face to face, people actually clue in on having annoyed others.  those
  who annoy people, such as by not listening to what others tell them, as
  much face to face as they do on USENET, experience exactly the same
  reactions.  experiements have actually shown this, but it's really _hard_
  for people to feign a lack of social intelligence so great that they go
  on to annoy people after the first couple hints of rejection or requests
  to stop annoying others.  on USENET, people have been known to annoy
  others for months on end, simply for lack of _wanting_ to hear what the
  other person is saying, effectively harrassing them with further stupid
  and/or hostile comments.  I try to send stronger hints than most others,
  but the densest, most annoying freaks of nature just don't get it.  some,
  however, clue in on the fact that I also answer people's questions, and
  figure out that there's something in their own behavior that begs for the
  "go away" tone.  those are worth helping further.  the rest should indeed
  go away and I hope they don't come back.

  this is so obviously wrong it's sickening to hear it touted as theory.
  let me illustrate with something I found in somebody's signature:

*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.

  is that hostile to stupid people, or _what_?  the author of this line
  effectively _yells_ at strangers, long before they could every ask their
  questions.  why is this?  is it because he doesn't know how to ignore
  incoming mail?  is it because he feels _invaded_ by people when they send
  mail to him?  is it because he thinks people who don't understand the
  very simplest things about listening to public advice should just go die?
  I really don't know which, but I find it amusing that the same person
  goes to great length to defend the people he bars from his own mailbox,
  saying, in effect: "sure it's OK to annoy everybody else, but stay away
  from _my_ mailbox".

  what's lacking on USENET is the ability that almost all animals and
  people have -- to notice that you annoy somebody else.  stupidity _does_
  annoy people who try to help those who want to learn.  ever seen the
  reaction a stupid person who doesn't "get" that he's annoying a lecturer
  with stupid questions receives from that lecturer and the audience?

  Barry's been trying to blame me for everything for the longest time, but
  let me ask him in return: why does he give stupid people the right to be
  annoying and want to protect them experience any negative feedback from
  their behavior?

| As I said, this is just my opinion, I don't know if it's actually why
| Erik likes to flame so much here (especially at Sam, it seems).

  Sam is especially stupid, and is especially protected by something or
  other (it could be you, Barry) from realizing that he needs to do his
  homework, pay attention, and figure out what he's good at instead of
  doing lots of things so badly it cries out for harsh negative reaction.

  indeed it was.  I'm happy you compare yourself to him.  he's another
  prime example of massive stupidity who just trods on in life, doing
  really bad things and not realizing it, no matter what people tell him.
  the funny thing is that novices like him and his suggestions, but if
  you've had more than a year of experience with Emacs, you realize that he
  has never actually grasped the Emacs mindset, and he's protecting himself
  from ever understanding it by writing more mindbogglingly stupid "tiny"
  tools all the time.  he also provides completely _wrong_ answers to most
  Emacs questions, or some special case he lucked out with, etc.  he's
  _really_ not a person you should try to emulate, Sam.

  and that's why _you_ felt free to discuss me, right?  it's quite amusing
  to watch how when you react to something you don't like, you do it with
  even _worse_ tactics than I use, because you must cross a barrier before
  you can respond.  somehow, I strongly prefer to see that barrier high
  enough that people can express themselves strongly without having to
  cross it and let _anything_ go.  in particular, I attack what people
  _do_, which they can change or at least stop at will, whereas you (and
  Barry Margolin in particular) feel free to psychologize and "explain"
  what I do and why.  I find this quite entertaining in the sense that the
  objection to perceived unfairness takes the form of _rabid_ irrationality.

| On the other hand, I've almost put Erik in my killfile, but I haven't,
| yet.  When he's right, he's right.  You just have to snuff the blaze and
| rummage around in the ashes to find any good stuff left.

  well, I appreciate the implied compliment.

  however, one of the more interesting properties of these discussions
  where you feel entirely free to discuss me and say anything at all about
  me and why you think I react the way I do without a single shred of
  actual _evidence_ to support your increasingly outlandish theories, is
  that you have this curious one-dimensionality to your reactions.  since
  Barry has _strongly_ approved of psychologizing, let me tell you how I
  imagine the crowd of conspiring victims now in group therapy:

  I imagine you all running back to your mama to tell a greatly embellished
  story about someone who hit you so she will take your side and never ask
  any questions about why you were hit in the first place -- that just
  _happened_ to mama's good little boy, who is so very deserving of being
  consoled, no matter what he did to get hit.  a just and intelligent mom
  would see right through this load of crap and ask what you did and what
  you learned even while consoling you for your bruises and hurt feelings.
  the group therapy here, led by Barry Margolin, is about it being OK to be
  a retarded jerk, so would I please stop hitting them because they cannot
  possibly improve or stop doing what they do; in particular: Sam Steingold
  is a helpless moron and has no other option than to post idiotic drivel,
  so now I be nice and not hurt him, OK?  (I could never be as mean to Sam
  as I think Barry is with his defense for him.)

  I imagine you were never asked what you learned from any bad experience,
  instead going through life in this fantastic bliss where nothing bad ever
  _should_ happen to you, so if it does, it's always somebody else's fault
  and so very unfair to you.  and as long as you can find someone to blame
  other than yourself, you can feel so very consoled by the badness of that
  somebody that you feel _arrogant_ on top of it, so now you have to go out
  there and _purposefully_ annoy whoever hit you, just to prove to yourself
  that he's bad and you're not deserving it.  this works because you have
  suddenly received divine inspiration for your moral outrage (that is,
  your mom's agreement that whoever hit you is a bad person and you should
  stay away form bad people, and blah, blah, blah).

  if I didn't think you were stupid pathetic losers before, I certainly do
  when I see how you respond in this amazingly unintelligent group therapy
  you conduct amongst yourselves.  the question you never _really_ ask is
  "_why_ does this happen?", I think because you _know_ that it's because
  of something you do yourself.  take Sam Steingold, for instance (before
  you react to my being specific, think about what you are yourself doing
  discussing me, and reconsider if you don't like it in the general case),
  an amazingly stupid person who is morally outraged that he can't be a
  dork and not get slapped for it.  instead of getting the idea that _he_
  could change (like pull himself together and actually pay attention for a
  change), he's dead set on proving that _he_ has the right to do what he
  does worst and _not_ be slapped for it, all the while feeling like a good
  boy when he thinks that somebody else who does something that he doesn't
  feel he should be doing _should_ get slapped for it, so he does it again
  and again and again, always ready to blame the other guy, who _somohow_
  doesn't stop being bad to him.  now, that's the hallmark of stupidity, if
  there ever was one, but Sam has shut himself off from realizing it,
  because of his moral outrage, which is another hallmark of stupidity.
  (take the Republicans in Washington, so morally outraged at Clinton that
  they didn't even see his rise in popularity coming.  any outsider could
  have predicted that, and many did.)

  most real people have found that I reward competence as much as I punish
  incompetence.  I actually think incompetence should be a capital crime,
  and that incompetence exists only because people don't demand competence
  of their fellow men.  (note that competence is not infallibility, but
  about knowing what you can do (well) and when you need assistance or to
  learn more before you can do it (well).  incompetence is basically doing
  what you are ill equipped to do, impervious to the fact that you are ill
  equipped to do it.)  how anyone can at all reward incompetence in any way
  whatsoever is truly beyond me.  and Barry Margolin effectively rewards
  the incompetent by extending them _more_ respect than he extends those
  who answer technical questions in the newsgroups.  I find this a _very_
  curious attitude.  the same happens to labor unions, who go out of their
  way to protect the incompetent employees.  I think labor unions _exist_
  because of incompetent and stupid managers, but if they had worked hard
  to protect employees against incompetent managers, instead of working
  hard to protect employees no matter what, they would have come a lot
  further, because the _shared_ goal of businesses and labor unions would
  have been competent managers _and_ competent employees, and the unions
  could have done a lot to make sure that their members were competent,
  rather than _primarily_ being employed.

  so rather than defend the morons, how about helping them to _stop_ being
  morons?  Barry, that's something _you_ can do if you remove that line in
  your signature and instead encourage stupid people to send technical
  questions to you in mail and let them loose on the newsgroups when you
  feel they are not going to annoy anybody, anymore.  how about it?

  s/uncivil/stupid/ and you might have a clue.  it appears, though, as if
  you think annoying people who are uncivil it the right way to make them
  less uncivil, because you don't think people are uncivil because they
  have been annoyed.  I have the exactly opposite view.  I think people
  annoy others for no particular reason -- they just do it because they are
  stupid and inconsiderate.  however people respond uncivilly because they
  have actually been annoyed by somebody stupid and inconsiderate.  it
  appears as though you do not recognize any cause of uncivility at all,
  and think annoying people is perfectly legitimate, especially if it is
  done by somebody stupid and inconsiderate, whom the rest of the world
  should treat nicely.  is that so?  if so, I have finally figured you out
  and why you go around poking people in the eye (virtually speaking) to
  prove to yourself that they have bad tempers.  here's today's tip: stop
  poking people in the eye, and see if they still have a bad temper.  I
  have a feeling you will be very surprised by the reversal of cause and
  effect compared to what you believe in.

  I don't quite understand what you're saying, here.  I have chattr 1.12,
  now, and it can set and lsattr can list the version number, which is
  pretty damn cool, although I can't see any way to keep two versions of
  the same file around at the same time.  have I missed something?

  it's phenomenally tragic that you have had nobody to raise you and teach
  you that when you get hit, it _might_ have something to do with your own
  behavior and that it _may_ be avoided in the future by changing the way
  that you _interact_ (note: that's the key) with other people.  and just
  because you only see harsh reactions doesn't mean that you would continue
  to see harsh reactions if you pulled yourself together.  I would even
  applaud it if you came back with something reasonably smart.  try it, and
  you'll see, but I bet you have already made up your mind that if I
  approve of something you do, you should stop doing it, and go back to
  what I disapprove of, instead.  I've seen a few people as stupid as you
  before, and they rebel against anyone who tries to reprimand them, just
  like kids who never had the option of rebelling against their parents.

  you're the singularly least competent person who keeps posting his drivel
  to newsgroups I frequent, and you make the worst unfounded assumptions of
  any I come across at the moment.  "`read-sequence' is under-specified" my
  butt.  of course, you don't realize that you could stop and _think_ and
  start to separate what you _know_ from what you _guess_ and perhaps learn
  to make assumptions based on what you know instead of basing them on your
  guesses and other assumptions.  first-order assumptions are good; higher-
  order assumptions whose lower-order assumptions go unchecked are really
  bad for the state of your mind and your future ability to know anything.
  what annoys me so much about you in particular is that you don't seem to
  have any knowledge at all, it's all just a bundle of unchecked, random
  guesswork, from which some stupid question emanates that _has_ no answer,
  because any answer you got wouldn't connect to anything else (as answers
  you do get do in fact not connect), so you're almost a perfect specimen
  of the completely hopeless.

  but to continue your initial assumption above, if what you observe is not
  usenet-specific, it is steingold-naggum-specific.  stop guessing and
  start using your brain, and you'll see a difference.  if you want it, of
  course.  I somehow think you _like_ this interaction because it provides
  you with a sense of security and predictablity, which you wouldn't have
  if you tried to be smart.  prove me wrong.  I actually think you can.

Perhaps, while most of us are assertive, a few people are aggressive? It
could just be a mtter of style. Erik, like yourself and many here, is an
information broker. I've met aggressive sales people, while others use
the soft sell technique. Information broking is not so different.

  this is getting too pathetic to stomach.  why is it important to you to
  lie about this recurring agreement theme?  what _do_ you gain from it?

  I'd take bloodsucking annelids over your type of leech any day.

If you don't think his questions are worthy of answering, why do you
bother?  Just so you can put him down?

The only questions on Usenet I consider moronic are the ones that are
answered in the FAQs.  However, I've resigned myself to the fact that most
people don't bother reading FAQs.  I also get annoyed when the same
question shows up practically every day in some groups -- people obviously
post without bothering to read the group they post to.

Our customers pay through the nose for a service that includes access to my
networking expertise.  The rest of the Internet gets it when I feel like
giving it.  Yet I still try not to be an asshole when I choose to answer.

I certainly prefer answering questions in a public forum, for
instance.

  I don't believe in helpless morons, Barry.  I believe people do stupid
  things because they have been allowed to and not reprimanded for it, and
  didn't have a strong requirement on them to avoid doing stupid things.  I
  also believe the only difference between stupid people and smart people
  is that it takes stupid people longer and more information to reach the
  same conclusions -- what makes somebody guilty in my eyes is not spending
  the time it takes or not gathering the information they need before they
  act on such conclusions.  both smart and stupid people can commit this
  "information crime", but stupid people do it more often because our
  society is unwilling to recognize that some people need more time, and
  thus impede their progress during their youth.  however, when you've
  grown up, there are no excuses: incompetence is about people who do
  something they are ill equipped to do, and society should tolerate that
  kids may be slow and stumble, but should not tolerate that adults are
  incompetent.  instead we punish kids for being slow and institutionalize
  adult incompetence.  it's a miracle we're technologically advanced.

  if you believe in _helpless_ morons, Barry, I think you rob people of
  every opportunity to get things right, you rob them of their dignity by
  defending them, and I bet _you_ feel superior when you can help someone
  you think is a _helpless_ moron against the perceived "unfairness" of
  asking them, first politely, then harshly, to pull themselves together.

  I get the impression from your insane accusations that you think I kick
  people who have fallen.  I kick people who claim to have a right to my
  help to get them on their feet, who think they should not do anything on
  their own, and who try very hard to make it appear that if they are still
  on the ground it is through my failure to help them.  in my view, the
  people who _should_ be helped are those who would have struggled on their
  own and all that help can do it save them some time or pain or effort.
  if they couldn't have reached the goal you "help" them reach, you do them
  an _immoral_ disservice, because you destroy their sense of independent
  accomplishment, which I think is at the core of one's self-esteem.  I
  also happen to think that some people act stupidly because our society
  sees stupid as a valid excuse, and if they're stupid, others have no
  right to attack them.  that's your line, I believe, so you encourage all
  forms of stupidity by defending stupid people, which you certainly do.

| Does it make you feel superior to point out the morons on the net?

  do you feel good after posting these increasingly insane accusations
  towards people you just don't _agree_ with?  first, you spout a lot of
  insane drivel about how those who answer technical questions feel that
  they do the world such a favor that the world should take anything from
  them, which I can only assume is the way you feel about it, and now we
  get this "superiority" shit?  it's bad enough to have people think a lot
  of unfounded crap about technical matters, but you, Barry Margolin, are
  the kind of person who goes out of his way to project your own psyche
  onto others, and then accuse them of ill will because _you_ would have
  had ill will if you did what you _think_ they do, as extrapolated from
  what you see with your own prejudices as a strong reinforcer.  you really
  should stop and think about what you're saying, but I guess that tip has
  to come from somebody that doesn't trigger the moron in you.

| If you don't think his questions are worthy of answering, why do you
| bother?

  you really aren't very observant, are you?  it isn't the _questions_ that
  take a harsh reaction, it's the unfounded, wrong, baseless statements of
  incorrect fact that get a beating.  "`read-sequence' is underspecified",
  claims Sam Steingold in his typical way of concluding things long before
  he knows what he's talking about, so "ACL5 refuses to read-sequence from
  a socket to a vector of unsigned-byte."  this is not a question, this is
  a moron hard at work to draw baseless conclusions and post idiotic drivel
  to a technical newsgroup.  of course, there's a question, _too_, but I
  guess you think "does it make you feel superior to point out the morons
  on the net" is _just_ a question, and not really an accusation, right?

| Just so you can put him down?

  that would be what you do, Barry.  you seem to have a knack for attacking
  people without understanding anything at all of what they are doing, and
  you have a disturbing propensity for accusing them of thinking the way
  you would have thought if you had acted the same way.  since you don't,
  and I can only assume you have to work hard at that, you think somebody
  else should take the heat for the evil in _your_ ways.  so, when somebody
  has transgressed, you feel _entirely_ free of all moral bounds and post
  the most insane and unfounded accusations against them, you psychologize
  and speak for them and all sorts of things that moral, intelligent people
  just _don't_ do, no matter how angry they are.  I call this the "moral
  outrage" stage, and it's just two notches away from a ward-winning
  psychiatric illness, because people who suspend every moral precept once
  they get past a certain emotional barrier are legally insane at the time
  of action.  if you can't keep your ethics with you when you're angry or
  emotional (or drunk), you don't _have_ any ethics, and people should know
  that.  your willingness to accuse me of all sorts of insane shit tells me
  that people should stay _way_ clear of you if you lose even a moderate
  amount of control.  you could do anything, being completely unpredictable
  once you manage to turn off your ethics, and god knows what that takes,
  when you manage to do it simply because you think somebody attacks
  "helpless morons", which isn't even the fact of the matter, which of
  course is entirely irrelevant to your accusations.  your purpose is
  simply to make somebody look a lot worse than they are, isn't it?  there
  is no constructive element in this behavior at all, is there?

| I am not a private, personal consultant to the rest of the Internet.
| Without that request, my reputation results in my receiving an inordinate
| number of direct queries.  In fact, even with it, I get one or two
| messages a week beginning with something like "You seem to be extremely
| knowledgeable about XXX on the net, so I hope you can help me."

  and what's wrong with a canned reply that is, what, _one_ function key
  away?  that's what I do.  I think you feel personally invaded by these
  private questions, and that you have to be rude to people up front,
  yelling at them to stay away from your mailbox.  I think you know EXACTLY
  how it is to be expected to answer people's questions for free, and how
  annoying it is to see people ignore your responses, or just take you for
  granted so they can ask another simple question the next day.  you go out
  of your way to defend those who behave that way towards others, yet you
  reserve the right to slam your door in the face of random strangers even
  before you know what they would say to you.  this isn't _smart_, Barry.

| Our customers pay through the nose for a service that includes access to
| my networking expertise.  The rest of the Internet gets it when I feel
| like giving it.  Yet I still try not to be an asshole when I choose to
| answer.

  really?  and what were you thinking you were when you wrote what I'm now
  replying to?  _not_ an asshole?  you're a prime-time asshole in my book,
  primarily because you steadfastly believe that you have the right to post
  your baseless accusations while under the influence of moral outrage.  I
  bet you feel no remorse at all, either.  you actually feel _good_, don't
  you, that you have spouted a number of _really_ evil accusations without
  a single shred of evidence except that your own motivation would have
  been in terms of superiority and similiar crap if you had done the same.

  some day, I hope to understand why some Americans are so hypocritical and
  feel so entirely free to suspend their ethics when they see something
  they don't like.  (I once had the mother of a girlfriend cry on the phone
  to me for more than an hour because she had read my letters to her and
  had gone postal early in our relationship.  she did a lot of really evil
  things to harm both her daughter and me, and was instrumental in making
  the whole relationship unworkable.  now she wanted forgiveness, but no
  trace of actually understanding that it was fundamentally wrong to steal
  her daughter's mail and read it.  I never figured this woman out.)  I
  have tried to figure out what could cause a country to let Kenneth Starr
  loose, but gave up.  I have tried to figure out what made the Republicans
  in Washington tick and how such people could at all be voted into office.
  I have tried to figure out Barry Margolin's many weird accusations over
  the years, but give up.

In an ideal world, none of these things would be necessary. There would
be no spam at all and nobody would ever need to ask questions, dumb or
otherwise. It seems this is not an ideal world.

Actually, I realized it was driveal after I made the mistake of my last
reply, and this will be my final message.

  sure, but let's see _how_, which I think is important for _meaning_:

    the group therapy here, led by Barry Margolin, is about it being OK to
    be a retarded jerk, so would I please stop hitting them because they
    cannot possibly improve or stop doing what they do; in particular: Sam
    Steingold is a helpless moron and has no other option than to post
    idiotic drivel, so now I be nice and not hurt him, OK?  (I could never
    be as mean to Sam as I think Barry is with his defense for him.)

  I was describing _your_ defense of Sam Steingold, Barry, and why you
  don't want "helpless" people flamed, while you feel entirely free to
  attack me with the most bizarrely irrational accusations.  but I see now
  that once you've made up your moralistic mind, there's it cannot change.
  you cannot even _read_ in that state of moral outrage you're in, can you?

| If you now claim there's no such thing, then this whole "discussion" is
| totally hopeless.

  I claim that _you_ think in terms of helplessness.  I criticize people
  both softly and very harshly because I think they can, in fact have an
  _obligation_, to stop doing stupid things and perhaps start doing smarter
  things.  you want me to stop flaming them because your belief system is
  about people who cannot improve their own condition, and thus should be
  protected.  this is a view I do not subscribe to in any form.

| Actually, I realized it was driveal after I made the mistake of my last
| reply, and this will be my final message.

  so, once again, you learn absolutely nothing.  how annoyingly predictable.

  why _is_ it that the fools who criticize other people for criticizing yet
  others feel so morally superior that they would never listen to anything
  that has to do directly with their criticism?  is it because it takes a
  particularly closed mind to feel morally superior to begin with, and that
  only moralistic assholes fail to see that there is just as much intent to
  see improvement in the criticism of others as there is in theirs?  _or_
  did Barry only wish to paint as black a picture as possible, regardless
  of facts or anything remotely relating to reality, so he could feel
  morally vindicated _himself_, rather than have any useful impact on the
  world?  well, if the Republicans in Washington can think that way, I'm
  sure they have constituents who back them up on it, and a culture that
  allows that kind of institutionalized hypocrisy.

  I'm waiting for those who rude lines in your .signature to go away and
  show that you have understood that you are _much_ worse than what you
  criticize in others, because you assume without knowing that the people
  who are the intended audience of those two lines would annoy you.  I deal
  with individuals who do something wrong, when they do it, and only then,
  whereas you is happy to _presume_ wrongdoing from strangers and the
  public at large.  if you have any ethics at all, I don't think you do when
  you are free to suspend it, I wouldn't want anyone to be the victim of it.

  sure, but let's see _how_, which I think is important for _meaning_:

    the group therapy here, led by Barry Margolin, is about it being OK to
    be a retarded jerk, so would I please stop hitting them because they
    cannot possibly improve or stop doing what they do; in particular: Sam
    Steingold is a helpless moron and has no other option than to post
    idiotic drivel, so now I be nice and not hurt him, OK?  (I could never
    be as mean to Sam as I think Barry is with his defense for him.)

  I was describing _your_ defense of Sam Steingold, Barry, and why you
  don't want "helpless" people flamed, while you feel entirely free to
  attack me with the most bizarrely irrational accusations.  but I see now
  that once you've made up your moralistic mind, it cannot change.  you
  cannot even _read_ in that state of moral outrage you're in, can you?

| If you now claim there's no such thing, then this whole "discussion" is
| totally hopeless.

  I claim that _you_ think in terms of helplessness.  I criticize people
  both softly and very harshly because I think they can, in fact have an
  _obligation_, to stop doing stupid things and perhaps start doing smarter
  things.  you want me to stop flaming them because your belief system is
  about people who cannot improve their own condition, and thus should be
  protected.  this is a view I do not subscribe to in any form.

| Actually, I realized it was driveal after I made the mistake of my last
| reply, and this will be my final message.

  so, once again, you learn absolutely nothing.  how annoyingly predictable.

  why _is_ it that the fools who criticize other people for criticizing yet
  others feel so morally superior that they would never listen to anything
  that has to do directly with their criticism?  is it because it takes a
  particularly closed mind to feel morally superior to begin with, and that
  only moralistic assholes fail to see that there is just as much intent to
  see improvement in the criticism of others as there is in theirs?  _or_
  did Barry only wish to paint as black a picture as possible, regardless
  of facts or anything remotely relating to reality, so he could feel
  morally vindicated _himself_, rather than have any useful impact on the
  world?  well, if the Republicans in Washington can think that way, I'm
  sure they have constituents who back them up on it, and a culture that
  allows that kind of institutionalized hypocrisy.

  I'm waiting for those two rude lines in your .signature to go away and
  show that you have understood that you are _much_ worse than what you
  criticize in others, because you assume without knowing that the people
  who are the intended audience of those two lines would annoy you.  I deal
  with individuals who do something wrong, when they do it, and only then,
  whereas you are happy to _presume_ wrongdoing from strangers and the
  public at large.  if you have any ethics at all, I don't think you do
  when you are free to suspend it, I wouldn't want anyone to be the victim
  of it.

Erik, get a life, please, and then _share_ it with us. I think we'd all
like to see you actually enjoy something. Including Lisp. You have so many
real and good and true things to say, why do you have to make them be in
such a nasty format?

My wife is a nurse; far too many times when a young nurse fresh out of
school has a question, she gets contempt rather than help; all too often
because the person asked is somehow insecure. I wouldn't think that was the
answer except that your attitude has been such utter garbage so many times.
I've had the
"pleasure" of several of your flames over the years; as a result, I either
address ?'s directly to someone like Barry or re-read Graham (which may be
your goal, I dunno...). All I would like tonight is some evidence that you
actually _like_ Lisp. When I see you get hateful, I don't believe that. G*d
help me, but I cannot...

William

William

In article <HGUg2.1$a06....@burlma1-snr1.gtei.net>, Barry Margolin <

  this is making the kind of assumption I try to kill every time I see it:
  you guess something in an area where you know nothing, projecting your
  unchecked and unobservant assumptions onto others and reality in general,
  and then make a _statement_ of purported fact.

| I think we'd all like to see you actually enjoy something.

  suppose you see "||||   ||||".  do you ask "where are the missing |||?"
  or do you refrain from making conclusions based on your assumptions?  I
  want people to stop basing anything on the stupid, one-dimensional junk
  thoughts that requires zero intellectual effort.  I enjoy people who find
  it unconscionable to make junk thoughts, almost whatever they are,
  because they don't make stupid assumptions.

| Including Lisp.

  huh?  this puzzles me greatly.

| You have so many real and good and true things to say, why do you have to
| make them be in such a nasty format?

  because nothing good or true ever comes from complacency.  I believe that
  creativity is a response to being "sufficiently annoyed".  if you don't
  think there _has_ to a better way, you wouldn't bother.

| My wife is a nurse; far too many times when a young nurse fresh out of
| school has a question
               ^^^^^^^^

  I don't flog people for questions.  I flog them for their assumptions.  I
  guess you don't know the difference, just as Barry Margolin doesn't.

| All I would like tonight is some evidence that you actually _like_ Lisp.
| When I see you get hateful, I don't believe that.  G*d help me, but I
| cannot...

  then discard your god and try again.  there is no hatefulness, either.

  on many occasions, I have expressed enjoyment over properties of Common
  Lisp, the language and the standard, of the Allegro CL system, of the
  support I get from Franz Inc, of the people I work with at my current
  client, of the ability to solve problems very elegantly in Common Lisp,
  of the very rich lore in the Lisp community, etc, etc, etc.  yet you have
  never seen it.  why did you tell me this about yourself?  aren't you even
  _aware_ that you discard information that doesn't fit in your silly
  little one-dimensional view of things?

  suppose you now see "    |||    ".  will you now assume that you have
  found the missing "|||" from earlier, and _still_ ignore the stuff that
  doesn't trigger your emotional responses, and conclude that you have
  found the _one_ string that satisfies your desire for one-dimensionality,
  or will you bother to review that desire and go back to the "observation
  state" that most people have before their "assumption state", and perhaps
  invoke the option that you were wrong and that the information is in what
  you have _not_ bothered to remember or respond to at the time?  most
  intellectual progress happens when people realize that they have ignored
  the signal and have focused on the noise.  to see clearly _means_ to be
  able to separate noise from signal, and get them right, respectively.

  I think the way people handle noise says something important about them.
  I get annoyed by it there and then, and voice my concerns, in the hopes
  that the _cause_ of the noise would go away.  like fixing a machine that
  makes a weird sound, you would normally have to make more sounds and
  perhaps cause some disruption of its service to fix whatever caused it,
  but the desire is to remove the weird sound.  then, when the noise is
  gone, it's gone, and who the hell _could_ care about noise past?  in
  contrast to this, I see people who remember _only_ the noise and they
  even fail to grasp _that_ there's a pattern to its rise, much less _what_
  that pattern could be or when it occurs.  I really don't understand such
  people.  and when their desire is to _reduce_ noise, they go out and make
  _more_ noise and fail utterly to understand that they are the cause of
  the noise that they remember, because they forget there's supposed to be
  a signal, and noise is all they _know_ how to create.

  on the other end of the spectrum, some people view _silence_ as the best
  way to respond to things they don't appreciate or like.  they optimize
  for a high silence-to-signal ratio and frown on all forms of noise,
  because to them, silence is what this communication thing really is
  about.  silence is what would be if people were omniscient and all the
  conflicts of the world were resolved and all of us agreed on everything,
  and perhaps we'd all be dead, too, who cares?  so this ideal of
  non-conflict becomes a desire to see more of its measurable quality in
  the hopes that silence will _cause_ conflict to go away.  I really don't
  understand how people can think this way.  I know a few people who do.
  it's _impossible_ to know what they would like or dislike, what would
  please them and what wouldn't.  with a _little_ effort, I don't think
  anybody would have any problem figuring out what I like and dislike,
  despite the fact that a few people clearly are wholly incapabable of even
  _observing_ anything that doesn't fit their already set patterns, but at
  least that has an explanation of its own.

  the best part of not being silent is that you get to learn which people
  see signal and which see noise.  I think that's so invaluable information
  that I accept the "cost" that those who see noise occasionally motivate
  me to write something good and true.  and if "sufficiently annoyed" is
  indeed the cause of creativity, I ought perhaps be grateful for them.

  anyway, happy new year, folks.