rip erik naggum

124 views
Skip to first unread message

d p chang

unread,
Jun 20, 2009, 11:08:25 AM6/20/09
to
maybe old news on this group, but saw this float by on HN

http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884

bummer.

\p
---
Wit is educated insolence. - Aristotle

Kenneth Tilton

unread,
Jun 20, 2009, 12:14:00 PM6/20/09
to
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.

> ---
> 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

unread,
Jun 20, 2009, 1:46:44 PM6/20/09
to
+ Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com>:

> 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

unread,
Jun 20, 2009, 3:13:06 PM6/20/09
to
Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.

Slobodan

Kenneth Tilton

unread,
Jun 20, 2009, 3:51:04 PM6/20/09
to
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.

kt

ps. RIP, Erik. k

Duncan

unread,
Jun 20, 2009, 4:18:50 PM6/20/09
to
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:51:04 -0400, Kenneth Tilton 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.

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

unread,
Jun 20, 2009, 4:52:11 PM6/20/09
to
RIP.

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

unread,
Jun 20, 2009, 7:12:32 PM6/20/09
to

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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 12:09:56 AM6/21/09
to
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

Kenneth Tilton

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 1:14:27 AM6/21/09
to

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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 1:58:53 AM6/21/09
to
+ Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com>:

> 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 2:00:51 AM6/21/09
to
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. 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 5:15:29 AM6/21/09
to
On Jun 21, 6:09 am, Scott Burson <FSet....@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 7:13:29 AM6/21/09
to
On 21 June, 05:09, 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.

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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 7:17:36 AM6/21/09
to
On 21 June, 10:15, Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan.blaze...@gmail.com>
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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 11:52:42 AM6/21/09
to

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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 1:11:09 PM6/21/09
to
Scott Burson <FSet...@gmail.com> writes:

> 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 1:11:34 PM6/21/09
to
On Jun 20, 10:14 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 1:17:13 PM6/21/09
to
On Jun 20, 11:00 pm, gugamilare <gugamil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 1:41:25 PM6/21/09
to
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.

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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 1:51:10 PM6/21/09
to
On Jun 21, 8:17 pm, Scott Burson <FSet....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 11:00 pm, gugamilare <gugamil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 21 jun, 01:09, Scott Burson <FSet....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > > While I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave, I'm very
> > > 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 1:59:24 PM6/21/09
to
In article
<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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 1:59:55 PM6/21/09
to
On Jun 21, 11:41 am, dkco...@panix.com (David Combs) wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 2:02:04 PM6/21/09
to
On Jun 21, 11:59 am, Ron Garret <rNOSPA...@flownet.com> wrote:
> In article
> <dfa66fc4-3947-468c-be7e-f5cc8b705...@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,

I see you still have no sense of humor idiot.

Wade

Slobodan Blazeski

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 2:33:32 PM6/21/09
to
Even Erik's own death provoked a flame war, as a homage from cll.

Slobodan


Ron Garret

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 2:42:03 PM6/21/09
to
In article
<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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 2:56:31 PM6/21/09
to

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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 2:57:15 PM6/21/09
to
On 21 jun, 15:33, Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan.blaze...@gmail.com>
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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 3:11:18 PM6/21/09
to
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. But I
had the feeling that he used this only as a welcome excuse for drawing a
final line.

Nicolas

Kenneth Tilton

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 3:18:09 PM6/21/09
to

I was wondering the same thing. My guess is your jumping all over the
word "dweeb". Maybe that was used playfully.

kt

Kenneth Tilton

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 3:18:54 PM6/21/09
to

Give us a minute.

kt

fft1976

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 3:28:12 PM6/21/09
to

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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 3:51:02 PM6/21/09
to
In article <4a3e8775$0$31264$607e...@cv.net>,
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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 4:02:58 PM6/21/09
to
In article <87y6rlb...@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 4:52:47 PM6/21/09
to
Ron Garret <rNOS...@flownet.com> writes:

> 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 4:56:00 PM6/21/09
to
Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> Really sad, I always hoped that he'll return someday on cll.
>
> Slobodan

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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 5:21:35 PM6/21/09
to

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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 5:22:16 PM6/21/09
to

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

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

MarkH

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 6:00:44 PM6/21/09
to
At least Naggums were somewhat witty. Kenny is what (in his late
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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 6:20:47 PM6/21/09
to
In article <4a3ea48d$0$5926$607e...@cv.net>,
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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 6:43:47 PM6/21/09
to

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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 6:50:54 PM6/21/09
to
MarkH wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 7:30:20 PM6/21/09
to
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. 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 7:50:00 PM6/21/09
to
On Jun 21, 12:42 pm, Ron Garret <rNOSPA...@flownet.com> wrote:
> In article
> <a944629b-cfa5-4a9f-85eb-241e1c284...@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,

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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 7:55:11 PM6/21/09
to
Ron Garret wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 8:07:44 PM6/21/09
to
On Jun 21, 5:55 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article <4a3eb7a8$0$31267$607ed...@cv.net>,

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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 8:56:03 PM6/21/09
to
In article <4a3ec864$0$31265$607e...@cv.net>,
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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 9:06:22 PM6/21/09
to
In article
<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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 9:48:14 PM6/21/09
to
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:55:11 -0400, <kent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 9:52:38 PM6/21/09
to

About half of you came from elsewhere, but the paternal line persists
well.

I regularly eat vegetarians

d p chang

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 11:51:56 PM6/21/09
to
Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com> writes:

> 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

Scott Burson

unread,
Jun 22, 2009, 12:33:08 AM6/22/09
to
On Jun 21, 11:33 am, Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan.blaze...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> Even Erik's own death provoked a flame war, as a homage from cll.

LOL And a fitting homage it is, too.

I'm glad some people remember him fondly. I just don't happen to be
one of them.

I'm going to leave it at that. I've said my piece, and he's gone now.

-- Scott


Lars Rune Nøstdal

unread,
Jun 22, 2009, 1:42:44 AM6/22/09
to
On Jun 20, 5:08 pm, d p chang <wea...@meer.net> wrote:
> maybe old news on this group, but saw this float by on HN
>
>  http://twitter.com/kjetilv/status/2251766884
>
> bummer.
>
> \p
> ---

> Wit is educated insolence. - Aristotle


(Since, apparently, motzarella doesn't actually work anymore or posts
seem to take days to get through - I'll try the horrible Google
interface.)

I will miss him. I enjoyed and often gained new insights from his
posts.

I read his rants about C++ at a time when it had already ever so
slightly begun to dawn on me that "something was very wrong here".

He really hit the nail on the head both regarding the social and
technical aspects of C++. He did this more than once; not just wrt. C+
+.

I think he had a more direct connection with the/his/"our"
subconsciousness and could bring its subtle and too often ignored
voice, "I'm here - and I'm trying to tell you, something", to light.

Again, I will miss him -- and I'll add, as another twitter said; "the
world can fuck off."

Espen Vestre

unread,
Jun 22, 2009, 3:56:26 AM6/22/09
to
Scott Burson <FSet...@gmail.com> writes:

> I'm glad some people remember him fondly. I just don't happen to be
> one of them.

I remember him as an enthusiastic and very friendly person the couple of
times I met him IRL, and also in mail exchanges that we had over the
last 15-20 years. I also won't forget the absolutely horrible
accusations he made in usenet posts (in norwegian) a couple of years
ago, but now that he's gone I'm a little sad that we never met IRL
again, because I'm sure we would be able to square that up over a beer.

RIP.
--
(espen)

Nicolas Neuss

unread,
Jun 22, 2009, 4:15:13 AM6/22/09
to
Ron Garret <rNOS...@flownet.com> writes:

> 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.

Ron, I'm shocked. Someone really told you in a public forum to "fuck off"?
Terrible indeed. Although you asked only this honest question (and were
not satisfied with the answers, played dumb, and asked it again):

"I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"

Yes, such foul speech should really be avoided.

Nicolas

Miles Bader

unread,
Jun 22, 2009, 7:02:26 AM6/22/09
to
Nicolas Neuss <last...@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> writes:
> "I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
> so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
> who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
> than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
> rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"

He did contribute positively to making Emacs handling of multibyte text
better, albeit only after quite a bit of sometimes inexcusably nasty
ranting.

I get the feeling he was basically a smart guy but just couldn't control
his emotions...

-Miles

--
Inhumanity, n. One of the signal and characteristic qualities of humanity.

John Thingstad

unread,
Jun 22, 2009, 7:02:58 AM6/22/09
to
På Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:15:13 +0200, skrev Nicolas Neuss
<last...@math.uni-karlsruhe.de>:

To be fair Naggum could really be a nuisance. He could fly off the wall
for the smallest thing and be a real pain. For that matter I feel about
the same about Bean.
That does not mean I don't respect them. Just that they need handling with
care, like explosives. (That's pedantics for you.)
I regarded Naggums aggravated post's with some degree of humor. Such
passion, such determination. He had a drive I have rarely seen in anyone
else.

Anyhow, I am in the group that has missed him..

---------------------
John Thingstad

Aatu Koskensilta

unread,
Jun 22, 2009, 7:24:13 AM6/22/09
to
GP lisper <spam...@CloudDancer.com> writes:

> You can insult someone, as long as you laugh at the end.

In this electronic age the custom is to accompany insults and cheerful
suggestions that people fuck off with a few happy smileys. The point of
this has always eluded me.

Giovanni Gigante

unread,
Jun 22, 2009, 9:45:36 AM6/22/09
to
Aatu Koskensilta wrote:

> In this electronic age the custom is to accompany insults and cheerful
> suggestions that people fuck off with a few happy smileys. The point of
> this has always eluded me.


a kind of condition handling?

d p chang

unread,
Jun 22, 2009, 10:20:13 AM6/22/09
to
Nicolas Neuss <last...@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> writes:

> Ron Garret <rNOS...@flownet.com> writes:
>
>> 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.
>

> Although you asked only this honest question (and were not satisfied
> with the answers, played dumb, and asked it again):
>
> "I keep hearing about how Erik was such a smart guy and how he contributed
> so much to the Lisp community. I have a serious question for those of you
> who say that his net influence was positive despite his abrasiveness: other
> than "The Long, Painful History of Time", a few pithy quotes, and a lot of
> rants on usenet, what exactly did Erik contribute?"

maybe they were a little rant-y (i only remember the high order bits
now), but i recall there being several huge discussions about structure
(eg, consider macros) that where his opinions were insightful.

i do agree thtat rant-y-ness seems/qseemed to turn people off to the words
(whether they agree or not).

\p

Robert Uhl

unread,
Jun 22, 2009, 12:53:35 PM6/22/09
to
Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> 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.)

I think his message <32436974...@naggum.no> was pretty
unprovoked...Greg Neumann didn't seem like a jerk in that thread, just
someone with a different set of opinions.

I'm pretty sure that your parenthetical aside is possibly incorrect as
well. In another newsgroup I used to frequent there was a fellow a lot
like Naggum: very smart, very friendly in person, very frequently
correct in his factual matter--and absolutely, utterly unpleasant to
people he disagreed with on matters of opinion or fact. Rather than
attempting to persuade in good faith, he'd push and push and push people
until, yes, they started posting emotionally, and then he'd call them
out for their emotional postings.

This boiled down to 'how dare you react as though your buttons have been
pushed after I've been pushing your buttons!' Not really productive
behaviour... There's a reason for the old proverb that one can catch
more flies with honey than with vinegar.

I spent a good deal of time reading a large number of Naggum's posts
this weekend. I think he was a lot like a lot of us technical types:
extremely intelligent, but not terribly socially apt. I'm sorry that
he's dead, and I'm sorry that he stopped posting his valuable posts--but
not sorry that he stopped posting his abuse.

--
If your adversary is badly bunkered, there is no rule against your
standing over him and counting his strokes aloud, but it will be a wise
precaution to arm yourself with the niblick before doing so, so as to
meet him on equal terms. --Horace G. Hutchinson, 1886

Ron Garret

unread,
Jun 22, 2009, 1:20:14 PM6/22/09
to
In article <87iqion...@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
Nicolas Neuss <last...@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:

I am not playing dumb. That question was posed in all seriousness, and
I stand by it. It seems to me that Erik is venerated far beyond what
his actual contributions would merit. One explanation for this is that
he made contributions that I was not aware of. What exactly is wrong
with asking what those might be?

rg

Kaz Kylheku

unread,
Jun 22, 2009, 2:22:02 PM6/22/09
to
On 2009-06-22, Robert Uhl <eadm...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Kenneth Tilton <kent...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> 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.)
>
> I think his message <32436974...@naggum.no> was pretty
> unprovoked...Greg Neumann didn't seem like a jerk in that thread, just
> someone with a different set of opinions.

Having looked at the thread just now, my conclusion is that Neumann was being a
trolling buffoon, and Naggum pretty much wrote what had to be written,
and then some.

There was lots more headroom for Naggum to be a jerk, which he didn't take
advantage of.

> I'm pretty sure that your parenthetical aside is possibly incorrect as
> well. In another newsgroup I used to frequent there was a fellow a lot
> like Naggum: very smart, very friendly in person, very frequently
> correct in his factual matter--and absolutely, utterly unpleasant to
> people he disagreed with on matters of opinion or fact.

Can you find an instance where Naggum disagreed over a matter of fact,
and he was the one who persisted on the wrong end of the fact stick?

> This boiled down to 'how dare you react as though your buttons have been
> pushed after I've been pushing your buttons!' Not really productive
> behaviour... There's a reason for the old proverb that one can catch
> more flies with honey than with vinegar.

For what reason do we catch flies, and with what intent?

On Usenet, the role of honey is played by sticky pattern matches located in a
kill file.

But we tend to enjoy free-style swatting for a while.

Kenneth Tilton

unread,
Jun 22, 2009, 2:33:50 PM6/22/09