Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Offensive Language and Rude Manners in comp.lang.lisp; An Example...

45 views
Skip to first unread message

Stefan Kain

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 8:32:14 PM9/30/01
to
Dear Erik,

Erik Naggum wrote in reply to Anette:
> especially not some ignorant arrogant jerk that spends her time whining

Would you call a woman an "arrogant jerk" in real life too, or is it
that the
anonymous, unpersonal experience of staring into a screen makes you
"bold" to
speak to a woman like this?

Let's have a look in the Merriam-Webster's dictionary:

1 : a single quick motion of short duration
2 a : jolting, bouncing, or thrusting motions b : a
tendency
to produce spasmodic motions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
3 a : an involuntary spasmodic muscular movement due
to reflex action b plural : involuntary twitchings due to
nervous excitement
4 : an annoyingly stupid or foolish person
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Well, if you called me an "arrogant jerk", I would sue you for libel.
In real life, and in internet life.

What aggravates this fact is that it occurred in a public place like a
newsgroup. (which is recorded and archived for a long time!
So the provision of evidence against you would not be a problem at all!)


Well, how expensive is this in the US, for example? (As you
explained, you are an almost native american-english speaker, which
makes
me believe you know how to behave in a US-american community and what it
costs to offend these social standards that are usually accepted by
all reasonably educated individuals. Except for Mr. Bush who called a
journalist a "major-league asshole" publically during an election
campaign
event, as we all remember for sure... :-) ... )

Just for illustration purposes, let's assume 2000$.

That is enough for a nice holiday trip including flight...
:-)

You better should watch out and control your tongue. I am puzzled, why
nobody considered protecting his/her personal individual rights against
your offending behaviour formerly...

Maybe I should ask Anette, if she is interested in a nice holiday trip
including flight, financed generously, but maybe unplanned by Mr.
Naggum?
Maybe she has a law-insurance, which means the lawyer wouldn't cost her
a dime! Of course she would have to hire the lawyer in Norway and let
him
file the charge there, so that Norwegian Laws are applied.
German Laws wouldn't reach you there, of course. (I am just making all
this up in my mind in order to illustrate what might happen to you one
day, if you don't change)

(higly qualified Lisp-Consultants like you have a high salary,
haven't they? So it would not hit a poor one, right?)

Don't get me wrong. I am not a fighter for moral or something.
(At home you can behave as it pleases you! Really!
I don't give a d... :-) )

But here please adhere to the commonally accepted netiquette!
It makes cyber-life much easier, believe me!

On the other hand, you really are an intelligent lisper. I really
wouldn't want to put you on my kill file. But if you are not for good
in the behaviour-thing from now on, you will make my day without you
being present in my news-reader.

And BTW, aren't all the lisp hackers proud of being super-intellectual,
highly-ultra-intelligent, mega-educated paragons to the rest of the
lousy, miserable, pitiable joe-sixpack-programmers??? :-)

You don't want to be a paragon? If you wanted to be, you would behave
differently.

Best Regards,
Stefan

Alain Picard

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 8:58:28 PM9/30/01
to
Stefan Kain <stefa...@freenet.de> writes:

> Well, if you called me an "arrogant jerk", I would sue you for libel.
> In real life, and in internet life.

Watch your language! Keep it safe for the kids!!!
[Imminent death of the net predicted. Film at 11.]


Stephan, I find your wish for a walt-disneyficiation of the world
in general, and usenet in particular, far, far scarier than an
army of rabid, intelligent posters armed with verbal flame throwers.
I sincerely hope the world you envisage _never_ comes to pass.


--
It would be difficult to construe Larry Wall, in article
this as a feature. <1995May29....@netlabs.com>

cbbr...@acm.org

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 9:06:17 PM9/30/01
to
Stefan Kain <stefa...@freenet.de> writes:
> Well, if you called me an "arrogant jerk", I would sue you for
> libel. In real life, and in internet life.

Well, since few but "arrogant jerks" would be likely to _bother_ suing
over such a comment, that would seem to suggest that the moniker might
actually be legitimate, and not something to be able to sue over,
because it's not libel or slander if it's true :-).
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/
Every program is a part of some other program and rarely fits.
-- Alan Perlis

Kaz Kylheku

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 9:54:54 PM9/30/01
to
In article <3BB7B98E...@freenet.de>, Stefan Kain wrote:
>Dear Erik,
>
>Erik Naggum wrote in reply to Anette:
>> especially not some ignorant arrogant jerk that spends her time whining
>
>Would you call a woman an "arrogant jerk" in real life too, or is it
>that the
>anonymous, unpersonal experience of staring into a screen makes you
>"bold" to
>speak to a woman like this?

I certainly won't be outdone in chivalry!

Evil Erik, let the girl go: it's me you want! Direct all your hard
language at the broad, muscular chest and iron brow of a worthy opponent!

Anette, are you swooning yet? ;)

Kent M Pitman

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 10:04:34 PM9/30/01
to
Alain Picard <api...@optushome.com.au> writes:

> Stefan Kain <stefa...@freenet.de> writes:
>
> > Well, if you called me an "arrogant jerk", I would sue you for libel.
> > In real life, and in internet life.
>

> Stephan, I find your wish for a walt-disneyficiation of the world
> in general, and usenet in particular, far, far scarier than an
> army of rabid, intelligent posters armed with verbal flame throwers.
> I sincerely hope the world you envisage _never_ comes to pass.

I have to say I COMPLETELY concur.

I think any remark which hinges on "arrogance" and "jerkiness" pretty much by
necessity is subjective, and has "I think" implicitly prefixed. That makes
it pretty hard to say it's false. There is simply no objective standard by
which you could demonstrate any given person to be either definitely arrogant
or definitely not. It's all just opinion and not really subject to libel
since you'd have to show the person didn't think it.

As I recall, Jerry Falwell sued Hustler magazine for some even more
offensive remarks made about his mother, but if I recall the court
asked Falwell if he thought anyone believed the remarks. He said "of
course not!" That pretty much killed his case. In order to
successfully defend your case, you have to first show that anyone is
likely to have believed Erik. To do that, you may have to come
uncomfortably close to showing what he says is either true or in range
of being true, such that it might convince someone on the basis of the
statement alone ... and if a matter of opinion were that close, it might,
paradoxically, make it harder to also show his remarks were false anyway.
I don't recommend you try. Nor do I recommend you make vacant threats.

Usenet has only two rights: the right to speak freely and the right not to
read. You may not like that, but that's the way it's implemented. I'd
rather see this forum go quiet for non-readership than see someone silenced,
especially in a US political climate where censorship seems just around the
corner again and where having a free forum to speak could become valuable
at any moment. Usenet is virtually unique in its inability to quiet someone
and that, I think, is more valuable than any technical information that may
pass through any given forum.

This will be my only post on this matter. If the conversation
continues and I feel the urge to say more, I will voluntarily suspend
my own posting rights on the forum for a period of time (e.g., until
the conversation subsides) because I beileve conversations like this
are far more injurious to the forum than the matter originally being
complained about.

Stefan Kain

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 10:14:32 PM9/30/01
to
LOL!!

I surrender!

At least I tried...

Wade Humeniuk

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 10:22:51 PM9/30/01
to

"Stefan Kain" <stefa...@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:3BB7B98E...@freenet.de...

> Dear Erik,
>
> Erik Naggum wrote in reply to Anette:
> > especially not some ignorant arrogant jerk that spends her time
whining
>
> Would you call a woman an "arrogant jerk" in real life too, or is it
> that the
> anonymous, unpersonal experience of staring into a screen makes you
> "bold" to
> speak to a woman like this?

What!? There is a woman who uses Lisp!? And Erik called her an "arrogant
jerk"!?

Finally, woman are now equal!!

Gee! Life was passing me by, must have been asleep.

Wade

Stefan Kain

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 10:26:04 PM9/30/01
to
I for sure don't want to quiet Erik! :-)

Just wanted him to be more walt_disney_like!

Rofl! I am really lying on the floor! :-)

Thanks!

Bye,
Stefan

Stefan Kain

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 10:32:06 PM9/30/01
to

Stefan has written in PARENTHESIS!!! Didn't you get it?????

> (I am just making all
> this up in my mind in order to illustrate what might happen to you one
> day, if you don't change)

To everybody who answered so far.
Believe me, I am NOT a fascist! :-)

Mega-ROFL.

Erik Naggum

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 10:41:24 PM9/30/01
to
* Stefan Kain
| Dear Erik,
| [Yet another round of moralistic crap deleted.]
| Best Regards,
| Stefan

It is tremendously rude to abuse a public forum to air your personal
mental problems and especially to abuse it for personal mail. This is
not a therapy group for retarded and/or hypersensitive moralists on a
mission. Now, think about what you have done, and stay the hell away.

///

Erik Naggum

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 10:43:33 PM9/30/01
to
* Stefan Kain

| Believe me, I am NOT a fascist! :-)

Of _course_ you are a fascist. What else behaves the way you do?

///

Erik Naggum

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 10:51:12 PM9/30/01
to
* Stefan Kain

| Just wanted him to be more walt_disney_like!
|
| Rofl! I am really lying on the floor! :-)

So yet another blundering moralistic idiot bites the dust while excessing
in self-incrimination. How _utterly_ surprising!

///

John Foderaro

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 10:59:20 PM9/30/01
to
You are correct that some of the posts (like the one
you pointed out) make this group look like a bunch of
grade-schoolers. Worse than that it stifles intellectual
discussion as you know full well that saying anything that
disagrees with the opinions of a certain prominent poster
here will earn you nothing but libel and personal
insults from the poster. To his credit he doesn't discriminate
on the basis of gender. He spews his insults
and hate on nearly everyone who dares disagree with him.

The law isn't the place to fix this. It's up the readers
of this group to decide the policy of this group and
the group by its overwhelming silence over the years has
said that insults and personal attacks are just fine.

So as the many other respondents of your message have indicated,
if you're trying to change the policy of this group so
as to forbid personal insults then you should just get out.
Check back every year or so and maybe the tenor of the
group will have changed by then.

Stefan Kain

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 11:03:08 PM9/30/01
to
Ultra - Rofl!!


Kent M Pitman wrote:
> As I recall, Jerry Falwell sued Hustler magazine for some even more

Well, Erik for sure could call anybody a jerk if that respective person
read the Hustler magazine... :-)

> successfully defend your case, you have to first show that anyone is
> likely to have believed Erik. To do that, you may have to come

The matter is not, if anybody believes she _is_ a jerk or _is_not_
a jerk which _is_hard_to_proof... :-) ,
but if she feels _comfortable_ and well treated being called a jerk...

It is a matter of: I would like to discuss things with Erik. If I am
wrong,
do I have to accept, that he calls me what ever comes to his mind, or
might
I hope for his mercy to filter the bull...t out of his thoughts and
deliver
me with decent walt_disnay_movie_compatible speech... :-)

Oh boy, I haven't had such a jolly good laugh in 10 years.
Newsnet I love you!!!!

> because I beileve conversations like this
> are far more injurious to the forum than the matter originally being
> complained about.

Well, it is about coexistence of different attitudes towards abusive
speech,
and a case study, what might happen to Erik in real life.

Erik could just be a friendlier fellow. I believe, deep in his heart,
there
is a well raised child waiting to come out and apologize to Anette! :-)

It is about tolerance. Why can't Erik tolerate sensitive individuals
like me??
If only Erik would be nice and well-behaved... :-)

I think that's a vital topic, especially on comp.lang.lisp.

Stefan Kain

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 11:17:55 PM9/30/01
to
You do.

Stefan Kain

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 11:19:03 PM9/30/01
to

Erik Naggum wrote:
> It is tremendously rude to abuse a public forum to air your personal
> mental problems and especially to abuse it for personal mail. This is
> not a therapy group for retarded and/or hypersensitive moralists on a
> mission. Now, think about what you have done, and stay the hell away.


This description fits perfectly to you.

Thank you for your good example.

Erik Naggum

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 11:34:09 PM9/30/01
to
* Stefan Kain

| If only Erik would be nice and well-behaved... :-)

How about caring about your _own_ behavior? Just shut up and go away.
You have abused this forum for your personal entertainment long enough.

///

Erik Naggum

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 11:40:55 PM9/30/01
to
* Erik Naggum

| Of _course_ you are a fascist. What else behaves the way you do?

* Stefan Kain
| You do.

Wrong. But now we know that you have lost touch with reality, too.

Your tremendous rudeness in continuing to abuse this forum will dawn on
you sometime later, at which point you will have exhausted your potential
to apologize and actually recover personally. This happens to _every_
moralistic idiot who wanders down your route. It is _wrong_ of you to
abuse this forum to express your personal grudges about anyone's style or
rudeness. This is _not_ a therapy group for hypersensitive netiquette
freaks who have a fascistic desire to control other people's "morals"
while they lack every evidence of having anyone themselves. You will
only hurt yourself by continuing, yet you will continue to incriminate
yourself for several days and cause much hostility towards yourself if
the tradition is kept up. Shut up while you are just _looking_ like an
idiot and have yet to prove it to the entire world.

///

Erik Naggum

unread,
Sep 30, 2001, 11:55:44 PM9/30/01
to
* John Foderaro

| You are correct that some of the posts (like the one you pointed out)
| make this group look like a bunch of grade-schoolers.

Thank you for playing the role of the bitter old grade school teacher.
That is _so_ conducive to improving the "tenor" of this newsgroup.

Your insistence on not naming the people you smear is disconcerting, but
we all know what kind of person you are by now, and expect no honesty or
personal integrity from you, anymore, so we just have to deal with your
underhanded references and _disgusting_ moralistic arrogance. Big deal.

| He spews his insults and hate on nearly everyone who dares disagree with
| him.

Sigh. It has nothing to do with disagreement, but those who understand
that, also understand that those who think it has _anything_ to do with
disagreement are permanently beyond the reach of intelligent argument,
which you prove time and again. Why do you think this serves your needs?

Why do you need to make these things so much worse while you moralize so
much in ways that only display an utter lack of ethics on your own part?
It is just like that Stefan Kain fellow, who will also become permanently
unable to understand his own role in causing the troubles he stirs. And
why did you _have_ to post your filth _again_? We _all_ know that you
are psychologically incapable of dealing with _anything_ I say by now.
Why do you even bother proving it to the world over and over again? Get
a grip on yourself, get over whatever mental scars you have acquired and
start to behave like the adult you would like to think you are.

///

John Foderaro

unread,
Oct 1, 2001, 12:15:25 AM10/1/01
to
In article <sfwd748...@world.std.com>, pit...@world.std.com says...

> Usenet has only two rights: the right to speak freely and the right not to
> read. You may not like that, but that's the way it's implemented. I'd
> rather see this forum go quiet for non-readership than see someone silenced,

If the only way to deal with this problem were to silence someone then
I completely agree with you.

I suggest simply this: if any reader of the group thinks that a post
goes beyond what they think is a appropriate behavior they they
just post a comment to that effect. For example if two posters
are arguing about which is better, let or let*, and one starts interjecting
personal insults into what should be a simple computer language
discussion then hopefully the people the flaming poster respects
would post messages like: "hey, keep it at a technical level, no
need to get personal".
This puts a feedback loop into the process and it doesn't
silence anyone.

Erik Naggum

unread,
Oct 1, 2001, 12:36:20 AM10/1/01
to
* John Foderaro

| I suggest simply this: if any reader of the group thinks that a post
| goes beyond what they think is a appropriate behavior they they just post
| a comment to that effect.

I poin out that you go beyond all appropriate behavior again and again,
especially with your disgustingly personal, yet almost neutrally phrased,
insults towards me, which _you_ always crawl out of your bughole to fire
up, yet you do not "accept" that message at all. You really should start
to listen to the advice you receive before you suggest that others accept
yours. Since you are so concerned about how people behavioe, if _you_
just learn to behave, at least _one_ source of inflammatory filth in this
newsgroup will have been silenced. But you keep coming back and engaging
in more of your special form of crap. Why? Do you fail to understand
that you are a part of the problem? That seems pretty unlikely, so you
must understand it and think that you are somehow _exempt_ from having to
behave, just like all the others who think they are free to "go personal"
in their moralistic ire. That kind of "you bad, me good" is so childish,
and it is so incredbly pathetic to behold that you really should think
about what it means for your image. You are bad, too, John Foderaro, and
you are actually worse in many respects than what you complain about.
Get off your high moral horse and just _quit_ your arrogance game. That
alone would help the "tenor" in this newsgroup tremendously. Start by
not responding, in your typical underhanded way or not, to this message.
That would show that _you_ could take behavioral advice, and you probably
think of yourself as the primary role model here, anyway, so if _you_
cannot abstain from retaliating, nobody else can be expected to, either,
least of all me, right? So: You first, moral crusader!

///

Thomas F. Burdick

unread,
Oct 1, 2001, 1:39:49 AM10/1/01
to
Erik Naggum <er...@clemacs.org> writes:

I would like to point out that we have two words, "fascist" and
"fascistic". The first has a very specific meaning -- that is, that
someone practices fascism -- the other means that someone displays
some of the qualities of or associated with fascism. Please use
"fascistic" when you mean fascistic, which I'm pretty sure was the
case here. Fascism does exist, and when it does rear its ugly head,
it's annoying when people have become desensitized from hearing the
word used inappropriately, and don't take you seriously because
they're so used to everyone calling everyone else fascist.

Tim Josling

unread,
Oct 1, 2001, 4:24:58 PM10/1/01
to
Note comp.lang.lisp is not especially an American group. If anyone wants to
create an all-American group then the naming standards exist to do so,

There are always people who like to tell others what to do. sigh...

Tim Josling

Stefan Kain wrote:

> Well, how expensive is this in the US, for example? (As you
> explained, you are an almost native american-english speaker, which
> makes
> me believe you know how to behave in a US-american community and what it
> costs to offend these social standards that are usually accepted by

> all reasonably educated individuals...
> Best Regards,
> Stefan

Thomas A. Russ

unread,
Oct 1, 2001, 1:39:11 PM10/1/01
to
cbbr...@acm.org writes:

> Well, since few but "arrogant jerks" would be likely to _bother_ suing
> over such a comment, that would seem to suggest that the moniker might
> actually be legitimate, and not something to be able to sue over,
> because it's not libel or slander if it's true :-).

This may actually depend upon which country you are talking about. I am
pretty sure that there are countries in which truth is not a defense.
In other words, publishing defamatory but true remarks about private
citizens can be cause for legal action.

--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute t...@isi.edu

Stefan Kain

unread,
Oct 1, 2001, 8:34:37 PM10/1/01
to
Hi,

----- Original Message -----
> There are always people who like to tell others what to do. sigh...

I didn't say what he has to do, but what I think would help everybody,
if he refrained from doing it. (which is insulting those who live in the
pity of having a different opinion than he has.)

I followed the thread between Anette and Erik and I _never_ had the feeling,
that she _is_ or _behaves_ like an arrogant jerk. She just plain simply was
wrong.

I just don't think freedom does imply that you can do what ever pleases
you (like insulting others).
I think freedom comes with an obligation to also respect the freedom of
others to have a different opinion than you have.
(Even if they are wrong!)
It implies that you have the duty to protect the personal integrity of your
communication partner as you expect your personal integrity to be left
undamaged by your partners.

Is that fascism???? Then I would say, you have never seen a fascist.
They usually do not reason about your personal freedom.
Calling me a fascist is just another example of overkill by
Eriks responses.

I think Erik simply doesn't know how unnecessarily he hurts others.
It is a sad thing indeed, because from at least a few postings I get the
impression that he is quite an intelligent and humorous individual.
Viewing a few photos on the web even let's me think that he can be
quite a humorous party guest! :-)

He does a lot of damage to himself without noticing it. But after this
little battle I have given up to change anything about it, because I have
learned that I am doomed to fail with that. I will just ignore the hatred
in his messages from now on and try to concentrate on the technical
stuff he talks about, which usually has an amazing high quality
compared to his verbal lapses.
(Ok, I admit I am not yet in a position to judge over the quality of his
lisp-related responses...)

Sorry for the long message and good night.

P.S.: This is _my_ _last_ message on this topic. I will not react to
anything else concerning this topic in this newsgroup.
Follow-Ups should be directed straight forward to
the newsgroup alt.applied-psychology.communication-skills.
(If you can find it... :-) )
Thank you.

Bye,
Stefan


Erik Naggum

unread,
Oct 1, 2001, 9:52:41 PM10/1/01
to
* Stefan Kain

| I didn't say what he has to do, but what I think would help everybody, if
| he refrained from doing it. (which is insulting those who live in the
| pity of having a different opinion than he has.)

Could you at least refrain from insulting every intelligent person on the
planet and understand that by perpetuating the Foderaroesque distortion
of the truth that "different opinion" has anything whatsoever to do with
any reaction at all, you are personally guilty of blaming someone for
your very own lack of intelligence and willingness to understand an issue
that portrays you as a moralistic tyrant who precisely tells people what
to do, and not only that, you accuse them falsely of things you have no
evidence to support and much evidence against.

It is flat out amazing that people are so insulated from the process of
thinking that they _stop_ at "different opinion". Do people never ask
_why_ people have different opinions? Do you never consider that there
is a _reason_ that people decide to stop understanding an issue when they
have a "different opinion"? The problem is not people who have different
opinions on the best pizza crust or the most tasty filling in pies, it is
people who think that lying, misrepresenting, falsifying evidence, and
flat out refusing to think portray something as _fact_ under guise of
being an "opinion". People simply do not have "opinions" on whether
there are two World Trade Towers in New York City or whether they have
been destroyed. People _have_ "opinions" on whether the appropriate
response is to intern every Arab and muslim in the United States, but if
you stop to talk to those who have this opinion, you might discover that
they are indeed enraged, frightened, and irrational and that they change
their opinion when they calm down a bit and consider the consequences of
their opinions. It is if they are permanently irrational, if they _keep_
arguing for such a fantastically misguided reponse even when they have
calmed down and had time and reason to think about their position that
there is something _wrong_ with their value systems. It did not stop at
a difference of opinion. The discussion _started_ with a difference of
opinion. It _ended_ when the person who keeps favoring interning people
because of a group affiliation does not back down and start to think.
There is nothing you _can_ do with people who _refuse_ to consider the
arguments under discussion. That is a willful action of the strongest
form of disrespect for the audience and one's discussion partners, and
that is why such people cause hostilities in newsgroups _everywhere_.

| I followed the thread between Anette and Erik and I _never_ had the
| feeling, that she _is_ or _behaves_ like an arrogant jerk. She just
| plain simply was wrong.

People who are "just plain simply wrong" _and_ refuse to listen _are_
arrogant jerks. That is what an arrogant jerk _is_.

| I think freedom comes with an obligation to also respect the freedom of
| others to have a different opinion than you have.

Nodoby has ever argued against this. If _you_ think so, take a _really_
good look at your own respect for other people and _their_ opinions, and
you are even so disrespectful towards others that _you_ tell them what
they think! You keep doing that, just like every other moralist who has
ever tried to tell people to behave while disrespecting those he wants to
behave.

| It implies that you have the duty to protect the personal integrity of
| your communication partner as you expect your personal integrity to be
| left undamaged by your partners.

I feel uncomfortable when people make comments about what others should
do. If you do not say "I have the duty to ...", you are just plain wrong
and should shut up. It is only yourself and your own behavior that you
have the power to change or say anything about. You can motivate others
to do what you do, but if you tell people to do something you do not, you
_cause_ hostility and extreme disgust, just like John Foderaro regularly
invokes with lots of people with his peculiar moral superiority that
tells everyone that he is himself _exempt_ from having to behave as long
as he thinks he can blame somebody else for his own behavior. There is
nobody to blame! There is _never_ anyone to blame! Your behavior is
_only_ your behavior. If you want changes, that is where you start to
accept responsibility and that is where you start working. Nobody else.

| Calling me a fascist is just another example of overkill by Eriks
| responses.

No, it is just another example of your self-serving moralistic opinion.

| I think Erik simply doesn't know how unnecessarily he hurts others.

However, I _know_ that you have never asked me what I think, but instead
prefer to post _your_ thoughts about me as if you knew me. If you do not
understand how much you insult every intelligent and probably _sentient_
being on the whole planet with that kind of idiotic behavior, you are
guilty of being a moral hypocrite par excellence. However, most people
are _unable_ to think in sufficiently broad terms to understand what it
means to pretend to know others so well that you no longer need to find
out what they think -- the most likely explanation is that others can
know _you_ that well, and you _really_ do not want _that_ to be true.

If you have at all cared to think about what you are observing, why has
is not occurerd to you to even think for a second that maybe _I_ am hurt
by others? I associate such lack of objective thinking with emotionalism
and a desire to tell people that they are how you think they are. People
are _not_ how you think they are, _ever_. They are always something more
than you have been willing to give them credit for. That is why the only
think you can criticize is people's concrete behavior in a very limited
context. Smart people understand this. Moralists do not. John Foderaro
does not, and keeps posting his inflammatory filth because he has lost
the capacity to understand that his moralism is based on a demonization
of something that he has proven time and time again he is unable even to
_observe_ properly. You are beginning to show signs of the same kind of
limited thinking capacity.

This problem relates to how you terminate your search for answers with
"different opinion" (just like he does). Specifically, you have made up
your mind about something, call it your "opinion", but you have made up
your mind so much that you no longer think of it as an opinion. You
begin to think of it as a _fact_ on which you can base your actions
without impunity and without concern for verifying that your "opinion"
still holds water after you have attempted to act on it. People who do
that consistently cannot be trusted with _anything_, not code, not
business, not design ideas, _nothing_. People who are unable to think
about the _factness_ of their assumptions or vice versa, but treat them
all as largely the same thing, live in a world where their assumptions
make intelligent discussion impossible. Such people are very common on
USENET, and if I am only guilty of one thing, it is that I smoke them
out, and they hate me for it, like John Foderaro _obviously_ does.

| It is a sad thing indeed, because from at least a few postings I get the
| impression that he is quite an intelligent and humorous individual.
| Viewing a few photos on the web even let's me think that he can be quite
| a humorous party guest! :-)

You make another mistake, here. Your interest pretends to be in me as a
person, but you are not really interested in me at all. You are _using_
me as a vehicle to push your moralism and for talking about how _you_
think everybody else should behave. That is indeed the core of fascism:
_Using_ people for your own ends.

| He does a lot of damage to himself without noticing it.

See, this is where you let your opinions get confused with facts. You
think so and so, and therefore it is suddenly a _fact_ that so and so.
Such incredibly sloppy thinking is symptomatic of an intellect that has
_never_ been exposed to any rigorous exercise, but has only sort of been
able to go on at random without observing or controlling itself. If you
have no concern for distinguishing your opinions and assumptions from
what you can observe, you _will_ become an evil person who accuses people
of things you only think they have done, who portray people as something
they are not, who take a false personal interest in others only to hang
them out to dry because _you_ dislike them. This is the fate of almost
all moralists, however. They simply cannot back down and shut up,
either, even _after_ apologizing and realizing that they have abused a
forum, like you did. I regert accepting your apology -- I should have
known better and that you would simply return with more of the same.

| I will just ignore the hatred in his messages from now on and try to
| concentrate on the technical stuff he talks about, which usually has an
| amazing high quality compared to his verbal lapses.

Just like Anette Stegmann's amazingly silly response to this forum just
recently, there is the same incredulous need for some people to tell
people what they are _not_ doing. John Foderaro does it all the time,
and you hopefully just doing it this once, but the only way to ensure
that you have _no_ risk of looking like a hypocritical idiot _and_ do
what you think you should do is simply to _do_ it, without talking about
it, without announcing anything, without trying to look like a saint or
hero at somebody else's expense. It is probably well-meant, but it is
still a fairly insidious way to make yourself _look_ superior to others,
which you are _not_. Anyone who is more concerned about the behavior of
others before his own is morally _inferior_ to those others and should
approach others from this position to have an effect. Those who start
off thinking they are personally or morally superior will _always_ fail.

///

Paolo Amoroso

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 1:13:22 PM10/2/01
to
This recent paper by Eric Raymond may be a useful resource on discussions
in newsgroups and mailing lists:

How to Ask Questions the Smart Way
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html


Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://web.mclink.it/amoroso/ency/README
[http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/]

Janos Blazi

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 3:03:47 PM10/2/01
to
> I just don't think freedom does imply that you can do what ever pleases
> you (like insulting others).
> I think freedom comes with an obligation to also respect the freedom of
> others to have a different opinion than you have.
> (Even if they are wrong!)

Etc. Etc.

Hey Stefan, I thank you for this wonderful essay! Now finally I have learnt
from you what is right and what is wrong. Please, please do not stop. It is
such a pleasure to read your deep thought about what freedom means.

J.B.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----

Jack Gunthers

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 11:50:03 AM10/5/01
to
It should be clear by now to all readers of comp.lang.lisp that Erik Naggum is
a disturbed individual.

What has made him disturbed, we can only conjecture. Here are some ideas:

1. His braindamaged attempt at bringing sense to the SGML world. He thinks
himself an intelligent person, this particular waste of brainpower proves
otherwise.

2. He suffered some serious setback in his academic pursuits. Was his PHD
denied?

3. Some priest fondled his balls when he was a little boy. Or maybe he got
butt fucked too many times.

4. His mother and father were Nazis and he's lived with the guilt all his life.

5. He *is* a closet Nazi and suffers from the inability to come to terms with
it.

6. He needs Prozac. Or maybe he needs to move to a better climate where he
doesn't have to suffer SAD from the abnormally long dark winters up there.

7. His first attempt to lose his virginity was a failure. The sheep was too
unwilling.

8. His second attempt to lose his virginity was a failure, his mother said his
dick was too small.

9. He jerks off too much.

10. All of the above.

Please vote for your favorite reason

Kaz Kylheku

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 12:23:00 PM10/5/01
to
In article <3BBDD6D6...@excite.com>, Jack Gunthers wrote:
>5. He *is* a closet Nazi and suffers from the inability to come to terms with
>it.

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability that someone
will invoke a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis approaches 1.
That is known as Godwin's Law. It's also a custom, when this
actually happens, to consider that someone to have lost the debate.

Thomas F. Burdick

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 5:38:14 PM10/5/01
to
Aw crap, I accidently read this thread again, and here I am responding...

Jack Gunthers <jjgun...@excite.com> writes:

> It should be clear by now to all readers of comp.lang.lisp that Erik
> Naggum is a disturbed individual.
>
> What has made him disturbed, we can only conjecture. Here are some ideas:

Oh dear god. In case you weren't aware, "ad homineum" is not latin
for "the user of this technique is a fine debater." At least I'm
comforted by the fact that I'm 99.9% sure Erik isn't going to threaten
you with libel :-/

Kenny Tilton

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 7:18:36 PM10/5/01
to

"Thomas F. Burdick" wrote:
> I'm 99.9% sure Erik isn't going to threaten
> you with libel

Right. In the US anyway famous people have a hard time suing for libel.
:)

kt

cbbr...@acm.org

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 7:28:16 PM10/5/01
to

I think I need to keep that "about-ad-homineum" comment around; it's a
beauty.

I'm not terribly comforted by anything at all here; I am trying to
avoid imagining what a 'vigorous response' to the posting would be,
whilst simultaneously a little curious.

In vaguely similar manner, I'm slightly curious as to what would have
been the outcome if I had pursued vigorously a situation at work where
someone "abrasive" came after me. (A non-programmer telling me what
logic to use in a program...) I did not pursue the matter; this was
distinctly the wrong week to do that. But if a shouting match had
ensued, I'm sure it would have been a _fascinating_ thing to watch, at
least from a distance...

Someone should probably check to make sure that Erik didn't pop some
blood vessels...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/sgml.html
Yea, from the table of my memory
I'll wipe away all trivial fond records.
-- Hamlet, I.i.97

Erik Naggum

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 8:28:11 PM10/5/01
to
* Jack Gunthers <jjgun...@excite.com>

| It should be clear by now to all readers of comp.lang.lisp that Erik
| Naggum is a disturbed individual.

It appears rather more clear that you have a serious problem than I do.
Of all the filth that gets spewed here, those who attack me do so much
worse than I have ever done that I take serious comfort in such displays
of self-incrimination. The ability to invent all these insane things to
"explain" someone else speaks _volumes_ about a person. Ever notice how
all these people who attack me always have to tell us stories from their
own lives to relate to something they know made themselves go bad? And
that they never get close to something that actually _could_ explain what
they _desperately_ would like to see explained? One is left to wonder
what they invent about other things they are mentally unequipped to deal
with, like terrorist attacks and natural disasters and what not. Whole
religions could be built around the will to _demonize_ that such people
seem to think it is a good idea to tell the world they possess. Amazing.

///

Erik Naggum

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 8:33:48 PM10/5/01
to
* cbbr...@acm.org

| Someone should probably check to make sure that Erik didn't pop some
| blood vessels...

Not to worry. Some people only tell us about themselves when they try to
insult others, and it is quite amusing to watch. Jack Gunthers is one of
those. Others are a little more able to actually insult me, such as by
using their long-honed technique of not naming the person they insult
while they try to smear them as much as possible with their own filth. I
am sure the fine guy I talk about appreciates that I do not name him. :)

///

Erik Naggum

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 9:02:06 PM10/5/01
to
* Jack Gunthers <jjgun...@excite.com>

| It should be clear by now to all readers of comp.lang.lisp that Erik
| Naggum is a disturbed individual.

Incidentally, this must be how _you_ prefer to express your "different
opinion". If anyone _still_ thinks that it is "different opinion" that
makes anyone flame or get flamed, _remembering_ Jack Gunthers will help.
It is with the kindly volunteered aid of such fine people we know that
"different opinion" never has _anything_ to do with people getting into
fights. Think about it. Think about what it takes even to _believe_
that "different opinion" is related to fighting. Those who try to hide
behind their "different opinion" as if they had a principle of freedom of
expression or something, _always_ have an ulterior motive they want to be
"free" to pursue with impunity and without criticism. Mark my words.

///

Hartmann Schaffer

unread,
Oct 6, 2001, 7:45:00 PM10/6/01
to
In article <3BBDD6D6...@excite.com>,

Jack Gunthers <jjgun...@excite.com> writes:
> It should be clear by now to all readers of comp.lang.lisp that Erik Naggum is
> a disturbed individual.
>
> What has made him disturbed, we can only conjecture. Here are some ideas:
> ... [excessive and stupid harbage snipped]

if this was an attemp at humor it failed miserably

hs

--

War is not healthy for children and other living beings

Levi Conley

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 1:08:46 PM10/7/01
to
For the amusement of all and as an attempt to lighten the apparent
"seriousness" of this flame war, I submit for your consideration the
following link:

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html

Enjoy :)

Israel R T

unread,
Oct 27, 2001, 9:16:54 AM10/27/01
to
On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 04:36:20 GMT, Erik Naggum <er...@clemacs.org>
wrote:

>That kind of "you bad, me good" is so childish,
> and it is so incredbly pathetic to behold that you really should think
> about what it means for your image. You are bad, too, John Foderaro, and
> you are actually worse in many respects than what you complain about.


Eric's version "you bad , me god."

Israel R T

unread,
Oct 27, 2001, 9:22:58 AM10/27/01
to
On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 02:41:24 GMT, Erik Naggum <er...@clemacs.org>
wrote:

>* Stefan Kain
>| Dear Erik,
>| [Yet another round of moralistic crap deleted.]
>| Best Regards,
>| Stefan


>
> It is tremendously rude to abuse a public forum to air your personal
> mental problems and especially to abuse it for personal mail. This is
> not a therapy group for retarded and/or hypersensitive moralists on a
> mission. Now, think about what you have done, and stay the hell away.

"Naggum is the founder of the SGML archive at the
Department of Computer Science, University of Oslo, Norway, where he
is working towards a Doctorate on Information Representation and
Structuring Languages."

Did you ever finish that PhD ?

Thomas F. Burdick

unread,
Oct 27, 2001, 9:05:58 PM10/27/01
to
Israel R T <isra...@optushome.com.au> writes:

> On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 04:36:20 GMT, Erik Naggum <er...@clemacs.org>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> wrote:

[flames elided]

Flame wars don't go away, do they? They just go into hibernation,
waiting for some jerk to bring them back.

--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'

Israel R T

unread,
Oct 27, 2001, 10:09:23 PM10/27/01
to
On 27 Oct 2001 18:05:58 -0700, t...@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas
F. Burdick) wrote:

>Flame wars don't go away, do they?

>--
> /|_ .-----------------------.
> ,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
> ,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
> / / `-----------------------'
> ( -. |
> | ) |
> (`-. '--.)
> `. )----'


Just like outmoded ideologies...
Sheesh ! Class war indeed....
How 1990's...

Raymond Wiker

unread,
Oct 27, 2001, 11:14:41 PM10/27/01
to
Israel R T <isra...@optushome.com.au> writes:

[ Snip ]

Odd... I really thought I had killfiled this moron. Oh, I see;
he's changed the "Identification" settings in his newsclient. So, I
guess I'll just change

(gnus-kill "From" "israel raj thomas <israelt@optushome\\.com\\.au>")

to

(gnus-kill "From" "<israelrt@optushome\\.com\\.au>")

*plonk*

--
Raymond Wiker Mail: Raymon...@fast.no
Senior Software Engineer Web: http://www.fast.no/
Fast Search & Transfer ASA Phone: +47 23 01 11 60
P.O. Box 1677 Vika Fax: +47 35 54 87 99
NO-0120 Oslo, NORWAY Mob: +47 48 01 11 60

Try FAST Search: http://alltheweb.com/

0 new messages