> In article <MPG.182a46a73e72be0d989...@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>, > br...@invalid.dom says... >> arien wrote: >> > > > I'm sorry I ever came here, it is obvious that people here have >> > > > their heads stuck so far up their arses that they can't help a >> > > > normal human being.
>> > > Good riddance.
>> > Who said I was going? I *said* I wish I never came here in the >> > first place to receive this abuse.
>> So then why do you stay if you wish you never came here?
> I don't think I can honestly answer that. I really don't know why I > stay. Perhaps it's because now that I'm not hurt anymore, the anger > instead is taking over and just wants to prove my point. It is most > obvious that I'm not the first one who's tried, so I'm not sure why I > bother. It's just the principle I guess.
> But whatever it is, I just feel compelled to do this.
So you have no reason to do this yet you continue. This compulsion is disfunctional, go to your schools clinic and get evaluated by a traind professional and get fixxed.
> > > > I come to newsgroups to find solutions, and I have never seen > > > > one behave as badly as this.
> > > What kind of arrogant, stuck-up snob are you that you think everyone > > > here has a responsibility to give you solutions in a manner you find > > > pleasing?
> > What kind of arrogant, stuck-up snob are you to interpret my post in > > that way?
> To paraphrase what you wrote, "I came here to find solutions, god > dammit, and even though I'm new I know the standards by which everybody > should behave and I hereby judge the people here as behaving badly."
That's bad paraphrasing. Firstly, I ask you, doesn't anybody who asks a question also perhaps looking for a solution to that question? So by your definition, it is arrogant to ask a question.
Secondly, I am new to c.l.l, but I am far from new to usenet. I know the standards of behaviour on usenet, and by those definitions, the people here are behaving badly.
> > If newsgroups are not here for coming here to ask questions, and having > > discussions, then what do you propose they are here for?
> A newsgroup isn't your personal help forum.
I never suggested or implied that it was.
> u are free to ask > questions but also anyone is free to answer them (or not) and nobody > guarantees that you will appreciate the answer. If someone thinks your > question was stupid, they are free to tell you so. You are free to heed > their advice or to ignore it. That's the nature of a free discussion.
I agree with you here.
> You seem to want the discussion only on your terms and that's where you > err.
But then, according to your speach on "free discussion", I am also able to have my own free discussion and state my opinion that the behaviour of some people here is disgusting. Therefore, by *your* own definition of usenet, I have not erred.
> > > > > For the same reason I'm inclined to think that her > > > > > continuation is because she has the bit between her teeth,
> > > > I won't deny that, yes I have got the bit between my teeth. I don't deny > > > > being a headstrong sort of person and I will fight for what I believe > > > > in. This is a good quality in me.
> > > Is it also a good quality of the Klu Klux Klan that they fight for what > > > they believe in? That they are a headstrong kind of people with the bit > > > between their teeth?
> > That's hardly a comparison
> Isn't it? If the same attributes apply to both, shouldn't the > conclusion be the same? Why do you think my assertion is incorrect?
OK, I don't know enough about Klu Klux Klan to explain, since they are not big in Australia. But as a comparison, you could also say that the Muslim's are a headstrong people, and they will lose their life over it. But again, this is hardly a comparison, because firstly, not all Muslim's will take innocent lives for *the cause*.
Secondly, the likes of these Klu Klux Klanner's and *some* Muslim's, they don't fight for what *they* believe in. They fight for what someone else believes in.
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
1. a person or thing that hacks or cuts roughly 2. a) a perosn whose hobby is computing or computer programming b) a person who gains unauthorised access to a computer network and uses or alters data etc.
I believed it was referring to 2. b).
I may have made a mistake in the reference to "hacker", but Mr Eric S. Raymond is even more incorrect in his definition of hacker. By the way, a "cracker" is someone who cracks a piece of software ie. a demo version is *cracked* so that it works indefinately. Mr Raymond doesn't even get this right.
arien wrote: > > > > The answer > > > > was a good one, but it is useless if you don't understand it. Why do > > > > you want to get a "*feel*" of what is going on? Why don't you apply > > > > something like: "Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and > > > > study harder." ? If you are so good at Java and have studied it > > > > formally,
> > > Who said I was *good* at java?
> > And here I thought it was safe to conclude that someone who boasted > > about achieving High Distinctions in Java would be good at it. I guess > > Down Under, they hand out High Distinctions to anyone who takes the > > course.
> Ok. I will pause to explain in great detail, seeing as you couldn't > figure it out yourself. Yes, I was very good at learning Java. I scored > High Distinctions in both subjects involving Java. However, I still > believe that there is a lot more to learn about Java, and I believe that > just because I did well in university, this doesn't automatically make > me *good* at Java overall.
Thanks for the great detail. I stand corrected. High Distinctions doesn't imply that you're good at a subject.
> > What you did wrong will be quickly made apparent. If you're pressed for > > time, you should read the Introduction as well as the section "On Not > > Reacting Like a Loser". If you have time, read the whole thing. You'll > > learn a lot and you'll understand why you assume you have been attacked. > > The document was written for people like you.
> Oh, and this was written by a hacker.
Before you denigrate the term, perhaps you ought to understand what it means in the context of the author of that article:
"There is a community, a shared culture, of expert programmers and networking wizards that traces its history back through decades to the first time-sharing minicomputers and the earliest ARPAnet experiments. The members of this culture originated the term `hacker'. Hackers built the Internet. Hackers made the Unix operating system what it is today. Hackers run Usenet. Hackers make the World Wide Web work. If you are part of this culture, if you have contributed to it and other people in it know who you are and call you a hacker, you're a hacker."
That the term hacker includes expert programmers should be more than relevant in this newsgroup and ought to give you pause for thought.
> And you believe that this justifies everyone's behaviour?
Nobody needs to justify anything to you. However, if you are curious as to why you aren't receiving the kinds of responses you seek, you should consider yourself as a likely source of the problem.
> However the article also mentions that posting elementary questions is > desired either. Now that could only come from a hacker. This is total > crap, as on usenet, there is *always* going to be someone who knows less > than you. Therefore, by this definition, *every* post is going to be an > elementary question.
Now that could only come from an Australian. But how about we just skip the ad hominems and focus on the arguments at hand? In answer to your unasked question, I quote from that document:
"What we are, unapologetically, is hostile to people who seem to be unwilling to think or to do their own homework before asking questions."
As long as you're willing to think, nobody's going to mind you asking questions. You have received some very helpful replies here, have you not? Perhaps you should revisit those questions you asked and see how they differ from your recent postings. For example:
- you ask a question - somebody replies that you should visit a web page to find the answer - you reply criticizing the help you received, stating that it should have been summarized in a yes or no answer
This would demonstrate an unwillingness to learn and rudeness to the person who attempted to help you. It also implies that you are lazy because you're unwilling to read a web page and learn a thing or two.
> If someone finds the question a little too trivial, > then the correct behaviour is to ignore it.
If you find an answer a little too insulting, then the correct behavior is to ignore it and not whine about how insulting you found it.
> > > > Erik is of the belief that > > > > if someone makes a mistake, he (or she, as in you case) shouldn't be > > > > coddled but rapped on the fingers.
> > > Oh this is just crap. They outlawed corporal punishment years ago.
> > You should think twice before equating an analogy with real life. In > > the Real World™ there is a difference.
> You missed the point. There is a reason they outlawed coporal > punishment, and that is cuz it doesn't work. The point of this is > negative reinforcement *never* works. I am a horse rider, and this can > be proved in horses.
First of all, using a particular set of words in a newsgroup is NOT corporal punishment. Aren't you taking this analogy a little too far? Secondly, corporal punishment has done wonders for Signapore's crime rates.
> > > > He has said elsewhere that being > > > > soft on big mistakes only exarcebates the situation because the novice > > > > does not realize the import of what she has done.
> Ok, I'll explain. A horse goes past a tractor. The horse is a little > frightened a shies. If we follow Naggers principles, we would beat that > horse for shying "because the [horse] does not realize the import of > what it has done."
You're take this analogy to an insane extreme! Nobody has beat you up or inflicted any violence upon you. Or are you so deluded that you equate a negative comment with physical violence?
> The more you continue to argue that this *corporal punishment* > style is correct, the more you display your old-fashioned, cruel > behaviour.
Bend over and expose your buttocks. Someone hand me the strap please?
> > > > > > By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object oriented > > > > > > before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
> > > > > You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you. Visit > > > > > http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?", then click on > > > > > "object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
> > > > Sometimes I am just looking for a simple answer. Much of what is on > > > > lisp.org goes straight over the top of my head. Remember, I have only > > > > *just* started learning lisp, and I simly don't understand the indepth > > > > analysis that is on lisp.org.
> > > In-depth analysis? Maybe I'll recap what you would find had you > > > followed my advice:
> > > There is no one true programming methodology:
> > > Common lisp provides integrated support for all these methodologies
> > > If that's above your head,
> > No it's not above my head, however I have never heard of Functional > > Programming.
> The page I suggested you read would have told you exactly what > functional programming is. It also would have told you explicitly > whether or not Lisp is object oriented and also why it is object > oriented.
This I do apologise for. I have been given several links which I have bookmarked, and I aim to get around to reading *all* of them. However, there is a lot of reading to get through, and I don't have *that* much time on my hands :)
> > > [If that's above your head,] then you really shouldn't be in university.
> > You have no right to suggest that I shouldn't be in university. > > Everybody has a right to an education, and nobody has *any* right to > > prevent *anyone* from going to university.
> I added the context in square brackets. The page I suggested you read > tells you exactly what you wished to know. Only you apparently refuse > to read it, claiming that "much of what is on lisp.org goes straight > over the top of my head". Why are you unwilling to make the effort to > learn and, if you are stuck on any one point, to ask more?
> The reason you're taking so much flak on this group is because of this. > An expected exchange of questions and answers might look like this:
> Arien: "Is lisp object oriented?"
> Brian: "Take a look at this web site..."
> Arien: "Oh, I see, the site you provided explains that Common Lisp has > the most complete and advanced object oriented system of any programming > language. Thank you for providing this link as it answers my question in > depth. However, there is a point that I don't quite understand..."
> Brian: "That point can be better explained by..."
> Do you see the difference?
As I said above.
> > > > In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could have > > > > answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it in one > > > > word - "yes" or "no".
> > > Or I could have told you to fuck off.
> > Or you could have just said nothing.
> I volunteered an answer in order to help you. You then had the nerve to > complain that you didn't like my answer. It is YOU who should have > simply said nothing if you didn't like it. Insulting and complaining to > a person who has offered assistance is just plain RUDE!
And your answer was rude. So we were both rude. But I ask, who was rude first?
> It's the online equivalent of visiting a foreign city and asking a local > for directions to a particular restaurant. The local shows you where > you currently are on a map,
and what if the map is in German?
> and the path you must take to get to your > destination as well as other points of interest.
I have worked in a place where I also used to provide tourist information. This is *NOT* how you provide help. If I was asked a specific question such as "Where is the nearest toilet?" The correct way to help this person, would be to give explicit directions where the toilet is. Sometimes it is useful to draw a hand drawn map with specific features to help the person find the toilets. This is called "helping others". By your argument, there is no point in putting signs up when there is an event, cuz according to you they could just use a map and find it themselves?
> You then complain to > the local that he could have simply pointed the direction and told you > it was two blocks that way. What's the local going to say? "Fine! > Next time you need help go find it yourself, you ungrateful leech!"
No, because your argument is not valid. Your way of helping the person is rude and not particularly helpful in the first place. If I helped someone the way you suggested, I would have been sacked.
> > > Do you think everybody here is your personal slave to help you > > > the way you want to be helped?
> > Did I suggest that? Please post where I suggested that.
> This quote of yours suggests this attitude:
> "EXPLAIN IT TO ME FOR FUCKS SAKE!"
Keep it in context. When read with the rest of the post, it is obvious that I meant "Explain to me rather than abuse me, otherwise ignore me".
> Also, I didn't say that you actually do consider everybody here your > personal slave. I merely asked whether or not this was the case. You > could have simply answered "yes" or "no".
> > > Do you > > > tell your professors, "Look, instead of describing the theory so that > > > I'll understand the principles behind it, how about just giving me the > > > answer? It took you an entire semester just to write out e=mc^2! What > > > a colossal waste of bandwidth!!!"
> > That's just ridiculous. If this was the case I wouldn't be here, I would > > just be copying the code off of a friend (like I have seen others doing > > in my class). No, I'm trying to actually learn it cuz I want to. That is > > why I am here.
> How is what I described above with e=mc^2 any different from pointing > you to a website where you can learn whether or not lisp is object > oriented? You seemed to want a yes or no answer to that question, so > what's ridiculous about assuming that you would simply want to know the > formula e=mc^2 rather than the theory behind it?
As I said above, I'm getting through the websites slowly.
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
> Would you please define what you consider an education?
> And lets look at CUNY(City Univ of NY), it used to be a privilage to > attend. You needed good grades to get in, but once you got in there was > no tuition. It was the Harvard of the working class, from what I was > told. Currently CUNY has open enrolement, anyone can enrole and it is no > longer the univ it was. A Degree from CUNY is not well respected > currently and you pay tuition. CUNY was set up so a labors son could be > a Doctor, if he had the grades to get in.
Yes, you need good grades to get in, but everyone has a right to that. I got the excellent grades I needed to get in, and NO ONE can suggest that I don't deserve that.
> >> > In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could > >> > have answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it > >> > in one word - "yes" or "no".
> >> Or I could have told you to fuck off.
> > Or you could have just said nothing.
> I vote for fuck off.
That shows what sort of person you are.
> >> Do you think everybody here is > >> your personal slave to help you the way you want to be helped?
> > Did I suggest that? Please post where I suggested that.
> You demanded it in your posts. A common theme of yours is bend yourself > to my will, you call this "nice". And boy do you bitch when you feel > that people who have attempted to help you are not "nice" enough for you.
I demanded nothing. I suggested that if you can't be helpful, then don't say anything at all.
> >> Do you > >> tell your professors, "Look, instead of describing the theory so that > >> I'll understand the principles behind it, how about just giving me > >> the answer? It took you an entire semester just to write out e=mc^2! > >> What a colossal waste of bandwidth!!!"
> > That's just ridiculous. If this was the case I wouldn't be here, I > > would just be copying the code off of a friend (like I have seen > > others doing in my class). No, I'm trying to actually learn it cuz I > > want to. That is why I am here.
> That statement does not agree with the observed universe of your posts > here.
Nope. You obviously have only observed the posts where I was under attack. Try reading some other threads where some have been helpful.
> marc
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
In article <ms8qpa.jaa...@rabbit.ddts.net>, la...@theclapp.org says...
> In article <MPG.182b3b27e8df4ef2989...@news.adl.ihug.com.au>, arien wrote: > <snip> > >> Yet many, or even most of the posters here deserve a similar level of > >> professional repect.
> > They only deserve as much respect as they give. The amount of respect that > > someone deserves is based on their own behaviour, NOT how many PHD's that > > they have.
> As an aside, people here display their respect by replying to you at all. > Some of them may not respect you, or your actions, but they respect your > /ability to change/ enough to spend time responding to your posts.[1]
This is a very interesting perspective. For you to be able to see positive even in the negative is a very good trait :)
> Also, in hopes of pouring some oil on some of these troubled waters, let us > pretend for the moment that you have not /in any way/ deserved any of the > flamage sent your way, and that /everyone in this thread/ owes you an apology. > /Even in that case/, I would suggest the following course of action: end /all/ > discourse in this particular thread, start/continue your next homework > assignment, try your best, and then post specific questions about the > problem(s) you've had with it, with sample code.
You are right, my next assignment is waiting on my heels after all :)
> -- Larry
> [1] Note that, by that, I don't mean to suggest, expect, or require that you > /enjoy/ the flamage you've received. :)
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
> > > Can't you use the X11 version of lispworks? If you think you might, > > > try starting lispworks with the -environment option, which I think > > > is still needed in the *nix (as opposed to linux) versions of > > > lispworks.
> > Don't know, cuz I don't understand what you mean.
> X11 -> X Windowing System.
> Just try to start lispworks with
> lispworks -environment
> and see what happens.
I will try this. Thanks.
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
>> > No it's not above my head, however I have never heard of Functional >> > Programming.
>> The page I suggested you read would have told you exactly what >> functional programming is. It also would have told you explicitly >> whether or not Lisp is object oriented and also why it is object >> oriented.
> This I do apologise for. I have been given several links which I have > bookmarked, and I aim to get around to reading *all* of them. However, > there is a lot of reading to get through, and I don't have *that* much > time on my hands :)
You are finding it hard to find time because you are posting far more messages than anyone else in this forum.
In the time it took you to tell everyone that you have never heard of functional programming--and now the extra time it is taking you to justify your ignorance--you could have performed a quick Google search, done some reading and learned something.
> arien wrote: > > > > > The answer > > > > > was a good one, but it is useless if you don't understand it. Why do > > > > > you want to get a "*feel*" of what is going on? Why don't you apply > > > > > something like: "Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and > > > > > study harder." ? If you are so good at Java and have studied it > > > > > formally,
> > > > Who said I was *good* at java?
> > > And here I thought it was safe to conclude that someone who boasted > > > about achieving High Distinctions in Java would be good at it. I guess > > > Down Under, they hand out High Distinctions to anyone who takes the > > > course.
> > Ok. I will pause to explain in great detail, seeing as you couldn't > > figure it out yourself. Yes, I was very good at learning Java. I scored > > High Distinctions in both subjects involving Java. However, I still > > believe that there is a lot more to learn about Java, and I believe that > > just because I did well in university, this doesn't automatically make > > me *good* at Java overall.
> Thanks for the great detail. I stand corrected. High Distinctions > doesn't imply that you're good at a subject.
No, I'm just not stuck up like some other people around here. I believe to be truly good at Java, then I would expect years of programming experience in the language. I'm sorry that you don't understand that. At least you could have refrained from denigrating me.
> > > What you did wrong will be quickly made apparent. If you're pressed for > > > time, you should read the Introduction as well as the section "On Not > > > Reacting Like a Loser". If you have time, read the whole thing. You'll > > > learn a lot and you'll understand why you assume you have been attacked. > > > The document was written for people like you.
> > Oh, and this was written by a hacker.
> Before you denigrate the term, perhaps you ought to understand what it > means in the context of the author of that article:
I have provided the definition of Hacker as taken from the Oxford dictionary, in another post.
> That the term hacker includes expert programmers should be more than > relevant in this newsgroup and ought to give you pause for thought.
I am not an expert programmer and have never claimed to be.
> > And you believe that this justifies everyone's behaviour?
> Nobody needs to justify anything to you. However, if you are curious as > to why you aren't receiving the kinds of responses you seek, you should > consider yourself as a likely source of the problem.
I have received the kinds of responses I seek. But there are also others here who choose to be nasty. That's not my problem.
> > However the article also mentions that posting elementary questions is > > desired either. Now that could only come from a hacker. This is total > > crap, as on usenet, there is *always* going to be someone who knows less > > than you. Therefore, by this definition, *every* post is going to be an > > elementary question.
> Now that could only come from an Australian. But how about we just skip > the ad hominems and focus on the arguments at hand? In answer to your > unasked question, I quote from that document:
> "What we are, unapologetically, is hostile to people who seem to be > unwilling to think or to do their own homework before asking questions."
> As long as you're willing to think, nobody's going to mind you asking > questions. You have received some very helpful replies here, have you > not? Perhaps you should revisit those questions you asked and see how > they differ from your recent postings. For example:
> - you ask a question > - somebody replies that you should visit a web page to find the answer > - you reply criticizing the help you received, stating that it should > have been summarized in a yes or no answer
I have not criticised the helpful replies. I have only criticised the rude responses. This is not an unwillingness to learn.
> This would demonstrate an unwillingness to learn and rudeness to the > person who attempted to help you. It also implies that you are lazy > because you're unwilling to read a web page and learn a thing or two.
No, it means I don't have enough time in the day to read all the sites from end to end. However I have bookmarked them, and I will continue referring to them.
> > If someone finds the question a little too trivial, > > then the correct behaviour is to ignore it.
> If you find an answer a little too insulting, then the correct behavior > is to ignore it and not whine about how insulting you found it.
> > > > > Erik is of the belief that > > > > > if someone makes a mistake, he (or she, as in you case) shouldn't be > > > > > coddled but rapped on the fingers.
> > > > Oh this is just crap. They outlawed corporal punishment years ago.
> > > You should think twice before equating an analogy with real life. In > > > the Real World™ there is a difference.
> > You missed the point. There is a reason they outlawed coporal > > punishment, and that is cuz it doesn't work. The point of this is > > negative reinforcement *never* works. I am a horse rider, and this can > > be proved in horses.
> First of all, using a particular set of words in a newsgroup is NOT > corporal punishment. Aren't you taking this analogy a little too far? > Secondly, corporal punishment has done wonders for Signapore's crime > rates.
No, I'm not taking the analogy too far. The idea is to make you realise *how* negative reinforcement doesn't work.
> > > > > He has said elsewhere that being > > > > > soft on big mistakes only exarcebates the situation because the novice > > > > > does not realize the import of what she has done.
> > Ok, I'll explain. A horse goes past a tractor. The horse is a little > > frightened a shies. If we follow Naggers principles, we would beat that > > horse for shying "because the [horse] does not realize the import of > > what it has done."
> You're take this analogy to an insane extreme! Nobody has beat you up > or inflicted any violence upon you. Or are you so deluded that you > equate a negative comment with physical violence?
But calling someone dumb, stupid, unthinking etc, is still negative reinforment. Unfortunately, horses don't speak, so calling my horse dumb has little affect. The analogy is not extreme, it is supposed to make you realise that negativity doesn't work.
> > The more you continue to argue that this *corporal punishment* > > style is correct, the more you display your old-fashioned, cruel > > behaviour.
> Bend over and expose your buttocks. Someone hand me the strap please?
ooh, yes please :)
jk :)
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
>> Would you please define what you consider an education?
>> And lets look at CUNY(City Univ of NY), it used to be a privilage to >> attend. You needed good grades to get in, but once you got in there >> was no tuition. It was the Harvard of the working class, from what I >> was told. Currently CUNY has open enrolement, anyone can enrole and >> it is no longer the univ it was. A Degree from CUNY is not well >> respected currently and you pay tuition. CUNY was set up so a labors >> son could be a Doctor, if he had the grades to get in.
> Yes, you need good grades to get in, but everyone has a right to that.
So if everyone has a right to good grade then everyone gets into univ. Now since everyone had a right to an education and had good grades they all graduate, so that is how you got into a univ and how you will graduate. Is not logic fun.
> I got the excellent grades I needed to get in, and NO ONE can suggest > that I don't deserve that.
>> >> > In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could >> >> > have answered my question. In fact you could even have answered >> >> > it in one word - "yes" or "no".
>> >> Or I could have told you to fuck off.
>> > Or you could have just said nothing.
>> I vote for fuck off.
> That shows what sort of person you are.
Yes I am a person who want you to go away, because you are a nagging pain in the ass.
>> >> Do you think everybody here is >> >> your personal slave to help you the way you want to be helped?
>> > Did I suggest that? Please post where I suggested that.
>> You demanded it in your posts. A common theme of yours is bend >> yourself to my will, you call this "nice". And boy do you bitch when >> you feel that people who have attempted to help you are not "nice" >> enough for you.
> I demanded nothing. I suggested that if you can't be helpful, then > don't say anything at all.
Bull shit. Since you have claimed the right to post whatever you like why can not I do the same? One set of rules for everybody does not apply where you are concerned.
>> >> Do you >> >> tell your professors, "Look, instead of describing the theory so >> >> that I'll understand the principles behind it, how about just >> >> giving me the answer? It took you an entire semester just to >> >> write out e=mc^2! >> >> What a colossal waste of bandwidth!!!"
>> > That's just ridiculous. If this was the case I wouldn't be here, I >> > would just be copying the code off of a friend (like I have seen >> > others doing in my class). No, I'm trying to actually learn it cuz >> > I want to. That is why I am here.
>> That statement does not agree with the observed universe of your >> posts here.
> Nope. You obviously have only observed the posts where I was under > attack. Try reading some other threads where some have been helpful.
I have read lots of posts where people helped you and you called it an attack because you did not like the way they did it. They gave you real answers to your problems and you were an insufferable prick about it.
> I don't think I can honestly answer that. I really don't know why I > stay. Perhaps it's because now that I'm not hurt anymore, the anger > instead is taking over and just wants to prove my point. It is most > obvious that I'm not the first one who's tried, so I'm not sure why I > bother. It's just the principle I guess.
> But whatever it is, I just feel compelled to do this.
So you're not sure why you've received the responses you have, you don't know whatever it is. However, it's the principle that compels you? Since you don't seem to be certain of much of anything, perhaps you would care to elaborate what principle it is you think you're fighting for.
> 1. a person or thing that hacks or cuts roughly > 2. a) a perosn whose hobby is computing or computer programming > b) a person who gains unauthorised access to a computer network and uses > or alters data etc.
> I believed it was referring to 2. b).
> I may have made a mistake in the reference to "hacker", but Mr Eric S. > Raymond is even more incorrect in his definition of hacker. By the way, > a "cracker" is someone who cracks a piece of software ie. a demo version > is *cracked* so that it works indefinately. Mr Raymond doesn't even get > this right.
Well, it's fascinating to know that the programming community is using the words incorrectly since they are the ones that originally coined them. The meanings you are applying to the terms came from journalists misusing the terminology to give their pieces the "being one with the clique" atmosphere. Of course they won the battle over dictionary definitions, the outside world was seeing us through their eyes, but a large number of us still stick to the original spec.
I try to remember that I'm not talking to my nextdoor neighbour here, but talking to people from around the world, without the benefit of seeing facial expressions or body language. It's easy to misinterpret someone else's writing according to my view of the world. Things that strike me as an insult or attack on my person have a tendency not to be on closer reading. When I respond to them with overt hostility it becomes a self-fufilling prophecy.
Trying to change the way someone behaves on NGs is almost always doomed to failure, we all know the way we behave online is correct, with the exception of posting after crawling back from the pub. :-) It's the uncouth idiot on the other end who's the ass.
Welcome to comp.lang.lisp, the initial pain of parenthesis will go away, if you stick with it, and be replaced with a sense of awe at the simplicity in form of a very rich language. I love working with CL in spite of the fact I am still much more adept with C/C++.
* Thomas Stegen | I wonder if you actually know what you are doing?
Please do not spoil the fun. Len Charest is the kind of person who has no long-term planning ability and finds his enjoyment in the immediate present. I know what his behavior will do to him later, as many before him have discovered much too late, followed by hectic activity to cancel posts and have google and others remove them. That is when I have my fun. I have heard from several employers who have decided not to employ people based on their immature behavior in conflicts of their own making with me. Let Len Charest have his fun today when his lack of propensity for delayed gratification is at its prime. I can wait for my share of the fun. When someone seriously asks Len Charest why he did what he did and implies judgment of his character, I often get to hear about it. One particular employer let me know that he had seen a direct connection between immature behavior on the Net, and "fights" with me in particular, and having to fire people for various forms of disrespect for authority, from stealing office supplies via incompetence and lying about their skills to insubordination. I must admit to taking immense pleasure in hearing about such incidents. In some respects, I am very impatient, but in others I have nothing but patience. I have even said explicitly what my goal with continuing the charade is: That Len Charest self-destruct.
Have you ever wondered why you /never/ hear from some of the worst people on the Net again, why there are no archives of any activity with their name attached to it, no trace of them in phone directories a few years after their worst episodes? How can people simply /vanish/ without a trace? The grim realization is that people behave that way when there is no /point/ to long-term planning, because there will be /nothing/ to plan for. Now, how can you possibly deny someone who is not going to be around in a short while his last laugh? Remember, you get only one chance to give a last impression. Check back in 2005 to see what Len Charest has done since his thread in this newsgroup. I predict that the last thing you will find is precisely this thread in this newsgroup. He will not be the first and not the last to fulfill this prediction.
Note that these people can hardly blame me for their own undoing. In virtually every message, I tell them to think and to pull themselves together. That they think this is some stupid game is precisely my point: You have to be a terminal basket case to enter into this kind of game to begin with. I do not even push them over the edge -- they had to have jumped long /before/ they started their stunts on the Net.
So have no sympathy or concern for Len Charest. In a short while, he will only be remembered for his last impression here, anyway.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
> > > > > I come to newsgroups to find solutions, and I have never seen > > > > > one behave as badly as this.
> > To paraphrase what you wrote, "I came here to find solutions, god > > dammit, and even though I'm new I know the standards by which everybody > > should behave and I hereby judge the people here as behaving badly."
> That's bad paraphrasing. Firstly, I ask you, doesn't anybody who asks a > question also perhaps looking for a solution to that question? So by > your definition, it is arrogant to ask a question.
No, it is arrogant to impose your standards on others. Ask any question you like. Don't complain about the answers you get.
> Secondly, I am new to c.l.l, but I am far from new to usenet. I know the > standards of behaviour on usenet, and by those definitions, the people > here are behaving badly.
And the standards of every group is the same? Hardly! And what makes you the judge and jury of what is the standard on this group?
> > > If newsgroups are not here for coming here to ask questions, and having > > > discussions, then what do you propose they are here for?
> > A newsgroup isn't your personal help forum.
> I never suggested or implied that it was.
It's the way you act, as many have pointed out. However, you fail to see this so no point in flogging this dead horse.
> > u are free to ask > > questions but also anyone is free to answer them (or not) and nobody > > guarantees that you will appreciate the answer. If someone thinks your > > question was stupid, they are free to tell you so. You are free to heed > > their advice or to ignore it. That's the nature of a free discussion.
> I agree with you here.
> > You seem to want the discussion only on your terms and that's where you > > err.
> But then, according to your speach on "free discussion", I am also able > to have my own free discussion and state my opinion that the behaviour > of some people here is disgusting. Therefore, by *your* own definition > of usenet, I have not erred.
Then why do you get so upset at your belief that others have insulted you? Why do you insist that others not post anything negative, but then you turn around and post negative things about them? Shouldn't YOU just ignore them?
> > > > > I won't deny that, yes I have got the bit between my teeth. I don't deny > > > > > being a headstrong sort of person and I will fight for what I believe > > > > > in. This is a good quality in me.
> > > > Is it also a good quality of the Klu Klux Klan that they fight for what > > > > they believe in? That they are a headstrong kind of people with the bit > > > > between their teeth?
> > > That's hardly a comparison
> > Isn't it? If the same attributes apply to both, shouldn't the > > conclusion be the same? Why do you think my assertion is incorrect?
> OK, I don't know enough about Klu Klux Klan to explain, since they are > not big in Australia.
You don't need to know anything about them other than they're not, shall we say, the most socially accepting people. The comparison between the Ku Klux Klan and yourself is, on the surface, equivalent (headstrong, bit between teeth, fight for beliefs). Where it fails, however, is in the fact that the beliefs are different. Someone who is headstrong and fights for justice and truth is good. Conversely, another person who is headstrong and fights, but fights for evil is not good. There's the difference. So it's not whether you are headstrong or not, it's not whether you fight for it or not, and it's not whether you have the bit between your teeth or not -- it's whether what you believe and are fighting for is correct or not.
Various people in this newsgroup have suggested (politely or otherwise) that you consider that the insults you perceive are a result of you interpreting things incorrectly. If there's a chance that they may be right, then are you willing to continue to fight for something which is wrong? Are you so headstrong that you are unwilling to reconsider the situation to determine whether the fight you're fighting makes sense?
What if it really is you who is wrong? What if it's not all a big conspiracy, c.l.l vs. Mel? What if people here really are trying to help you think better?
> 1. a person or thing that hacks or cuts roughly > 2. a) a perosn whose hobby is computing or computer programming > b) a person who gains unauthorised access to a computer network and uses > or alters data etc.
> I believed it was referring to 2. b).
> I may have made a mistake in the reference to "hacker", but Mr Eric S. > Raymond is even more incorrect in his definition of hacker. By the way, > a "cracker" is someone who cracks a piece of software ie. a demo version > is *cracked* so that it works indefinately. Mr Raymond doesn't even get > this right.
Why do you assume the Oxford English Dictionary is the definitive source of computer terminology? Do you learn about Java from the Oxford dictionary? What does it say about Lisp?
Did you know that Mr. Raymond started the Jargon File, from where the hacker definition comes? Mr. Raymond is also the author of the "How to Ask Questions the Smart Way" article which uses the hacker definition. Don't you think that he would be using his own definition of hacker?
Ah, but here's a little Australian pipsqueak barely out of high school who knows without a doubt that Eric S. Raymond, who has been actively working in the computer industry since probably before you were born, is wrong because the Oxford dictionary told her so. Stop the presses! This is breaking news!
> > > > > > > By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object oriented > > > > > > > before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
> > > > > > You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you. Visit > > > > > > http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?", then click on > > > > > > "object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
> > > > > Sometimes I am just looking for a simple answer. Much of what is on > > > > > lisp.org goes straight over the top of my head. Remember, I have only > > > > > *just* started learning lisp, and I simly don't understand the indepth > > > > > analysis that is on lisp.org.
> > > > In-depth analysis? Maybe I'll recap what you would find had you > > > > followed my advice:
> > > > There is no one true programming methodology:
> > > > Common lisp provides integrated support for all these methodologies
> > > > If that's above your head,
> > > No it's not above my head, however I have never heard of Functional > > > Programming.
> > The page I suggested you read would have told you exactly what > > functional programming is. It also would have told you explicitly > > whether or not Lisp is object oriented and also why it is object > > oriented.
> This I do apologise for. I have been given several links which I have > bookmarked, and I aim to get around to reading *all* of them. However, > there is a lot of reading to get through, and I don't have *that* much > time on my hands :)
Fair enough.
> > > > > In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could have > > > > > answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it in one > > > > > word - "yes" or "no".
> > > > Or I could have told you to fuck off.
> > > Or you could have just said nothing.
> > I volunteered an answer in order to help you. You then had the nerve to > > complain that you didn't like my answer. It is YOU who should have > > simply said nothing if you didn't like it. Insulting and complaining to > > a person who has offered assistance is just plain RUDE!
> And your answer was rude. So we were both rude. But I ask, who was rude > first?
I stated facts and you whined about taking up three lines to do it. Now you've got this persecution complex in that you think everyone's trying to gang up on you (c.l.l vs Mel) and perform corporal punishment on you.
> > It's the online equivalent of visiting a foreign city and asking a local > > for directions to a particular restaurant. The local shows you where > > you currently are on a map,
> and what if the map is in German?
It's an analogy. You have the habit of taking these things too far. "And what if it's at night and very dark, and the power has gone out and I can't see, and there are muggers everywhere, and it's after a nuclear explosion?"
> > and the path you must take to get to your > > destination as well as other points of interest.
> I have worked in a place where I also used to provide tourist > information. This is *NOT* how you provide help. If I was asked a > specific question such as "Where is the nearest toilet?" The correct way > to help this person, would be to give explicit directions where the > toilet is. Sometimes it is useful to draw a hand drawn map with specific > features to help the person find the toilets. This is called "helping > others".
And how would you react if the person crumpled up your hand drawn map with specific features and said, "In the three minutes it took you to draw that map, you could have answered my question. In fact, you could have answered it in a single sentence - 'half a block that way'."?
> By your argument, there is no point in putting signs up when > there is an event, cuz according to you they could just use a map and > find it themselves?
You missed my point entirely. It's really not about maps at all, now is it?
> > You then complain to > > the local that he could have simply pointed the direction and told you > > it was two blocks that way. What's the local going to say? "Fine! > > Next time you need help go find it yourself, you ungrateful leech!"
> No, because your argument is not valid. Your way of helping the person > is rude and not particularly helpful in the first place. If I helped > someone the way you suggested, I would have been sacked.
Let me get this straight: it's rude for a citizen of a foreign country who just happened to be walking along the street to stop for you, respond to your question by showing you on your map where your destination is, and also point out stops of interest along the way that you might wish to consider? This is rudeness to you? You would say the non-rude way would be for this stranger to point in the direction and gruffly say "two blocks over there"?
Is this another reading comprehension error on your part, or is social interaction in Australia as backwards as a toilet flush?
> > That the term hacker includes expert programmers should be more than > > relevant in this newsgroup and ought to give you pause for thought.
> I am not an expert programmer and have never claimed to be.
I'm not sure why you make this statement. Please re-read what I wrote.
> > > If someone finds the question a little too trivial, > > > then the correct behaviour is to ignore it.
> > If you find an answer a little too insulting, then the correct behavior > > is to ignore it and not whine about how insulting you found it.
> Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
I'd tell you, but you'd never believe me.
> > > The more you continue to argue that this *corporal punishment* > > > style is correct, the more you display your old-fashioned, cruel > > > behaviour.
> > Bend over and expose your buttocks. Someone hand me the strap please?
In article <MPG.182a859e7b544d6989...@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>, Brian Palmer <br...@invalid.dom> wrote:
> Did you know that Mr. Raymond started the Jargon File, from where the > hacker definition comes?
Uh ... no he didn't. The Jargon File has been around since the depths of time. ESR picked it up sometime around 1990 when it had been languishing without updates for some time, polished it up a bit, and published it as a book.
While that was a good service (and possibly even made him a little money), I am grateful every day for the work he did on making cvs and gdb work with emacs. Oh and fetchmail is handy too.
>> 1. a person or thing that hacks or cuts roughly >> 2. a) a perosn whose hobby is computing or computer programming >> b) a person who gains unauthorised access to a computer network and uses >> or alters data etc.
>> I believed it was referring to 2. b).
>> I may have made a mistake in the reference to "hacker", but Mr Eric S. >> Raymond is even more incorrect in his definition of hacker. By the way, >> a "cracker" is someone who cracks a piece of software ie. a demo version >> is *cracked* so that it works indefinately. Mr Raymond doesn't even get >> this right.
> Why do you assume the Oxford English Dictionary is the definitive > source of computer terminology? Do you learn about Java from the > Oxford dictionary? What does it say about Lisp?
> Did you know that Mr. Raymond started the Jargon File, from where > the hacker definition comes?
Um... I would send this by mail, but you mask your address so:
arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> writes: >> You took insult to >> his message where he refers to cockroaches etc. (He has also pointed >> that you need to improve your reading comprehension skills).
> A spelling mistake is not a crime!
Join the non sequitur club! We may not make sense, but we do like pizza.
You really do need to work on your reading comprehension skills don't you?
-- Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite." -- Jane Austen?
Brian Palmer <br...@invalid.dom> writes: > As long as you're willing to think, nobody's going to mind you > asking questions. You have received some very helpful replies here, > have you not? Perhaps you should revisit those questions you asked > and see how they differ from your recent postings. For example:
> - you ask a question > - somebody replies that you should visit a web page to find the answer > - you reply criticizing the help you received, stating that it should > have been summarized in a yes or no answer
> This would demonstrate an unwillingness to learn and rudeness to the > person who attempted to help you. It also implies that you are lazy > because you're unwilling to read a web page and learn a thing or > two.
Obviously not lazy enough to think 'ah fuck it' and stop digging though.
-- Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite." -- Jane Austen?
>> > > > > > By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt >> > > > > > object oriented before, so I don't understand how a >> > > > > > procedural language works.
>> > > > > You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you. >> > > > > Visit http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?", >> > > > > then click on "object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
>> > > > Sometimes I am just looking for a simple answer. Much of what >> > > > is on lisp.org goes straight over the top of my >> > > > head. Remember, I have only *just* started learning lisp, and >> > > > I simly don't understand the indepth analysis that is on >> > > > lisp.org.
>> > > In-depth analysis? Maybe I'll recap what you would find had you >> > > followed my advice:
>> > > There is no one true programming methodology:
>> > > Common lisp provides integrated support for all these methodologies
>> > > If that's above your head,
>> > No it's not above my head, however I have never heard of Functional >> > Programming.
>> The page I suggested you read would have told you exactly what >> functional programming is. It also would have told you explicitly >> whether or not Lisp is object oriented and also why it is object >> oriented.
> This I do apologise for. I have been given several links which I have > bookmarked, and I aim to get around to reading *all* of them. However, > there is a lot of reading to get through, and I don't have *that* much > time on my hands :)
As others have said, you'd get more from your time if you spent it reading the pointers that Brian gave you than red misting on here. Please. Go. Read. Take some deep breaths and then come back with questions that demonstrate that you are actually learning from the material provided. You'll find that people become *much* nicer that way. There are people here who are genuinely trying to help you, Brian among them.
>> > > > In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could have >> > > > answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it in one >> > > > word - "yes" or "no".
>> > > Or I could have told you to fuck off.
>> > Or you could have just said nothing.
>> I volunteered an answer in order to help you. You then had the nerve to >> complain that you didn't like my answer. It is YOU who should have >> simply said nothing if you didn't like it. Insulting and complaining to >> a person who has offered assistance is just plain RUDE!
> And your answer was rude. So we were both rude. But I ask, who was rude > first?
No, Brian's answer was *not* rude. You chose to be offended by it. Brian read your question and chose to answer it with a resource that could actually help you achieve some *understanding*, which is a damn sight more useful than the mere information you thought you were asking for. Now, he *could* have taken the time to write out an essay, duplicating the information provided at www.lisp.org, but that would take time, and what would be the point; the work's already been done.
>> It's the online equivalent of visiting a foreign city and asking a >> local for directions to a particular restaurant. The local shows >> you where you currently are on a map,
> and what if the map is in German?
>> and the path you must take to get to your destination as well as >> other points of interest.
> I have worked in a place where I also used to provide tourist > information. This is *NOT* how you provide help. If I was asked a > specific question such as "Where is the nearest toilet?" The correct > way to help this person, would be to give explicit directions where > the toilet is. Sometimes it is useful to draw a hand drawn map with > specific features to help the person find the toilets. This is > called "helping others". By your argument, there is no point in > putting signs up when there is an event, cuz according to you they > could just use a map and find it themselves?
Ah. Here is your fundamental misunderstanding I think. In your analogy the people giving out the information are being *paid* to do so, and those asking the questions are outsiders and will always remain so.
That *really* doesn't reflect what's happening in here. comp.lang.lisp is a community, when a newcomer shows up asking a question that's been asked a thousand times before, backed up with a bunch of insulting preconceptions about that community (whether the newcomer is aware they are insulting or not), then the members of the community will respond.
For me, the most valuable response (in this community and in other USENET communities of which I'm a member) is something along the lines of Brian's response, in which the newcomer is pointed to a source of information that will help said newcomer achieve some understanding; the first step on a road to becoming a member of the community.
There are other responses.
>> You then complain to the local that he could have simply pointed >> the direction and told you it was two blocks that way. What's the >> local going to say? "Fine! Next time you need help go find it >> yourself, you ungrateful leech!"
> No, because your argument is not valid. Your way of helping the > person is rude and not particularly helpful in the first place. If I > helped someone the way you suggested, I would have been sacked.
But it is part of an age old and, one assumes, still valid teaching model. Go watch a few Martial Arts films, where the young wannabe goes in search of his Sensei. Hell, even the The Karate Kid will do for this particular illustration. Compare the teaching styles of Mr Miyagi and the sensei at the local Dojo. Under Miyagi Daniel does much of the work himself, he's not handed premade solutions and he doesn't necessarily understand why he's being taught what he is as he's being taught it. Hell, he often doesn't even realise that he *is* being taught. Meanwhile, over at the Dojo, the Sensei drills his pupils with cookie cutter moves; sure they can do the moves, but there's no real understanding underlying that ability.
I suggest reconsidering your experiences in this newsgroup. Be charitable. Instead of assuming that you're being attacked, try to see that the vast majority of responses you have received (at least to your initial questions) were offered, honestly, as paths to enlightenment. Yes, even Erik's responses, though he was a good deal more brusque than most.
>> > > Do you think everybody here is your personal slave to help you >> > > the way you want to be helped?
>> > Did I suggest that? Please post where I suggested that.
>> This quote of yours suggests this attitude:
>> "EXPLAIN IT TO ME FOR FUCKS SAKE!"
> Keep it in context. When read with the rest of the post, it is > obvious that I meant "Explain to me rather than abuse me, otherwise > ignore me".
But he already *did* explain it to you when he pointed you at a website where it *was* explained. Neither he, nor anyone else, has a duty to give you the answers you seek. Especially when you're asking for a 'yes/no' answer to the kind of question that's best answered with another question. It wouldn't do for you to go away with the wrong impression because you interpreted a yes/no answer in the light of your current, limited (not meant as an insult) understanding.
>> > > Do you tell your professors, "Look, instead of describing the >> > > theory so that I'll understand the principles behind it, how >> > > about just giving me the answer? It took you an entire >> > > semester just to write out e=mc^2! What a colossal waste of >> > > bandwidth!!!"
>> > That's just ridiculous. If this was the case I wouldn't be here, >> > I would just be copying the code off of a friend (like I have >> > seen others doing in my class). No, I'm trying to actually learn >> > it cuz I want to. That is why I am here.
>> How is what I described above with e=mc^2 any different from >> pointing you to a website where you can learn whether or not lisp >> is object oriented? You seemed to want a yes or no answer to that >> question, so what's ridiculous about assuming that you would simply >> want to know the formula e=mc^2 rather than the theory behind it?
> As I said above, I'm getting through the websites slowly.
That's good to hear; getting through them quickly would probably mean you weren't reading them carefully enough.
-- Piers
Do not wrestle with pigs. You only get muddy, and the pig enjoys it.
