Xah Lee's "cock" (36 posts beginning 14 July 2002 in Re: Thomas Bushnell)
Message-ID: 7fe97cc4.0207141933.4e040ddc@posting.google.com

and...

the alleged bad taste and moral failings of those Norwegians who prefer a
dialect other than Erik Naggum's chosen (20  posts beginning 21 June 2002 in
PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp)
Message-ID: 3233681730964508@naggum.net

BTW, I find c.l.l to be useful.  Perhaps I am not so distracted by
noise.  Is it 'welcoming'?  I really don't care.  This is a newsgroup,
not an emotional support group.

  You are helping to make it more hostile and less inviting.  Why do you do
  such a moronic thing?  What do you have to offer but gripes about others?

  You are the problem if you do not choose to post quality articles.

  What actually drives good people away is people like you, who ignore the
  quality there is and focus on creating a hostile environment because you are
  much more interested in what you hate than what you like.  Sadly, such people
  flock to attack people who do not do their bidding, who do not bow to their
  standards of submissions.  In short, you are demanders, not suppliers.  When
  a demander does not get what he demands, he starts complaining about other
  people.  /This/ is what the suppliers notice about a forum.  When it becomes
  a forum for demanders who are never satisfied, the suppliers leave, because
  there is no longer anything for /them/ to value there.

  Posting to USENET is not some selfless act.  It takes time to read and write
  good articles.  That time has to be repaid and rewarded somehow.  When all
  you get from people who would never be able to produce a posting worth
  reading if their life depended on it, is complaints that it is not /enough/,
  you quickly realize that the whiners and losers have taken over the forum.
  When people feel they just /have/ to voice their opinion about how badly
  somebody else behaves, you know what the whiners and losers are more
  interested in than actually contributing to quality articles.  I venture that
  nothing can be so unrewarding as some hypocritical asshole who thinks that
  his view on proper behavior should become the topic of discussion.  Either
  you know how to behave better and do, or you do neither.

  Write something about Common Lisp, Peter Douglas!  Show us your insight.
  Share your valuable points of view on Common Lisp, and ignore the fact that
  you think the forum is ruined.  You can help rebuild it with your unique
  insight and valuable contributions.  Remember, you know what you like, nobody
  else does.  What you dislike is not nearly as interesting for others to hear
  about, no matter how important you think it is to express it publicly.

  Look around you and focus on all the broken things, everything that could be
  better if somebody else would just do the work.  There is no shortage of crap
  and low-quality goods.  Whine about that.  Watch TV and hate every show.
  Hate the ads, hate the products advertised, hate the people who buy them so
  you get more of the same crappy ads in the same crappy shows that people who
  buy the crap watches.  In a short time, you will become the worst of the
  worst yourself, blaming others for your ever growing misery.  Your home or
  trailer is probably ruined beyond repair by this time, so there is no point
  for you to start fixing anything.  Whine some more.  Then die in misery.

  /Or/ look around you and focus on all the great things that people do.  Look
  for something to brighten your day every day.  Be the first to smile when you
  meet people.  Comment on things you appreciate to people responsible for it.
  Improve on the quality of your surroundings by picking up garbage left by the
  uncaring.  Repair things that break.  Learn the names of your neighbors.
  Take charge and organize efforts to keep your environment beautiful.  Offer
  to help people who get sick.  Make your abilities known to others without
  bragging or advertising, inquire about what others are good at.  Actually
  talk to people.  Show consideration for others and make your concerns known
  without complaining.  Listen and try to understand when people are upset
  about something you might have done.  Do something you find important
  regardless of how you think others will rate it.  Make sure that you enjoy
  being yourself without being sappy or kitsch.  Do something constructive
  about everything that annoys you.  Put substance into all your efforts.  Be
  good at everything you do.  Leave things you cannot do well to others who can
  and appreciate them for saving you the trouble.  Never whine, just improve.
  Voice your frustrations early and often, so you know what to work on and are
  not maintaining a façade, but do not bother people who you do not recruit to
  help you solve the problems.  Learn from your failures and just do better
  next time.  Give credit where credit is due, pay attention to who actually
  does the job, be firm about rewards for your own work.  Live long and
  prosper.

  What comp.lang.lisp does /not/ need is another naysayer who would never be so
  happy as when his negative predictions become truth.  For some reason, Lisp
  is a language it is OK for losers to whine about.  It is as if it so good
  that people of limited mental prowess cannot figure how to make their mark,
  so they prefer to make it by whining about what they miss and cannot create.
  It has been this way for years, from long before any of the people you blame
  for your own negative attitudes came to the forum.  People like you have
  soured up the forum for years and have made it unrewarding for the suppliers
  to offer anything.  Nobody wants to give something to people who keep whining
  that nobody gives them anything.  So the first order of business is to get
  all the naysayers out of the forum.  Whoever are left are probably able to
  share and work together.  What we instead find is that naysayers and idiots
  think they have a right to keep posting their negative crap about other
  people.  No doubt, Peter Douglas will now take offense at my taking offense
  to his useless negative bullshit, and will defend himself and make a general
  stink here that will prove him right, instead of doing something to improve
  the quality of the place.

  What prompted /you/ to annoy everyone by posting your negative comment,
  Peter Douglas?  I would /really/ like to know, because there is something in
  addition to your faulty perception that makes you want to portray other
  people as bad and negative when in fact you are bad and negative yourself,
  and believe you are some sort of bystander looking at other people, when you
  are in fact part of the forum and creating the forum with your own attitude.

  The failure of some people to understand that it is impossible to remain a
  bystander while they post to the forum they pretend to watch from afar is
  pretty amazing.  The attitude that makes these people fail to realize that
  they have an effect on what they post to actually eludes me.  How can someone
  even think that voicing a negative opinion with no trace of a constructive
  purpose will not have an effect on those he blames for these ills, which is
  basically everyone /except/ himself?

  The problem is perhaps that we have too much tolerance fot the idiots, so
  people like Peter Douglas do not understand how unwelcome their crap is.
  But try to chase away an idiot, and two more come to his defense, as if being
  an idiot is a bigger and better right to fight for than having a good forum.
  Well, there is no doubt what the idiots prefer.   Fighting idiots is probably
  a waste of time, but perhaps it is possible to make them stop flocking to
  comp.lang.lisp when their empty lives need to be filled with hatred.

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

  It has become accepted for losers to whine about comp.lang.lisp.  Losers
  copy losers.  You have whined about the atmosphere and other losers see this
  and think it is acceptable to whine about the atmosphere.  I am quite sure
  you saw some other people whine about the atmosphere and thought it would be
  OK for you to complain about it, too.  It is the whining losers who destroy
  a newsgroup by making it acceptable to whine about the atmosphere.  You
  should really have realized this by yourself, but apparently you feel exempt
  from affecting the atmosphere.  Why do you feel "outside" and need to
  comment "about" somebody when you are actually posting to a newsgroup?

  Do you whine about the atmosphere in real life, too?  Do you enter pubs and
  restaurants for no other reason than to complain about the atmosphere there
  because you have heard negative things about it?  Do you travel to other
  countries, states, cities you hate only to complain all the time you are
  there?  I really do not know what to make of you whining losers, but I think
  you would be somewhat recalcitrant to engage in this kind of negative
  marketing in any other forum than comp.lang.lisp.  Hence, it is because
  /you/ whine about the atmosphere in comp.lang.lisp that you see a higher
  number of such articles.  Without /your/ contribution, the number of such
  articles would be less.  Why do you fail to understand your own role?

  Do you have any suggestion for how anyone can do anything to make you stop
  whining?  That would be constructive.  Let us know precisely what you want
  to see done, and start doing it yourself.  If you do not want to do anything
  to improve the atmosphere, why do you want to do something to worsen it?

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

[snip of extended monologue on attitudes towards life]

What is it with people who want others to become aware of problems?  Do you
think that other people are too stupid to perceive what you perceive, all by
themselves?

No you know very well that others read exactly the same newsgroup articles that
are available to you, modulo differences in arrival order and localized service
interruptions. Why do you think they need your interpretive assistance?

So when you mean ``aware'' is simply that you want people to accept your
interpretation of the world, rather than their own interpretation.  You can't
possibly mean that you want to supply them with raw evidence, because they
already have that.

This is basically what most of the the awareness-raisers of this world want;
their stand is: you either agree with me or you must not be aware aware of
``the problem''. Unless you *are* aware, but are stupid to form the same
perception as I, are so mentally weak that you deny the existence of ``the
problem'' in the face of clear evidence, or else are too heartless, selfish,
greedy, et cetera, to care about it. In fact, you contribute to the problem,
and your refusal to become aware makes it worse, because if everyone was aware,
it would go away!

In other words, the tools of the argument are to attack the subject's esteem of
his own intelligence, perceptiveness and sanity, in combination with guilt
manipulation.

Ilias:  Hi, I'm looking for pointers to white papers about Lisp that I can
present to my managers.

A:  If you schmooze with us, we might help you, but since you are dumb
enough to ask a question forthright, I'll ask, are you willing to give us
money?

Ilias:  Er, no, I was just hoping someone could point me to some free
literature.  You see I was hoping to present something to my managers...

A:  Well, if you won't pay, then be satisfied with what you get.  Franz has
some papers, but if they don't have what you want, you'll either have to
pay, or do without.

Ilias:  Thanks for the pointer to Franz.  Don't you think other vendors
might have something I could use as well?

A:  You seem to have poor comprehension.  Plonk!

B:  Why, do you have to create a presentation for idiots, or are you
illiterate?

----------

Now, I would imagine that the Ilias and his managers are contemplating using
Lisp in one or more future projects.  Why else would they wish to learn
about it.  In other words, this is a potential sale, and potential jobs for
Lisp.  _I_ would think one would want to avoid being rude to someone making
such inquiries.  Apparently people at c.l.l. don't see it that way.  Yes,
they have to drive away the morons.  Well I suppose if one's aim is to
scuttle the expansion of Lisp, c.l.l. is pursuing the right strategy...

You ask whether I think

<< that other people are too stupid to perceive
<< what you perceive, all by themselves?

Well I really don't know.  Do you think the above interaction, that occurred
only a few hours ago is a sign of a problem?  If you do think it is a
problem, why haven't you spoken up?

Well then the real problem is finger pointers who have a desire to tell
the rest of us what the problem is and start a me too cascade amon other
like minded dolts.

oh boy I can hardly wait

marc

weak humans, driven by ego.

playing around in c.l.l. don't make them rational thinkers.

now i'll eat my chinese food.

  Why did you decide to "share" your opinion?  I hazard a guess that it was
  precisely because you have seen others do exactly the same thing.  If you
  had not seen any other such opinions "shared" you would have shut up.

| As for my contribution to the atmosphere, I hardly see how the .00001
| percent of posts that are authored by me will have that significant an
| impact.  If you are afraid that my posts will help *destroy* c.l.l. then you
| must be very pessimistic about the prospects for your newsgroup.

  You and all the others who do not understand what you do, have a cumulative
  effect that none of you individually understand.  Think bigger.

| The fact that others share this opinion adds credence to the belief that
| perhaps there is something to the criticisms that have been raised.

  No, it /only/ adds credence to the belief that it is acceptable to post such
  negative meta-comments to the newsgroup.

| Yes, I have a suggestion.  If you wish this thread to end, don't respond.

  This goes to support my suspicion that you posted your negative comment
  because others have done so before you, and hence you do not understand what
  you do or the effect your article has.  This is the root cause of the stream
  of negative postings to the newsgroup.  It usually happens when there has
  been a longer period of calm and quiet that some hostile outsider "needs" to
  air his complaints.  All these negative comments are self-propelling, self-
  reinforcing and self-referential, referring back to other series of negative
  comments by unconstructive, hostile outsiders who just have to "share" their
  opinion, however useless and destructive this is.

  There is nothing wrong with the newsgroup if you take away all the hostile
  outsiders who feel that it is acceptable to post hostile meta-comments and
  attack people on the newsgroup.  All of the wars on comp.lang.lisp have
  erupted because some idiot trolling "newbie" succeeds in annoying people,
  usually by attacking those who do keep it productive and useful, probably
  because they feel excluded.  I read several other comp.lang.* newsgroups,
  and these trolling idiots just do not post to other newsgroups.  The problem
  is the likes of Peter Douglas who do not even understand that repeating the
  negativity actually worsens it.  In particular, his notion that his only
  constitute .00001% of the posts is dead wrong.  His negative attitude has
  accounted for about 5% over the period he has been posting them.  That is
  what counts.  We need no more than a few such people to maintain a constant
  5% stream of hostilities from outsiders who do nothing but complain /about/
  the newsgroup, meaning: their own bad behavior in it.  The complaints have
  become circular: they complain about the hostile reactions to all the other
  stupid complaints.  You do not become "right" in your "opinion" about
  something if you have so little understanding of what is going on and refuse
  to understand your own role.  However, the biggest problem with all the junk
  that invades USENET is that they never understand their own role, thinking
  that they only constitute .00001% of the volume or somesuch drivel.

  There is no desire to /understand/ anything by someone who only gripes about
  other people and does not understand that his own griping contributes to the
  problem.  There is only a desire to pronounce judgment over other people.
  This has a bad tendency to piss people off, quite unsurprisingly, actually.

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

I can believe too that Christoper did not really want money from him but
really meant that if he spends some time chatting with the people here then
they will certainly be more open to help him out. This is no customer
support forum - it is a public forum where people meet to talk about their
interests. Nobody can urge anyone to give something for free. And even if
_I_ think Ilias did not demand "gratis support" his question could have
been understood like this.

But lets face it - the real problem in this thread is not any hostileness of
cll or any behaviour of Ilias or Christopher. It is the rude trolls of
Thaddeus L Olczyk in _this_ and several other forums. _He_ did crosspost
his bullshit to c.l.smalltalk, c.l.lisp, c.object and c.software-eng.

Why did he did this? Because he thinks he got insulted in the past now
enjoys to create flames here and there. One interesting fact you should
probably know is that Thaddeus L Olczyk asked for help some time ago -
*got* help from alot of people in this forum but insulted some of the
helpers because their freely offered solutions did not fit his set quality
levels. Since then he regularily posts here and in other forums insulting
the participants of the newsgroup as being dumb and hostile.

Please do not believe the nonsense and hate he spreads - there is no reason
to fight each other here because of the childish behaviour of a moron like
him.

I remember another c.l.l/c.l.object crossposted thread not to long ago which
was a really good discussion.

ciao,
Jochen

do you want to control discourse likewise?  please at least offer something
for my /usr/local while you're at it...

Hi all,

peter asked me to delineate some netiquette issues.

I do not feel comfortable in cross-posting multiple online discussions
with tangential topics, but perhaps because of the sincerity and
frequency of its appearance, i thought best to follow new directions
of the community.

Although i have written a few articles on these issues, but i feel
that the best has already been said, among them in netiquette
frequently asked questions popular in midst of 20th century. I thought
it proper to excerpt the best that i've collected below over the
years.

###################################################################
--- cut --- (^_^) --- here --- (^_^) --- cut --- (^_^) --- here ---
On the Philosophies of Netiquette
2000-03, author is autononymous

There are many philosophies towards netiquette. The most common treat
newsgroups as a conversation medium. Thus you see "me too"s and "thank
you"s and a plethora of one-sentence trivia and Question & Answer
slipslops that are valueless and meaningless to practically all except
a few people for a brief duration. As examples, comp.lang.lisp
dwellers [censored] and [censored]'s posts are typical of this
style. Then at the other extreme is the relatively rare Victorian
propensity where each post is a gem of literature carefully crafted
and researched for an entire century of readers to appreciate and
archive. Xah Lee, Erik Naggum, and [censored] posts are exemplary of
this style, to name a few acquaintances like myself.

The conversationalists emphasizes the notions of utility and
community.  Utilities can include the exchanging of opinions, getting
questions answered, chatting, bounding a community, and advancing the
group's interests. (and trampling other communities' conflicting
interests. (e.g.  "it's categorically unacceptable to bash lisp in
lisp group".)) A good post in the conversationalist's eyes is
basically a post that makes everyone in the group happy. The Rococo
style posters are in general more scholarly and emphasize on quality
and value. The intrinsic quality of a post of the Rococo stylists can
be judged on content and presentation aspects. The presentation part
essentially means the poster's writing skills and effort she put into
posts. This fact is not highbrowism because communication using
newsgroups are mostly done in written form: wrote and read; not spoke
and heard. The criterions for judging a post's content are essentially
the same as that of a scholar's work in science or humanitarian
diciplines, roughly that of correctness, originality, or artistry. In
this school of thought, it is ok for example to bash lisp in
comp.lang.lisp if the post has sound arguments, original ideas,
thought provoking, or otherwise has value (!very funny!). Whether a
post is on-topic is less important here because the focus is on truth
and enduring quality, not sheerly bending over for the group agenda.

The two contrasting model of posters can be realized sharply by
reading a newsgroup archive of a particular poster. Go to a newsgroup
archive such as dejanews.com and search for your favorite poster. If
you find a huge quantity of terse posts that is tiring, boring, has
little content, and in general requires you to carefully follow the
entire thread to understand it, then you know you've bumped into a
conversationalist. On the other hand, if you find posts being usually
lengthy and thoughtful and fairly complete by itself, then you've met
a scholarly mannered poster that is probably skilled at writing as
well. Please note that the conversational mannered posters are not
necessarily lousy writers, uncultured, or unappreciated, but usually
are.

If there must a purpose to this post, then it is that i urge those
conversationalists who insists on their brand of morality of
netiquette to at least double the time they spend on composing
messages so that their posts might have more value in a scholarly
point of view, if they are incapable or otherwise unwilling to broaden
their minds into the philosophies of netiquette. I'm here expanding
their brain from the mundane notion of noise/signal to revolutionary
signal/value idea. You fucking buckets of morons.

###################################################################
--- cut --- (^_^) --- here --- (^_^) --- cut --- (^_^) --- here ---
Killfile Considered Harmful
2000-02, by Xah Lee with acknowledgement to Edsger W. Dijkstra
[1930-2002]

In newsgroups, killfile is a playful word meaning that the poster has
placed someone in a blacklist of authors, where their postings will be
automatically hidden from view in their newsreader. Such functionality
of newsreaders originated in unix. In the early 90s or before, it used
to be referred to as "sending someone into /dev/null", because
'/dev/null' can be used as a way for deleting email program outputs.

The killfile behavior, is simply put: "sweep-under-the-rug",
"bury-head-in-sand" kind of behavior. Imagine that in a gathering
where if everyone totally ignores other's voices except their own
kind, then what cacophony would result? Similarly, if we ignore the
problem of crime by simply using larger locks for our own doors, what
consequence would result?

We are all human beings. Our surroundings are our organs and affects
us dearly. In newsgroups, inevitably there will be certain individuals
with foul breath at times. Killfile mechanism is a very good feature
to battle such annoyances. This is not a reason for falling for the
convenience of blocking your ears from dissenting voices or the
nonconformists.

The worst thing i hate about it, is the broadcasting of someone being
killfiled. Oftentimes the sole content of a message is "You've been
killfiled". WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO TO THE COMMUNITY BY SUCH
ANNOUNCEMENT? Is it a warning system for fellow readers to prepare to
follow suit? Or is it a stupid self-righteous act? In the course of an
unpleasant encountering, the killfilers feel the other party being
unworthy of further response but they don't want to be seen as
chickening out so they had to announce it as if saying: "Hello world:
you don't see a returning 'fuck you' from me because _I_ am _smarter_
and took a step ahead of my antagonist and covered my ears, not
because he is correct or anything like that.". Pride is a human
nature, but unqualified conceit is despicable.

A second motivation for announcing killfile is more explicitly
juvenile.  Killfile has several variant names:

 "You've been killfiled." (etymology anyone?)
 "plonk" (sound of falling object)
 "I've send you to /dev/null" (unixism)
and creativity does not seems to cease there, e.g. in comp.lang.lisp:

The reason of these playful variations is precisely literary
folly. The utterer delights in its use since most are wanting of
genuine literary artistry. This adds to the fashion of killfile and
its broadcasting.

Killfile behavior and broadcasting have another curious trait: No
burden of commitment. One cannot really tell if the person really did
the killfile.  The decision to make a killfile cry in public does not
carry any weight of responsibility as compared to making a claim,
stating a "fact", or expression an opinion. It is simply a variation
of "fuck you". This too, contributed to its uncontrolled popularity.

###################################################################
--- cut --- (^_^) --- here --- (^_^) --- cut --- (^_^) --- here ---
How to Summon a Troll
2002-01, by a troll

In Gotham City, where Batman is fighting crimes, there arises the
problem of how do you call the mysterious Batman when the city needs
him. The solution offered is a giant spot-light with a Batman Insignia
silhouette. When the serene night sky floats such a giant Bat, it
indicates that urgent measures must be taken against crime.

and when newsgroup needs Xah to fight unthinkers, all you have to do
is to mention my name!

###################################################################
--- cut --- (^_^) --- here --- (^_^) --- cut --- (^_^) --- here ---
A Troll's Confection
2002-07. by Xah Lee

once in a while, some troll-cryers inject spirit into my abjection. My
disconcerted and alienated life gets a taste of hope, that somebody
somewhere cares about me, thought about me, think of me, to a degree
of gesturing love through public name calling.

###################################################################
--- cut --- (^_^) --- here --- (^_^) --- cut --- (^_^) --- here ---

In _The Land of Oz_, there are two type of witches: the wicked witches
of East and West, and the good witches of North and South. In the land
of newsgroups, there are perhaps also different type of trolls. I
can't say they do good or bad, but i think they are much brainier then
the gazillion ignorant big-mouthing and shit-dropping fishes being
involuntary victims of troll.

###################################################################
--- cut --- (^_^) --- here --- (^_^) --- cut --- (^_^) --- here ---
Once upon a troll...
2001-03-25, by nate...@home.com
published in alt.music.jethro-tull

Once upon a time, in a village far, far away...  A big, ugly troll
terrified and harassed the good town of "Broadford."  The citizens and
townspeople all feared the troll.  They hid from it at all cost.  And
instead of bringing the little town to ruins, and moving-on to another
city, the Troll persisted in driving Broadford to the ground, while
making sure to warn any ignorant newcomers with rude, hostile remarks,
that their presence was indeed unwanted.

"I'm the biggest, badest troll in all the land" shouted Troll, "And I
will not sleep until I have exterminated every last one of you!"

And with a gruesome display of might, the troll would rampage the
village, tearing down houses, stomping on babies, and even fornicating
forcefully with the womenfolk.

That sponge wasn't treated harshly at first, only when certain aspects of his
character started to come to light. Near the root article of that thread,
things were quite civil.

In any case, the question is a good response to a sponge who wants others to
create presentations for him out of information that is already available.

I haven't seen any demands any schmoozing. People who accept others based on
schmoozing are pathetic scoundrels whose acceptance is worthless, so that only
other scoundrels seek it.

See, there is more than one way to paraphrase, in this manner.

I don't sell Lisp a implementation, and if I were a vendor, I wouldn't want
users who are idiots; in the long run, they will turn into a liability that far
outweighs the revenue.  For instance, they might write bad, failed software,
and then the name of my development tools will come up in rumors about their
failure, if indeed the idiots won't come out and blame those tools openly.  Let
those users go to a competitor. Or to Java or Perl or something.

A programming language is not a political movement that requires membership, to
achieve some kind of ``strength in numbers''. If nobody wants to use a
programming language, then let it vanish.

If someone wants to make important decisions, like what programming language to
use, based on the perceived hostility of a Usenet newsgroup, that is his
stupidity. Why give in to it?

What I do know is that I get exactly out of Usenet what I want, because
I accept how it works, and I like it. Part of how it works is that you can't
barge into a newsgroup, demand that people change their behavior, and actually
expect that it will happen! It never will, so if you seriously expect that, you
will be continously frustrated.

I enjoy seeing a stupid troll get a justified roasting. Some people feel the
need to go on a crusade to try to take away that entertainment, wanting
to replace it with a sterilized Usenet that is friendly toward everyone,
regardless of character, a kind of ``service with a smile'', with no
compensation.

Of course, they have no possible hope of success, but once in a while, it's fun
to pretend to take these crusaders seriously and raise counter-objections.

Every decent comp.lang.* newsgroup has a hostile atmosphere toward people who
post misinformation, start off-topic discussions, make demands on other
people's time and effort, or invite participation in academic misconduct.
These are in fact hostile, parasitic behaviors, which call for a hostile
response. If a mosquito lands on you to suck your blood, swatting it is a just,
hostile response.

You know, even paid technical support people sometimes collapse and resort to
hostility; their jobs often are not compesated well enough, so that some of the
compensation has to come from the pleasure of interacting with someone who is
intelligent and inherently help-able.

There is no rational reason for suppressing just measures of hostility;
so there is nothing to discuss, really.

And yes, my point is that people like Ilias are not good people. By not good, I
mean unfit for participation in a forum that is based on trading value for
value, rather than on undeserved expectations. He has nothing to offer.

As for the project itself, by my estimate any company that makes money
writing programming languages probably has to make at least in the
range of ballpark $1000000 to $10000000 ( think of the amount of
salary you make plus other cost such as health insurance times
the programmers and managers, add in the other workers ie seretaries
and such then office space furniture, heating electricity computers
etc. ) and you see that the cost of running a business is high.

That means that any company that makes language implementations
is going to be selling quite a few seats. That means that you will see
"success stories" like this for most every language which is sold.

  Trust me on this: we do not need more "awareness" of a problem caused almost
  entirely by negative comments from people like yourself.

| I believe my articles are quality articles.

  Suuure.

| It is not my intent to drive people away.  It has however been the clear and
| often stated intent of posters in c.l.l to drive people away.

  Wrong.  People like you, however, who do nothing but complain and attack
  people, are not welcome anywhere.  You seem to dislike yourself intensely,
  yet keep going on and on about how wrong people who post negative crap to
  the newsgroup are.  Are you somehow separated from yourself when you make
  these comments?

| I have never demanded anythingn of you or of c.l.l. , nor do I intend to
| demand anything of you, nor of c.l.l.

  You seem to unaware of your own function.

| There is no room for discussing a hostile atmosphere?

  What would the point be with "discussing" it?  Either you want to improve
  it, or you want to blame other people for your own failure to improve it.
  This is no different from anywhere else in real life.  People who complain a
  lot are invariably those who do the least to improve their situation, no
  matter whether they "share" their negative emotions and opinions or not.

| Since when did you become my boss?  How much are you paying me?

  So why are you complaining about the behavior of other people?  Are you /my/
  boss?  I cannot recall being given orders from you that I have violated.
  Who are you, really, to judge other people the way you do when all you do is
  worsen the problem you complain about?

| Among other things I like the peace of mind that comes from posting in
| newsgroups where posters do not suggest murder as a solution to their
| disputes.

  I like the peace of mind that comes knowing that people like you refrain
  from attacking others for past ills that you "remember" and have some
  psychological problem that prevents you from getting over.

| I would be delighted if c.l.l. turned around.

  So stop posting so much negative drivel to the newsgroup!  Quit annoying and
  accusing other people just because you are a hateful, negative person who
  focus on negative developments and stupidly choose to "share" them.

  Clearly, you are not the kind of person to contact if anyone wants to get
  anything turned around, but you would be "delighted"" if someone else did it
  despite your efforts to dertail their work.  How do you know that things
  were not improving before you reared your ugly head and had to gripe and
  accuse people?  (In fact, they were, which is why I get so pissed off by
  people like yourself you will never give anyone a break, but have to "share"
  your stupid opinions based on your own emotional problems.)

| You are confusing criticism of comp.lang.lisp with criticisim of Lisp the
| language.

  So you have clearly not understood anything of what you observe here.

| If people have complained about a hostile atmosphere inside of c.l.l. for
| years, perhaps it is because there actually is a hostile atmosphere inside
| of c.l.l.

  No, all the complaints refer to other complaints that people object to very
  strongly because they are unfair and untrue of the /signal/.  The complaints
  are the /noise/ that the complaints are about.  It takes actually /reading/
  the newsgroup instead of editorializing over it to see this, however.

| > Nobody wants to give something to people who keep whining that nobody
| > gives them anything.  So the first order of business is to get all the
| > naysayers out of the forum.
|
| In other words, it is your intent to drive people away.  Hmm.  I thought you
| were blaming _me_ for driving people away.

  Are you insane?  I want your breed of negative hatemongerers to get lost so
  we can get back to discuss Common Lisp in our small community without having
  to deal with negative assholes like yourself all the time.  What makes you
  think that you are on-topic in /any/ newsgroup with your kind of negative
  propaganda /about/ newsgroups.  Meta-discussions always lead to hostilities.
  People who cannot figure out the difference between an on-topic discussion
  and an off-topic meta-discussion are the root cause of the problems on /any/
  newsgroup.

| I have no doubt of this.  However, the people who are left are not
| necessarily representative of the lisp community.

  And why is representativity of the Lisp community interesting or valuable?
  Are you one of those anti-elitists that attack comp.lang.lisp because it has
  a better breed of people?

| > What we instead find is that naysayers and idiots think they have a right
| > to keep posting their negative crap about other people.
|
| Of course they have that right.

  Then you cannot complain about the atmosphere, Peter Douglas.  You want it
  this way.  I am quite surprised that you have not chimed in on previous wars
  as they seem to be just what you desire out of USENET.  Indeed, it is how
  you spend your time now.  I am trying to make you realize that the noise
  that you complain about comes from people like you who attack a newsgroup
  that works perfectly /except/ for the likes of  you and your "sharing".

| I take no offense at your comments.  However, since they are directed at me,
| I have responded.

  So you are not in control of your own posting behavior, but blame other
  people even for that.  You attacked people here, and then you feel you need
  to respond?  Quit attacking people you do not know for things you do not
  understand!  Hostile cretins like you are the cause of the problems you do
  not like.  Control your own behavior, and things will improve, like magic.

| I was prompted to comment because a post appeared in a newsgroup which I
| read and post to frequently, i.e. comp.object.  That post suggested that
| using common lisp either rotted the brain, or promoted con-artistry.

  But who did that cross-posting?  A known troll and another negative idiot.
  Thaddeus L Olczyk has been a pain in the ass in comp.lang.lisp for some
  time, because he is just as unwilling to understand his own role as you are.
  And imagine responding to a crossp-posted thread with a personal accusation
  in the Subject!  Of /course/ you are part of the problem, Peter Douglas!
  And of /course/ you think you do nothing wrong.  Thaddeus L Olczyk also
  thinks he does nothing wrong, because he also thinks he only "shares"" his
  very negative opinion about one particular person in particular.  Why did
  you take his bait and sink to his level and attack lots of other people,
  too?  What is /wrong/ with you think you post "quality articles" like this?

| I don't doubt that I have an effect.  What I doubt is that my puny effect
| will be even noticable in terms of changing the atmosphere of c.l.l.

  It makes it worse and less rewarding for the duration of your hostile
  campaign against the newsgroup.  It also means that no matter what anyone
  actually does to improve conditions around here, someone like you will
  always come around to pretend that nothing has improved, causing yet more
  negative morons to "share" their emotional problems and hatred.  When you
  know that there are lots of people out there who would love to attack people
  on the newsgroup at any time, it is not conducive to a peaceful, useful
  environment.  You know this, I presume, yet you do your best to make things
  worse and to accuse people of your stupid "impression" of a forum.  What is
  your "impression" of blacks and jews?  Would you care to "share" that. too?

| I have no more belief that I would have a constructive effect upon you, than
| you believe I will have _any_ influence upon yourself.

  I believe you have a destructive influence on people around you.  I believe
  that you "share" your negativity and cause other people grief and pain in
  the course of your life.  You do not see this as a problem, obviously.

| I understand how unwelcome my comments are to you.  I would hardly expect
| you to agree with me.  However, I also understand that you neither own
| usenet, nor own c.l.l.

  Well, neither do you, I take it.  So why do you think that attacking people
  unfairly is better than defending them from your unfair and generalized
  attacks?  People with their head screwed on right realize that no criticism
  will be useful if there is no clear understanding of how to make it go away.
  You and your ilk do not go away with your criticism, but keep coming back no
  matter what anyone does.  This is grossly unfair, but I take it that you are
  just the kind of broken personality that consider your opinion more valuable
  to "share" than promoting fairness and justice.

| Perhaps the "idiots" all see a reallity that you don't.

  Certainly.  That is what makes them idiots.  So, too, with you, who "see""
  things you can hate more easily and clearly than things you can appreciate.

| Again, perhaps the "idiots" who "flock" to criticize the atmosphere in
| c.l.l.  see something you do not.

  The mentally ill, as in the obsessed, frequently have problems that they
  think are very real, and spend a large fraction of their time complaining
  that others do not "acknowledge" their problems.  The more they insist, the
  more real the problem is to them and the less real to everybody else.

  I think you are nuts, Peter Douglas, because /you/ cannot acknowledge that
  the so-called "problem" is of your own making.

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway