Let's stop the flames on USENET

[cosc19z5@bayou.uh.edu]

> cosc19z5@bayou.uh.edu wrote:

[Snip]

> 
> > Those most offended by my rants are those who would never use
> > LispOS, or who would do so with the intent of putting it down.
> 
> It isn't the people you are attacking that I am concerned about. There
> are a few dozen of them. It is the thousands of people *reading* and
> coming to opinions of various languages and groups that I am worried
> about. Now, when any of us promote Lisp anywhere people's neurons snap
> shut and they think: "Another Lisp fanatic -- they can't speak
> objectively" -- just as they thought about Amiga users, OS/2 users, and
> so on and so forth. Linux has escaped the fanaticism ghetto through
> *code*, not flamage.

Fanatacism is one thing, and illustrating the faults and/or benefits
of a language is another.  If anyone is small-minded enough to mistake
fanatacism with the above, then we could only benefit by losing their
support.


>  
> > No, but napalm does inflict casualties and that's what the majority
> > of the Lispers are doing.  
> 
> Since when did the goal of a) comp. hierarchy or b) discourse more
> generally become "to inflict casualties?" Take it to
> alt.stupid.flame.wars . I go to the comp. newsgroups for ideas, not name
> calling.

That's too bad, because if you've been in Usenet long enough you will
realize that heated discussions will _ALWAYS_ occur.  You cannot stop
them in any newsgroup -- the only newsgroups in which such discussions
do not occur are in moderated newsgroups.  So my suggestion would be
for you to either find a moderated newsgroup, or stop your whining.


> 
> > Those who preach the drivel that is C++ over
> > in unrelated newsgroups get a foot firmly planted in their posterior,
> > and realize just how little respect they and their miserable language
> > command.  I don't intend to improve PR, as far as I'm concerned the
> > people I flame are already lost causes -- I do it to harass them and
> > get them to think twice before opening their mouths anywhere near
> > our newsgroups.
> 
> That is so incredibly naive as to make attacking windmills seem like a
> profitable exercise. You *cannot* reform Usenet by attacking people for
> so many reasons that I only have time to list a small subset:

I would love to know what it is you are responding to, because it 
certainly is not what I wrote above.  Where did I mention reforming
Usenet?  Perhaps you should take the time to read a post before you
respond to it -- you will find that doing so makes your comments
somewhat accurate.


> 
> #1. People who are attacked turn off their brains *even more*.

Those who get attacked have their brains turned down so little (or
little intellect to begin with), that they could shut them off
and few would notice.


> 
> #2. People who are attacked feel a need to respond -- like little
> children each of you will fight forever for the "last word" -- instead
> of restricting the garbage you extend it indefinately.

Your point?  


> 
> #3. Usenet has constant turnover -- even if it were possible to "train"
> this group of C++ people, the lesson is forgotten in two months.

I'm not out to train, I'm out to put down.  When they leave, and a new
crop of ignorant morons come in, then I'm rewarded with more victims.



> 
> #4. If the Lisp newsgroup is "enlightened" (your word) then the readers
> there can separate the bullshit from the truth without your help.

The same can be said with regards to this mailing lists and your 
"comments".


> 
> As a free human being in a free medium you have every right to spew
> whatever you want, but I feel the need to point out that if you believe
> that you are helping anyone or anything then you are sorely mistaken.
> Alaric B. Williams was more honest: "That's not a serious attempt to
> save the world, it's just a hobby."

I'm only helping myself.


> 
> I'm not perfect: I've been pulled into my share of flame wars. Such is
> the imperfect nature of human communication. But there is a difference
> between getting pulled into one and *setting out to* antagonize people,
> which can only result in long, vacuous threads of did-to, did-not speak.

Cut the crap Mr. Prescod, no one gets pulled into a flamewar, everyone
who is in there is in there out of his/her own free will.  Your double
standard is hardly amusing -- you admit to flaming, but consider yourself
a victim.  Very amusing indeed.


> 
> This is my last post in this particular thread because I can't imagine
> anything more that I could have to say on it.

Then you have done me a great favor.  Consider my posting to be
"the last word" then.


> 
>  Paul Prescod
> 


-- 
Cya,
Ahmed