(+ superb-lisp-commentator flamewarrior)

...and in the other I see:

   flamewarrior

The rhetorical "who is the blight on cll?" was meant not to defend the
former but to condemn the latter as certainly falling short of the
former's status, whatever mitigating value (including nil) one finds in
the former's lisp commentary.

You noted earlier: "I accept that my continued arguments with Erik are
completely useless, but Erik is 50% party to them." Please consider that
/any/ flamewarrior is party only to 50% of the traffic. ie, It takes two
to tango.(tm) It is simply not mandatory for any party to continue
flamewars beyond a punch or two, because it just ends up as endless
point-by-point rebuttal word quibbling escalating yada yada yada. So I
have no sympathy for either combatant, who in fact seem to be enjoying
themselves greatly, but for the increasing frustration of not being able
to get the other fellow to cry touche!

On very rare occasions living lisp legends descend from olympus to break
up these flamewars, and it goes well when they do. Partly because they
do not take sides. For you to think an "in-your-face" attack on EN would
have a positive outcome on cll was a grave error.

And, sorry to harp on this, but to join then with ilias in condemning
those of us who do not join in your attack (sheep? suck-ups? I do not
know whether to slurp or bleat (or woof, come to think of it)) is really
over the top.

Ask not how cll can be improved by EN changing, ask how you can change
to improve cll.(tm) If you think the arguments are completely useless,
stop. Just stop. Come back as your real self and just talk lisp. (My two
cents.)

 > (My two cents.)
With me adding my tuppence at current exchange rates I make that a nickel...

Cold language can be interpreted as very constructive, because it is
straight to the point. Warm language can also be straight to the point,
but it can additionally help the one being criticized to better accept
the criticism. The warm language approach doesn't mean that the "truth"
is not spoken, it is just packaged in a different way.

 >   It also tells everybody that you are really average

marc

  No, there is not.  Why do you have to invent such self-serving crap?  The
  point with "cold" language is to be emotion-free and neutral, business-
  like and professional.  You seem to have serious problems with people who
  do not exude personal care about you, but you know what?  Most books are
  written in this "cold" language.  If you try to publish an academic paper
  with lots of warm fuzzy feelings, it gets rejected.  But you do not even
  believe that arguments can carry their own weight, so what the fuck am I
  wasting my time trying to correct your stubbornly idiotic views for?

| The warm language approach doesn't mean that the "truth" is not spoken,
| it is just packaged in a different way.

  You have taken this cold/warm thing and twisted it out of shape.

| You seem to believe that the warm language approach is condescending at
| the same time.

  Unwanted intimacy or intimation is actually insulting and condescending.

| I know that the warm language approach can be applied without being
| condescending at the same time.

  Oh, Christ.  Your personal experience is an argument.

| I say that people who feel insulted by warm language should try harder to
| control their feelings to get things straight.

  Well, my young friend, isn't that just awfully nice of you?

| I am just convinced that the "warm language approach" is more appropriate
| than the "cold language approach".

  Of course you are convinced of it.  That has never been doubted.  What
  matters, however, is that you are wrong to demand this of others, which
  is what your entire argument amounts to.

| The former reaches more people than the latter, and more effectively so.

  This, however, is such a retarded lie that you /have/ to be nuts.  If
  this were so, publishers would have known about it and would only publish
  books that tried to be intimate with their readers and nurture warm fuzzy
  feelings instead of imparting information.  So let us know: Which of the
  books on Common Lisp use a "warm" language?  Which of your textbooks have
  used a "warm" language?  You should be able to list quite a number of
  books you have read that were intended to impart information to its
  readers that used a warm language if you are right.  If you cannot find
  any such books, please feel free to inform us that you understand that
  your entire line of argument is based precisely on what I attacked to
  begin with: Without (a method of) measurements, people will believe
  whatever makes them feel good and reject whatever makes them feel bad,
  even though the truth and the facts go in the opposite direction.
  However, you have explicitly rejected (a measure of) measurements, so all
  your blathering about "and more effectively so" amount to is only /your
  personal opinion/, based in what makes you feel good.  It does not feel
  good to be a stupid jerk who has been proven wrong in a long debate, so
  you will never change your mind unless you get rid of the stupid idea
  that you do not need measurements.  That is, until you acquire at least
  some pieces of the scientific method instead of touchy-feely opinionating.

* Erik Naggum
| What makes people of different personalities work together well is
| /professionalism/.  You seem to lack that concept entirely.

* Pascal Costanza
| No, what makes people of different personalities work together well is the
| acknowledgement of the differences.

  No?  Are you denying that professionalism is a good thing?  Jesus Fucking
  Christ, you have to be one of the most retarded people this newsgroup has
  ever set foot on.  And I mean that warped metaphor literally.  *stomp*

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

For those who want full CLOS functionality from Java, they would either
rely on a reflection-style dispatch API or use an enhanced compiler
(Generics for Java completed it's public review a year ago and
supposedly will be included in JDK 1.5).

It is important to distinguish between capabilities of the JVM versus
the extremely limited syntax of the Java Language.  While implementing
CLOS for the JVM would certainly require some clever design, I don't
believe there is any insurmountable technical impediment.

There aren't too many differences between the Java language and the JVM;
compiling to the JVM is more or less the same as compiling to Java
source code. The JVM performs many typechecks and bytecode verification
at loadtime that disallow many potential workarounds. The JVM spec
requires a conforming implementation to perform these checks - in the
early days of Java you could switch off (some stages of) bytecode
verification, but that's not permitted anymore.

Guy L. Steele: Common Lisp - The Language, 2nd Edition.
Paul Graham: ANSI Common Lisp.
Richard Gabriel: Patterns of Software.
Douglas R. Hofstadter: Gödel Escher Bach.
Joel Kramer, Diana Alstad: The Guru Papers - Masks of Authoritarian Power.
Kent Beck: Extreme Programming Explained.
Martin Fowler: UML distilled.
Martin Fowler: Refactoring.
Alistair Cockburn: Agile Software Methodologies.

and so on, and so on...

Here is some more factual evidence for the approach I am suggesting.

There is a website at http://tip.psychology.org/ that provides lots of
useful information on learning theories. Especially interesting are the
following entries, and I quote some sections.

 >>>
Experiential Learning (http://tip.psychology.org/rogers.html)

"To Rogers, experiential learning is equivalent to personal change and
growth. Rogers feels that all human beings have a natural propensity to
learn; the role of the teacher is to facilitate such learning. This
includes: (1) setting a positive climate for learning, (2) clarifying
the purposes of the learner(s), (3) organizing and making available
learning resources, (4) balancing intellectual and emotional components
of learning, and (5) sharing feelings and thoughts with learners but not
dominating."

"Principles:

1. Significant learning takes place when the subject matter is relevant
to the personal interests of the student

2. Learning which is threatening to the self (e.g., new attitudes or
perspectives) are more easily assimilated when external threats are at a
minimum

3. Learning proceeds faster when the threat to the self is low

4. Self-initiated learning is the most lasting and pervasive."
<<<

 >>>
Anxiety (http://tip.psychology.org/anxiety.html)

"Anxiety has been shown to impair performance in a wide range of
cognitive functions including attention, memory, concept formation and
problem solving (e.g., Sieber et al., 1977; Spielberger, 1966). There is
an interaction with task difficulty; anxiety results in poorer
performance in complex tasks but may improve performance on very simple
tasks. This result can been explained by Hull's drive reduction theory
in so far as arousal increases the strength of responding but competing
responses are activated in complex tasks. Because of its influence on
performance, anxiety is highly relevant to Aptitude x Treatment
Interaction (ATI) research .

Anxiety can be reduced in an instructional context by:

1) instructions that minimize stress and prepare individual

2) increased use of positive feedback during a task

3) reduced opportunities for failure in a task"
<<<

And here is another quote by Joe Bergin from "Feedback Patterns", the
pattern language that includes the "Positive Feedback First" pattern.
(see http://csis.pace.edu/~bergin/patterns/FeedbackPatterns.html).

The quote is from the introduction:

"This pattern language in progress proposes some successful techniques
to assist with teaching and learning.  For professional educators, these
patterns may seem obvious, even trivial, because they have used them so
often.  But for those newer to teaching, they offer a way for
experienced teachers to pass on their experiences."

This implies that "positive feedback first" is an "obvious, even
trivial" pattern for "professional educators".

It's really time now for you to provide some hard data other than your
personal opinions that support your approach.

http://www.whitelotus.org/library2/articles/kramer_alstad/relationshi...

Its going way off a lisp topic however.

marc

That said, I have no problem with "cold language" per se, and can often see
Erik's POV when he is merely "cold and hard" but not abusive.  And to his
credit, I don't think I have ever seen him start out with anyone calling
them "fucking moron" (the times it has seemed that way, there has always
been history I was unaware of).  He will use words like "stupid" at first
but always worded to describe what someone has said, not who they are.  Then
the problems start because we are humans even if we are talking about
machines.

But the undeniable fact (though some may deny it ;) is that his strategy
results in uneeded, counter-productive garbage.  Unfortunately, there is
another undeniable fact: that is just my opinion.  Erik is firmly convinced
he is correct in what he does, no amount of debating will change that.  As
you have seen, no matter how calm and logical you are, if you don't accept
his arguments the discussion deteriorates quickly.

It is good for the group in general to have your sentiments expressed so
clearly and non-combatively, it is necessary to balance the very prolific
output of Erik.  BUT... I don't think there is anything to be gained in
continuing.  You'll have to be content with expressing your view and
recognizing a dead end discussion...

What if we redefined things a little bit.  If "warm" language were
understood to mean "ass kissing", where one uses emotion and appeals to
the feelings of the other person, and "cold" language were understood to
mean "ass kicking" where one is hostile towards the other person, then
the language that ought to be used in a technical forum would be
"neutral" language, free of hostility and negative emotions and also
free from ass-kissing emotions as well.

A technical discussion shouldn't cater to peoples insecurities by using
wishy-washy, touchy-feely, feel-good language ("Friend, while you appear
to be really a swell chap, your idea is a most unusual and far-fetched
one and I don't think many would be willing to accept it. Have a nice
day!") nor should it berate people through the use of insults ("Only a
god damned moron would come up with a piece of shit idea like yours, you
pigfucker!").  A neutral approach might take the form of: "Your idea is
wrong as you neglected to consider...".  This way, one won't kiss ass
nor would one insult the intelligence of the other person by implying
that their idea, while perhaps ridiculous to those well-versed in the
topic, is an indication of poor mental capacity.  You never know -- it
could be that the person truly is brain-damaged, but emotionally charged
language like doesn't belong that in a technical discussion.

The /argument/ itself is what should be criticized as much as it
deserves.  Naturally, should the other person take offense and feel hurt
at someone suggesting that their idea is wrong and they start hurling
insults back, then flame on and toast that god damned pigfucker!

Respecting Mr.Kinley's point and to avoid adding to the noise I will
stop here.

But that does not mean I have backed down.  If you want to continue
and try to make me suffer, you have my email id.
--

And BTW I am not going anywhere.

quasi
p.s.
I mention EN here only as reference.  This is not against/for him.

p.p.s.
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com
--

I am not concerned with the hostility some people see in his arguing
style. I really think he wants to contribute effectively to this
newsgroup (and he has certainly already done so). He is just not using
the most effective communication techniques for the purpose at hand.

        Year    Posts
        ------  -------
        1995    1110
        1996    3310
        1997    1720
        1998    1810
        1999    2560
        2000    2120
        2001    1790    
        2002    3520 (*)

(*) annualised from 2710 as of 10/8/2002
Source: Google Groups

3,520 posts in Y2002 is an average of 10 posts a day.  That's huge.
Actually if you break it down by month:

        Month   Posts   Per day
        ------  ------  --------
        1/2002  155      5
        2/2002  210      8
        3/2002  388     13
        4/2002  217      7
        5/2002  206      7
        6/2002  298     10
        7/2002   12     --
        8/2002  485     16  <- blimey!
        9/2002  425     14

Figure sixteen posts a day over a whole month, takes, say, least ten
minutes to compose a post, another ten to read other stuff (it's a
two-way channel), that's five hours a day -- counting _every day_ of
the week now -- I don't see how you have time for Lisp programming.
In fact I'm convinced you are not a single person but rather are
employing a team of people, trained to write exactly alike, in order
to spread a particular message.  Are you perchance working for one of
the commercial Common Lisp vendors??

I'll close with a riddle ... why is this collection of articles so
dense in useful information:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&as_d...

    VN> I am not sure I understand---do you mean that being able to speak
    VN> one's opinion straight does not depend on luck?

    EN>   I mean that I do not understand what luck has to do with it.

OK.  (I should have been more sure in my understanding and not ask
for things to be repeated twice...)

My current (but not final) thinking about luck is that it is a
general term for all those factors that we do not know (and thus do
not control).  For example, out of N investors, all competent,
intelligent, and a priori well-informed, only M `lucky' ones will
actually make good money, for M significantly less than N.  Or, to
quote a classic story, when it was suggested to Napoleon to promote
someone to general, Napoleon said, `Yes, he is good, but is he
lucky?'

Of course, being lucky can only be determined for the past.  Can I
really plan on going to be lucky?  (Yes, I know it is often
done...)

---Vassil.

  Fascinating.  Normally, people who are involved in a debate and not just
  some childish game, show people where they got their opinion when others
  flat out deny it.  It is your responsibility to offer proof or at least
  some evidence when one of your claims is countered.  The onus of proof is
  on he who asserts the positive.  But you resort to this kind of massively
  unintelligent response, and I think of the fact that you do not want any
  measurement of effectiveness and prefer to feel good over thinking about
  something, and I conclude that you have not yet heard of the scientific
  method.  This is a correctable mistake.  I would suggest that you visit
  your nearby university and find someone who might be willing to suggest
  books on the topic.  It is so fundamental to the work of any scientist or
  for that matter anyone else who wishes to actually succeed with arguments
  when not all the participants are children, that I kind of take it for
  granted that those who engage in a debate where they at least ought to
  understand that their opponent is not overly impressed with their person
  or their personal opinion alone, actually would find it useful.

  I understand now where our violent disagreement over methodology has its
  roots.  You are simply an astonishingly uneducated fuddy-duddy who has no
  idea what he's talking about.  Cold language, warm language, bah humbug!
  You even managed to misunderstand so completely my example of how people
  manage to overcome even massive flows of emotions under serious stress
  that you thought I meant that I would favor exposing people to stress!
  Such an amazing intellectual feat is simply not possible if you have any
  brain cells that have been exposed to higher education.  You have clearly
  never even seen any material on argumentation and rhetoric, which I also
  blissfully assume people have internalized at around age 16.  So here are
  a couple books that might still be a bit above your intellectual level,
  but which I have found have helped many wayward people tremendously.

DDC 168 (Arguments and Persuasion); ISBN 0-87220-156-2; LCCN 92026328
Anthony Weston
A Rulebook for Arguments, 2nd ed

DDC 160 (Logic); ISBN 0-393-97213-5; LCCN 97025896
David Kelley
The Art of Reasoning, 3rd ed

  For that matter, visit your local Dewey-enriched library and peruse the
  entire range from 160 to 169.  Books under 165 may turn out out be more
  useful than many others, but do take your time.

  You could also use a good dictionary of the English language.  Since
  Merriam-Webster has published their Collegiate Dictionary and Thesaurus
  on the Net, there is fortunately no need to purchase them.  www.m-w.com

| It's not only my personal experience, but it is shared by many other
| people.

  165

| > | I say that people who feel insulted by warm language should try harder to
| > | control their feelings to get things straight.
| >   Well, my young friend, isn't that just awfully nice of you?
|
| Insofar I am making suggestions for improvement - yes.

  *marvel*  You just do not get it, do you?

| Here are some:
|
| Guy L. Steele: Common Lisp - The Language, 2nd Edition.
| Paul Graham: ANSI Common Lisp.
| Richard Gabriel: Patterns of Software.
| Douglas R. Hofstadter: Gödel Escher Bach.
| Joel Kramer, Diana Alstad: The Guru Papers - Masks of Authoritarian Power.
| Kent Beck: Extreme Programming Explained.
| Martin Fowler: UML distilled.
| Martin Fowler: Refactoring.
| Alistair Cockburn: Agile Software Methodologies.
|
| and so on, and so on...

  I am imply in *awe* of your inability to understand what "cold"/"warm"
  language /means/.

  This really is just a game to you where the point is to keep talking
  until everybody has gone home and the last man talking wins, right?

| Here is some more factual evidence for the approach I am suggesting.

  Look, you doofus, the things you argue about have never been in question.
  The reason I tend not to assume that people have such a strong agenda of
  their own that they do not see anything other people say is that I tend
  to assume a certain level of social skills.  Fanatics who keep talking
  about their pet theories no matter what other people are talking about
  tend to puzzle me somewhat, so I tend to want to listen to even such
  people because they /might/ have an important clue that is useful for me,
  but if you listen carefully to a fanatic, you notice that he lives has
  lived his entire life inside his own skull, where everything makes sense
  to him and his behavior is of course correct and beneficial to those
  others he cares about.

| It's really time now for you to provide some hard data other than your
| personal opinions that support your approach.

  Look up "professionalism" and "technical writing" in your favorite
  library.  I have already given you these pointers, you insufferable twit.

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

  That is simply false.  You simply do not see it when it does not develop
  in that direction.  You, too, must feel that that which you do not see,
  cannot exist.

| Erik is firmly convinced he is correct in what he does, no amount of
| debating will change that.

  The evidence is that scores of people come back to me, sometimes years
  after their scolding, and tell me that it was extremely valuable to them,
  albeit painful at the time.  They do not generally post this to the same
  forum so stupid feel-good people can get some counter-information,
  however.  Of the people who have been rebuked for their arrogance or
  ignorance, only a tiny fraction (I keep track: it is about 5%) appear to
  be permanently damaged.  The rest win big, if not there and then, then
  later in life.

  The perhaps most fascinating thing about you feel-good guys is that you
  actually believe that other people are unable to adjust to the feedback
  they receive, probably because you are yourself completely inept at that
  process.  I mean, look at all these morons who return to repeat the same
  stupid, non-working argument that got them into trouble previously.  How
  could I /not/ conclude that these people are permanently dysfunctional
  who cannot even produce variations on their theme.  Other people are not
  as bad as you are, and therefore do not respond the way you do or do not.

| As you have seen, no matter how calm and logical you are, if you don't
| accept his arguments the discussion deteriorates quickly.

  *sigh*  This is the kind of misguided notion that you will keep harping
   on despite the sheer absence of evidence, and when I counter this claim,
   you only think you have proven it.  You feel-good guys are impossible to
   argue with, because disagreement makes you feel not-good and therefore
   you go bananas when I do not accept your version of things, especially
   where your stupid feelings are concerned.  I find it extremely annoying.

| You'll have to be content with expressing your view and recognizing a
| dead end discussion...

  I find you one of the most unspeakably condescending persons I have ever
  had the displeasure of dealing with, Coby Beck.  Your style is to presume
  to speak ex cathedra about someone else, as if you knew them like a
  childhood friend, their parents, or perhaps their shrink.  That you do
  not even understand that this causes people to become angry at you only
  speaks volumes about your inability to feel any actual empathy with other
  people, despite all your self-serving crap about being nice.  You are a
  bad person who has learned, probably the hard way from people realizing
  just what and who you are, that it serves you better to use a more polite
  and nicer language.  It does not take X-ray vision to see through the
  wrapping, but people have to pay attention to what you are actually
  communicating to see how fantastically vile you really are beneath the
  "please, I'm harmless" language.  The worst part is that most people who
  only want others to speak nicely are the same kind of evil people who
  hope that nobody will notice what they really are if they are polite and
  nice to people.  Some /do/ notice, however.

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

  I have reason to believe that you do not understand what it means.

| He is just not using the most effective communication techniques for the
| purpose at hand.

  Yes, I am.  Thank you very much.  If the really tiny fraction of feel-
  good guys could please stop attacking me personally when I fail to stroke
  your ego and pat you on the head while I correct your mistakes or inform
  you of better ways to achieve your (underlying) goals, things would be
  fine.  The problem is that people like you, you do not actually want to
  program in Common Lisp when you post articles to a forum for those who
  want program in Common Lisp, need to have your personal worth and your
  feelings validated.  This is not the place to do that kind of touchy-
  feely stuff.

  Has it ever occurred to you that the people who actually want to program
  in Common Lisp in this newsgroup gain a lot of valuable information from
  people who are /not/ talking about how to feel good?  The worst part is
  that you feel-good guys really think you have a monopoly on the most
  effective communication techniques, yet you do not actually program in
  Common Lisp, so what the fuck would you know, anyway?

  I got an interesting e-mail the other day, from which I quote one of the
  best responses to this idiotic warring by you emotional twits I have
  seen.  Simple, straight-forward, to the point, and with "cold" language:

          I already know how to flame.  I am here to learn Lisp.

  Clearly, you feel-good guys are /not/ here to learn Common Lisp.

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

  That you need to tell people you stop is /really/ pathological.

| But that does not mean I have backed down.

  Not to worry.  I know you never would.

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway