* "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> | If I did I would.
Then do you not voice your supprot for his current behavior by attacking those who criticize it. Or do it by mail so you do not aggravate people by criticizing the critics just because you feel holier than everybody else.
| I do not understand people who are so eager to call others idiots and | incompetents.
Yes, you do, you only choose to do so on different occasions. You go out of your way to accuse those who do something you do not like of ill will and hostility when nonesuch exists and you exacerbate every conflict situation by attacking those who defend something, making it impossible to establish better relations and to send the proper signals to the troublemakers, on whose side you have consistently placed yourself because you hate people who call others idiots and incompetents so much that you just have to speak up and make even more trouble.
| Actually, I do understand it, I just think it is an extremely negative part | of human nature rooted in weakness and cruelty.
Yet you prefer to engage in exactly the same tactics against those you think deserve it over doing something constructive. If you do not understand this, you are an even less palatable hypocrite than I already think you are.
| It is that part I detest so much in the academic world, the glee people take | in belittling and humiliating others and the false comfort and pride they | take in being accepted and praised by their community.
Ah. You are the Revenger against ills that do not exist but which arise out of your hypersensitivity towards past suffering. Your detesting something does not make it come into being. People who are emotionally screwed-up tend to see threats and dangers that are not there because they are reminded of what happened to them in the past and react to their memories, not to the reality in which they actually live. It seems that you are reminded of what you detest so much every time someone speaks up against the /real/ idiots in the world because some /non-idiots/ were unfairly harrassed in your past, and my guess is that that person was yourself. So instead of just letting people speak up against the obnoxious idiots, you sit on your hands until someone speaks up and then you attack that person, instead, making the idiots more welcome and destructive because they have a "supporter" of their cause.
Please realize that just because /you/ feel better after elevating yourself above those who criticize others, you have not actually improved anything by criticizing them in worse manners. Your desire to tell people how bad they are reflect on your own personality more than anything else. Other people criticize people for what they /do/ and /stop/ when the actions improve, but you choose to impute ill will and evil intentions to people on a scale that is truly evil because you harbor ill will against people long after you were offended based on your /own/ moralistic view of /them/ beyond what you think they have done. You make the evil mistake of thinking you can do any harm you want to others because of your impression of them. Lynch mobs had that same warped ethics that anything goes as long as you are insanely furious enough about something. And you see your evil in others when they simply criticize others for actions that are /actually/ bad. Your own reprehensible character speaks up against an evil that you should seek to correct primarily in yourself and keep out of public view.
| Putting other people down is never about anything accept trying to elevate | your own self image.
Your rebellion against this entails putting other people down. You are very obviously on a mission to elevate your self-image when you detest ills that you impute to others and speak up to criticize what is not actually there.
| Well, that is off on a bit of a tangent, sorry (and kind of preachy, looking | back over it) but it is true, so I will leave it as is.
Your lack of insight is alarming. You do not see the similiarity of yourself to that which you detest. You have even become what you detest in others when you work so hard to put others down for what you believe is putting down, but which is far more honest and less sinister on the part of those /you/ unfairly blame for evils they have not committed. A mere irritation with the presistency of obnoxious lunatics you interpret as an academic put-down intended to elevate the critic.
You clearly have issues, my hypercritical friend, but this is not the forum to act on them, or even discuss them.
| I think dialogue with ilias could have been salvaged with a few less people | so eager to be rude about it.
Then engage in that instead of your standard preaching against those who speak up against the things /they/ do not like when you do that yourself for thing /you/ do not like. Do what you think is right if you desire to speak up against those who do something you think needs to be criticized. This becomes more and more important the more you criticize criticism over actions. You attempt, in effect, to curb people's ability to criticize what they do not like while you reserve that right to yourself. This is a symptom of a troubled soul. Please bother someone else someplace else. That same advice goes to the target of the criticism you scolded. You two have more in common than you like in that regard, too.
-- 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.
* "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> | You may well be right (but obviously, I tend to disagree.) I believe that | more often than not, our enemies are the creation of our own actions.
Then take this wisdom and use it to create fewer enemies.
-- 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.
* Takehiko Abe | How do you know somebody is hating you if you do not know him?
To know somebody has two different meanings. If you said you hated me in this newsgroup, would I thereby know you? Hardly. The people who have come out of nowhere to express hatred and anger think they know me, however, in the sense that they spout an enormous amount of drivel that they /invented/ about me based on what they think they saw. Clearly, these people are quite insane, but what does it mean to /know/ somebody except that you think that what you have concluded about them is true?
-- 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.
> >> > Speak for yourself. And even if it is your conclusion, > >> > what possible good is served by stating it?
> >> He is clearly laboring under serious delusions of competence. > >> If he's not entirely insane then pointing this out may encourage > >> him to go elsewhere.
> > You may well be right (but obviously, I tend to disagree.) > > I believe that more often than not, our enemies are the > > creation of our own actions. > but if you belive you are doing the right thing should you modify > your actions just because other people will become your enemies?
Though they do exist, situations where doing "The Right Thing" unavoidably creates enemies are uncommon. But the short answer to your question is no.
> It is impossable to go through life with out making enemies. You may > make them for the best or worst reasons, but you will make them.
This is true. But is it always necessary to engage them? This gets a little away from the issue of stubborn newbies and insulted, angry experts. I would hope few people elevate ilias to the stature "Enemy of lisp"
* "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> | This is true. But is it always necessary to engage them?
You seem to have a knack for engaging the critics. Why is that? Would they not, according to your own standards, be likely to be /less/ hostile if they did not always have someone like you come up and brand them as immoral and evil and whatnot when they lose their patience after spending a lot of time trying to help someone? Have you no empathy for those who find that their goodwill is abused by these morons, only for the morons who so abuse it when they are criticized for it? Perhaps you create more morons by defending them?
-- 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.
>>>>>Let me guess -- your email message was too small to contain it? >>>>i don't understand. >>>>please clarify. >>>He is talking about your margin. It is too small. >>still don't get it.
> Don't worry, I'm working on a 100 page program that will clear > up this READ-DELIMITED-LIST once and for all. It'll be ready > in about ten years.
i'm not a good target for your 'knowledge-games'.
i simply don't have many knowledge.
you have to find another target for playing your intelectual 'trivial pursuit'.
except you enjoy to play with the 'weak'.
if so, i'm happy to be your private 'show-your-knowledge-clown'.
Coby Beck wrote: > I do not understand > people who are so eager to call others idiots and incompetents.
> Actually, I do understand it, I just think it is an extremely negative part > of human nature rooted in weakness and cruelty. It is that part I detest so > much in the academic world, the glee people take in belittling and > humiliating others and the false comfort and pride they take in being > accepted and praised by their community. Putting other people down is never > about anything accept trying to elevate your own self image.
Does the academic world have a lock on this. Is this not true in general, such as in professional and political world.
Or is it really more acute in the academic world, because of the measures of success in that world. In non-academic world, the measures are amount of money, or service rendered, or economic or political power. In academic world, at least for the masses of the practitioners, it is...amount of peer recognition, in particular, of one's smartness? If so, how can you blame the practitioners entirely; the system practically dictates the individual behavior, does it not. And it has been like this throughout the ages, has it not.
> * "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> > | If I did I would.
> Then do you not voice your supprot for his current behavior by attacking > those who criticize it.
I didn't. If you read what I wrote a little more carefully I'm sure you will see that. I did not voice support for his behaviour, I did not attack anyone, I did not respond to a criticism of his behaviour.
> Or do it by mail so you do not aggravate people by > criticizing the critics just because you feel holier than everybody
else.
If you were sincere about this advice, why did you not follow it yourself and reply to me via email? (I don't say you should have, but it follows from your argument to me)
> | I do not understand people who are so eager to call others idiots and > | incompetents.
> Yes, you do, you only choose to do so on different occasions. You go out of > your way to accuse those who do something you do not like of ill will and > hostility when nonesuch exists and you exacerbate every conflict situation > by attacking those who defend something, making it impossible to establish > better relations and to send the proper signals to the troublemakers, on > whose side you have consistently placed yourself because you hate people who > call others idiots and incompetents so much that you just have to speak up > and make even more trouble.
There is nothing in the above paragraph I can even begin to debate about. My only answer is "No, you are wrong on every point" Again, you will have to show me things I have written that have given you this impression so I can correct your misunderstandings or apologise for what I have said. On a strictly logical point, your assertions have no connection to the sentence you have quoted.
> | Actually, I do understand it, I just think it is an extremely negative part > | of human nature rooted in weakness and cruelty.
> Yet you prefer to engage in exactly the same tactics against those you think > deserve it over doing something constructive.
You are completely incorrect in this assertion, it is however not likely to be productive discussing it.
> | It is that part I detest so much in the academic world, the glee people take > | in belittling and humiliating others and the false comfort and pride they > | take in being accepted and praised by their community.
> Ah. You are the Revenger against ills that do not exist but which arise out > of your hypersensitivity towards past suffering. Your detesting something > does not make it come into being.
Nor does your denying it keep it from existing. Why don't you simply make a point, such as "I do not believe this is a problem in the academic world" instead of all this fabrication of what I am thinking and why? It would make it possible to have a discussion with you.
> People who are emotionally screwed-up > tend to see threats and dangers that are not there because they are reminded > of what happened to them in the past and react to their memories, not to the > reality in which they actually live. It seems that you are reminded of what > you detest so much every time someone speaks up against the /real/ idiots in > the world because some /non-idiots/ were unfairly harrassed in your past, and > my guess is that that person was yourself.
[snip]
Sorry, incorrect. As the rest of your long speculations follow from this premise, I will not bother to respond to it directly.
> | I think dialogue with ilias could have been salvaged with a few less people > | so eager to be rude about it.
> Then engage in that instead of your standard preaching against those who > speak up against the things /they/ do not like when you do that yourself for > thing /you/ do not like.
Well, I think this little bit started because I was bothered by Paul's use of "we" in saying "we have concluded you are an idiot" or something. I doubt I would have replied except for that. Paul did not seem to feel attacked by me, I don't know why you feel threatened.
> Do what you think is right if you desire to speak > up against those who do something you think needs to be criticized.
I have been "practicing what I am preaching" wrt ilias, so your advice is unnecessary.
> * "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> > | This is true. But is it always necessary to engage them?
> You seem to have a knack for engaging the critics. Why is that? Would they > not, according to your own standards, be likely to be /less/ hostile if they > did not always have someone like you come up and brand them as immoral and > evil and whatnot when they lose their patience after spending a lot of time > trying to help someone?
Do you consider all criticism of personal behaviour to be a branding of evil? Is my saying, "I do not think it is right to do that" equivalent to "you are immoral and evil" in your eyes?
If so, why do you not accept that I take "you are an idiot" as a hostile statement?
Joe Marshall wrote: > "ilias" <at_n...@pontos.net> wrote in message news:3D7276DA.2080104@pontos.net... >>i think i've found a 2-line-solution for this problem, which works >>clearer than the above code.
> Please post it.
;;; ------------------------------------------------------------ ;;; The Challenge of Nested Macros ;;; ------------------------------------------------------------ (set-syntax-from-char #\[ #\,) (set-syntax-from-char #\] #\Space) ;;; ------------------------------------------------------------
;;; this enables the following writing-style, which clarifies ;;; optically the level of the macro-variables. ;;; [s1] = ,symbol = evaluate in first pass ;;; [[s2-1] [s2-2] = ,,symbol = evaluate in second pass
;;; As ] is only whitespace, u can move them around as you like. ;;; this is a little bit dangerous. Keep in mind that: ;;; `( ['[long]] [@args] ) == ;;; `( ['[long] [@args] ]) == ;;; `( ,',long ,@args ) ;;; ;;; I imagine the backquote '`' as a gun, which shots over lines ;;; and the 'ball' destroys one level of []. ;;; what happens in the above test-code: ;;; 1st shot: ;;; (defmacro df (&rest args) ;;; `( '[long] [@args] ))) ;;; 2nd shot: ;;; (defmacro df (&rest args) ;;; ( defun (x y z) (* x y z) ))) ;;; ;;; ------------------------------------------------------------ ;;; Tested with Allegro. ;;; Should run on any conformant CL. ;;; ------------------------------------------------------------ ;;; ilias - 2002-09-02 - #V0.1 ;;; ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>Let me guess -- your email message was too small to contain it?
>>>>i don't understand. >>>>please clarify.
>>>He is talking about your margin. It is too small.
>>still don't get it.
> "The Seventeenth-Century French mathematician Pierre de Fermat wrote in the > margin of his copy of Arithmetica by Diophantus, near the section on the > Pythagorean Theorem (a squared plus b squared equals c squared), 'x ^ n + y > ^ n = z ^ n - it cannot be solved with non-zero integers x, y, z for any > exponent n greater than 2. I have found a truly marvelous proof, which this > margin is too small to contain.' > This was left as an enigmatic riddle after Fermat's death and it became a > famous, unsolved problem of number theory for over 350 years."
* "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> | Do you consider all criticism of personal behaviour to be a branding of | evil?
No. I consider your criticism of those who criticize bad behavior to be branding of evil since you make broad, sweeping claims about those you criticize. I fail to see how this could not have been communicated clearly, so I take your response to be intentionally deflective.
-- 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.
* Coby Beck | I didn't. If you read what I wrote a little more carefully I'm sure you | will see that. I did not voice support for his behaviour, I did not attack | anyone, I did not respond to a criticism of his behaviour.
Coby, please quit being such a snotty arrogant shithead and start to think. Of /course/ I read you carefully. It is /because/ I read you carefully that I respond to you in the first place. Had I read you less carefully, I would have kill-filed you for your immense lack of contributions to this forum and you incessant whining about the behavior of critics and never of those who misbehave in the first place.
But let me tell you something you must have missed in your life. When a person is criticized for something, he will interpret any and all /public/ criticism of his critics as implicit support. If you do not intend this dual function with your criticism, send it by mail. By making the criticism public, you make it clear that you want to distance yourself from the criticism, and there is no way you can escape the consequence that you thereby support that which is being criticized. If you think you should be able to escape such an obvious consequence, you need to say so up front. For instance, you just /had/ to comment negatively on me. That shows that you know how to do it, yet you chose only to criticize the critic. You have done this very often. There is no way you can possibly hope to escape the conclusion that you are on the "victim's" side of the criticism and scold only those who want this to be a forum that is valuable to people who are not idiots. That makes you strongly pro-idiot. If you are not, speak up when you see something you do not like other than just criticism of those who speak up.
| If you were sincere about this advice, why did you not follow it yourself | and reply to me via email? (I don't say you should have, but it follows | from your argument to me)
No, it does not. You would realize this if your main concern was to understand and not to throw blame away from yourself.
| Again, you will have to show me things I have written that have given you | this impression so I can correct your misunderstandings or apologise for | what I have said.
How about everything you have ever written to me in this newsgroup? You have attacked me most unfairly on so numerous occasions and are so unapologetic about your lopsided ethics that I consider you an evil person. Your apologies would not help. You are destructive towards this forum when you always criticize those who want the noisy idiots to keep quiet. You are part of the problem.
| Why don't you simply make a point, such as "I do not believe this is a | problem in the academic world" instead of all this fabrication of what I am | thinking and why? It would make it possible to have a discussion with you.
I am utterly amazed. It is a problem in the academic world. This is not the academic world. That you are reminded of a problem in the academic world when you see an idiot get criticized is your personal problem and you should stop bothering other people with it. I suggest you seek professional help to get over your problems with rejection in academia. It was immensely educational to see you speak of what you actually detest. It has nothing to do with this forum at all. That you should even bring up what you detest in "academia" is very interesting. It shows that you never got over it and are constantly bothered by memories of it. That you need to distance yourself from all /perceived/ instances of inclusion in such criticism explains so much about your personality as you have shown it to us here. Please think about what I have written to you instead of dismissing it out of hand.
| Well, I think this little bit started because I was bothered by Paul's use | of "we" in saying "we have concluded you are an idiot" or something.
That you think you would be included had you not spoken is pathological. That you need to speak in order to distance yourself from others is likewise not a sign of a healthy mind.
| I doubt I would have replied except for that. Paul did not seem to feel | attacked by me, I don't know why you feel threatened.
You keep imputing intent to people where you should not. I wonder why. I do not feel threatened. I consider you damaging to this forum because you always rise to object when somebody makes a serious disturbance and he gets criticized for it. You make things far worse with your incredulous desire to speak up just to be excluded from a rhetorical "we". It looks demented.
Everybody knows that a rhetorical "we" is not all-inclusive. Lots of people never feel included by rhetorical "wes" and never have to speak up about it. I suggest that you become one of those people by getting a better grip on what you really object to and get over whatever horrible thing happened to you that made you need to make such distance.
| I have been "practicing what I am preaching" wrt ilias, so your advice is | unnecessary.
Then you both practice and preach hypocrisy. I find that fascinating.
-- 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.
> * "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> > | Do you consider all criticism of personal behaviour to be a > | branding of evil?
> No. I consider your criticism of those who criticize bad > behavior to be branding of evil since you make broad, sweeping > claims about those you criticize. I fail to see how this > could not have been communicated clearly, so I take your response > to be intentionally deflective.
It was not. You have yet to show me anything I have written that supports your characterization of it. Out of respect for your own brand of integrity that you profess and exhibit, I have reviewed what I wrote recently and do not find any broad sweeping claims about any individuals. I have made claims about social phenomena and its relation to individual behaviours and I stand by them. Is it the fact that I said (loose-quote "rudeness and hostility in this intellectual forum is rooted in weakness and cruelty similar to what is often found in academia") what makes you leap to your conclusions? If so, we will probably just have to agree to disagree unless you can present some points not based on false presumptions about who I am and what I think.
> you incessant whining about the behavior of critics and never of those who > misbehave in the first place. ... > you always criticize those who want the noisy idiots to keep quiet. You are > part of the problem. ... > world when you see an idiot get criticized is your personal problem and you ... > Then you both practice and preach hypocrisy. I find that fascinating.
may someone has detected, that 'Coby Beck' does not protect the 'idiot' ilias (thats me).
may someone has detected, that the idiot ilias doesn't need 'protection'.
may someone has detected, that 'Coby Beck' tries to 'protect' some people in the c.l.l.-community from outing themselves as *total* socially incopetent 'idiots'.
i don't know this unfriendly person 'Erik Naggum', but i know that he has lost control in what he's writing, as he's lost control over his egoism.
I ask friendly: may someone who knows him drops him an email so he wakes up.
I think that everyone has lost control sometimes somehow. Me too, of course.
P.S.: I write this way, cause i expect that he don't receive my messages.
Erik Naggum wrote: > * Coby Beck > | I didn't. If you read what I wrote a little more carefully I'm sure you > | will see that. I did not voice support for his behaviour, I did not attack > | anyone, I did not respond to a criticism of his behaviour.
> Coby, please quit being such a snotty arrogant shithead and start to think. > Of /course/ I read you carefully. It is /because/ I read you carefully that > I respond to you in the first place. Had I read you less carefully, I would > have kill-filed you for your immense lack of contributions to this forum and > you incessant whining about the behavior of critics and never of those who > misbehave in the first place.
> But let me tell you something you must have missed in your life. When a > person is criticized for something, he will interpret any and all /public/ > criticism of his critics as implicit support. If you do not intend this dual > function with your criticism, send it by mail. By making the criticism > public, you make it clear that you want to distance yourself from the > criticism, and there is no way you can escape the consequence that you > thereby support that which is being criticized. If you think you should be > able to escape such an obvious consequence, you need to say so up front. > For instance, you just /had/ to comment negatively on me. That shows that > you know how to do it, yet you chose only to criticize the critic. You have > done this very often. There is no way you can possibly hope to escape the > conclusion that you are on the "victim's" side of the criticism and scold > only those who want this to be a forum that is valuable to people who are > not idiots. That makes you strongly pro-idiot. If you are not, speak up > when you see something you do not like other than just criticism of those > who speak up.
> | If you were sincere about this advice, why did you not follow it yourself > | and reply to me via email? (I don't say you should have, but it follows > | from your argument to me)
> No, it does not. You would realize this if your main concern was to > understand and not to throw blame away from yourself.
> | Again, you will have to show me things I have written that have given you > | this impression so I can correct your misunderstandings or apologise for > | what I have said.
> How about everything you have ever written to me in this newsgroup? > You have attacked me most unfairly on so numerous occasions and are so > unapologetic about your lopsided ethics that I consider you an evil person. > Your apologies would not help. You are destructive towards this forum when > you always criticize those who want the noisy idiots to keep quiet. You are > part of the problem.
> | Why don't you simply make a point, such as "I do not believe this is a > | problem in the academic world" instead of all this fabrication of what I am > | thinking and why? It would make it possible to have a discussion with you.
> I am utterly amazed. It is a problem in the academic world. This is not > the academic world. That you are reminded of a problem in the academic > world when you see an idiot get criticized is your personal problem and you > should stop bothering other people with it. I suggest you seek professional > help to get over your problems with rejection in academia. It was immensely > educational to see you speak of what you actually detest. It has nothing to > do with this forum at all. That you should even bring up what you detest in > "academia" is very interesting. It shows that you never got over it and are > constantly bothered by memories of it. That you need to distance yourself > from all /perceived/ instances of inclusion in such criticism explains so > much about your personality as you have shown it to us here. Please think > about what I have written to you instead of dismissing it out of hand.
> | Well, I think this little bit started because I was bothered by Paul's use > | of "we" in saying "we have concluded you are an idiot" or something.
> That you think you would be included had you not spoken is pathological. > That you need to speak in order to distance yourself from others is likewise > not a sign of a healthy mind.
> | I doubt I would have replied except for that. Paul did not seem to feel > | attacked by me, I don't know why you feel threatened.
> You keep imputing intent to people where you should not. I wonder why. I > do not feel threatened. I consider you damaging to this forum because you > always rise to object when somebody makes a serious disturbance and he gets > criticized for it. You make things far worse with your incredulous desire > to speak up just to be excluded from a rhetorical "we". It looks demented.
> Everybody knows that a rhetorical "we" is not all-inclusive. Lots of people > never feel included by rhetorical "wes" and never have to speak up about it. > I suggest that you become one of those people by getting a better grip on > what you really object to and get over whatever horrible thing happened to > you that made you need to make such distance.
> | I have been "practicing what I am preaching" wrt ilias, so your advice is > | unnecessary.
> Then you both practice and preach hypocrisy. I find that fascinating.
* Coby Beck | You have yet to show me anything I have written that supports your | characterization of it.
Look, you idiot. The evidence is right there in front of you -- it is your own articles. You should know what you write and what you do. Demanding that you be shown what you have yourself written so that you can be relieved of the pain of revisiting your own writings is just being equally obnoxious as the idiots you defend from criticism.
| Out of respect for your own brand of integrity that you profess and exhibit, | I have reviewed what I wrote recently and do not find any broad sweeping | claims about any individuals.
Why am I not surprised. You have already shown us that you do not understand that publicly criticizing a critic is tantamount to defending that which is criticized and that everybody else see your actions this way.
| If so, we will probably just have to agree to disagree unless you can present | some points not based on false presumptions about who I am and what I think.
Are you finally beginning to learn? That would be welcome. Your own need to criticize others is based on your false presumptions about them. That you now seem to indicate that you do not like this when it happens to yourself could be a good sign -- that you may yet understand /why/ your incessant whining about the behavior of critics or your stupid need to distance yourself from rhetorical "wes" is unwelcome because of the many layers of implicit accusations that are based on /your/ false presumptions.
From what you write about what you "detest" from academia, which is utterly irrelevant here, I finally begin to understand your need to harrass those who /you/ see as transgressors without realizing your own role and function as an harrassing contributor to the hostile environment that you seem to "detest". Less hostility on /your/ part against the critics would go a long way to decrease the /expectation/ that any exhaustion of patience will be met with similarly stupid distancing on your part.
Go through your own "contributions" to this forum, and you, too, will find that you spend more time complaining about other people than you do anything useful. Those /you/ criticize have at the very least tried to help those /they/ criticize before they criticize anyone. That is not true for you, so you do not actually have the same right to criticize anyone. Losing your patience with someone after you have made an effort to understand and to explain is tolerable -- it is only human. Mounting holier-than-thou wars against those who lose their patience because you had a bad experience in academia is not tolerable -- you should seek help to get over your bad experiences when you notice that they influence your actions and your perception negatively.
But the fact that you refuse to consider anything I tell you is sufficient evidence that you are so convinced that you are better than those you criticize that there is no hope for you, and that you are a waste of time.
-- 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.
In article <slrnan4gbl.3rs.m...@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote: > >> And I think that most of the people who are my enemies have never met > >> me, they hate me because of the groups I belong to(american for example).
> > How do you know somebody is hating you if you do not know him? > > Not because the person happens to live in Baghdad I hope.
> Well I was in the army durring durring desert storm, my unit did not > get deployed though. And there might be some people who hate the > American military in Baghdad.
There must be some people in Baghdad who hate US military. But I think it is wrong to assume that they hate _you_ because the fact that you were in the Army does not mean you are eq to the American miritary.
> And I am Jewish, so lots of people hate me for that.
They hate you and see you as their enemy without knowing you.
In article <3239908650289...@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum wrote: > but what does it mean to /know/ somebody except that you think that > what you have concluded about them is true?
That whatever I have concluded about somebody might not be true makes it dangerous to assume somebody is my enemy. This is more so, the less I know about them.
may someone has detected, that 'Coby Beck' does not protect the 'idiot' ilias (thats me).
may someone has detected, that the idiot ilias doesn't need 'protection'.
may someone has detected, that 'Coby Beck' tries to 'protect' some people in the c.l.l.-community from outing themselves as *total* socially incopetent 'idiots'.
i don't know this unfriendly person 'Erik Naggum', but i know that he has lost control in what he's writing, as he's lost control over his egoism.
I ask friendly: may someone who knows him drops him an email so he wakes up.
I think that everyone has lost control sometimes somehow. Me too, of course.
P.S.: I write this way, cause i expect that he don't receive my messages.
Erik Naggum wrote: > * Coby Beck > | You have yet to show me anything I have written that supports your > | characterization of it.
> Look, you idiot. The evidence is right there in front of you -- it is your > own articles. You should know what you write and what you do. Demanding > that you be shown what you have yourself written so that you can be relieved > of the pain of revisiting your own writings is just being equally obnoxious > as the idiots you defend from criticism.
> | Out of respect for your own brand of integrity that you profess and exhibit, > | I have reviewed what I wrote recently and do not find any broad sweeping > | claims about any individuals.
> Why am I not surprised. You have already shown us that you do not > understand that publicly criticizing a critic is tantamount to defending > that which is criticized and that everybody else see your actions this way.
> | If so, we will probably just have to agree to disagree unless you can present > | some points not based on false presumptions about who I am and what I think.
> Are you finally beginning to learn? That would be welcome. Your own need > to criticize others is based on your false presumptions about them. That > you now seem to indicate that you do not like this when it happens to > yourself could be a good sign -- that you may yet understand /why/ your > incessant whining about the behavior of critics or your stupid need to > distance yourself from rhetorical "wes" is unwelcome because of the many > layers of implicit accusations that are based on /your/ false presumptions.
> From what you write about what you "detest" from academia, which is utterly > irrelevant here, I finally begin to understand your need to harrass those > who /you/ see as transgressors without realizing your own role and function > as an harrassing contributor to the hostile environment that you seem to > "detest". Less hostility on /your/ part against the critics would go a long > way to decrease the /expectation/ that any exhaustion of patience will be > met with similarly stupid distancing on your part.
> Go through your own "contributions" to this forum, and you, too, will find > that you spend more time complaining about other people than you do anything > useful. Those /you/ criticize have at the very least tried to help those /they/ > criticize before they criticize anyone. That is not true for you, so you do > not actually have the same right to criticize anyone. Losing your patience > with someone after you have made an effort to understand and to explain is > tolerable -- it is only human. Mounting holier-than-thou wars against those > who lose their patience because you had a bad experience in academia is not > tolerable -- you should seek help to get over your bad experiences when you > notice that they influence your actions and your perception negatively.
> But the fact that you refuse to consider anything I tell you is sufficient > evidence that you are so convinced that you are better than those you > criticize that there is no hope for you, and that you are a waste of time.
the function *accepts* #\( and #\) as source parameter
> What we deny is your assertion that copying the syntax of open-paren > and close-paren to another pair of characters will make the target > pair behave as if they were list delimiters.
you cannot deny this.
It is a fact: After the above conforming CommonLisp code, the character {} behave like list delimiters (at least they should, as Lispworks & Allegro do).
Until here we should agree.
Now its your turn.
The function *and* of course the results the functions produces are conformant.
What *exactly* 'overrides' the conformancy of the function set-syntax-from-char?
