rip erik naggum
d p chang
http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
bummer.
\p
---
Wit is educated insolence. - Aristotle
Kenneth Tilton
> maybe old news on this group, but saw this float by on HN
>
> http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
>
> bummer.
Everybody dies. Not that he has: one tweet doth not a passing make.
> ---
> Wit is educated insolence. - Aristotle
F*ck, you can't even quote him?
hth, kt
----
"If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations. "
- e naggum
Harald Hanche-Olsen
> d p chang wrote:
>> maybe old news on this group, but saw this float by on HN
>>
>> http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
>>
>> bummer.
>
> Everybody dies. Not that he has: one tweet doth not a passing make.
There seems to be more evidence:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8u5dp/erik_naggum_19652009_rip/
I too have known for a few years that he had health problems, but I
never knew until now what he was suffering from. Details in the above
link, for the morbidly curious.
If you want quotes, here is a whole pile of them:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erik_Naggum
Here is a nice one:
If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.
-- Erik Naggum
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- It is undesirable to believe a proposition
when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.
-- Bertrand Russell
Slobodan Blazeski
Slobodan
Kenneth Tilton
> Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
That would have been good for us and bad for him.
kt
ps. RIP, Erik. k
Duncan
> Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
>> Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
> That would have been good for us and bad for him.
Yep, no doubt. I'm sure there are quite a few people out there who are
very quietly not miserable at his passing, but I think they might have
misunderstood him a bit. I'm pretty sure that maintaining his c.l.l
persona (along with his persona in some other places) was a lot harder on
him than it was on anyone he flamed. I don't want to discuss the merits of
that persona in a thread about Erik's death, so I'll just say that I
appreciated it. He was full of epigrams and cogent points, and I suspect
he'll be quoted for a long time to come.
Spiros Bousbouras
I never realised he was so young , based on his rants I was
imagining some grumpy old guy. Can someone provide some links to
some of his insightful posts ? All I have seen are rants. Most of
them boring or even disturbing but here's a link to one I find
quite funny:
< http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/a7b0fb7978c079d8
>
Some great quotes in there.
--
God grant me serenity to accept the code I cannot change, courage to
change the code I can, and wisdom to know the difference.
Erik Naggum (1965 - 2009)
Vassil Nikolov
Erik Naggum, 1965--2009
His posts were _both_ accurate and precise.
May the soil be light on him.
* * *
Was it he who said that one should always be prepared to challenge
one's assumptions?
---Vassil.
Scott Burson
> Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
> That would have been good for us and bad for him.
You can't be serious.
His arrogance and hostility drove me away from c.l.l for years. I can
only wonder how many others he alienated.
He was very smart, and could be nice to those who were comfortable
with being condescended to. But he attacked me unprovoked, just for
thinking I knew as much as he did -- which I did. And then he would
hold forth on ethics, completely in denial about how he had just
violated the very principles he was enunciating. Indeed, I had the
feeling the primary purpose of his pontifications was convincing
himself that his behavior was irreproachable, when it was nothing of
the kind.
I am stunned at the number of people who think he was an asset to
c.l.l. I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
recovered yet). While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
glad he stopped posting here.
-- Scott
Kenneth Tilton
You have taken personally what was not personal to you, but only to
Erik. That suggests that you like Erik suffer not from unsociability but
from too much sociability: you care to much about people. Version two of
this mot goes the other way: being sociable means not being all that
sensitive to other people, explaining why some of us are as we are.
Yes, I have been drinking.
hth, kt
Harald Hanche-Olsen
> You have taken personally what was not personal to you, but only to
> Erik. That suggests that you like Erik suffer not from unsociability
> but from too much sociability: you care to much about people.
Hmm, I never thought of it that way before. You seem to be on to
something there. I too have been at the pointy end of Erik's ire on
occasion, and while it bothered me momentarily, I just let it pass and
found I could still enjoy much of his writing, and indeed learn from it.
(Not when he got into serious flame wars, however. I just skipped those.
But then, there are movie scenes that I cannot bear to watch, if I find
them too embarrasing. I keep telling myself it's just movie stars saying
their lines, but somehow it doesn't work, and I just look away and try
to think of something else instead.)
> Yes, I have been drinking.
Good for you! But then, what else are weekends good for?
No, don't answer that.
gugamilare
[snip]
> I am stunned at the number of people who think he was an asset to
> c.l.l. I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
> damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
> recovered yet). While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
> glad he stopped posting here.
I think you were a little too tough on him. I didn't know him, but he
must have been at least very smart. These descriptions that has been
done here remind me of the first programming teacher I had (I did
mathematics, not computer science). As a person, he was a bit rude
(for other people, not for me), and inflexible as a teacher. But he
knew how to teach. He made us do much more advanced projects than we
should do, he didn't like delays and most students just didn't do
anything. Many people cheated at his test. But, still, for the few
people that didn't cheat or copy, he made us really learn and like
computer programming. In only 6 months, 6 hours of class per week (4
of which were theoretic classes), we made a library, a curses-game of
snake and a pacman game in Glut/OpenGL, among other 7 smaller
projects.
Sometimes I look at his projects for other classes now and see that
apparently he got soft now and gives lighter projects. It at least
looks like my class was one of the first he taught, though I am not
sure about it. He looks like the kind of person that teaches as much
as you can learn.
Well, I don't mean to defend a person that isn't even part of this
conversation. I am just trying to argue that an apparently rude person
sometimes is not exactly a bad person. Sometimes this person is just
impatient, he just goes to the point and does his best to show the
things he knows to other people. No one is perfect, and, if he was
impatient, maybe it's because he had some other very good qualities.
Rest in peace, Erik Naggum.
Slobodan Blazeski
> I am stunned at the number of people who think he was an asset to
> c.l.l. I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
> damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
> recovered yet). While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
> glad he stopped posting here.
I'm sorry if he hurt your feelings but many of his posts were really
strong and insightful. And I've learned that best way to enjoy this
newsgroup is to pay attention to the good parts and skip the bad. Now
whenever trolls and spammers post some garbage I just skip them, the
worst thing is giving my limited time and attention to people who
don't deserve it.
Slobodan
Spiros Bousbouras
> On Jun 20, 12:51 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > > Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
> > That would have been good for us and bad for him.
>
> You can't be serious.
>
> His arrogance and hostility drove me away from c.l.l for years.
Why go away from c.l.l instead of simply not reading his posts?
[...]
> I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
> damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
> recovered yet).
What kind of damage did he do ?
Spiros Bousbouras
wrote:
> And I've learned that best way to enjoy this
> newsgroup is to pay attention to the good parts and skip the bad.
Substitute "life" for "newsgroup" and you have an excellent general
advice. Of course in life it can sometimes be impossible to "skip"
the bad parts but I have often seen people not do that even when it
seems quite possible that they could.
Wade
I am really saddened by this news. He was truly a
good friend.
And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
attacked you, you attacked first.
Wade
Nicolas Neuss
> He was very smart, and could be nice to those who were comfortable
> with being condescended to. But he attacked me unprovoked, just for
> thinking I knew as much as he did -- which I did.
Do you have a reference for this exchange? I know of _very_ few exchanges
where Erik attacked without a reason. I would be interested to know one
more of those cases.
And, yes, I also have been "attacked" by him once per Email. But instead
of taking it personal, I analyzed the reason of his attack and found that
it was due to a sloppy formulation in a post of mine. So I followed up my
post with a clarification.
Rest in peace, Erik, and thank you. I learned a lot from your posts.
Nicolas
Scott Burson
>
> [Y]ou like Erik suffer not from unsociability but
> from too much sociability: you care too much about people.
LOL
> Yes, I have been drinking.
Enuf said.
-- Scott
Scott Burson
> On 21 jun, 01:09, Scott Burson <FSet....@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > I am stunned at the number of people who think he was an asset to
> > c.l.l. I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
> > damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
> > recovered yet). While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
> > glad he stopped posting here.
>
> I think you were a little too tough on him.
You should have seen how he was on me -- and hundreds of others.
> No one is perfect, and, if he was
> impatient, maybe it's because he had some other very good qualities.
I already said he was very smart. Evidently some people learned a lot
from him.
But it's interesting you should point out that no one is perfect.
Erik Naggum was perfect in his own mind -- but only in his own mind.
-- Scott
David Combs
to time, browsing this group.
That Naggum -- he was SO smart, golly I've missed him all these
years.
Look, really, you guys chased him off.
In a pretty nasty way, too. VERY nasty. Not nice.
Yeah, he was unreasonable, extremely. But what's the
saying about "unreasonable men" -- that without them nothing
would ever advance, something like that. That was him.
---
By email, just after he left, I tried to get him back --
he replied (I have it somewhere), but wouldn't.
You know, maybe if a BUNCH of you had asked him back, he would have,
and we would have had the benefit of his, yes, wisdom, etc,
FOR ALL THESE MISSING YEARS! :-(
Really, really too bad. Tears actually coming to my eyes right
now.
He was so good.
(yeah, he had his problems, but who doesn't, huh?)
David
vippstar
> On Jun 20, 11:00 pm, gugamilare <gugamil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 21 jun, 01:09, Scott Burson <FSet....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > > glad he stopped posting here.
Why are you glad? Did he do anything that you couldn't avoid by
killfiling him? It was your choice (and seems, your fault) that you
didn't ignore him when you had to.
> > I think you were a little too tough on him.
>
> You should have seen how he was on me -- and hundreds of others.
He's dead now, why did you bring it up and why do you continue to
speak of it? What do you expect to achieve? To those that don't know
him well, perhaps they'll think Naggum was an asshole for a moment in
their life, and some time after forget about all this altogether. To
those who do know him, you're simply noise.
> But it's interesting you should point out that no one is perfect.
> Erik Naggum was perfect in his own mind -- but only in his own mind.
(another remark about Naggum...)
Ron Garret
<dfa66fc4-3947-468c...@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Wade <wade.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And for all those dweebs and out there who thought he personally
> attacked you, you attacked first.
And what exactly is calling Erik's victims "dweebs" if not an unprovoked
attack of the sort that would have drawn Erik's ire had it been directed
at him? Did you go through Erik's entire corpus to make sure that there
was not even a single instance where he attacked first? Would you
consider it justified for one of those "dweebs" to attack you now in the
way Erik would have had someone called him a "dweeb"?
This is Erik's true legacy, that there are people who think it's
acceptable to call people "dweebs" or to tell them to "kindly fuck off"
(http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666932) with -- let's be charitable
-- very little provocation.
Actually, Erik's true legacy is that the Lisp community *still* spends
more of its time arguing about Erik even after he's dead than advancing
the state of the art in Lisp. What the man truly aspired to has always
been a mystery to me, but I doubt this is it.
rg
Wade
> I'm not a lisp programmer, but for years I've enjoyed, from time
> to time, browsing this group.
>
> That Naggum -- he was SO smart, golly I've missed him all these
> years.
>
> Look, really, you guys chased him off.
>
> In a pretty nasty way, too. VERY nasty. Not nice.
>
I am glad someone has also realized this. Yes, he was bullied
away and I feel guilty for not sticking up for him more
forcefully.
Wade
Wade
> In article
> <dfa66fc4-3947-468c-be7e-f5cc8b705...@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.
Wade
Slobodan Blazeski
Slobodan
Ron Garret
<a944629b-cfa5-4a9f...@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Wade <wade.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't realize that one was required. So was that supposed to be
funny? I'm sorry, but I don't see the humor. Perhaps you'd be so kind
as to explain it to me?
rg
Kenneth Tilton
Clever editing. Feel better? Now I am drinking Starbucks and you are
really going to get it.
Few who got their horns stuck locked with Erik's realized they were as
responsible for those mad exchanges as he. It's the well-known Problem
of Having The Last Word, which is a problem only if you take the stupid
exchanges seriously. Taking them seriously, The Other's idiocies must be
answered. The only way out is to simply stop, something Erik would start
pointing out to his tormentor as the threads grew overlong even by his
easy standards. It always sounded like, "Be quiet, I am right." but read
carefully one could see he was explaining simply that he could not
control himself enough to stop so would The Other please get them both
out of the stalemate.
Sarte said we are not free to be not free. If you had a crappy on-line
relationship with Erik, you too were responsible.
kt
gugamilare
wrote:
> Even Erik's own death provoked a flame war, as a homage from cll.
>
> Slobodan
I see no flame war here, just a normal and healthy conversation.
Nicolas Neuss
> I am glad someone has also realized this. Yes, he was bullied
> away and I feel guilty for not sticking up for him more
> forcefully.
>
> Wade
I think the main reason he left was his illness. Perhaps he would have
stayed longer, if Ga(rre)t would not have insisted in mobbing him. But I
had the feeling that he used this only as a welcome excuse for drawing a
final line.
Nicolas
Kenneth Tilton
I was wondering the same thing. My guess is your jumping all over the
word "dweeb". Maybe that was used playfully.
kt
Kenneth Tilton
Give us a minute.
kt
fft1976
I don't think Erik would have approved of your changing the subject
for no reason and implying that he was just some Lisper.
--
Von Neuman is dead, Dijkstra is dead, and Me I feel also not so good.
-- Erik Naggum 2009
Ron Garret
Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com> wrote:
I see. It is my impression (and dictionaries confirm) that "dweeb" is
pejorative. And there are no smileys or other emoticons to indicate
that the word was being used in anything other than its pejorative
sense. I also have a hard time seeing how "idiot" could have been meant
"playfully". But be all that as it may...
Is it not possible that some of those "dweebs" who "attacked first" did
not in fact "attack first" but were, like Wade, just trying
unsuccessfully to be funny?
rg
Ron Garret
Nicolas Neuss <last...@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> Wade <wade.h...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I am glad someone has also realized this. Yes, he was bullied
> > away and I feel guilty for not sticking up for him more
> > forcefully.
> >
> > Wade
>
> I think the main reason he left was his illness. Perhaps he would have
> stayed longer, if Ga(rre)t would not have insisted in mobbing him.
Me "mob" Erik? That's a good one.
I never did anything to Erik that Erik did not do to other people. I
was exquisitely careful in my dealings with never to do or say anything
for which I could not cite chapter and verse precedent in something he
had said.
If I did anything to Erik it was to hold up a mirror. It is not
surprising that he didn't like what he saw. He wasn't the only one.
rg
Aatu Koskensilta
> I see. It is my impression (and dictionaries confirm) that "dweeb" is
> pejorative. And there are no smileys or other emoticons to indicate
> that the word was being used in anything other than its pejorative
> sense.
Smileys are for dweebs and idiots, for humourless gits.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Gary Klimowicz
> Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
I feel the same way.
I was never on the receiving end of his pointed comments (and wit, I
thought). He was always unfailingly polite in private correspondence.
I learned a lot from him, and know that there is more still to learn
from what he wrote.
Even though some of his public exchanges got totally out of hand, I
thought they were often escalated by others. He just answered in kind,
but with heavier artillery.
The funny thing seemed to me that often *he* held up a mirror to others
who could not recognize what they saw in it.
Please rest in peace, Erik. You have been missed a long time already.
Vassil Nikolov
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:28:12 -0700 (PDT), fft1976 <fft...@gmail.com> said:
> I don't think Erik would have approved of your changing the subject
> for no reason and implying that he was just some Lisper.
I wish it were possible for him to say so himself, whether or not
giving me a piece of his mind at the same time.
What I implied, but did not wish to say explicitly, was my belief,
based on a post of his from a long time ago, that he did not like to
see his name in a subject line, which I wanted to respect.
Apparently, the implication failed; and the belief may be wrong.
Sadly, it seems we shall never know now.
> Von Neuman is dead, Dijkstra is dead, and Me I feel also not so good.
> -- Erik Naggum 2009
This makes me wonder mildly how the first name in the above sentence
got misspelled.
---Vassil.
Kenneth Tilton
Don't be a dork. The question is whether the put-down (I looked up
pejorative) was playful or earnest. Meanwhile, any good dictionary would
characterize dweeb as light-hearted.
>..And there are no smileys or other emoticons to indicate
> that the word was being used in anything other than its pejorative
> sense.
I am factoring in his plaint that you had no sense of humor, working
backwards to dweeb being used playfully. But I /am/ just guessing.
> I also have a hard time seeing how "idiot" could have been meant
> "playfully".
You need to come to a Lisp-NYC meeting. But not one of the church deals,
then we just pray and sing hyms.
> But be all that as it may...
>
> Is it not possible that some of those "dweebs" who "attacked first" did
> not in fact "attack first" but were, like Wade, just trying
> unsuccessfully to be funny?
In a brawl that drags on for weeks involving dozens of exchanges, who
threw the first punch is about as interesting as whether Burton picked
up Taylor or Taylor picked up Burton.
kt
MarkH
50s). Hopefully that douchebag Kenny keels over soon.
On Jun 20, 11:09 pm, Scott Burson <FSet....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 12:51 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > > Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
> > That would have been good for us and bad for him.
>
> You can't be serious.
>
> His arrogance and hostility drove me away from c.l.l for years. I can
> only wonder how many others he alienated.
>
> He was very smart, and could be nice to those who were comfortable
> with being condescended to. But he attacked me unprovoked, just for
> thinking I knew as much as he did -- which I did. And then he would
> hold forth on ethics, completely in denial about how he had just
> violated the very principles he was enunciating. Indeed, I had the
> feeling the primary purpose of his pontifications was convincing
> himself that his behavior was irreproachable, when it was nothing of
> the kind.
>
> I am stunned at the number of people who think he was an asset to
> c.l.l. I guess he did some good as a teacher, but I also think he did
> damage that it has taken us years to recover from (if indeed we have
> recovered yet). While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
> glad he stopped posting here.
>
> -- Scott
Ron Garret
Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com> wrote:
I must not have a very good dictionary then. Could maybe recommend one
for me where I might find the correct definition?
Oh, is "idiot" light-hearted also? Can I call Wade an idiot and expect
that he would not take offense? Or is there some kind of asymmetric
rule that makes it light-hearted when he says it but serious when I say
it? I am genuinely confused by this, and I eagerly await the
instruction of those who are wiser than I.
> >..And there are no smileys or other emoticons to indicate
> > that the word was being used in anything other than its pejorative
> > sense.
>
> I am factoring in his plaint that you had no sense of humor, working
> backwards to dweeb being used playfully. But I /am/ just guessing.
>
Yes, that's the perennial dilemma of all failed comedians: was it that
the audience didn't have a sense of humor, or that the joke just wasn't
very funny? I'm afraid I have no guidance to offer, except to observe
that these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
> > I also have a hard time seeing how "idiot" could have been meant
> > "playfully".
>
> You need to come to a Lisp-NYC meeting.
That presents a logistical challenge for me, since I live in Los
Angeles. I have, however, attended several CRACL meetings (the LA
equivalent of LispNYC) and not once have I ever heard anyone call
someone else a dweeb or an idiot. Are the cultures really that
different? Do you guys really go around calling each other dweebs and
idiots all in good fun?
> > But be all that as it may...
> >
> > Is it not possible that some of those "dweebs" who "attacked first" did
> > not in fact "attack first" but were, like Wade, just trying
> > unsuccessfully to be funny?
>
> In a brawl that drags on for weeks involving dozens of exchanges, who
> threw the first punch is about as interesting as whether Burton picked
> up Taylor or Taylor picked up Burton.
I agree absolutely. But maybe you should direct that comment at Wade
rather than me. He is, after all, the one who took the initiative to
bring it up.
rg
Kenneth Tilton
Idiot can go either way. Again, I am just working backwards from the
confusing charge that you lacked humor.
>
>>> ..And there are no smileys or other emoticons to indicate
>>> that the word was being used in anything other than its pejorative
>>> sense.
>> I am factoring in his plaint that you had no sense of humor, working
>> backwards to dweeb being used playfully. But I /am/ just guessing.
>>
>
> Yes, that's the perennial dilemma of all failed comedians: was it that
> the audience didn't have a sense of humor, or that the joke just wasn't
> very funny? I'm afraid I have no guidance to offer, except to observe
> that these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
You have lost the context, perhaps deliberately: no one is saying the
material was suitable for a Letterman monologue. The charge as far as I
can make out is that you were a buzz-kill when you had a cow over "dweeb".
>
>>> I also have a hard time seeing how "idiot" could have been meant
>>> "playfully".
>> You need to come to a Lisp-NYC meeting.
>
> That presents a logistical challenge for me, since I live in Los
> Angeles. I have, however, attended several CRACL meetings (the LA
> equivalent of LispNYC) and not once have I ever heard anyone call
> someone else a dweeb or an idiot. Are the cultures really that
> different? Do you guys really go around calling each other dweebs and
> idiots all in good fun?
Word. We have to spend all our Google SoC money buying drinks for
neighboring tables that get offended.
kt
Kenneth Tilton
> At least Naggums were somewhat witty. Kenny is what (in his late
> 50s). Hopefully that douchebag Kenny keels over soon.
A month from 58. But I play tennis twice a week, hardcore softball twice
a week, and am a non-smoking vegetarian. I also do tai-chi, chi kung,
and san-shou. The old man smoked and got no exercise and made it past
eighty and I am his clone.
Do the arithmetic.
best, kt
Ron Garret
Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, that's the perennial dilemma of all failed comedians: was it that
> > the audience didn't have a sense of humor, or that the joke just wasn't
> > very funny? I'm afraid I have no guidance to offer, except to observe
> > that these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
> You have lost the context, perhaps deliberately: no one is saying the
> material was suitable for a Letterman monologue. The charge as far as I
> can make out is that you were a buzz-kill when you had a cow over "dweeb".
No, I haven't lost the context, you are missing the point. What I take
issue with is not so much Wade's use of the word "dweeb" (though I do
think it was uncalled for), it's his assertion that the dweebs [sic]
invariably attacked first, that Erik never cast the first stone. How
does he know? Did he review Erik's entire corpus? Were Erik's
responses always justified and proportionate, and by what measure? Is
it not possible that Erik sometimes misinterpreted what was intended to
be a joke, that he was, to borrow your phraseology, being a buzz-kill
when he had his cows?
Now, it's possible that Wade's entire comment was intended to be a joke,
but there's reason to believe that he was being serious. For one thing,
Erik certainly believed that he was invariably the victim and never the
aggressor. But there's an easy way to resolve this: Wade, did you
intend your comment to be a joke?
rg
Wade
No, it was not meant to be funny. That was deadly serious.
Why would I try to be funny when the straight-man is even funnier?
Wade
Kenneth Tilton
> In article <4a3eb7a8$0$31267$607e...@cv.net>,
> Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yes, that's the perennial dilemma of all failed comedians: was it that
>>> the audience didn't have a sense of humor, or that the joke just wasn't
>>> very funny? I'm afraid I have no guidance to offer, except to observe
>>> that these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
>
>> You have lost the context, perhaps deliberately: no one is saying the
>> material was suitable for a Letterman monologue. The charge as far as I
>> can make out is that you were a buzz-kill when you had a cow over "dweeb".
>
> No, I haven't lost the context, you are missing the point. What I take
> issue with is not so much Wade's use of the word "dweeb" (though I do
> think it was uncalled for), it's his assertion that the dweebs [sic]
> invariably attacked first, that Erik never cast the first stone.
Oh. I was only trying to help with the no-humor charge, because I was
curious, too. But if you insist...
> How
> does he know? Did he review Erik's entire corpus? Were Erik's
> responses always justified and proportionate, and by what measure? Is
> it not possible that Erik sometimes misinterpreted what was intended to
> be a joke, that he was, to borrow your phraseology, being a buzz-kill
> when he had his cows?
Gosh, I do not remember anything like that (flames starting over
misapprehended jests). Are you just making this up to keep the thread going?
If we consider only whether Erik ever went off half-cocked, I would have
to side with Wade on this. Erik was always the first amongst us to
identify a troll or dork so it seemed to us as if he were making an
unprovoked attack, but before it was over it was clear his antagonist
did have issues. (No, one did not become a troll or dork because of an
Erik attack.)
>
> Now, it's possible that Wade's entire comment was intended to be a joke,
> but there's reason to believe that he was being serious. For one thing,
> Erik certainly believed that he was invariably the victim and never the
> aggressor. But there's an easy way to resolve this: Wade, did you
> intend your comment to be a joke?
>
Doesn't matter: all jokes speak the truth.
kt
Wade
I remember thinking that very thing sometimes. He seemed
to be going off on someone and starting it. But sure enough
a few posts later the dork would show their true colors. I
usually went back in the posts to see what might
have tipped Erik off and, every time, I found something.
I even pointed it out to the hurt party once or twice, but it was
water off a duck's back.
Wade
Ron Garret
Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com> wrote:
No. I have a genuine difference of opinion.
> If we consider only whether Erik ever went off half-cocked, I would have
> to side with Wade on this. Erik was always the first amongst us to
> identify a troll or dork so it seemed to us as if he were making an
> unprovoked attack, but before it was over it was clear his antagonist
> did have issues. (No, one did not become a troll or dork because of an
> Erik attack.)
Just because someone has issues doesn't mean they deserve abuse.
rg
Ron Garret
<e8d858ba-4def-4127...@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Wade <wade.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
Deadly serious? That's even more serious than I thought.
Tell me this then: when someone disagrees with you, do you consider
calling them an idiot an appropriate response? Is that the model you
would like others to use in their interactions with you on this
newsgroup?
rg
GP lisper
>
> Doesn't matter: all jokes speak the truth.
Ah, yes.
You can insult someone, as long as you laugh at the end.
Getting away with something by sending two conflicting messages.
Stereotypes and jokes become popular because people recognize some
truth in them.
PS. Shame I never got to read Erik realtime....
GP lisper
About half of you came from elsewhere, but the paternal line persists
well.
I regularly eat vegetarians
d p chang
> d p chang wrote:
>> maybe old news on this group, but saw this float by on HN
>>
>> http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
>>
>> bummer.
>
> Everybody dies. Not that he has: one tweet doth not a passing make.
true enough.
>> Wit is educated insolence. - Aristotle
>
> F*ck, you can't even quote him?
@Q: ATTENTION, all abducting aliens! you DON'T need to RETURN them!
@A: Erik Naggum (c.l.l)
\p