Message from discussion Understanding Erik Naggum
From: Pascal Costanza <costa...@web.de>
Subject: Re: Understanding Erik Naggum
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 16:46:08 +0200
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <raffaelcavallaro-33E715.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <raffaelcavallaro-4C2AAF.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <raffaelcavallaro-C08056.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
X-Trace: newsreader2.netcologne.de 1033829166 24544 220.127.116.11 (5 Oct 2002 14:46:06 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 14:46:06 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Pascal Costanza
> | In fact there is considerable evidence that this way of criticizing people
> | is much more effective.
> You talk about something entirely different. People who commit crimes
> and cause people real loss, are /not/ met with with what you suggest.
?!? Yes, they are. Criminals and even murderers are treated by
psychotherapists like that (at least in Germany, but I guess also
elsewhere). I think there's a reason for that.
> regardless of whether it is reasonable or not. Take a close look at
> these two articles and /try/ to reach a conclusion that does not depend
> on prejudice:
> in which Jeremy H. Brown fueled the current feud with this moronic
> comment: "PS Is Erik Naggum always so full of poisonous bile?" which he
> apparently thought was an OK thing to "ask" in this forum because of the
> shitheads that hang around here and talk about me all the time.
> Now tell me, where did this guy get the idea that I was full of poisonous
> bile? What I had I /done/ to him? How rational and reasonable was his
> response to what I had written?
Your response started with a very good suggestion. You have strongly
suggested to him to read Keene's book and reassured him by saying how
rewarding this would turn out to be. I think this was a very positive
and constructive way of dealing with the issue.
However, after that, in the same message, you have also diminished your
efforts. In this very example, Jeremy has previously made some
statements about why CLOS can be hard to grasp and can be perceived as
being very complex. I can relate to this statement, it _is_ hard for a
beginner to understand CLOS, especially when you have been misdirected
by other OO languages. In your reply you started to use the swear word
"bullshit"; several of your statements about the simplicity and elegance
of CLOS can be perceived to have the subtext that you think that Jeremy
is just not intelligent enough to understand them; especially the
statement "It is just complex, and you have decided not to deal with
it." can be regarded as a personal attack. I guess that Jeremy has the
general feeling that he is capable of dealing with complexity and that
he has not "just given up".
In this example, I think that concentrating purely on positive
reinforcement and suggestions for improvement would have been more
effective. Especially, I think that the first paragraph of your reply
would have done the job if it would have been your only response. I
don't think your statements where intended to be insulting, but they can
be perceived as such. I am convinced that, when in doubt, it's better to
omit statements that are ambiguous on this level (with regard to
possibly being perceived as insults or not).
> I DO NOT ATTACK PEOPLE FOR NO REASON! I do not attack people at all, in
> fact. What had I /done/ to Jeremy H. Brown to deserve his response?
> What had I /done/ to Erann Gat, Ray Blaak, and Raffael Cavallero, our
> resident evil, this time to warrant their hateful, destructive messages?
I have only reread the thread that involves Jeremy. I don't know about
> | I also have to admit that I don't know a lot about the "history" of the
> | arguments in c.l.l. So maybe my point is not so relevant in this
> | context. (Sorry in advance if that's the case.)
> Our resident evil bastards attack me for their own hurt feelings in feuds
> past, not because of anything I do. Read what I write, for God's sake,
> and you will see that I am /not/ attacking those who do not badmouth me
> first. If they do not like how I try to help and correct them, tell me,
> but do they /have/ to engage in all-out hate campaigns against me?
Well, from what I have read so far I have the impression that your way
of argueing is pretty non-standard. All non-standard behavior causes
irritations in people just and purely because it is non-standard, but
for no other reason at all. This is a natural reaction of people and you
can't do anything against it, in my opinion.
> And to think that some people are so /indecent/ as to encourage Erann
> Gat. /That/ will truly take me some time to get over. Presuming that
> shithead is not lying, of course.
I am not sure if you are talking about me here?!? I don't encourage
anyone to involve in arguments. I haven't had any problems with Erann so
far - to the contrary, I have perceived him as being very helpful, for
example with my Lisp guide. So I would really like to see him continue
to participate in c.l.l.