how "idiot" could have been meant
> > "playfully".
>
> You need to come to a Lisp-NYC meeting.
That presents a logistical challenge for me, since I live in Los
Angeles. I have, however, attended several CRACL meetings (the LA
equivalent of LispNYC) and not once have I ever heard anyone call
someone else a dweeb or an idiot. Are the cultures really that
different? Do you guys really go around calling each other dweebs and
idiots all in good fun?
> > But be all that as it may...
> >
> > Is it not possible that some of those "dweebs" who "attacked first" did
> > not in fact "attack first" but were, like Wade, just trying
> > unsuccessfully to be funny?
>
> In a brawl that drags on for weeks involving dozens of exchanges, who
> threw the first punch is about as interesting as whether Burton picked
> up Taylor or Taylor picked up Burton.
I agree absolutely. But maybe you should direct that comment at Wade
rather than me. He is, after all, the one who took the initiative to
bring it up.
rg
Kenneth Tilton
Idiot can go either way. Again, I am just working backwards from the
confusing charge that you lacked humor.
>
>>> ..And there are no smileys or other emoticons to indicate
>>> that the word was being used in anything other than its pejorative
>>> sense.
>> I am factoring in his plaint that you had no sense of humor, working
>> backwards to dweeb being used playfully. But I /am/ just guessing.
>>
>
> Yes, that's the perennial dilemma of all failed comedians: was it that
> the audience didn't have a sense of humor, or that the joke just wasn't
> very funny? I'm afraid I have no guidance to offer, except to observe
> that these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
You have lost the context, perhaps deliberately: no one is saying the
material was suitable for a Letterman monologue. The charge as far as I
can make out is that you were a buzz-kill when you had a cow over "dweeb".
>
>>> I also have a hard time seeing how "idiot" could have been meant
>>> "playfully".
>> You need to come to a Lisp-NYC meeting.
>
> That presents a logistical challenge for me, since I live in Los
> Angeles. I have, however, attended several CRACL meetings (the LA
> equivalent of LispNYC) and not once have I ever heard anyone call
> someone else a dweeb or an idiot. Are the cultures really that
> different? Do you guys really go around calling each other dweebs and
> idiots all in good fun?
Word. We have to spend all our Google SoC money buying drinks for
neighboring tables that get offended.
kt
Kenneth Tilton
> At least Naggums were somewhat witty. Kenny is what (in his late
> 50s). Hopefully that douchebag Kenny keels over soon.
A month from 58. But I play tennis twice a week, hardcore softball twice
a week, and am a non-smoking vegetarian. I also do tai-chi, chi kung,
and san-shou. The old man smoked and got no exercise and made it past
eighty and I am his clone.
Do the arithmetic.
best, kt
Ron Garret
Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, that's the perennial dilemma of all failed comedians: was it that
> > the audience didn't have a sense of humor, or that the joke just wasn't
> > very funny? I'm afraid I have no guidance to offer, except to observe
> > that these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
> You have lost the context, perhaps deliberately: no one is saying the
> material was suitable for a Letterman monologue. The charge as far as I
> can make out is that you were a buzz-kill when you had a cow over "dweeb".
No, I haven't lost the context, you are missing the point. What I take
issue with is not so much Wade's use of the word "dweeb" (though I do
think it was uncalled for), it's his assertion that the dweebs [sic]
invariably attacked first, that Erik never cast the first stone. How
does he know? Did he review Erik's entire corpus? Were Erik's
responses always justified and proportionate, and by what measure? Is
it not possible that Erik sometimes misinterpreted what was intended to
be a joke, that he was, to borrow your phraseology, being a buzz-kill
when he had his cows?
Now, it's possible that Wade's entire comment was intended to be a joke,
but there's reason to believe that he was being serious. For one thing,
Erik certainly believed that he was invariably the victim and never the
aggressor. But there's an easy way to resolve this: Wade, did you
intend your comment to be a joke?
rg
Wade
No, it was not meant to be funny. That was deadly serious.
Why would I try to be funny when the straight-man is even funnier?
Wade
Kenneth Tilton
> In article <4a3eb7a8$0$31267$607e...@cv.net>,
> Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yes, that's the perennial dilemma of all failed comedians: was it that
>>> the audience didn't have a sense of humor, or that the joke just wasn't
>>> very funny? I'm afraid I have no guidance to offer, except to observe
>>> that these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
>
>> You have lost the context, perhaps deliberately: no one is saying the
>> material was suitable for a Letterman monologue. The charge as far as I
>> can make out is that you were a buzz-kill when you had a cow over "dweeb".
>
> No, I haven't lost the context, you are missing the point. What I take
> issue with is not so much Wade's use of the word "dweeb" (though I do
> think it was uncalled for), it's his assertion that the dweebs [sic]
> invariably attacked first, that Erik never cast the first stone.
Oh. I was only trying to help with the no-humor charge, because I was
curious, too. But if you insist...
> How
> does he know? Did he review Erik's entire corpus? Were Erik's
> responses always justified and proportionate, and by what measure? Is
> it not possible that Erik sometimes misinterpreted what was intended to
> be a joke, that he was, to borrow your phraseology, being a buzz-kill
> when he had his cows?
Gosh, I do not remember anything like that (flames starting over
misapprehended jests). Are you just making this up to keep the thread going?
If we consider only whether Erik ever went off half-cocked, I would have
to side with Wade on this. Erik was always the first amongst us to
identify a troll or dork so it seemed to us as if he were making an
unprovoked attack, but before it was over it was clear his antagonist
did have issues. (No, one did not become a troll or dork because of an
Erik attack.)
>
> Now, it's possible that Wade's entire comment was intended to be a joke,
> but there's reason to believe that he was being serious. For one thing,
> Erik certainly believed that he was invariably the victim and never the
> aggressor. But there's an easy way to resolve this: Wade, did you
> intend your comment to be a joke?
>
Doesn't matter: all jokes speak the truth.
kt
Wade
I remember thinking that very thing sometimes. He seemed
to be going off on someone and starting it. But sure enough
a few posts later the dork would show their true colors. I
usually went back in the posts to see what might
have tipped Erik off and, every time, I found something.
I even pointed it out to the hurt party once or twice, but it was
water off a duck's back.
Wade
Ron Garret
Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com> wrote:
No. I have a genuine difference of opinion.
> If we consider only whether Erik ever went off half-cocked, I would have
> to side with Wade on this. Erik was always the first amongst us to
> identify a troll or dork so it seemed to us as if he were making an
> unprovoked attack, but before it was over it was clear his antagonist
> did have issues. (No, one did not become a troll or dork because of an
> Erik attack.)
Just because someone has issues doesn't mean they deserve abuse.
rg
Ron Garret
<e8d858ba-4def-4127...@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Wade <wade.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
Deadly serious? That's even more serious than I thought.
Tell me this then: when someone disagrees with you, do you consider
calling them an idiot an appropriate response? Is that the model you
would like others to use in their interactions with you on this
newsgroup?
rg
GP lisper
>
> Doesn't matter: all jokes speak the truth.
Ah, yes.
You can insult someone, as long as you laugh at the end.
Getting away with something by sending two conflicting messages.
Stereotypes and jokes become popular because people recognize some
truth in them.
PS. Shame I never got to read Erik realtime....
GP lisper
About half of you came from elsewhere, but the paternal line persists
well.
I regularly eat vegetarians
d p chang
> d p chang wrote:
>> maybe old news on this group, but saw this float by on HN
>>
>> http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
>>
>> bummer.
>
> Everybody dies. Not that he has: one tweet doth not a passing make.
true enough.
>> Wit is educated insolence. - Aristotle
>
> F*ck, you can't even quote him?
@Q: ATTENTION, all abducting aliens! you DON'T need to RETURN them!
@A: Erik Naggum (c.l.l)
\p
Scott Burson
wrote:
> Even Erik's own death provoked a flame war, as a homage from cll.
LOL And a fitting homage it is, too.
I'm glad some people remember him fondly. I just don't happen to be
one of them.
I'm going to leave it at that. I've said my piece, and he's gone now.
-- Scott
Lars Rune Nøstdal
> maybe old news on this group, but saw this float by on HN
>
> http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
>
> bummer.
>
> ---
> Wit is educated insolence. - Aristotle
(Since, apparently, motzarella doesn't actually work anymore or posts
seem to take days to get through - I'll try the horrible Google
interface.)
I will miss him. I enjoyed and often gained new insights from his
posts.
I read his rants about C++ at a time when it had already ever so
slightly begun to dawn on me that "something was very wrong here".
He really hit the nail on the head both regarding the social and
technical aspects of C++. He did this more than once; not just wrt. C+
+.
I think he had a more direct connection with the/his/"our"
subconsciousness and could bring its subtle and too often ignored
voice, "I'm here - and I'm trying to tell you, something", to light.
Again, I will miss him -- and I'll add, as another twitter said; "the
world can fuck off."
Espen Vestre
> I'm glad some people remember him fondly. I just don't happen to be
> one of them.
I remember him as an enthusiastic and very friendly person the couple of
times I met him IRL, and also in mail exchanges that we had over the
last 15-20 years. I also won't forget the absolutely horrible
accusations he made in usenet posts (in norwegian) a couple of years
ago, but now that he's gone I'm a little sad that we never met IRL
again, because I'm sure we would be able to square that up over a beer.
RIP.
--
(espen)
Nicolas Neuss
> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
> -- very little provocation.
Ron, I'm shocked. Someone really told you in a public forum to "fuck off"?
Terrible indeed. Although you asked only this honest question (and were
not satisfied with the answers, played dumb, and asked it again):
"I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"
Yes, such foul speech should really be avoided.
Nicolas
Miles Bader
> "I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
> so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
> who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
> than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
> rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"
He did contribute positively to making Emacs handling of multibyte text
better, albeit only after quite a bit of sometimes inexcusably nasty
ranting.
I get the feeling he was basically a smart guy but just couldn't control
his emotions...
-Miles
--
Inhumanity, n. One of the signal and characteristic qualities of humanity.
John Thingstad
<last...@math.uni-karlsruhe.de>:
To be fair Naggum could really be a nuisance. He could fly off the wall
for the smallest thing and be a real pain. For that matter I feel about
the same about Bean.
That does not mean I don't respect them. Just that they need handling with
care, like explosives. (That's pedantics for you.)
I regarded Naggums aggravated post's with some degree of humor. Such
passion, such determination. He had a drive I have rarely seen in anyone
else.
Anyhow, I am in the group that has missed him..
---------------------
John Thingstad
Aatu Koskensilta
> You can insult someone, as long as you laugh at the end.
In this electronic age the custom is to accompany insults and cheerful
suggestions that people fuck off with a few happy smileys. The point of
this has always eluded me.
Giovanni Gigante
> In this electronic age the custom is to accompany insults and cheerful
> suggestions that people fuck off with a few happy smileys. The point of
> this has always eluded me.
a kind of condition handling?
d p chang
> Ron Garret <rNOS...@flownet.com> writes:
>
>> This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
>> acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
>> (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
>> -- very little provocation.
>
> Although you asked only this honest question (and were not satisfied
> with the answers, played dumb, and asked it again):
>
> "I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
> so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
> who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
> than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
> rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"
maybe they were a little rant-y (i only remember the high order bits
now), but i recall there being several huge discussions about structure
(eg, consider macros) that where his opinions were insightful.
i do agree thtat rant-y-ness seems/qseemed to turn people off to the words
(whether they agree or not).
\p
Robert Uhl
>
> If we consider only whether Erik ever went off half-cocked, I would
> have to side with Wade on this. Erik was always the first amongst us
> to identify a troll or dork so it seemed to us as if he were making an
> unprovoked attack, but before it was over it was clear his antagonist
> did have issues. (No, one did not become a troll or dork because of an
> Erik attack.)
I think his message <32436974...@naggum.no> was pretty
unprovoked...Greg Neumann didn't seem like a jerk in that thread, just
someone with a different set of opinions.
I'm pretty sure that your parenthetical aside is possibly incorrect as
well. In another newsgroup I used to frequent there was a fellow a lot
like Naggum: very smart, very friendly in person, very frequently
correct in his factual matter--and absolutely, utterly unpleasant to
people he disagreed with on matters of opinion or fact. Rather than
attempting to persuade in good faith, he'd push and push and push people
until, yes, they started posting emotionally, and then he'd call them
out for their emotional postings.
This boiled down to 'how dare you react as though your buttons have been
pushed after I've been pushing your buttons!' Not really productive
behaviour... There's a reason for the old proverb that one can catch
more flies with honey than with vinegar.
I spent a good deal of time reading a large number of Naggum's posts
this weekend. I think he was a lot like a lot of us technical types:
extremely intelligent, but not terribly socially apt. I'm sorry that
he's dead, and I'm sorry that he stopped posting his valuable posts--but
not sorry that he stopped posting his abuse.
--
If your adversary is badly bunkered, there is no rule against your
standing over him and counting his strokes aloud, but it will be a wise
precaution to arm yourself with the niblick before doing so, so as to
meet him on equal terms. --Horace G. Hutchinson, 1886
Ron Garret
Nicolas Neuss <last...@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
he made contributions that I was not aware of. What exactly is wrong
with asking what those might be?
rg
Kaz Kylheku
> Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> If we consider only whether Erik ever went off half-cocked, I would
>> have to side with Wade on this. Erik was always the first amongst us
>> to identify a troll or dork so it seemed to us as if he were making an
>> unprovoked attack, but before it was over it was clear his antagonist
>> did have issues. (No, one did not become a troll or dork because of an
>> Erik attack.)
>
> I think his message <32436974...@naggum.no> was pretty
> unprovoked...Greg Neumann didn't seem like a jerk in that thread, just
> someone with a different set of opinions.
Having looked at the thread just now, my conclusion is that Neumann was being a
trolling buffoon, and Naggum pretty much wrote what had to be written,
and then some.
There was lots more headroom for Naggum to be a jerk, which he didn't take
advantage of.
> I'm pretty sure that your parenthetical aside is possibly incorrect as
> well. In another newsgroup I used to frequent there was a fellow a lot
> like Naggum: very smart, very friendly in person, very frequently
> correct in his factual matter--and absolutely, utterly unpleasant to
> people he disagreed with on matters of opinion or fact.
Can you find an instance where Naggum disagreed over a matter of fact,
and he was the one who persisted on the wrong end of the fact stick?
> This boiled down to 'how dare you react as though your buttons have been
> pushed after I've been pushing your buttons!' Not really productive
> behaviour... There's a reason for the old proverb that one can catch
> more flies with honey than with vinegar.
For what reason do we catch flies, and with what intent?
On Usenet, the role of honey is played by sticky pattern matches located in a
kill file.
But we tend to enjoy free-style swatting for a while.
Kenneth Tilton
> Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com> writes:
>> If we consider only whether Erik ever went off half-cocked, I would
>> have to side with Wade on this. Erik was always the first amongst us
>> to identify a troll or dork so it seemed to us as if he were making an
>> unprovoked attack, but before it was over it was clear his antagonist
>> did have issues. (No, one did not become a troll or dork because of an
>> Erik attack.)
>
> I think his message <32436974...@naggum.no> was pretty
> unprovoked...Greg Neumann didn't seem like a jerk in that thread, just
> someone with a different set of opinions.
One swallow doth not an indictment make.
>
> I'm pretty sure that your parenthetical aside is possibly incorrect as
> well.
Well it is incorrect, but only if one worries about precision and that
albatross fell from my neck when I found UseNet.
If you want to get all precise, yeah, it's gray areas all the way down.
Someone who has a bad time with Erik might not have a bad time with the
Dalai Lama. I just do not remember anyone who had a bad time with him
who did not confirm their Erik-independent asinity at other times.
> In another newsgroup I used to frequent there was a fellow a lot
> like Naggum: very smart, very friendly in person, very frequently
> correct in his factual matter--and absolutely, utterly unpleasant to
> people he disagreed with on matters of opinion or fact. Rather than
> attempting to persuade in good faith, he'd push and push and push people
> until, yes, they started posting emotionally, and then he'd call them
> out for their emotional postings.
>
> This boiled down to 'how dare you react as though your buttons have been
> pushed after I've been pushing your buttons!' Not really productive
> behaviour... There's a reason for the old proverb that one can catch
> more flies with honey than with vinegar.
>
> I spent a good deal of time reading a large number of Naggum's posts
> this weekend. I think he was a lot like a lot of us technical types:
> extremely intelligent, but not terribly socially apt. I'm sorry that
> he's dead, and I'm sorry that he stopped posting his valuable posts--but
> not sorry that he stopped posting his abuse.
>
The exciting thing is that no one was forced to read anything he wrote,
just as no one here reads Seamus anymore. But read him we did. Moral
there somewhere.
kt
fft1976
> In article <87iqion0q6....@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
> Nicolas Neuss <lastn...@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ron Garret <rNOSPA...@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > > This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
> > > acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
> > > (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
> > > -- very little provocation.
>
> > Ron, I'm shocked. Someone really told you in a public forum to "fuck off"?
> > Terrible indeed. Although you asked only this honest question (and were
> > not satisfied with the answers, played dumb, and asked it again):
>
> > "I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
> > so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
> > who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
> > than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
> > rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"
>
> I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
> I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
> his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
> he made contributions that I was not aware of. What exactly is wrong
> with asking what those might be?
>
> rg
I found that I'm in agreement with Erik on several key issues, like
religion, S-expressions vs XML and some distaste towards the rabid
open source movement. However, his thoughts on many of these topics
were hardly original, so I would also like to see what is it about his
prolific posting that made him, in the eyes of his followers
"extremely smart".
Pascal J. Bourguignon
> I found that I'm in agreement with Erik on several key issues, like
> religion, S-expressions vs XML and some distaste towards the rabid
> open source movement. However, his thoughts on many of these topics
> were hardly original, so I would also like to see what is it about his
> prolific posting that made him, in the eyes of his followers
> "extremely smart".
The spectacle.
I'm always amazed how scenarists who are not very smart (if they were,
they'd be rocket scientits, no?) can write stories about very smart
people and make they seem really smart (but then, the spectactors
(ie. us) are not so smart either, so how could we know they're really
smart or not?).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
embed
> On Jun 21, 11:41 am, dkco...@panix.com (David Combs) wrote:
> > In a pretty nasty way, too. VERY nasty. Not nice.
>
> I am glad someone has also realized this. Yes, he was bullied
> away and I feel guilty for not sticking up for him more
> forcefully.
>
> Wade
>
> > Yeah, he was unreasonable, extremely. But what's the
> > saying about "unreasonable men" -- that without them nothing
> > would ever advance, something like that. That was him.
I always imagined him as last viking holding the Stamford Bridge,
keeping the bridge alone against whole Saxon army. He was einheri
(lone fighter). He was completely unreasonable in good way.
All the Einheriar fight in Odin's courts
every day;
they choose the slain and ride from battle;
then they sit more at peace together.
--
embed
Espen Vestre
> Can you find an instance where Naggum disagreed over a matter of fact,
> and he was the one who persisted on the wrong end of the fact stick?
When he had maxed up his flamethrower, he sometimes ignored very simple
facts, even when served very politely to him. Which just shows that he
was really pissed off, and not only "testing the opponent" like he
sometimes claimed. I.e. he was showing a more vulnerable side of himself
than he liked to - which probably pissed him even more off ;-)
Well, I won't say anything more about that. I don't want this to turn
into a stupid flamewar - that's not letting him r.i.p is it?
--
(espen)
Nick Allen
On Jun 20, 12:51 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
> That would have been good for us and bad for him.
>
> kt
>
> ps. RIP, Erik. k
nallen05
On Jun 20, 10:46 am, Harald Hanche-Olsen <han...@math.ntnu.no> wrote:
> + Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com>:
>
> > d p chang wrote:
> >> maybe old news on this group, but saw this float by on HN
>
> >> http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
>
> >> bummer.
>
> > Everybody dies. Not that he has: one tweet doth not a passing make.
>
> There seems to be more evidence:
>
> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8u5dp/erik_naggum_196520...
>
> I too have known for a few years that he had health problems, but I
> never knew until now what he was suffering from. Details in the above
> link, for the morbidly curious.
>
> If you want quotes, here is a whole pile of them:
>
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erik_Naggum
>
> Here is a nice one:
>
> If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.
> -- Erik Naggum
>
> --
> * Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
> - It is undesirable to believe a proposition
> when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.
> -- Bertrand Russell
Spiros Bousbouras
wrote:
I have yet to encounter a movie where a character was depicted as
smart in a convincing manner. I have seen several where the
attempts to depict a character as smart were utterly ludicrous.
The character of Jeff Goldblum in "Independence day" is a prime
example.
--
Who's your mama?
Nicolas Neuss
> I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
> I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
> his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
> he made contributions that I was not aware of.
Yes, that is it precisely.
> What exactly is wrong with asking what those might be?
Nothing. Unfortunately, the path to wisdom is very thorny for you, and it
depends a lot on your own dedication if you will achieve it. Nobody can
answer your question easily for you. Nevertheless, below I will set up a
learning program with which you can find the answer.
1. The first thing is to analyze where your own main problem was during
your discussions with Erik. At some time, I thought that Erik baited
stupidity. However, it became clear to me some time ago that the real
problem that Erik's method brought to light was a serious lack of humour in
his contrahents. His contrahents, and especially you being the most
unrelenting among them, were not able to step back and look at their own
behaviour with a smile, when they were attacked in a rude way. Keep this
in mind when you follow the next steps.
2. The most cumbersome part of the program is to go through all your
exchanges with Erik (I remember that you once said that you had saved all
of them, so this should be possible for you) and reread them in the
following way: Try _not_ to find errors on Erik's part (you already know
much more faults in Erik then are real), but ask yourself only: "What did I
write wrong in this message?", "Why was Erik right when he treated me in
that way?" [And, while going through your exchanges in this manner, please
try to suppress your hatred against Erik which you have shown at many
places. Otherwise, it will become much more difficult for you to
understand.]
3. I think step 2 will take you quite some time. I would estimate that you
will need at least take a week of otherwise completely free time to analyze
these conversations carefully.
4. Doing all this, you will meet a lot of very good argumentation and
brilliant wordplay from Erik's side. Also, you will learn a lot of human
psychology, especially your own. And these gains will be simultaneously
the answer to your above question which you won't have to ponder any more
in the future.
4. Come back here and report. If the above program should be successful,
your post will probably read something like "People, I'm sorry."
5. If the program should not be successful, we are ready to help you in
understanding things. For this, you should compile a link of Google group
references listing all your exchanges with Erik. Then we will pick out
some of them (or all of them one-by-one if you want) and will show you
where you went awry, why Erik was allowed to act as he did, etc. Maybe we
even find some points where Erik was wrong, but my guess is that there
won't be a lot of them.
Nicolas
viper-2
> RIP erik
>
Do not stand at my grave and weep;
I am not there. I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow.
I am the diamond glints on snow.
I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awaken in the morning's hush
I am the swift uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circled flight.
I am the soft stars that shine at night.
Do not stand at my grave and cry;
I am not there. I did not die.
Mary Elizabeth Frye (1932)
Go softly, Erik, into the light,
Go free form pain's embrace;
Here your flame burns forever bright,
Your posts have made the case.
Go lisping, Erik, closing paren only on Earth,
Death's shadow dwindles in your wake;
Go victorious, angels beckon "Come" with mirth,
Your legacy, soft, compiled we all make.
--agt
--
Freedom - no pane, all gaiGN!
Code Art Now
http://codeartnow.com
Email: a...@codeartnow.com
viper-2
As usual, I'm in a hurry. That first line was intended to be:
"Go gently, Erik, into the light"
Bye for now. I'm busy these days in Fortran and GNU Autotools mode.:-)
Lars Rune Nøstdal
As Louis Armstrong said; you'll never know.
Robert Uhl
>
>> > Yeah, he was unreasonable, extremely. But what's the saying about
>> > "unreasonable men" -- that without them nothing would ever advance,
>> > something like that. That was him.
>
> I always imagined him as last viking holding the Stamford Bridge,
> keeping the bridge alone against whole Saxon army. He was einheri
> (lone fighter). He was completely unreasonable in good way.
The problem is that the Norwegians at Stamford Bridge were invaders, and
the essentially internecine war they started led to the victory of the
Normans three weeks later.
That's really _not_ a good role model.
--
You cannot run Windows innocently. Guilt of aiding & abetting, at the
very least, is automatic. Loading up on anti-virus and firewall software,
even decent ones, are merely well-meaning actions to be taken into
consideration by judge and jury when deciding your sentence. --dpm
Ron Garret
Nicolas Neuss <last...@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> Ron Garret <rNOS...@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
> > I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
> > his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
> > he made contributions that I was not aware of.
>
> Yes, that is it precisely.
>
> > What exactly is wrong with asking what those might be?
>
> Nothing. Unfortunately, the path to wisdom is very thorny for you, and it
> depends a lot on your own dedication if you will achieve it. Nobody can
> answer your question easily for you. Nevertheless, below I will set up a
> learning program with which you can find the answer.
>
> 1. The first thing is to analyze where your own main problem was during
> your discussions with Erik.
This is a non-sequitur. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the
question I asked. Whatever issues I may have had in my dealings with
Erik are completely irrelevant to the question of what contributions he
made to the community that made people hold him in such high regard
(unless you're saying that his interactions with me *were* those
contributions? In which case, wow, I never realized I was that
important).
But since you brought it up, I feel compelled to respond:
I'm glad to hear that you're willing to help. You should know then,
that I've already undertaken the program that you suggest. In fact, my
entire dealings with Erik were marked by almost continual self-analysis,
starting from even before I posted my first response to him. Like I
told you before, I never said anything to Erik for which I could not
find precedent in Erik's own writings. The reason Erik despised me was
that I modeled my behavior after his.
Maybe it's *you* who should undertake the program you suggest above.
Erik's biggest problem was an inability to seriously consider the
possibility that he might be wrong. It appears that you may suffer from
the same malady.
Note that nothing I've said has anything to do with actually *being*
wrong. Erik was actually wrong fairly regularly, but that is an
entirely separate issue. Even if Erik were never wrong about anything,
everything that I just said would still be valid.
I note for the record before we veer too far off topic that my actual
question (which you have conceded was a valid one) has not yet been
answered.
rg
Scott Burson
> In article <8763enm6nm....@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
> Nicolas Neuss <lastn...@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> >
> > [T]he path to wisdom is very thorny for you [...]
>
> I'm glad to hear that you're willing to help. You should know then,
> that I've already undertaken the program that you suggest.
Arrogance answered with humility. Well done.
-- Scott
Ron Garret
Robert Uhl <eadm...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> embed <kim...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> > Yeah, he was unreasonable, extremely. But what's the saying about
> >> > "unreasonable men" -- that without them nothing would ever advance,
> >> > something like that. That was him.
> >
> > I always imagined him as last viking holding the Stamford Bridge,
> > keeping the bridge alone against whole Saxon army. He was einheri
> > (lone fighter). He was completely unreasonable in good way.
>
> The problem is that the Norwegians at Stamford Bridge were invaders, and
> the essentially internecine war they started led to the victory of the
> Normans three weeks later.
>
> That's really _not_ a good role model.
But a very apt analogy.
rg
Ron Garret
<dd6aa822-fe29-489b...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jodie Foster in "Contact" maybe?
Does MacGuyver count?
rg
Kenneth Tilton
Ah, this was the aggression Erik always complained about. You remind me
of the bit Lenny Bruce used to do about the cop testifying against Lenny
at his obscenity trial, repeating Lenny's material and butchering it.
>
> Maybe it's *you* who should undertake the program you suggest above.
> Erik's biggest problem was an inability to seriously consider the
> possibility that he might be wrong. It appears that you may suffer from
> the same malady.
Here's a malady: deciding you are the one to change someone else by
aping them. It was just aggression, why dress it up?
>
> Note that nothing I've said has anything to do with actually *being*
> wrong. Erik was actually wrong fairly regularly, but that is an
> entirely separate issue. Even if Erik were never wrong about anything,
> everything that I just said would still be valid.
>
> I note for the record before we veer too far off topic that my actual
> question (which you have conceded was a valid one) has not yet been
> answered.
You are being too aggressive. A pattern is confirmed.
kt
Spiros Bousbouras
I don't remember enough details about what Foster did in the movie
to be able to answer this. And since I found the movie ludicrous in
general I'm not willing to rewatch it in order to refresh my
memory.
> Does MacGuyver count?
Only if his contraptions would work in the real world. If they
wouldn't , and I don't think most of them would , then it's an
example of being ludicrous when trying to depict a character as
smart. In fact it could be argued that his refusal to use guns in
the kind of job he was in already counts as stupid. It's easy if
you know in advance that the script writers won't have you killed
but he's supposed to be imitating a real person.
fft1976
Ooh, so sacred, I will never know. That makes you feel so special, the
chosen one, doesn't it?
Don Geddis
> In article <dd6aa822-fe29-489b...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have yet to encounter a movie where a character was depicted as smart in
>> a convincing manner. I have seen several where the attempts to depict a
>> character as smart were utterly ludicrous.
> Does MacGuyver count?
Let us not forget Wesley Crusher in Star Trek (TNG).
That boy was a genius.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ d...@geddis.org
This message has been brought to you by the number 5 and the letter F.
Spiros Bousbouras
and Seamus MacRae were posting in the same thread ?
--
A recent statistic has showed the every 10 minutes
someone somewhere is insulting Seamus MacRae.
Scott Burson
>
> I have yet to encounter a movie where a character was depicted as
> smart in a convincing manner.
"Verbal", Kevin Spacey's character in _The Usual Suspects_. Not
technically smart, but a frighteningly brilliant con man.
-- Scott
Ron Garret
wrote:
> Ron Garret <rNOS...@flownet.com> wrote on Tue, 23 Jun 2009:
> > In article
> > <dd6aa822-fe29-489b...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Spiros
> > Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I have yet to encounter a movie where a character was depicted as smart in
> >> a convincing manner. I have seen several where the attempts to depict a
> >> character as smart were utterly ludicrous.
> > Jodie Foster in "Contact" maybe?
> > Does MacGuyver count?
>
> Let us not forget Wesley Crusher in Star Trek (TNG).
Oh please, do let us forget Wesley Crusher. Pleeeeeeaaase?
;-)
rg
Ron Garret
Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't care what label you put on it. Whatever it was, it was the
result of following Erik's example.
> > Note that nothing I've said has anything to do with actually *being*
> > wrong. Erik was actually wrong fairly regularly, but that is an
> > entirely separate issue. Even if Erik were never wrong about anything,
> > everything that I just said would still be valid.
> >
> > I note for the record before we veer too far off topic that my actual
> > question (which you have conceded was a valid one) has not yet been
> > answered.
>
> You are being too aggressive. A pattern is confirmed.
And you, like many others, are rather pointedly avoiding answering my
question, preferring instead to change the subject and dredge up the
distant past. There is indeed a pattern here. What conclusions should
I draw from it?
rg
Vassil Nikolov
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:21:11 -0700 (PDT), Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> said:
> I have yet to encounter a movie where a character was depicted as
> smart in a convincing manner.
May I offer the following characters:
George Smiley and Bill Haydon.
Eli Cross (somewhat more debatably, perhaps).
---Vassil.
Chris.
> In article <4a410fd9$0$31281$607ed...@cv.net>,> > > In article <8763enm6nm....@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
> > > Nicolas Neuss <lastn...@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
He contributed nothing.
Spiros Bousbouras
Which movies?
Miles Bader
> Go softly, Erik, into the light,
Christ, this is getting embarrassing.
It's too bad Erik is dead; he was human, he wasn't evil, he did some
good, he probably got his share of undeserved disrespect. It's natural
to give someone the benefit of the doubt in death.
But are there really Naggum fanboys?!
I never realized...!
-Miles
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Kenneth Tilton
> viper-2 <visi...@mail.infochan.com> writes:
>> Go softly, Erik, into the light,
>
> Christ, this is getting embarrassing.
>
> It's too bad Erik is dead; he was human, he wasn't evil, he did some
> good, he probably got his share of undeserved disrespect. It's natural
> to give someone the benefit of the doubt in death.
>
> But are there really Naggum fanboys?!
He had quite a following. At LUGM 99 he was surrounded by fans like a
rock star. He also was elected by acclaim to the ALU board. This was the
conference at which his talk/paper on time was delivered. On c.l.l, the
fans did not appear until someone started nasty a thread with his name
in the subject. Then appear they did.
kt
Vassil Nikolov
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:37:56 -0700 (PDT), Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> said:
> On 24 June, 02:41, Vassil Nikolov <vniko...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> May I offer the following characters [claming that they are
>> convincingly depicted as smart]:
>> George Smiley and Bill Haydon.
>> Eli Cross (somewhat more debatably, perhaps).
> Which movies?
For this sub-thread in particular, I still want to emphasize the
characters, rather than that in which they appear, but, that said,
the former are from "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy", a six-episode TV
series (based on the book), and the latter is from "The Stunt Man".
And then for some reason I also thought of Birgit Haas from "Il faut
tuer Birgit Haas" ("Birgit Haas Must Be Killed"), but I am not
really sure this is a good example (it is a good film, though!).
---Vassil.
--
Vassil Nikolov <vnik...@pobox.com>
(1) M(Gauss);
(2) M(a) if M(b) and declared(b, M(a)),
where M(x) := "x is a mathematician".
Lars Rune Nøstdal
I was thinking the same thing about you reading your "question".
fft1976
That doesn't make any sense. I never claimed any secret "knowledge".
You know what you sound like? Like a religious cult victim (I know
because I've met enough of those in my day)
By the way, am I the only one who thinks that Erik spoke about himself
when he was flaming others? Psychologists have a name for that, but I
forget what it is.
--
The magnitude of the hypocrisy of this unthinking, evil bastard whose
only goal is to feel good about himself defies description by normal
means.
-- Erik Naggum 2002
Keith H Duggar
Yes, it's called insincerity.
KHD