OT: Erik Naggum's Long-Windedness (was: (endp lst) or (null lst))

76 views
Skip to first unread message

Oleg

unread,
Jan 4, 2003, 9:33:03 PM1/4/03
to
Proving once again that brevity is the soul of wit, and that the lack of
both is the soul of Naggum, Erik Naggum wrote:

[snipped due to badwidth limitations]

> You know, "Oleg", I think humor is a good personality indicator.
> The problem is that different personalities tend not to understand
> each other's humor very well, or at all. I have this theory that
> there are "humor strata", and that people who are not communicating

[more snipped]

I have a better theory: people like you, who understand their intellectual
inferiority and inability to provide substance, often try to overcompensate
by providing volume.

Here endeth your psychiatry lesson,
Oleg

Marc Spitzer

unread,
Jan 5, 2003, 1:30:30 AM1/5/03
to
Oleg <oleg_i...@myrealbox.com> writes:

So you are reduced to "I know you are but what am I" this quickly.
You failed at being a looser.

marc

Peter Lewerin

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 4:48:09 PM1/6/03
to
> Proving once again that brevity is the soul of wit, and that the lack of
> both is the soul of Naggum, Erik Naggum wrote:

"10 seconds and counting... 7.. 6... ignition sequence starts... 3...
2... 1... flames engaged... PISS-OFF... WE HAVE PISS-OFF!"

--
Nobody expects the Swedish Inquisition!

Steve Long

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 3:10:24 AM1/7/03
to
On 1/4/03 6:33 PM, in article av85h4$836$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu,
"Oleg" <oleg_i...@myrealbox.com> wrote:

I enjoy -- and often marvel at -- the long-windedness, especially when I
remember that English might be his second language (few North American
residents speak a second language). In the old days, such extended retorts
were part of everyday correspondence.

Most all, I value the detailed critiques of both specific Lisp syntax and
generalized programming -- not just from Msr Naggum but the whole cll
community.

sl

Oleg

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 6:28:54 PM1/9/03
to
Steve Long wrote:

> On 1/4/03 6:33 PM, in article av85h4$836$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu,
> "Oleg" <oleg_i...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>> Proving once again that brevity is the soul of wit, and that the lack of
>> both is the soul of Naggum, Erik Naggum wrote:
>>
>> [snipped due to badwidth limitations]
>>
>>> You know, "Oleg", I think humor is a good personality indicator.
>>> The problem is that different personalities tend not to understand
>>> each other's humor very well, or at all. I have this theory that
>>> there are "humor strata", and that people who are not communicating
>>
>> [more snipped]
>>
>> I have a better theory: people like you, who understand their
>> intellectual inferiority and inability to provide substance, often try to
>> overcompensate by providing volume.
>>
>> Here endeth your psychiatry lesson,
>> Oleg
>>
>

> I enjoy -- and often marvel at -- the long-windedness [...]

And do you call yourself a programmer by any chance?

If he writes code the way he writes his posts, his programs must be pages
after pages after pages of long-winded repetitive drivel.

The issue is not whether he is a decent coder however, but what makes him so
long-winded and verbally abusive. I don't know about the verbal
abusiveness, but I think his long-windedness is a product of
a) low intelligence, resulting in his inability to express himself tersely
or
b) same, resulting in a desire to overcompensate
In private email, two people who will go unnamed [1] suggested
c) narcissism
and
d) "[the fact that] Erik sucks" (which pretty much sums it up ;-)

Oleg

[1] I guess they didn't want to be stalked by Erik from thread to thread

Kenny Tilton

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 8:35:27 PM1/9/03
to
Oleg wrote:
>>>[snipped due to badwidth limitations]

In case you hadn't noticed, the horse is dead. So now /you/ are the one
stinking the joint up. Move on, fer chrissakes.

--

kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Cells let us walk, talk, think, make love and realize
the bath water is cold." -- Lorraine Lee Cudmore

Nils Goesche

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 10:45:23 AM1/10/03
to
Oleg <oleg_i...@myrealbox.com> writes:

> If he writes code the way he writes his posts, his programs must be
> pages after pages after pages of long-winded repetitive drivel.

> The issue is not whether he is a decent coder however, but what makes him so
> long-winded and verbally abusive. I don't know about the verbal
> abusiveness, but I think his long-windedness is a product of

> a) low intelligence, resulting in his inability to express himself
> tersely

Look, troll: The last time you posted anything about Lisp here, you
didn't even understand the point of macros. How about doing some
productive work and think about them instead of insulting Lispers who
are obviously far ahead of your level of understanding?

Regards,
--
Nils Gösche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."

PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0

Erik Naggum

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 1:03:22 PM1/10/03
to
* Nils Goesche <car...@cartan.de>

| Look, troll: The last time you posted anything about Lisp here, you
| didn't even understand the point of macros. How about doing some
| productive work and think about them instead of insulting Lispers
| who are obviously far ahead of your level of understanding?

"Oleg" is not insulting me. He is trying to communicate to me that
he feels a debilitating powerlessness to respond intelligently to
me. I can feel his pain. I have presented him with a model of the
world with which he cannot begin to grapple, and I present this
model with such force that he can only feel rage and rebellion; all
he can do is succumb to a desire to shriek "no! no! it isn't so!".

"Oleg" is not the first person to encounter a text that presents the
reader with two simultaneous impossibilities: (1) a different view
to a reality he does not recognize but feels he should, and (2) such
a powerful model (or set of models) that the reader has two choices:
(a) to bow to and accept it, or (b) be steamrollered by it. The
failure to deal with such impossibilities causes people to take to
the street to protest against high prices of necessities, to fight
globalization with riots, etc. The /right/ way to deal with it is
of course to challenge the underlying model, but this requires both
skill and intelligence; hence his profound sense of powerlessness.

"Oleg" is the kind of person who needs texts that are squarely in
the mainstream, such that every idea is expressed with few words and
requires no thought of its readers. Because he is not intelligent
enough to recognize when other people are more intelligent than he
is, he truly believes that those who disagree with his models of the
world are wrong, or mad. People of that category have risen to the
role of president of the nation he posts from and probably lives in.

The impotent, futile rebellion of "Oleg" exemplifies the inability
of the illiterate and uneducated to deal with the expression of
ideas that require a background different from the one they barely
succeeded in securing. (Hence his preoccupation with high-school
drop-outs.) Now, contrary to what some people believe, you can be
illiterate and uneducated and still have an academic degree -- the
system is not bullet-proof in weeding out the useless. One may hold
a PhD and yet be culturally illiterate, unable to place information
in a larger context, much less question it and see it questioned.
Yet the more "approved" such a maleducated person is by his peers,
the more he may believe that the /exclusive/ models characteristic
of those of meager resources is also the fundamentally correct way
to approach models, i.e., that alternative truths threaten all the
established truths and that those who offer additional models have
intended to dethrone the accepted models, violently.

"Oleg" has also watched me try to shake people out of their sleep,
so he believes that being brutal is the acceptable method of getting
somebody's attention. The problem is that he has yet to figure out
when to apply this methodology and behaves much like a president of
one country who has memorized that the military could free a country
from an oppressor and therefore becomes an oppressor and attacker of
another country's leader because he is too goddamn stupid to figure
out the difference between attack and self-defense. We should
therefore give people in the formerly great United States of America
a lot of lee-way at this crucial time in history. Their bumbling
moron of a leader has been elected and is supported by the "Oleg"
category of people. It is about as fruitful to ask these people to
get a grip on themselves as it is to ask an illiterate to go read a
million words before he opens his mouth again. It may be the best
advice they could get, but it would take years to do it, and the
recipient of the advice would not grasp its benevolent nature.

If the United States of America cleans up the systemic flaws that
led George W. Bush to the presidency, perhaps its ignorant masses
will quiet down and once again accept that if somebody does not
agree with them, it could be because they know better, but as long
as this dangerous retard is their leader, we should expect that a
large number of miscreants want to be taken seriously like their
president, who is one of them. "Oleg" is just a symptom of a
tragedy unfolding on continental scale. His powerlessness and his
clear expression of /fear/ of something superior to himself that he
cannot control is simply to be expected. He posts from Columbia
University, in New York City, so he is probably still reeling from
the shock of finally having to deal with reality.

So be nice to "Oleg" and his like for the time being. When their
stupid president has gone to war and their currency has become so
cheap we Europeans can buy up the whole country instead of paying
for more members to the European Union, we have to act like true
gentlemen towards the infirm and the losers in battle. After all,
it was we Europeans who subjugated war to the rule of law, which the
uncultured Americans and their doddering lubbard of a president has
yet to grasp what means. An angry American who hurls insults at
this time is really an incredibly pathetic display of an attempt to
reach out and ask for approval and validation of his helplessness.
History will judge "Oleg" and "Dubya" much more harshly than we
could do here in a newsgroup supposedly about programming languages,
so the illness should just be allowed to run its course. With any
luck, the population of the United States wakes up before the next
election. Most of us can wait patiently for them to regain their
senses, so we should sit by their sickbed rather than beat them up
when they have violent fits.

I strongly recommend that whoever can still read this in the heavily
censored United States try to band together resistance groups so you
can recuperate some of your nation's glory. The right to bear arms
was instituted precisely to protect against wayward presidents and
politicians who led the country astray. It is not too late, you can
still be a civilized country. If you think other countries need to
get rid of bad leaders, set an /excellent/ example by removing the
single most dangerous man on the planet from power, so maybe Saddam
Hussein will resign nicely because he saw how effectively it worked.

We can deal with "Oleg" and his like after the important matters.

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.

Oleg

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 5:09:06 PM1/10/03
to
Nils Goesche wrote:

> Oleg <oleg_i...@myrealbox.com> writes:
>
>> If he writes code the way he writes his posts, his programs must be
>> pages after pages after pages of long-winded repetitive drivel.
>
>> The issue is not whether he is a decent coder however, but what makes him
>> so long-winded and verbally abusive. I don't know about the verbal
>> abusiveness, but I think his long-windedness is a product of
>
>> a) low intelligence, resulting in his inability to express himself
>> tersely
>
> Look, troll: The last time you posted anything about Lisp here, you
> didn't even understand the point of macros.

I think you are referring to *your* lack of undertanding of typing, macros
and their relationship to HOFs, which was discussed about half a year ago
and has nothing to do with the subject matter, silly.

And BTW, the last time I posted anything about Lisp here was in the recent
"Two Do questions" thead. Flat-out lying would be bad for your credibility,
if you had any.

Oleg

Oleg

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 5:22:02 PM1/10/03
to
Erik Naggum wrote:

[snipped due to bandwidth limitations]

> If the United States of America cleans up the systemic flaws that
> led George W. Bush to the presidency, perhaps its ignorant masses
> will quiet down and once again accept that if somebody does not
> agree with them, it could be because they know better, but as long
> as this dangerous retard is their leader, we should expect that a
> large number of miscreants want to be taken seriously like their
> president, who is one of them. "Oleg" is just a symptom of a
> tragedy unfolding on continental scale. His powerlessness and his

> clear expression of fear of something superior to himself that he


> cannot control is simply to be expected. He posts from Columbia
> University, in New York City, so he is probably still reeling from
> the shock of finally having to deal with reality.

[...]

I was, in fact, in downtown NYC on 9/11/2001, but what does this have to do
with ANYTHING, sicko?! If the above isn't the most textbook example of
overcompensating logorrhea, what is?!

Oleg

Oleg

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 7:30:38 PM1/10/03
to
Kenny Tilton wrote:

> Oleg wrote:
>>>>[snipped due to badwidth limitations]
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, the horse is dead. So now /you/ are the one
> stinking the joint up. Move on, fer chrissakes.

You sicken me not because you can not stand up to Naggum [1], which is
understandable, but because you grab every opportunity to suck up to him,
"numbnut". And if you continue to call yourself a New Yorker after what
your master just wrote about WTC attacks, you are a hypocrite too.

Oleg

[1]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl561796503d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3246487545212342%40naggum.no

u.r. faust

unread,
Jan 11, 2003, 6:47:43 PM1/11/03
to
Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> writes:

> I strongly recommend that whoever can still read this in the heavily
> censored United States try to band together resistance groups so you
> can recuperate some of your nation's glory.

LOL !
This is some of the funniest stuff that I have read in a long time.

Email it to Seinfeld !

--
natsu-gusa ya / tsuwamono-domo-ga / yume no ato
summer grasses / strong ones / dreams site

Summer grasses,
All that remains
Of soldier's dreams
(Basho trans. Stryk)

u.r. faust

unread,
Jan 11, 2003, 6:49:03 PM1/11/03
to
Oleg <oleg_i...@myrealbox.com> writes:


> "numbnut". And if you continue to call yourself a New Yorker after what
> your master just wrote about WTC attacks, you are a hypocrite too.

Shame they missed the White House.

"Aurélien Campéas"

unread,
Jan 11, 2003, 12:57:03 PM1/11/03
to
I am sorry to be so vastly off-topic (as far as CL in involved),
but that let me perplex :

> After all,
> it was we Europeans who subjugated war to the rule of law, which the
> uncultured Americans and their doddering lubbard of a president has
> yet to grasp what means.

How exactly did "we" subjugate war to the rule of law ? I just can't
figure it out (as far as the 20th century's wars are involved).

Maybe I should have asked in private. Please tell me if I really should
have. Thanks.

Aurélien.

Erik Naggum

unread,
Jan 11, 2003, 1:40:16 PM1/11/03
to
* Aurélien Campéas

| How exactly did "we" subjugate war to the rule of law?

The Geneva Conventions.

"Aurélien Campéas"

unread,
Jan 11, 2003, 4:05:39 PM1/11/03
to
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:40:16 +0000, Erik Naggum wrote:

> * Aurélien Campéas
> | How exactly did "we" subjugate war to the rule of law?
>
> The Geneva Conventions.

Ouch ! I feared you would say that.

Do you suggest that those Conventions did help make the 20th century
european wars more human and less cruel ? That they did anything to
prevent an escalation in the scale and cruelty of 1st (mass-murder of
civilians enrolled by force in the "patriotic armies") , 2nd world wars
(like 1st + mass-slaughter of civilians according to so-called racial
criteria), not to mention the decolonisation wars... ?

We in Europe didn't subjugate anything. The Geneva Conventions are a very
bad joke in the face of the very million of people who died by forced
enrollment / work / displacement, guns, canons, flak, bombs, fire,
torture, provoken illness and starvation, gas, and any combination of
those.

So, it may not be a good argument to raise with Oleg or whoever, as Idiot
and Fierce and Dumb Patriotic United-States-ian as he might be...

Or maybe you were just trolling. But that doesn't look like you (fwik).

Aurélien.

Erik Naggum

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 3:14:35 AM1/12/03
to
* "Aurélien Campéas" <aurel...@wanadoo.fr>

| Ouch ! I feared you would say that.

And I feared you did in fact know and were only trolling.

| We in Europe didn't subjugate anything.

You are now mixing your opinion with legal fact. You also appear to
confuse the existence of a system with some desirable results, in
effect denying that the system exists if it has not produced all the
results you desire. You may find it surprising, but I do not wish
to entertain a discussion with you on such premises.

| Or maybe you were just trolling. But that doesn't look like you (fwik).

I thought you were. I know nothing about you, but you have shown a
lack of willingness to distinguish important historic facts from
your opinions based on human suffering. That is very troll-like in
my book. Bringing up human suffering is generally dishonest and
anti-intellectual. It is like discussing health care systems and
bringing up a suffering baby and asking "would you kill this baby?".
Those who do that kind of thing tend to explode in irrationalities
when I would answer "yes". I take it for granted that you now wish
to explode with hatred and will hurl accusations against me for
supporting genocide and what not at this point -- I have seen what I
believe to be your kind several times before -- so you do not have
to actually do it. If you wish to make a different point, such as
showing that you understand what "rule of law" means, I may respond,
but the way you have chosen to argue, any future silence on my part
simply means that I am too exasperated to deal with you.

"Aurélien Campéas"

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 7:34:11 AM1/12/03
to
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 08:14:35 +0000, Erik Naggum wrote:

> * "Aurélien Campéas" <aurel...@wanadoo.fr>
> | Ouch ! I feared you would say that.
> And I feared you did in fact know and were only trolling.
>
> | We in Europe didn't subjugate anything.
> You are now mixing your opinion with legal fact.

That's what you appear to do, in fact.

I oppose legal facts with facts.
Facts are.
Legal facts are on paper, until someone enforces them. That was part of my
point.

> You also appear to
> confuse the existence of a system with some desirable results, in
> effect denying that the system exists if it has not produced all the
> results you desire.

How can you infer so much from so little ? I am stunned.

Tom Lord said a few days ago :
> At first I was thrown off because some of your psychologizing of
> _some_ posters seemed to me to hit the mark. But then you used the
> same characterization on others to whom it clearly did not apply,
> suggesting that you're applying it blindly.

Are you repeating the same mistake here ?

> You may find it surprising, but I do not wish
> to entertain a discussion with you on such premises.

That's fine. I wouldn't, too. I am not surprised at all.

> | Or maybe you were just trolling. But that doesn't look like you (fwik).
>
> I thought you were. I know nothing about you, but you have shown a
> lack of willingness to distinguish important historic facts from
> your opinions based on human suffering.

"Lack of willingness" in this context is a little bit overboard. How can
you tell, from ONE post ?
My "opinions" (it seems so condescending) really are not that
important. I apologize if I gave the impression that I was barking some
opinions here. I am interested in facts.

Reread my post. It is not an opinion based on "human suffering" in
general. It is an assertion of the scale of the wars we had un Europe in
the 20th century, and some of their, hmmm, features. Maybe I write badly.

> That is very troll-like in
> my book. Bringing up human suffering is generally dishonest and
> anti-intellectual.

Yes.

> It is like discussing health care systems and
> bringing up a suffering baby and asking "would you kill this baby?".

Uh ?

> Those who do that kind of thing tend to explode in irrationalities
> when I would answer "yes".

Being human, affectively-wise, is not like being irrational. You are
confused. Please give some more context with your examples.
Also don't forget that rationality serves and end.

Although being rational is supremely important, there are cases were it
doesn't help.

> I take it for granted that you now wish
> to explode with hatred and will hurl accusations against me for
> supporting genocide and what not at this point -- I have seen what I
> believe to be your kind several times before -- so you do not have
> to actually do it.

This is were you derail. I'm not the kind you think I am.

> If you wish to make a different point, such as
> showing that you understand what "rule of law" means, I may respond,
> but the way you have chosen to argue, any future silence on my part
> simply means that I am too exasperated to deal with you.

Since I'm not so sure I understand what "rule of law" means, I would like
to be enlightened. There is no sarcasm here.
If you are already too exasperated, just don't bother and relax.

Aurélien.

Nils Goesche

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 9:39:30 AM1/12/03
to
"Aurélien Campéas" <aurel...@wanadoo.fr> writes:

> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 08:14:35 +0000, Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> > Bringing up human suffering is generally dishonest and
> > anti-intellectual.
>
> Yes.
>
> > It is like discussing health care systems and
> > bringing up a suffering baby and asking "would you kill this baby?".
>
> Uh ?
>
> > Those who do that kind of thing tend to explode in
> > irrationalities when I would answer "yes".
>
> Being human, affectively-wise, is not like being irrational. You are
> confused. Please give some more context with your examples.

That's interesting. Do you really not understand the example?

> Also don't forget that rationality serves and end.

Now this seems rather meaningless to /me/.

> Although being rational is supremely important, there are cases
> were it doesn't help.

And this is trivially true; for instance, if you know you will be
checkmate in three moves, you can be rational all you want and it
won't help you -- although there is still a rational thing to
try: Continue playing in the hope that the other guy will make
some stupid mistake that leads to a stalemate; or suddenly gets a
heart attack and uses up all his time and you win...

But this is probably not what you mean. Often when people say
there are cases where rationality ``doesn't help´´ they mean that
in those cases irrationality would be more appropriate
(environmentalists often argue that way).

What do you mean?

> > If you wish to make a different point, such as showing that
> > you understand what "rule of law" means, I may respond, but
> > the way you have chosen to argue, any future silence on my
> > part simply means that I am too exasperated to deal with
> > you.
>
> Since I'm not so sure I understand what "rule of law" means, I
> would like to be enlightened.

This is not entirely trivial to explain, so I won't even try.
F. A. Hayek does a good job in ``The Road to Serfdom´´. Just a
short citation from that book (beginning of Chapter 6):

# Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country
# from those in a country under arbitrary government than the
# observance in the former of the great principles known as the
# Rule of Law. Stripped of all technicalities, this means that
# government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and
# announced beforehand -- rules which make it possible to foresee
# with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive
# powers in given circumstances and to plan one's individual
# affairs on the basis of this knowledge. Though this ideal can
# never be perfectly achieved, since legislators as well as those
# to whom the administration of the law is intrusted are fallible
# men, the essential point, that the discretion left to the
# executive organs wielding coercive power should be reduced as
# much as possible, is clear enough. While every law restricts
# individual freedom to some extent by altering the means which
# people may use in the pursuit of their aims, under the Rule of
# Law the government is prevented from stultifying individual
# efforts by /ad hoc/ action. Within the known rules of the game
# the individual is free to pursue his personal ends and desires,
# certain that the powers of government will not be used
# deliberately to frustrate his efforts.

Regards,
--
Nils Gösche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.

PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0

Vijay L

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 9:59:38 AM1/12/03
to
Oleg <oleg_i...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:<avnojm$rlm$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>...

> Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
> > Oleg wrote:
> >>>>[snipped due to badwidth limitations]
> >
> > In case you hadn't noticed, the horse is dead. So now /you/ are the one
> > stinking the joint up. Move on, fer chrissakes.
>
> You sicken me not because you can not stand up to Naggum [1], which is
> understandable, but because you grab every opportunity to suck up to him,
> "numbnut". And if you continue to call yourself a New Yorker after what
> your master just wrote about WTC attacks, you are a hypocrite too.
>
If I hadn't experienced similar attacks upon my person, I'd be
laughing at this post of yours. (I am often called "unpatriotic"
because I critisize most of the Indian govt policies, actions etc.)
Nevertheless, I find your reasoning to be hilarious. You are asking
Kenny to support you, not because what Erik said was wrong/right,
rather because he /mentioned/ the WTC attacks.

But, I am in agreement with you. All those who do not follow our
(remember, I'm on your side) point of view (that, I think, is everyone
except us) must be banned from using cll. They don't even know lisp,
that they claim to have been using it since before we were born proves
that their knowledge of lisp (and hence CS) is pathetically
inadequate. We are the programmers, we are the lispers, we are new
generation: going to take over [on] the world. Erik and his cronies
(i.e. those who do not agree with us) are the bad guys. What kind of
people would point out errors in us that we do not have (e.g. [they
say that] "we are unable to accept our errors")? Obviously they are
fools. And they attack upon our person (they, of-course, claim that
they don't, but we know better), and since such acts are so vile, so
despicable, the only way to counter it is to fling similar attacks
upon them ourselves. Wait, how about ignoring it? or worse actually
reading it and (still worse) /understanding it/? Yech! Only fools, and
cowards would bow down from the stand they've taken. Not us: men of
all men. (Refer Dave Barry's "Complete Guide To Guys"[*]) We
personally cannot understand how men like you (usually Erik) exist in
this world (now that we do, we simply refuse to acknowledge it, and
continue disbelieving) (quite similar to the belief of God that most
of us hold on to), trying to make this world a better [1] (er... I
mean worse) place to live in, we refuse to stand numb. We shall prove
that stupidity (oops, I meant superior intelligence), anger, rage,
violent instincts, and bombs in our control, will not be subdued. Ha!
You think Hitler was bad! Watch the new rage of hatred on the rise.
[2]

Ole![g]

[*] Guys, while stupid, do no harm (or so Barry sez) :)

[1] As is said in Catch-22 (or something close to it) One good apple
can spoil the rest.

[2] Oscar Wilde was right when he said that one is more intellectual
when being cynical. That paragraph was surprisingly easy for me to
write, primarily, I think, because I don't believe most of what I
wrote.

Thanks,

Vijay L

"Aurélien Campéas"

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 11:30:13 AM1/12/03
to
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 15:39:30 +0100, Nils Goesche wrote:

> That's interesting. Do you really not understand the example?

The example being :


> It is like discussing health care systems and
> bringing up a suffering baby and asking "would you kill this baby?".

No, I really don't understand.
I can try to interpret it (giving more context) : let's suppose the baby
is suffering some (short-term) incurable illness. Then it may be a good
thing to kill him, in order to prevent more useless pain for him (euthanasia).
Or is it something else ?

>> Also don't forget that rationality serves and end.
>
> Now this seems rather meaningless to /me/.

Rationality :
1 - due exercise of reason
2 - the quality of being consistent with or based on logic

And then...



>> Although being rational is supremely important, there are cases
>> were it doesn't help.
>
> And this is trivially true; for instance, if you know you will be
> checkmate in three moves, you can be rational all you want and it
> won't help you -- although there is still a rational thing to
> try: Continue playing in the hope that the other guy will make
> some stupid mistake that leads to a stalemate; or suddenly gets a
> heart attack and uses up all his time and you win...

It all depends on whether you want not to let the slightest chance to win
escape you or just in all fairness concede that you've lost. The important
thing is your intention.

How do your intentions (iow, your ENDS) relate to rationality ? This is
the hard part of the discussion...

> But this is probably not what you mean.

Yea. You mean I'm Just Another Moron, Maybe.

> Often when people say
> there are cases where rationality ``doesn't help´´ they mean that
> in those cases irrationality would be more appropriate
> (environmentalists often argue that way).

hmmm...
There are cases when rationality can't help you decide what to do. Because
the problem at hand is rationally undecidable. Or because we can't get all
necessary information to make an informed choice. These are just examples
on top of my head.

This has nothing to do with "irrationality", fuckin'Jesus !
FWIK, irrationality = madness (sort of), or a great tool to manipulate
people (by weakening their ability to reason), etc...

>> Since I'm not so sure I understand what "rule of law" means, I
>> would like to be enlightened.
>
> This is not entirely trivial to explain, so I won't even try.
> F. A. Hayek does a good job in ``The Road to Serfdom´´. Just a
> short citation from that book (beginning of Chapter 6):

> [cut]

I see here that between you and me there's a HUGE philosophical gap. Since
I've been told philosophy (rudiments of law, too), anthropology, etc... in
France I can only acknowledge the (cultural) gap.

The Rule of Law seems to be an important concept of yours. But I'll have a
hard time to map it onto what I already know. So Hayek's citation isn't a
great help.

At first look, I just find it all unsound and full of void... (so unreal
and ideological).

Respectfully,
Aurélien.

Kaz Kylheku

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 1:09:18 PM1/12/03
to
"Aurélien Campéas" <aurel...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.01.11....@wanadoo.fr>...

> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:40:16 +0000, Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> > * Aurélien Campéas
> > | How exactly did "we" subjugate war to the rule of law?
> >
> > The Geneva Conventions.
>
> Ouch ! I feared you would say that.
>
> Do you suggest that those Conventions did help make the 20th century
> european wars more human and less cruel ?

Erik: In my country we subjugated property ownership to the rule of law.

Aurelien: No you didn't, people still get robbed in your country!

Nils Goesche

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 1:34:37 PM1/12/03
to
"Aurélien Campéas" <aurel...@wanadoo.fr> writes:

> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 15:39:30 +0100, Nils Goesche wrote:
>
> > That's interesting. Do you really not understand the example?

...

> No, I really don't understand.

...

> Or is it something else ?

Yes, something entirely else. Forget about it. Examples are
like jokes: Either you get them or you don't. Explaining them
usually won't do any good -- that you don't get them means that
you do not have the necessary frame of mind to understand them,
and no explanation could overcome that (in reasonable time).

> Rationality :
> 1 - due exercise of reason
> 2 - the quality of being consistent with or based on logic

Sounds good...

> And then...


>
> > And this is trivially true; for instance, if you know you
> > will be checkmate in three moves, you can be rational all you
> > want and it won't help you -- although there is still a
> > rational thing to try: Continue playing in the hope that the
> > other guy will make some stupid mistake that leads to a
> > stalemate; or suddenly gets a heart attack and uses up all
> > his time and you win...
>
> It all depends on whether you want not to let the slightest
> chance to win escape you or just in all fairness concede that
> you've lost. The important thing is your intention.

Well, the question was whether there are situations where
rationality won't help you. Maybe my example sucked. Sure,
whether it helps you or not in this case depends on your
intentions, but this seems rather uninteresting to me.

> How do your intentions (iow, your ENDS) relate to rationality ?
> This is the hard part of the discussion...

Which I feel is besides the point. I want to know what it means
that ``rationality won't help me´´ and what I am supposed to do
or employ instead.

> > But this is probably not what you mean.
>
> Yea. You mean I'm Just Another Moron, Maybe.

How would I know? :-) No, I didn't mean anything like that.

> > Often when people say there are cases where rationality
> > ``doesn't help´´ they mean that in those cases irrationality
> > would be more appropriate (environmentalists often argue that
> > way).
>
> hmmm... There are cases when rationality can't help you decide
> what to do.

What cases? And if they exist, what follows from that?

> Because the problem at hand is rationally undecidable.

Hm.

> Or because we can't get all necessary information to make an
> informed choice. These are just examples on top of my head.

Hm.

> This has nothing to do with "irrationality", fuckin'Jesus !
> FWIK, irrationality = madness (sort of), or a great tool to
> manipulate people (by weakening their ability to reason),
> etc...

Oh yes, it has. In the following sense, which was the point of
my question from the beginning. Another example:

Many people believe that man causes ``global warming´´ and we are
supposed, and able, to do anything about it. There is absolutely
no scientific proof for this -- by applying as much rationality
as possible, we still can't come up with any conclusions of what
steps have to be taken, or if any at all (never mind the question
whether a significant ``global warming´´ is indeed going to
happen at all). So far, so good. Let's do nothing about it, I
say. However, the typical environmentalist, people like, say, Al
Gore, believe in ``global warming´´ anyway and argue that this is
a case where rationality ``fails´´ (it is very interesting that
people like that also often claim that the market ``fails´´ in
some regard -- which seems to be a totally meaningless statement
to me, too. The market just happens -- it cannot ``fail´´; much
like the rule of gravitation). So, as rationality ``fails´´ do
give the desired result, we have to disregard it and wreck our
economy anyway by taking all kinds of socialist measures that
will supposedly save the earth. Where does Al Gore know that?
This is what I would like to understand -- how do we magically
obtain truths like that without employing rationality?
(Obviously, I think you can't)

> >> Since I'm not so sure I understand what "rule of law" means, I
> >> would like to be enlightened.
> >
> > This is not entirely trivial to explain, so I won't even try.
> > F. A. Hayek does a good job in ``The Road to Serfdom´´. Just a
> > short citation from that book (beginning of Chapter 6):
> > [cut]
>
> I see here that between you and me there's a HUGE philosophical
> gap.

Yes.

> Since I've been told philosophy (rudiments of law, too),
> anthropology, etc... in France I can only acknowledge the
> (cultural) gap.
>
> The Rule of Law seems to be an important concept of yours.

Neither Erik nor I invented the term, that's for sure ;-) I don't
know who came up with it -- possibly John Stuart Mill (just
guessing). It is indeed a central point in what's often called
``classical liberalism´´. I find it very amusing that you don't
seem to like it :-)

> But I'll have a hard time to map it onto what I already know.

That's only natural if your philosophical education comes from
French (or German, as in my case) schools and universities.
Everybody knows Marx and Sartre, nobody knows Smith or Hayek. If
you want to broaden your horizon a bit, you're on your own...
But Amazon is a great help ;-)

> So Hayek's citation isn't a great help.

> At first look, I just find it all unsound and full of
> void... (so unreal and ideological).

What do you expect from just one paragraph?

Yes, the ``gap´´ /is/ huge. To build some bridges, one has to
start at the very basics and discuss for years. I don't think we
can do that here. If you really want to know what motivates
``evil right-wingers´´ like me to make so stupid and evil
statements, you might start reading their books. Hayek's ``The
Road to Serfdom´´ might actually be a good start.

And of course: I am just guessing here, too. Actually, I cannot
infer all I did about you from what you've written. I apologize
in advance if I totally misjudged you. Take it as a working
hypothesis :-)

Oleg

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 3:11:35 PM1/12/03
to
Vijay L wrote:

> You are asking
> Kenny to support you, not because what Erik said was wrong/right,

> rather because he mentioned the WTC attacks.

a) I'm not asking him to support me. I'm pointing out to him what's apparent
to anyone who lurks here or has access to the archives: the basic pattern
is that Naggum insults people on purpose for fun, and then jackals like
Tilton, Spitzer, Goesche swoop in, saying "you heard the man" and creating
an illusion of a peer consensus.

b) Naggum didn't just mention WTC. His message was that Americans "finally"
got what they deserved for electing Bush, not listening enough to Erik,
disagreeing with Erik, etc. :

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3251210602491305%40naggum.no

He calls me uneducated for disliking him, and then he writes that I may have
a Ph.D. [1], and still be illiterate. Doesn't this make for a very "narrow"
definition of education?

BTW I don't believe I mentioned my views on the American foreign policy on
USENET once. His having written that long Nazi-like facts-distorting
European supremacist tirade is a clear indication of mental issues.

Oleg

[1] Which I do expect to earn later this year.


P.S. I don't think I'm going to have much time for explaining what is wrong
with Naggum to every newcomer he attacks. Perhaps I will write a FAQ about
it if enough people request it in email or volunteer to contribute.

"Aurélien Campéas"

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 3:59:35 PM1/12/03
to
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:34:37 +0100, Nils Goesche wrote:

> I want to know what it means
> that ``rationality won't help me´´ and what I am supposed to do
> or employ instead.

Rationality doesn't help itself...
If any reasonning is based on a) some base elements b) some basic
rules to operate on our elements and c) applying rules in b) on a) to
build more elements, let me ask : how did you provide a) and b) ?
You had to make some (educated) guess.
iow, rationality is not complete, nor can stand on its own completely.

What to employ instead ? Nothing off course.

>> hmmm... There are cases when rationality can't help you decide
>> what to do.
>
> What cases? And if they exist, what follows from that?

See above.
What follows ?
Science is void if not based on some "accurate sampling of reality", where
accurate rimes with "sounds good", no better. (It doesn't imply that it's
based solely on that).

> Another example:
>
> Many people believe [cut]

In Jesus ? Buddha ?
I'm not with them. Neither you I guess.
Both are totally useless to explain anything in a rational way.

> that man causes ``global warming´´ and we are
> supposed, and able, to do anything about it. There is absolutely
> no scientific proof for this

There are some hints, though.

> [cut]


> This is what I would like to understand -- how do we magically
> obtain truths like that without employing rationality?
> (Obviously, I think you can't)

Yes you can't. This is obvious. But look at your example : global warning,
Al Gore, etc. This is a matter of politicians with an agenda, not science.
Global warning is nothing more than the "religion du moment", and
politiciancs in this instance exhibit the behavior of priests telling
bullshit to the masses.

[cut]


> What do you expect from just one paragraph?

Some light. Here I see only utter nonsens (sorry, I don't mind to vex you).

>
> Yes, the ``gap´´ /is/ huge. To build some bridges, one has to
> start at the very basics and discuss for years. I don't think we
> can do that here. If you really want to know what motivates
> ``evil right-wingers´´ like me to make so stupid and evil
> statements, you might start reading their books. Hayek's ``The
> Road to Serfdom´´ might actually be a good start.

What annoys me with liberals is how they build up an artificial
utterly oversimplified view of what is (or what is not) man, then go by
great lengths to show how reality is off course less than ideal (so
complex, so unpredictable) wrt their theory.

I really don't see how economy can be more than a part of sociology,
were most researchers (hmmm, those I read anyway) 1) sample vast aspects
of their domain 2) try to build some piece of theory, not the other way
around.

If liberal economists were to redesign physics on their own, we would
learn in school how great the ptolemean system is (with lots of maths to
"prove" their fictions), wouldn't we ?-)

But liberal economists sit here for a reason : they are extremely useful
as an ideological shield and pseudo-scientific caution for (liberal,
so-called socialist or whatever) politicians.

I would like to be proved wrong, off course, but I suspect that will be
hard.

> Regards,

Yep.
Aurélien.

Marc Spitzer

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 4:19:55 PM1/12/03
to
Oleg <oleg_i...@myrealbox.com> writes:

> He calls me uneducated for disliking him, and then he writes that I may have
> a Ph.D. [1], and still be illiterate. Doesn't this make for a very "narrow"
> definition of education?

Having a PHD does not mean you are educated in other areas was the
point made. The case could be made that by spending all your time
learning your one specific thing that you stand a better chance of
being deficient in other areas. Also there seems to be some
relationship to the degree of ignorance outside there area and their
self perceived knowledge of unrelated fields.

marc

u.r. faust

unread,
Jan 13, 2003, 11:38:51 AM1/13/03
to
Oleg <oleg_i...@myrealbox.com> writes:

> b) Naggum didn't just mention WTC. His message was that Americans "finally"
> got what they deserved

Nice to see that even Erik can be right sometimes.

> He calls me uneducated for disliking him, and then he writes that I may have
> a Ph.D. [1], and still be illiterate. Doesn't this make for a very "narrow"
> definition of education?

No, it actually makes for an admirable definition of education.
I have worked with many truly uneducated PhDs.

Writing a thesis on the Spineless Tagless G-Machine does not make
one educated except in a very narrow sense.


> [1] Which I do expect to earn later this year.

Good.
I hope that you manage to find some time to educate yourself.

> P.S. I don't think I'm going to have much time for explaining what is wrong
> with Naggum to every newcomer he attacks. Perhaps I will write a FAQ about
> it if enough people request it in email or volunteer to contribute.

Please dont.
Naggum is responsible for the special flavour* of cll


*slighly rancid ;-)

Nils Goesche

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 4:48:09 PM1/12/03
to
"Aurélien Campéas" <aurel...@wanadoo.fr> writes:

> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:34:37 +0100, Nils Goesche wrote:
>

> > Many people believe [cut]


>
> > that man causes ``global warming´´ and we are
> > supposed, and able, to do anything about it. There is absolutely
> > no scientific proof for this
>

> > [cut]
> > This is what I would like to understand -- how do we magically
> > obtain truths like that without employing rationality?
> > (Obviously, I think you can't)
>
> Yes you can't. This is obvious. But look at your example :
> global warning, Al Gore, etc. This is a matter of politicians
> with an agenda, not science. Global warning is nothing more
> than the "religion du moment", and politiciancs in this
> instance exhibit the behavior of priests telling bullshit to
> the masses.

Heh. Maybe I /did/ misjudge you :-)

> > What do you expect from just one paragraph?
>
> Some light. Here I see only utter nonsens (sorry, I don't mind
> to vex you).

(Don't worry about me. I am not easily offended.)

Nonsense? That Hayek paragraph? Now I am helpless. I have
absolutely no idea how anybody can think that it is nonsensical.
Disagree, ok (but how can you disagree with a definition?). But
nonsensical? Maybe some radical positivist or something...

> But liberal economists sit here for a reason : they are
> extremely useful as an ideological shield and pseudo-scientific
> caution for (liberal, so-called socialist or whatever)
> politicians.

``Liberal economists are a `shield´ for socialist politicians?´´
Now that's funny. I would say that socialist politicians have no
greater enemy than liberal economists... (liberal in the
classical sense. When Americans say `liberal´ nowadays they mean
something totally different -- the antithesis in fact. I hope
that's clear.)

> I would like to be proved wrong, off course, but I suspect that
> will be hard.

Of course. That's why I don't even want to start. It would take
too long, if it works at all. Let's just drop it.

Erik Naggum

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 4:48:50 PM1/12/03
to
* Aurélien Campéas

| Since I'm not so sure I understand what "rule of law" means, I would
| like to be enlightened. There is no sarcasm here.

There is, however, irony.

What on /earth/ did you respond to my article for if you do not even
know what "rule of law" /means/?

Instead of your repulsively stupid behavior and disgusting display
of a severe lack of intelligence, you could simply have looked it up
and saved yourself the humiliation. The whole Internet at your
disposal and what do you do? You post an /ignorant/ opinion with so
much invective when you get exposed!

You are an insult to humankind, Aurélien Campéas. Recycle yourself.

"Aurélien Campéas"

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 6:05:47 PM1/12/03
to
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 22:48:09 +0100, Nils Goesche wrote:

> Nonsense? That Hayek paragraph? Now I am helpless. I have
> absolutely no idea how anybody can think that it is nonsensical.
> Disagree, ok (but how can you disagree with a definition?). But
> nonsensical? Maybe some radical positivist or something...

Maybe I'm "an insult to humankind" as said Naggum. I should recycle
myself...
hmmm, no I may be a radical-something, but not a positivist.
Ok, really I should have a look at Hayek's book sometime (just to convince
myself how hairy it is :)

> ``Liberal economists are a `shield´ for socialist politicians?´´
> Now that's funny. I would say that socialist politicians have no
> greater enemy than liberal economists... (liberal in the
> classical sense. When Americans say `liberal´ nowadays they mean
> something totally different -- the antithesis in fact. I hope
> that's clear.)

Look. The paradox is easy to overcome :-) You already did half the trip.
1) When Americans say `liberal´ nowadays they mean something totally
different -- the antithesis in fact (you said)
2) When X say 'socialist' nowadays they mean something totally different
-- the antithesis in fact (I add).

Who are the X ? The self-designating socialists, for sure...

Both kinds (false liberals and false socialists) play the same old tricks.
Oh, sometimes, so-called socialists try to be more 'Keynesian' (meaning
they value the role of the State as a regulating institution), and the
so-called liberals try to be as 'anti-State' or anti-interventionist or
anti-what-you-want as they can. So that the brave people have a chance to
"make a choice" on the electoral market...

>> I would like to be proved wrong, off course, but I suspect that
>> will be hard.
>
> Of course. That's why I don't even want to start. It would take
> too long, if it works at all. Let's just drop it.

Indeed.

Aurélien.

"Aurélien Campéas"

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 6:08:29 PM1/12/03
to
I uncovered you, Erik Naggum.

You are not a human, are you ?

You are the next generation of Emacs's Psychiatrist, gone mad.

But that is not so fun, in fact.

Aurélien.

Bulent Murtezaoglu

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 6:20:46 PM1/12/03
to
>>>>> "AC" == Aurélien Campéas <aurel...@wanadoo.fr> writes:
[...]
AC> In Jesus ? Buddha ? I'm not with them. Neither you I guess.
AC> Both are totally useless to explain anything in a rational
AC> way.

Surely you understand that they are neither applicable nor necessary
where rationality suffices. At least Islamic scholars used to think
like that long time ago. Religion is intended, I think the argument
went, for things that are squarely beyond the realm of rationality.
Therefore any irrationality one can rationally detect in one's
religious beliefs must be due to one's misunderstanding of religion!
Or so it goes AFAIK. This argument was partially designed to protect
the image of religion where science was respected. (eg if science
says A religion says B, it is A and you are misapplying religion).

[...]


>> that man causes ``global warming´´ and we are supposed, and
>> able, to do anything about it. There is absolutely no
>> scientific proof for this

AC> There are some hints, though.

Yes, so it appears. I think Niels is reacting to politicians diluting
the authority of science by asserting scientific validity where none is
available. The 'left' it seems robbed themselves of appealing to the
authority of God's word and such, but being politicians they have found
other things to pervert.

>> [cut] This is what I would like to understand -- how do we
>> magically obtain truths like that without employing
>> rationality? (Obviously, I think you can't)

AC> Yes you can't. This is obvious. But look at your example :
AC> global warning, Al Gore, etc. This is a matter of politicians
AC> with an agenda, not science. Global warning is nothing more
AC> than the "religion du moment", and politiciancs in this
AC> instance exhibit the behavior of priests telling bullshit to
AC> the masses.

Ah, I wish I had read this before typing the above! I am eliding the
other agreeable stuff. Carry on guys. Where's the lisp in all this?

cheers,

BM

Nils Goesche

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 6:43:42 PM1/12/03
to
"Aurélien Campéas" <aurel...@wanadoo.fr> writes:

> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 22:48:09 +0100, Nils Goesche wrote:
>
> > But nonsensical? Maybe some radical positivist or
> > something...
>
> Maybe I'm "an insult to humankind" as said Naggum. I should
> recycle myself...

I do not believe in recycling.

> hmmm, no I may be a radical-something, but not a positivist.
> Ok, really I should have a look at Hayek's book sometime

Yes, please do that.

> (just to convince myself how hairy it is :)

Sure. Once the seed of evil is placed, it will grow and can
never be removed again. Much like cancer, but without the
negative consequences for the patient.

> Who are the X ? The self-designating socialists, for sure...

It doesn't matter how they call themselves. When Nils the
Red-Baiting Jackal growls and wags his tail three times, that
should be enough.

> > Of course. That's why I don't even want to start. It would take
> > too long, if it works at all. Let's just drop it.
>
> Indeed.

Much fun with the book.