newbie question
alinabi
I am new to lisp and therefore I have a cuple of (stupid) questions:
why is it that after I set the value of a variable using
(setf a (make-array '(2 2) :initial-contents '((.1 .2) (.1 "abc"))))
I don't get nil when I do
(typep a '(array float)) ?
How should I set a to make the previous test return nil?
Thanks,
Alinabi
Nils Goesche
> why is it that after I set the value of a variable using
>
> (setf a (make-array '(2 2) :initial-contents '((.1 .2) (.1 "abc"))))
>
> I don't get nil when I do
>
> (typep a '(array float)) ?
>
> How should I set a to make the previous test return nil?
First, which Lisp are you using? And what does
(upgraded-array-element-type 'float)
return there?
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x42B32FC9
alinabi
Goesche wrote:
> alinabi <ali...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
>> why is it that after I set the value of a variable using
>>
>> (setf a (make-array '(2 2) :initial-contents '((.1 .2) (.1
>> "abc"))))
>>
>> I don't get nil when I do
>>
>> (typep a '(array float)) ?
>>
>> How should I set a to make the previous test return nil?
>
> First, which Lisp are you using? And what does
>
> (upgraded-array-element-type 'float)
>
> return there?
>
> Regards,
I am using CLISP and I get
[46]> (upgraded-array-element-type 'float)
T
Alinabi
Barry Margolin
This means that it doesn't provide an array type specialized for FLOAT. If
you were to ask it to create such an array, with:
(make-array '(2 2) :element-type 'float)
you would actually get an array that can hold any type. TYPEP's result
reflects this -- it tells you that A is the type of array you would get if
you asked for it to be specialized for FLOAT.
Since FLOAT actually represents the union of multiple types (SINGLE-FLOAT,
DOUBLE-FLOAT, etc.), it's pretty uncommon to have an array type specialized
for it. You're more likely to get the result you want if you do something
like:
(typep a '(array single-float))
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
Nils Goesche
There's your answer then: (ARRAY FLOAT) describes the class of all
arrays which are specialized to the upgraded-array-element-type of the
type class FLOAT. Now, this is apparently T in CLISP, just as your
array in A. (Note that A is a special variable, and you should follow
the convention to name such variables like *A*). You might have more
luck with SINGLE-FLOAT, but
(upgraded-array-element-type 'single-float)
returns T as well in my copy of CLISP. However,
(upgraded-array-element-type 'character)
is CHARACTER, for instance, so
(typep a '(array character))
will return NIL.
alinabi
(setf myarray (make-array '(5) :element-type 'single-float))
and then I try to set the value of one element of myarray to a
string, like:
(setf (aref myarray 3) "hello")
an error will be triggered only if string is not a subtype of
(upgraded-array-element-type 'single-float)
which is in turn implementation-dependent. Is that right?
Alinabi
Erik Naggum
| How should I set a to make the previous test return nil?
The type you want is one of the float types. The superclass float is not
useful for specialization. One of the types short-float, single-float,
double-float, or long-float is what you want. You must specify it with
:element-type if you want the array to be specialized for that type. (This
is pretty clear from the specification. Please do not try to guess how
things work when there is a specification available.) An array does not
become specialized just because you stuffed it with objects of a particular
type at one point -- the Common Lisp runtime system has no way of determining
what you wuold like to do with it and whether specializing it without your
request would break something. Neither does it know that a specialized array
you have just created will be the only binding of the variable -- it could
figure it out, but it is easier for you to tell it if you know, anyway.
Note that if you try to mix a floating point number and a string in an array
that you have specialized for some floating-point type, you have lied to the
compiler. How and when it will exact its revenge is not specified. Again,
see the specification. Even if you can lie to some compilers all of the time
and all compilers some of the time, you cannot lie to all compilers all of
the time.
Note that the variable *read-default-float-format* holds the type that the
Common Lisp reader returns if you use an unadorned floating point number.
As a general observation, however, you are probably barking up the wrong tree
and need some readjustment to your expectations. Please consider a textbook
on Common Lisp which can clear up the confusions that led to where you asked
this question.
--
Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be
specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is
urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give
me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
Barry Margolin
Correct. Except for strings and bit-vectors, specialized array types are
merely optimizations that an implementation is not required to provide. If
an implementation doesn't provide a particular specialized array type, it's
not required to remember the type you specified.
As with declaring the types of variables, specifying :ELEMENT-TYPE
indicates a promise that you will never store any other type in the
location. It is *not* a demand that the implementation verify that you're
keeping your promise, although some implementations will perform such
checks if you're running in "safe" mode rather than optimizing for speed.
alinabi
Alinabi
Thomas A. Russ
Erik,
I think you need to read the original question again. The original
poster was not expecting Common Lisp to infer the type from the the
contents, but was rather puzzled that the TYPEP test for a more specific
array type specifier did not return NIL.
My guess is that in the implementation in question, the types
(array float) and (array T) are the same (in other words, there is
no specialized (array float). Since they are the same, the typep
test returns T.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute t...@isi.edu
Erik Naggum
| Erik,
Look, e-mail works just fine if you have to go personal.
| I think you need to read the original question again.
I do not. Please let the original poster speak for himself. Your guesses
and inferences about what somebody else intended are ipso facto _false_. Do
not even bother to post anything like that.
| The original poster was not expecting Common Lisp to infer the type from the
| the contents, but was rather puzzled that the TYPEP test for a more specific
| array type specifier did not return NIL.
Are you quite sure you understand what a user expects when he asks for a non-
existing specialized array type after stuffing almost only "floats" into an
array? A natural interpretation of his question would be "Does this array
only contain floats?", and that is _not_ how typep works. Do you understand?
In order to take the original poster on a journey of discovery away from his
expectations, I thought he needed to be told of how the things he had _asked_
for works, so he would realize that he should not go further down that path.
| My guess is that in the implementation in question, the types (array float)
| and (array T) are the same (in other words, there is no specialized (array
| float). Since they are the same, the typep test returns T.
Look, a typep test for (array <non-t>) will _never_ return true if the array
has been created with :element-type t, which is the default. His test will
_always_ fail, simply because he is confused about what constitutes a type
test and how an array is specialized when it is created.
I really don't have time for this Mickey-Mouse business. Read the fucking
standard. Just figure it out. If you have to "correct" me in public, at
least be _more_ correct than I am. Otherwise, I have to fight the _wrong_
correction by quoting from the standard or wasting huge amounts of time
dealing with people as clueless as in the call-by-value case. (People pay
lots of money and spend years of their lives studying in order to raise the
general level of discourse among practitioners of a discipline, but then we
get scores of people who believe that not having a clue at all is acceptable
and that people should give them a computer science education for free?) You
can spend the time researching things yourself instead of requiring me to do
it to correct a correction that isn't. Goddamnit, I try to help people with
what I see as the underlying confusion, at least pay some fucking attention
before you imply that I was missing the point.
This forum is _not_ rewarding if you already have a clue. What a goddamn
waste it has become to try to help people who already think they know the
answer, no matter how wrong it is. If you are not prepared for all kinds of
corrections, even to what you believe strongly to be true, when you are stuck
(a strong indication that you have missed something), you should _not_ waste
people's time by asking for help. There have been more of these people on
the Net recently, people who expect a simple answer to what they think is a
simple question and who have no desire at all to _learn_ anything, who refuse
to listen, who only want someone to debug their code for them, and I do not
care much for them.
I really thought the orginal poster wanted to learn something, but if I am
mistaken in this, I profoundly regret wasting the time to help him. All in
all, it looks like people who come to the Net these days are not worth
helping, because they will never assume the role that the older generation
assumed after they learned from others -- helping the next generation. I
answer people's questions for free on the Net because I think the world is a
better place if people know their stuff and knowledge is shared among those
who want to learn, but if the people who read the answers do not agree with
this and only abuse my good-will to steal my time, it is not worth responding
to anyone, anymore.
I actually consider responding to news articles on web pages and moderating
replies posted, submitted and mailed. Discussion and correction is good.
Wasting time on bozos is not. USENET's biggest asset has always been that
people can discuss freely, but when this freedom is abused to waste people's
time and social engineering does not work to preventively scare the living
daylight out of people who think they know better than they do, some other
mechanism must be found that prevents the bogus replies from affecting the
informative value of the forum.
Paul D. Lathrop
"Erik Naggum" <er...@naggum.net> wrote in message
news:32342207...@naggum.net...
> This forum is _not_ rewarding if you already have a clue. What a
goddamn
> waste it has become to try to help people who already think they know
the
> answer, no matter how wrong it is. If you are not prepared for all
kinds of
> corrections, even to what you believe strongly to be true, when you are
stuck
> (a strong indication that you have missed something), you should _not_
waste
> people's time by asking for help. There have been more of these people
on
> the Net recently, people who expect a simple answer to what they think
is a
> simple question and who have no desire at all to _learn_ anything, who
refuse
> to listen, who only want someone to debug their code for them, and I do
not
> care much for them.
If this forum is not rewarding, why do you remain?
Oh wait, I figured it out. It must be because you've so inflated yourself
with the idea that people need your scathing comments and your complete lack
of respect to help them "learn."
Let me explain something that your parents should have explained to you long
ago. All your knowledge and experience is absolutely useless in improving
either yourself or the community if you only use it for self-justification
or to try to make someone else feel stupid. I came to Usenet expecting to
find intelligent discourse, and I did. I also expected to find many people
who didn't know a thing wandering around, and I did. What I wasn't expecting
(and I really should have) was an obviously educated man making a complete
fool of himself because he lacks the ability to reign in his temper, and is
inflated with a sense of self-importance far outweighing his worth to the
community.
In short, if you don't like it here, don't let us peasants keep you from
leaving. Feel free to let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Marc Spitzer
well all things considered, I prefer Erik to you. Here are some
reasons why:
1: he *can* answer hard CL and program design questions
2: he does
3: He takes the approach that "here is what you need to think
about to understand why you went wrong". This is good, but it takes
work on the recipients part to use this.
4: he uses profanity well.
5: he gives out good book recommendations.
6: he has helped me in the past.
7: I have adoped his style of argument, and with people who
use at least half of their brain it generaly works.
8: he has high standards, I think that is good
In short he is someone who has proven himself to be a very handy
person to have around from a purly pratical point of view and he has
many qualities that I feel the world would be a better place if more
people had them.
good nignt
marc
ps you I could do with out.
Nils Goesche
> "Erik Naggum" <er...@naggum.net> wrote in message
> news:32342207...@naggum.net...
> > This forum is _not_ rewarding if you already have a clue. What
> > a goddamn waste it has become to try to help people who already
> > think they know the answer, no matter how wrong it is.
> If this forum is not rewarding, why do you remain?
>
> Oh wait, I figured it out. It must be because you've so inflated
> yourself with the idea that people need your scathing comments and
> your complete lack of respect to help them "learn."
You arrived at this newsgroup six days ago. There aren't many true
Lisp Gurus left in this newsgroup, and I get pretty pissed off when I
see yet another group of clueless morons gang up again to drive yet
another one out. What is it with people like you? What have /you/
come here for, if not to learn something? This newsgroup and people
like Erik in particular are a very valuable source of information, you
could learn quite a lot from them; but apparently that's not what you
want, you seem to prefer some feel-good support group where a bunch of
know-nothings are nice to each other and assure themselves that it is
perfectly ok to stay clueless and never correct anybody else because
they ``respect each other's opinions and feelings'' or some such. No.
This is a place for learning, and learning /is/ painful sometimes.
The more experts we have around to help us, the less painful it is
going to be in the long run. Look for content. If all you're looking
for is somebody talking nice to you, there are probably other places
that can serve this desire much better, like a church group or
whatever.
Andreas Hinze
>
> "Paul D. Lathrop" <pdla...@chartermi.net> writes:
>
> > "Erik Naggum" <er...@naggum.net> wrote in message
> > news:32342207...@naggum.net...
>
> > > This forum is _not_ rewarding if you already have a clue. What
> > > a goddamn waste it has become to try to help people who already
> > > think they know the answer, no matter how wrong it is.
>
> > If this forum is not rewarding, why do you remain?
> >
> > Oh wait, I figured it out. It must be because you've so inflated
> > yourself with the idea that people need your scathing comments and
> > your complete lack of respect to help them "learn."
>
> for is somebody talking nice to you, there are probably other places
> that can serve this desire much better, like a church group or
> whatever.
>
to flame. I don't know why Erik becomes a target for him but i assume that
even Mr. Lathrop don't know.
However, i was _never_ flamed by Erik when i asked any LISP related question
and i often got helpfull comments from him.
So i hope that Eric remain in c.l.l. and Mr. Lathrop goes to wherever he is
welcome.
Best
AHz
Erik Naggum
| If this forum is not rewarding, why do you remain?
Good question. Why do you remain and keep posting when you have previously
been hurt and all you can do now is to hurt other people back, in some sort
of private Middle East conflict? What is _wrong_ with people like you?
It used to be rewearding. There are good people here. Every once in a
while, something _really_ rewarding happens. This is generally called
intermittent reinforcers if you ask a behavioral psychologist about it, and
he will tell you they are much stronger than more constant rewarders.
For instance, what I wrote about philosophy recently produced many very
positive, and unexpected responses that I am still processing. Helping
newbies and whining kids is not rewarding. Helping people with Common Lisp
questions is not rewarding, anymore. Talking about much more complex issues
that underlie software design methodologies, learning strategies, etc, is
rewarding. This is not really the place to do that, but these are the people
I have talked with and who have helped develop these ideas. So sharing with
them is rewarding. Sharing anything with people like you is not. Helping
anyone who says he is "new to Lisp" and provides evidence of unwillingness to
read a textbook on Common Lisp is an utter waste of time. Half of them are
retards like you and the other half never contribute to the forum when they
understand something.
| Oh wait, I figured it out. It must be because you've so inflated yourself
| with the idea that people need your scathing comments and your complete lack
| of respect to help them "learn."
Some people actually respect me simply _because_ I help them, so they are
never in need of scathing comments or anything else back. Nor do they act
with extremely paranoid self-defense when they are criticized for something
they have, in fact, done. If they do not understand it, they think about it
and ask for assistance in understanding it. These are mature adults.
Does that sound odd to you? I guess it is unfathomable to you at this point.
Smart people have a _purpose_ when they ask a question. They want to learn.
You do not. Your _purpose_ is to feel good about yourself. As I said, I am
sorry that I did not recognize that you suffered from an arrested development
and still need to be hugged and kissed you when someone tells you that you
have done something wrong. I would have avoided answering you if I had known
you would become such a hostile little cretin in return. And since you have
chosen to seek revenge rather than just state how you felt, you have turned
into an aggressor that I will need to fight back. Just how dumb can you be?
| Let me explain something that your parents should have explained to you long
| ago.
Now I wonder what your parents were like. They never let you grow up to
become a human being. Your behavior is more like that of a dog, which needs
lots of hugging and stuff when it has done something wrong. Lots of young
people today behave like they have grown up like their parents' pets, and
completely lack the intelligence to understand when to take care of their own
emotional responses. How you feel, Paul D. Lathrop, is actually _nobody_
else's business. Attempting to exact revenge for your emotional responses is
just about the _least_ intelligent a human being can do, but it is somehow
rewarded in some cultures and apparently by some parents such as yours.
| In short, if you don't like it here, don't let us peasants keep you from
| leaving. Feel free to let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
In other words, you see nothing wrong with your own behavior. This is
perhaps the saddest part of it all. It means that you think you had every
right to insult me and attack me even though I had not attacked you, I had
not said anything bad about or to you _personally_, but simply because you
_felt_ bad. This is _extremely_ retarded childish behavior. But all you
shitheads are like that.
Pierpaolo BERNARDI
"Nils Goesche" <car...@cartan.de> ha scritto nel messaggio news:lkd6ubf...@pc022.bln.elmeg.de...
> You arrived at this newsgroup six days ago. There aren't many true
> Lisp Gurus left in this newsgroup,
Right. Do you have any theory about why it is so?
P.
Nils Goesche
No general theory, no. I've been told several very different reasons,
some involving flame wars, most not. Anyway, I don't think another
long meta-thread about this is going to help in any way.
Paul D. Lathrop
"Nils Goesche" <car...@cartan.de> wrote in message
news:lkd6ubf...@pc022.bln.elmeg.de...
> "Paul D. Lathrop" <pdla...@chartermi.net> writes:
>
> > "Erik Naggum" <er...@naggum.net> wrote in message
> > news:32342207...@naggum.net...
>
> > > This forum is _not_ rewarding if you already have a clue. What
> > > a goddamn waste it has become to try to help people who already
> > > think they know the answer, no matter how wrong it is.
>
> > If this forum is not rewarding, why do you remain?
> >
> > Oh wait, I figured it out. It must be because you've so inflated
> > yourself with the idea that people need your scathing comments and
> > your complete lack of respect to help them "learn."
>
> You arrived at this newsgroup six days ago.
I *returned* to this newsgroup six days ago.
> There aren't many true
> Lisp Gurus left in this newsgroup, and I get pretty pissed off when I
> see yet another group of clueless morons gang up again to drive yet
> another one out. What is it with people like you? What have /you/
> come here for, if not to learn something? This newsgroup and people
> like Erik in particular are a very valuable source of information, you
> could learn quite a lot from them; but apparently that's not what you
> want, you seem to prefer some feel-good support group where a bunch of
> know-nothings are nice to each other and assure themselves that it is
> perfectly ok to stay clueless and never correct anybody else because
> they ``respect each other's opinions and feelings'' or some such. No.
> This is a place for learning, and learning /is/ painful sometimes.
> The more experts we have around to help us, the less painful it is
> going to be in the long run. Look for content. If all you're looking
> for is somebody talking nice to you, there are probably other places
> that can serve this desire much better, like a church group or
> whatever.
Once again, assumptions abound. I am quite happy to learn from Erik
and, in fact, acknowledge his expertise in this area. I have no desire to
participate in a "feel-good support group." However, I tire of people like
you and Erik assuming everyone with a question is a "know-nothing" who
feels it is "perfectly ok to stay clueless." If you came here to learn, then
you feel you have a lack of knowledge. So why, then, do you parade your
superiority to these "clueless morons" you are so resentful towards?
I am looking for professionalism. Erik has shown a decided lack of it.
That is all.
Paul D. Lathrop
Paul D. Lathrop
> * Paul D. Lathrop
> In other words, you see nothing wrong with your own behavior. This is
> perhaps the saddest part of it all. It means that you think you had
every
> right to insult me and attack me even though I had not attacked you, I
had
> not said anything bad about or to you _personally_, but simply because
you
> _felt_ bad. This is _extremely_ retarded childish behavior. But all
you
> shitheads are like that.
No. In fact, on further review I must admit that I was wrong in making a
personal
attack on your methods, as your response to *me* was not a personal attack.
I
willingly and publicly apologize for that. I somehow doubt that that will
make any
difference, however *I* can admit when I am wrong. Thus, I am sorry for
making
personal and public what should have remained either professional or
private.
Paul D. Lathrop
Marc Spitzer
First, please learn how to format a message, your news reader does a
very bad job of it.
From what I read in your 'apology' it looks more like another attack
against Erik. You are implying that Erik is not capable or willing to
meet the high standard that you hold your self to. What has yet to be
demonstrated is are they a good thing for people to emulate. Lets
look at what has happened so far:
1: You attack Erik.
2: you get caught
3: in your 'apology' you attack Erik again, by implication this time.
This is quite a bit worse then the original direct attack.
So please explain to me how you are someone we want around? I can
not think of any reasons.
marc
> Paul D. Lathrop
>
>
Joe Marshall
"Marc Spitzer" <ma...@oscar.eng.cv.net> wrote in message news:slrnahppj...@oscar.eng.cv.net...
> In article <uhpa7tc...@corp.supernews.com>, Paul D. Lathrop wrote:
>> In fact, on further review I must admit that I was wrong in
>> making a personal attack on your methods, as your response to *me*
>> was not a personal attack.
>
>
> From what I read in your 'apology' it looks more like another attack
> against Erik.
Paul has made an apology that I think should be taken at face value.
Erik can decide for himself how to react to it.
Erik Naggum
| Right. Do you have any theory about why it is so?
The simplest reason of all for why people leave USENET is the meta-debate.
Nowhere outside of USENET do we find more bickering about the forum itself or
the participants or language or whatever. Is it "human" to do so? I think
not. It is _stupid_ to do so, because every time someone has a personal
coping problem that he needs to "share", like in some virtual group-hug, the
signal-to-noise ratio drops. Tehnical discussions however heated usually
contain enough signal that the signal-to-noise ratio remains unchanged from
normal discussion, and they are usually fairly quickly resolved as long as
the technical is what matters.
Everywhere I have been in real-life fora, I have seen a pattern: If people
are focused on what they are doing with their time and maintain a clear sense
of purpose, they develop a friendly atmosphere where helping each other reach
their common and often also personal goals facilitates that atmosphere, from
teamwork to large political bodies. This is how USENET started. But as soon
as someone develops a different agenda, usually related to personal prestige
or some other stupid emotional needs, it goes all animal. For some bizarre
reason, a behavioral pattern evolves that you do not find in animals who are
fighting for something useful like food, but instead for their "rank" in some
group. As rational beings, they will make absolutely _no_ use of the result
in normal discourse, but once they turn animal the next time, they seem to
remember their "rank" and seek to do something about it. My cat and I have
had these fights over the years, especially when I have brought home another
female that threatens to outrank her. Cats tend to learn, but dogs will try
again and again in subtle ways to check if their leader is still strong
enough, and if a dog believes itself to be able to challenge the leader of
the pack, it will just have to be killed if you do not want to fight it on
dog terms. Soem people on USENET behave in ways that suggest that the adage
"on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" was not a joke.
The solution to these problems is very simple: _Focus_ on what you came here
to do. If you came to ask for help because you are stuck, stay focused on
that purpose. If you feel bad because something you thought you had grasped
slipped out of reach, it is nobody's business. If you feel stupid because
something you said was indeed stupid and you should have known better, you do
_not_ help by complaining that somebody should have ensured that you did not
feel bad. If you need a security blanket, USENET is probably not for you.
So why do we have these infertile meta-debates? My guess is that some people
have some sort of need to Do Something about perceived Unfairness. That they
are themselves usually grossly unfair does not bother them at all, of course,
unless someone calls them on it, in which case they go insane and actually
argue that they are in their right and the victim cannot even defend himself
from their unfair, false, and misleading accusations. People who react this
way was the reason that more intelligent people fought wars to establish the
rule of law and due process. It is precisely to prevent the abuse of power
by the emotionally disturbed and morally outraged that modern society evolved
and developed mechanisms to protect suspected terrorists from incarceration
and inhuman treatment, loss of freedom, torture, etc, just because some mad
and angry child in power has lost his marbles, for instance. The importance
of a legal framework is frequently underestimated by people who think the
police and the government are somehow their enemies, and so they discard the
very mechanism they could have used to improve their condition, and regress
to some animal form of revenge, instead of justice, where their own feelings
guide their actions. In the absence of rights and protecting authorities,
every man is on his own defender of last resort. However, human society has
regulated justifiable defense since Roman Law ("moderamen inculpatæ tutelæ")
and probably before that, and this regulation is quite necessary -- several
large religions lack an upper bound on the amount of force allowable against
some real or perceived aggressor. Religion being the strongest expression of
emotion, the passion and fervor of the moral outrage must be curbed lest it
destroy the innocent and Lynch law rule.
There is nothing worse than a group of people who manage to convince each
other that what they are doing is proper and just. Because of the strong
elements of groupthink among even seemingly rational people, we poor, limited
humans are in _very_ strong need of something that transcends the individual
and curtails the expression of individual revenge responses when hurt. We
are _not_ a peaceful animal (even the cat that sleeps on my shoulders as I
type is a murderer and unbelievably ferocious when some other female cat has
invaded her territory, which is hard to believe if you visit a web site like
http://www.blogjam.com/cute_little_kittens/). We have historically survived
by maintaining close-knit groups and adhering to the judgment of its leaders,
but this is turning out to be the worst of all possible human traits as the
group becomes too large for any one person to recognize and deal with, the
number of judgments too high for any one person to internalize, the amount of
new information too much for any one person to process -- groupthink is what
holds us back as a species, severely limiting our ability to discover new and
relevant truth. Yet, even the very concept of majority in a democracy has
been challenged when a sizeable group of people make obviously wrong choices:
Jörg Haider, Jean-Marie Le Pen, George W. Bush, all have been challenged and
resisted by people who knew better -- the frail consensus upon which society
rests its trust in itself may have been hurt, but the situation would have
been worse had nobody resisted and challenged these bad choices.
My conjecture here is that these equally tireless and fruitless meta-debates
are attempts to obtain a consensus on some principles of operation, lacking
any authority has the physical power to hurt people if they disobey them. I
maintain that society has evolved into a relatively peaceful rule of law
because we have found a sufficiently large club to hit people with and have
found something that people actually agree on sufficiently that we can stand
by and let the authorities hit people with said club. However, this has not
evolved on the Net. In this particular sense, it retains its anarchic nature
and meta-debates indicate that some people object not only to what they see
as hitting, but to the very existence of the club. I believe the latter is
more important than the former. Many people rebel against the concept of
authority as such, not to any particular authority, and have such a hard time
accepting that somebody else is an authority that it becomes necessary for
them to _discuss_ this. Like dogs who have to test the strength and power of
their perceived pack leader, people who think in such terms behave in similar
ways, even though there is no pack and no leader. For such people, the waste
that is the meta-debate is an important aspect to their existence -- because
they think in terms of "rank", they also have to establish it if it differs
from their expectations, and the more inflated their own expectations, the
more they have to fight.
The meta-debate does, however, tell everyone what your _real_ priorities are
(and you will have to excuse my interest in the matter as I am frequently
targeted by these meta-debates): _Instead_ of getting your work or research
done, politics is way more important to you. It seems to me that people who
have newsgroup politics as their main concern should find some way to deal
with this away and apart from the people who think the system will work
itself out if people just stick to the topics at hand. And remember -- if
you expect to accept responsibility of what you post, you post with a valid
e-mail address to which people can send personal mail that does not belong in
the newsgroup. Meta-debates, however, would probably not work this way, as
the most important aspect of them seems to be the group hug effect.
Erik Naggum
| I am looking for professionalism. Erik has shown a decided lack of it.
Are you quite sure of that? Are you in fact able to read what I post? It
seems to me as though you respond not to what I write but to what you feel
towards me. You continue to reinforce this impression and do absolutely
nothing to invalidate it. What do you expect people to believe?
Erik Naggum
| I somehow doubt that that will make any difference, however *I* can admit
| when I am wrong.
This line completely invalidates any form of apology you might offer.
You still suffer from an extreme form of hostility by proxy that you need to
find some way to control. This is not a useful therapy group, and no form of
apology that is framed in "I'm still holier than thou" terms is accepted.r
Marc Spitzer
I expect that Erik will do what he feels is proper.
Now lets look at the apology. Here is the key bit that shows
it is not a real apology:
.
> I somehow doubt that that will make any difference, however
> *I* can admit when I am wrong.
the emphasis on 'I' is pretty standard for 'I and not you', so
that is another attack and not an apology.
marc
Paul D. Lathrop
> * Paul D. Lathrop
> | I somehow doubt that that will make any difference, however *I* can
admit
> | when I am wrong.
>
> This line completely invalidates any form of apology you might offer.
>
> You still suffer from an extreme form of hostility by proxy that you
need to
> find some way to control. This is not a useful therapy group, and no
form of
> apology that is framed in "I'm still holier than thou" terms is
accepted.
As you wish.
For reference I would like to say that that line was misread. The
connotation I
intended (and obviously failed to project) was: I, unlike the other people
you
have been dealing with, who piss you off in exactly the way I have done, can
admit when I am wrong and learn from that mistake.
Paul D. Lathrop
Erik Naggum
| For reference I would like to say that that line was misread. The
| connotation I intended (and obviously failed to project) was: I, unlike the
| other people you have been dealing with, who piss you off in exactly the way
| I have done, can admit when I am wrong and learn from that mistake.
Well, that is in fact a fairly likely interpretation which I overlooked due
to my frustration with being blamed for wrong-doing no matter what I do -- I
get a lot more pissed off by people who attack me for things I have not done
than for what I have done, which is can at least see coming. Thanks for
clarifying and making your apologies come out honest. Your apologies are, of
course, accepted.
Now, I only wish I knew how to discourage those who attack me preventively
because they think I am going to attack them, anyway: defending themselves
before anyone attacks them, they can still scream that it is all my fault.
That _really_ bugs me. If you have any ideas, I'm all ears.
Marc Spitzer
In that case I owe you an apology.
I did not see that as a reasonable interpretation of your words
when I read it. I am sorry for any inconvenience I caused you
with my mistake
marc
ps the paragraph formating could still use some work though.
marc
Paul D. Lathrop
> ps the paragraph formating could still use some work though.
>
> marc
Annoys me as well. Any suggestions? I am using Windows XP Professional right
now,
with Outlook Express as my mail reader. The only reason I am using Outlook
Express
is because my only previous experience on UseNet was with Unix/Linux and I
don't
know of any good Win32 platform newsreaders. Any ideas would be appreciated.
Paul D. Lathrop
Bulent Murtezaoglu
PDL> ... The only reason I am using Outlook Express is because
PDL> my only previous experience on UseNet was with Unix/Linux and
PDL> I don't know of any good Win32 platform newsreaders. Any
PDL> ideas would be appreciated.
You can probably bring up xemacs under Windows and use GNUS.
http://www.xemacs.org . When I find myself stuck with a windows machine
as the main desktop system I use an X server and sneak a Linux box
somewhere on the network (an old Celeron-based system works fine even
with Mozilla as the browser).
cheers,
BM
Christopher C. Stacy
Paul> Annoys me as well. Any suggestions? I am using Windows XP
Paul> Professional right now, with Outlook Express as my mail
Paul> reader. The only reason I am using Outlook Express is because
Paul> my only previous experience on UseNet was with Unix/Linux and I
Paul> don't know of any good Win32 platform newsreaders. Any ideas
Paul> would be appreciated.
Emacs versions 19-21 run under Win32; I use GNUS under Emacs 21.2 under NT.
See <http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/ntemacs.html>
JB
> Nowhere outside of USENET do we find more bickering
> about the forum itself or
> the participants or language or whatever. Is it "human"
> to do so? I think
> not. It is _stupid_ to do so, [...]
Why should it be stupid? It is interesting. It is fun. Of
all the news groups in which I participate, c.l.l is really
unique in this regard. Obviously, many participants enjoy
this kind of debate. And why not? There is nothing wrong
with them. I can usually see at the first glance, if a
posting is technical or a "metaposting" and can decide
whether I want to read it or not.
Being frightened by debates or even putting people in one's
kill file, demonstrates inner weakness.
--
Janos Blazi
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Gordon Joly
It seems odd. Perhaps best to login (via ssh) using Putty to a remote box...
:-)
Gordo
GNU Emacs 20.7.1 (i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
of Mon Jul 30 2001 on stripples.devel.redhat.com
Copyright (C) 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Patrick W
"JB" <jbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d1d6...@news.newsgroups.com...
>
> Being frightened by debates or even putting people in one's
> kill file, demonstrates inner weakness.
You know, you may be onto something here Janos. Things are not always as
they seem.
When I was a kid, my Great Dane was the most dominant dog in our
neighbourhood. Back in those kids and dogs roamed free, and the dogs often
fought over territory and bitches. In his 10-year lifespan, my dog fought
and defeated every contender until none dared to challenge him any more --
except for one nasty, stunted little runt who stood no more than 6 inches
high and looked like a thin rat covered in straw. Every time I passed its
house, it would scurry out snapping and snarling at my dog's ankles. My dog
would not respond to this particular challenger. He'd pass by with hardly a
glance in its direction. He'd just piss on the fence palings, and continue
on his merry way.
Until recently I had assumed that my dog found this particular challenger
too pitiful to be worth confronting. But you've made me wonder: for all his
strength and courage, did my Great Dane's inner weakness make him afraid to
engage this ankle-high assassin in combat? Did he instinctively know what
was coming to him if he dared to try? Perhaps so.
I wonder ... do you too, Janos, often find that people are too weak and
afraid to engage you? I mean, do people in other newsgroups fear the lancet
of your art as much as we in c.l.l. fear you?
(I suspect that, if that little hairy rat had possessed a brain your size,
he'd have reached a similar conclusion to yours. And no doubt he'd have gone
on believing it until an animal with considerably less courage and "inner
strength" than my Great Dane ripped it apart like a stuffed toy -- which
actually did happen, I'm afraid).
JB
>
> I wonder ... do you too, Janos, often find that people are
> too weak and afraid to engage you? I mean, do people in
> other newsgroups fear the lancet of your art as much as we
> in c.l.l. fear you?
I am an absolutely peaceful man. Why should anybody be
afraid of me? And this type of debate is really unusual in
other news groups. At this occaison I did not attack
anybody. I only said, that having such debates is not as
bad as Erik thought it was. But it is clear to me, that for
some people this is a capital offense.
> (I suspect that, if that little hairy rat...
This is not me: I have no hairs any more.
> ... had possessed a
> brain your size, he'd have reached a similar conclusion to
> yours. And no doubt he'd have gone on believing it until
> an animal with considerably less courage and "inner
> strength" than my Great Dane ripped it apart like a
> stuffed toy -- which actually did happen, I'm afraid).
You can hint, I am a dog, or a rat or what ever you prefer.
You can choose a language as rude as you want to. I am not
angry.
You can threaten me and speak to me as menacingly as you
can. I am not afraid.
Has there been any reason for your posting? If your opinion
is different, you can put it decently.
Jens Axel Søgaard
> Annoys me as well. Any suggestions?
> I am using Windows XP Professional right now,
> with Outlook Express as my mail reader.
The easy thing to do, is to install OE QuoteFix.
But GNUS is of cause hard to beat :-)
--
Jens Axel Søgaard
Patrick W
>
> Has there been any reason for your posting?
To respond to your implication that distaste for meta-debate is a result of
"inner weakness". There are better explanations.
> If your opinion is different, you can put it decently.
Yes, I could have put it more decently. I thought you were trolling for
another endless round of meta-discussion which you find "fun" but which many
other people find incredibly tedious. If I misunderstood your intent, I
shoulder the blame.
Joe Marshall
"Erik Naggum" <er...@naggum.net> wrote in message news:32343019...@naggum.net...
>
> The simplest reason of all for why people leave USENET is the meta-debate.
>
> Nowhere outside of USENET do we find more bickering about the forum itself or
> the participants or language or whatever.
Local politics come pretty close.
Erik Naggum
| Local politics come pretty close.
Well, everywhere I have been discussing anything in public, people have had
something similar to Robert's Rules of Order and some parliamentary procedure
has quickly been agreed upon and a moderator has been respected. Very seldom
have people launched into abusive retorts to something they have not liked,
but when it happens, other people have very quickly called to order. There
is something about a physical forum that makes idiots curtail themselves when
they are yelled at. Perhaps they recognize that they do not have the "right"
to bother everyone, which some people think they do here, or perhaps it is as
simple as fear.
Joe Marshall
"Erik Naggum" <er...@naggum.net> wrote in message news:32343561...@naggum.net...
> * Joe Marshall
> | Local politics come pretty close.
>
> Well, everywhere I have been discussing anything in public, people have had
> something similar to Robert's Rules of Order and some parliamentary procedure
> has quickly been agreed upon and a moderator has been respected. Very seldom
> have people launched into abusive retorts to something they have not liked,
> but when it happens, other people have very quickly called to order. There
> is something about a physical forum that makes idiots curtail themselves when
> they are yelled at. Perhaps they recognize that they do not have the "right"
> to bother everyone, which some people think they do here, or perhaps it is as
> simple as fear.
There are a lot of people in the US that seem to believe that
`free speech' entitles them to an audience and enough people
dumb enough to go along with this. In more established political
debates they do have rules of order, but in a town-hall setting
they tend to be ignored.
Marc Spitzer
if you are using OE then try just not hitting enter, it should help.
In MS land newline = paragraph break. Also look for xnews, it was
an ok news reader and I think you can configure an external editor.
Also there is slrn, it might be native or you could run it under
cygnus( the unix emulation package)
also go to 2cows or cnet and see what they have listed for news
readers.
marc
Ed L Cashin
I have been impressed by Eudora on several occasions throughout the
years as a fashionable GUI-oriented mail reader that tended to "do the
right thing" with regard to email basics.
e.g., makes it easy to write seventy-character-line plain text email
quoting material with the conventional "> " string and without
encouraging top posting. It was always stable and functional rather
than flashy. I haven't seen the latest versions, but it might be
worth a look.
--
--Ed L Cashin | PGP public key:
eca...@uga.edu | http://noserose.net/e/pgp/
Arjun Ray
| I have been impressed by Eudora on several occasions throughout the
| years [...] It was always stable and functional rather than flashy.
| I haven't seen the latest versions, but it might be worth a look.
Please don't bother. Qualcomm has sold out to the great unwashed. In
the latest versions, pseudo-HTML is the default and apparently prefered
format (they say as much in the manual). It's downright difficult to
turn such stupidity off: in the "freeware" version I spent more than an
hour navigating the options menus, trying everything plausible sounding,
without success.
For newsreaders, I would suggest XNews, Gravity or Agent
Agent also comes with decent email capabilities (the other two are
newsreaders only, with no support for receicing mail.)