From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!134.222.94.5!npeer.kpnqwest.net!reader3.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Common Lisp, the one true religion! References: <9nc1vu$6a2ng$1@ID-60069.news.dfncis.de> <3B9A68B6.4AF52FE0@isomedia.com> <3208966756647218@naggum.net> <3B9BF281.BB7A9D73@mediaone.net> <3209070617000512@naggum.net> <3B9CE2BD.B76EE230@mediaone.net> <8Hep7.2775$386.584685@news20.bellglobal.com> <3BA6A474.30C94BB8@mediaone.net> Mail-Copies-To: never From: Erik Naggum Message-ID: <3209770889296569@naggum.net> Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 45 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 03:01:32 GMT X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@Norway.EU.net X-Trace: reader3.kpnqwest.net 1000782092 193.71.66.49 (Tue, 18 Sep 2001 05:01:32 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 05:01:32 MET DST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:16424 * Carl Gay > Actually I don't, but even if I did "break the RFCs" the idea that > everyone must read the RFCs before posting to newsgroups is ludicrous > anyway... Whoever raised this idea before you now try to refute it? Such strawman arguments are pretty solid signs of a dishonest or combative personality. > Personally, I don't think many people who post to this newsgroup are > interested in being cooperative or even non-confrontational. This attitude of yours has certainly shaped your own behavior and you seem to get precisely what you want, like every other moron who comes here with a combative personality disorder where the primary concern is to express objection to any real or perceived authority, from RFCs via tacitly accepted conventions to people who know what they are talking about. Why are you not happy getting what you seem to want? Perhaps _you_ are mistaken about other people and _you_ cause them to behave towards you in ways that _you_ invite them to, but would not if you had been showing at least _some_ signs of being a reasonably good person? Now, chances are very good that you will not be able to see through your own attitude problem, but will instead consider this message proof of everything you believe. You have posted some highly annoying and false claims about other people and you get a hostile response, which you _deserve_, but you take it as evidence of your initial assumption. Now, if your goal is to find out if other people are violent, is the best way to do that to provoke them by stabbing them in the eye in the interest of "behavioral science research" or to deal with people on non-violent terms first? It is actually your choice, and let me just remind you that _I_ dealt with your "fuck the news conventions" attitude by asking you to please break your lines, and your response was "You're so combative. I think you may have "issues"." I think we now know who has "issues" and what they are: An irrational rejection of _any_ authority. The question is: Can you discard your issues and just talk about what you think is worth your while talking about instead of being a combative jerk? Or will you now respond childishly with rejection of the perceived authority who tells you to behave? Again, it is actually your very own choice, but I am of course making it harder for you to do the right thing, because it would not be showing any character on your part to behave well if _you_ were treated nicely first. However, considering your behavior towards me, I would like to see if you can behave yourself or will remain a combative jerk towards anyone who tells you to can it. ///