sequence points in subexpressions

S

spinoza1111

I am so far as I can tell essentially free of gender identity, meaning that
I have no particular interest in doing anything "like men" or "like women".
The concept seems ridiculous to me.  How about later I make a point of
looking around the room like someone with blue eyes?  That'll show them!

Well, dear boy, that is part of the problem, isn't it. You're a
dickless wonder.

I find your claim that you are sexless hard to credit. Sure, you've
been socialized by the family and corporation to downplay sexual
difference. But (cf Lacan) the society of money and power still runs
on phallic laws, therefore the game becomes associating oneself with
social mechanisms that do the work you're no longer capable of.

Here, the Phallus is the Group, and the game becomes showing that you
belong to the dominant clump. Therefore, it's important for you to
snigger alongside Richard Heathfield even though you don't know him;
all you know is that I'm (apparently) isolated. It doesn't matter to
you that Heathfield is a proven pathological liar who claimed to you
that he searched comp.risks for Nilges and found nothing.

[Or spinoza1111 in case he tries to weasel out saying that that's what
he searched for; on comp.risks spinoza1111 gets seven hits since many
posts were made from Princeton, before I became "spinoza1111"]

With respect to Herb Schildt, all that mattered was that people bought
in and that to "hate Schildt" became a fashion statement.

It is absurd to try to claim that you're sexless in a newsgroup that
is 99.999% male, and in which psychological mechanisms (such as the
Freudian notion of the Horde of sons killing the father) explain so
very much.
 
A

Argonaut

Argonaut said:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:31:06 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
Okay, glad you cleared that up.

So, we forget about "the new game" and revert to the "old game", where
you just call anyone you disagree with a bully, nazi, ******, etc,
etc, whenever you deem appropriate.
[...]

You're wasting your time (and ours). "spinoza1111" isn't going to
become consistent or reasonable just because you remind him that
he's being inconsistent and unreasonable.

The "game" hasn't changed, and it isn't likely to do so. The only
winning move is not to play.

I think it's obvious that the reason Nilges keep posting his trolls
here is that he can always get Heathfield to spar with him. They've
been at it for ten years now?

If you can get Heathfield to sign the pledge I'll happily follow suit.
 
A

Argonaut

The problem is that you're pretending that a discussion circle in
which people start campaigns to ruin others is still subject to rules
of civility after the campaigns begin. Richard Heathfield lies with
malicious intent, without using words like "nazi" or "******": to
detect his lie, you need to do more than scan for keywords. The intent
of his lies is to destroy reputations and employability.

Okay, specifically you called him a Hitler Youth for recounting an
occasion when a lecturer made a mistake.

Since that was probably 30 years ago, and the lecturer wasn unnamed
and probably retired by now, the only person trying to "destroy
reputations and employability" is you, trying to take down Heathfield
by making up stories of an event at which you were not present and
have no knowledge.
 
S

spinoza1111

Argonaut said:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:31:06 -0800 (PST),spinoza1111
Okay, glad you cleared that up.
So, we forget about "the new game" and revert to the "old game", where
you just call anyone you disagree with a bully, nazi, ******, etc,
etc, whenever you deem appropriate. [...]

You're wasting your time (and ours).  "spinoza1111" isn't going to
become consistent or reasonable just because you remind him that
he's being inconsistent and unreasonable.
The "game" hasn't changed, and it isn't likely to do so.  The only
winning move is not to play.

I think it's obvious that the reason Nilges keep posting his trolls
here is that he can always get Heathfield to spar with him. They've
been at it for ten years now?

That's how it may appear, because the posts all subconsciously seem to
be made simultaneously. But what really happened was that at the time
I'd been selected to be on a Princeton University press panel on
internet governance, I posted on comp.programming, starting a well-
received thread on programming professionalism.

Unfortunately, Richard took offense because given his limited culture
and education, he was unable to keep up. Instead of learning, he
claimed that the subject was off-topic, and said [sic]
"comp.programming is not about programmers".

He's an ignorant thug who appears to have been some sort of software
manager: you know, the type of manager who masters some buzzwords and
then enables other people to bully more intelligent programmers. The
usual drill.

So although I fight with him, there is no comparision between us. He
is not my equal, he is in fact, my inferior, and because of this, he's
going to lose. He's not guilty, truly enough, of "criminal libel"
under UK law, because that refers to seditious talk about the monarchy
and the established religion, and Parliament has repealed the law.
However, civil libel is a very, very serious matter in Britain, and
Richard is clearly guilty of it on the basis of his malicious claim
that "Nilges has never posted to comp.risks" made yesterday.

There are any number of solicitors in London who appear to specialize
in reputation management. I do not wish to bring an unnecessary
lawsuit, and at this point all Richard needs to do is

(1) Retract the claim that I was never accepted at comp.risks
(2) Apologize for that claim
(3) Apologize to all other people he has harmed here
(4) Take a month-long sabbatical

I hope this clears things up.
If you can get Heathfield to sign the pledge I'll happily follow suit.

Sure. When the actual, corporate process (of "domination of the
dominated by the dominated") is actually in operation, programmers
prefer to look the other way. Many reasonably intelligent people
entered programming to avoid "politics" and prefer a fantasy,
"libertarian" world of "rough consensus and running code" in which all
their lives they can play the role of Hobbits or Avatars instead of
human beings (like their defeated and complicit Fathers).

The world seems virtual, one in which we can post a fake biography of
Herb Schildt on wikipedia and show it to the guys at the office,
sniggering at our power. But then a spoilsport like Nilges comes along
and points out that wikipedia, on an emergency, ad-hoc basis, has a
policy about "biographies of living persons", and the article had to
be changed.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor: go ahead and cheat a friend.

In this world, "government", "lawyers" and "politicians" are symbols
of a lost reality principle, and a lost internalization of the super-
ego. People found (usually after studying something unrelated) that
they could have fun and be "skilled" in something that was well-paid,
but not be responsible, ultimately, either for bugs in software (their
job being, for example, to find them and not fix them) nor for
something so unimportant as the reputation of another person
(something almost inconceivable in a post-human era in which people
proudly announce dysfunction as an excuse, while not forgiving it in
others).

That's the reason why people snigger when legal threats are made.
Unfortunately, as Lawrence Lessig has pointed out, the law is real. It
created technology: absent law, there would be no electric power.

So...Heathfield may think he's being cute. But his actions have
consequences. There is a growing number of people here who want to see
him go away. Sure, there are some who would like to see ME go away,
mostly Heathfield's toadies and butt boys. But the difference is that
there's something called right and another thing called wrong. It's
both wrong and stupid to make a claim which is so easily found to be
false, as is Heathfield's claim that I've never been accepted at
comp.risks.
 
K

Keith Thompson

Argonaut said:
I think it's obvious that the reason Nilges keep posting his trolls
here is that he can always get Heathfield to spar with him. They've
been at it for ten years now?

If you can get Heathfield to sign the pledge I'll happily follow suit.

I've tried.

Do you *really* think that's a good reason for you to continue feeding
the troll?
 
S

spinoza1111

[...]
I think it's obvious that the reason Nilges keep posting his trolls
here is that he can always get Heathfield to spar with him. They've
been at it for ten years now?
If you can get Heathfield to sign the pledge I'll happily follow suit.

I've tried.

Do you *really* think that's a good reason for you to continue feeding
the troll?

I'm not a "troll".

And you drag yourself, Troglodyte,
To the firelit circle
To see the stoning to death.
You who were present at the Crucifixion,
Tut tut tutting at the inhumanity of it all,
You were present at the Lynching,
Saying it to be an unfortunate necessity, I recall.
Thinking yourself above it all,
Surrounded by toys,
You cannot tear your eyes away.
 
A

Argonaut

I've tried.

Do you *really* think that's a good reason for you to continue feeding
the troll?

My posts are peripheral. Please just killfile my name if they bother
you. I'm sure the troll will keep trolling regardless of whether I
post or not.

In any case, I'm getting weary of the buckets of toxic waste he
empties over every topic, it's not worth the time to try to make sense
of them, since he just keeps repeating himself regardless.
 
S

spinoza1111

My posts are peripheral. Please just killfile my name if they bother
you. I'm sure the troll will keep trolling regardless of whether I
post or not.

In any case, I'm getting weary of the buckets of toxic waste he
empties over every topic, it's not worth the time to try to make sense
of them, since he just keeps repeating himself regardless.

How do you know if I'm repeating myself if you can't make sense of
what I write?
 
A

Argonaut

How do you know if I'm repeating myself if you can't make sense of
what I write?

The same pattern of words, over and over and over.

campaign of personal destruction... Hitler Youth.... fascist....
McCarthy.... When I was at Princeton.... Nash thanked me for the blow
job I gave him... I'm going to sue you for criminal libel/kick your
ass... Heathfield eats babies, raw... I coulda been a contender... The
Horror, the horror...

Really, never has ad nauseam been more appropriate than describing
your output.
 
K

Kenny McCormack

The same pattern of words, over and over and over.

campaign of personal destruction... Hitler Youth.... fascist....
McCarthy.... When I was at Princeton.... Nash thanked me for the blow
job I gave him... I'm going to sue you for criminal libel/kick your
ass... Heathfield eats babies, raw... I coulda been a contender... The
Horror, the horror...

Really, never has ad nauseam been more appropriate than describing
your output.

I'm sure you say the same about most writers that you don't understand.
 
E

Eric Sosman

I think it's obvious that the reason Nilges keep posting his trolls
here is that he can always get Heathfield to spar with him. [...]

Also "Argonaut," it seems. <PLONK>
 
S

spinoza1111

The same pattern of words, over and over and over.

campaign of personal destruction... Hitler Youth.... fascist....
McCarthy.... When I was at Princeton.... Nash thanked me for the blow
job I gave him... I'm going to sue you for criminal libel/kick your
ass... Heathfield eats babies, raw... I coulda been a contender... The
Horror, the horror...

Really, never has ad nauseam been more appropriate than describing
your output.

Well, that's how it sounds if you're attention disordered and unable
to parse, and "scan" for "regular expressions".

Seriously, it's possible that humanity is devolving rapidly...

Are we not men? We are Devo!

and part of the phenomenon would be the disappearance of the ability
to parse at levels "below" Chomsky Type 3 (regular grammars). English
teachers have long noted the inability of students to *write* a
complex sentence (a sentence with more than one verb, at distinct
logical levels) but recently I've been reading about students who
cannot *comprehend* simple complex sentences.

So, it's quite possible that my words float before you as a chain of
noun phrases separated by sheer asterisky noise:

Nilges := ("campaign of personal destruction"|"Hitler Youth"|"fascist"
*)+

However, this grammar is not adequate. I use verbs, you see. But I can
well imagine that you're the type of programmer that drops the ball
because he uses regular expressions for Chomsky < 3 data. That's a
typical script kiddie mistake.
 
S

spinoza1111

I'm sure you say the same about most writers that you don't understand.

I'm sure he does. I can see the guy nodding weak and weary over Moby
Dick, AND C code written above third grade level.
 
S

spinoza1111

Okay, specifically you called him a Hitler Youth for recounting an
occasion when a lecturer made a mistake.

She may have misspoke, but as I have said, people who lie consistently
like to think that the bigger crime is making a mistake. And, they
typically take one error and interpret as a failure to know, since
their common autism makes it impossible for them to differentiate
between intelligent and stupid people.

Furthermore, I do not think of Hitler as a once in a thousand year
Perfect Storm in such a way that it's necessarily bad behavior to note
incipient Fascism in others. If history was tending towards high-tech
barbarism (and the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, and many other
slaughters, show this, as well as the barbarity of people here), then
Hitler, like storms caused by global warming, becomes more probable,
especially little shitbag Hitlers who think it's cute to disrupt
university classes, show off their "knowledge", and complain about
Spark notes tests at which they fail to do well.
Since that was probably 30 years ago, and the lecturer wasn unnamed
and probably retired by now, the only person trying to "destroy
reputations and employability" is you, trying to take down Heathfield
by making up stories of an event at which you were not present and
have no knowledge.

Bullshit. I said that the story seemed to be fabricated, and
"Richard" (not Heathfield) objected, saying it WAS. Nonetheless I've
always qualified my recount by saying that the story seemed to be
fabricated. I've based this on Richard's track record of lying, a
track record which I don't share.

Whereas Richard said that I didn't appear in comp.risks when he
looked, and in the past, he has denied that I've written a book or
worked with Nash, despite the fact that the book's on Amazon, and I'm
in the index of Nasar's book about Nash.

Richard, by using "seems" in his claim about risks, left open merely
the logical possibility that he missed something, but at the cost of
exhibiting a bone technical stupidity that I believe is not his; I
know that he's a sort of low-level techie who's very good at seeing
obvious things such as the fact that the author of Risks digest
postings is Risks List Owner, and finding the Risks search engine; it
is in fact the first "hit" when you Google comp.risks, and when you
click it you see the search box immediately.

However, Heathfield, when he wants to lie, professes ignorance, which
is easy since above the low level, he is an ignorant man
("comp.programming is not about programmers" is a real gem alongside
Seebach's "the 'heap' is a DOS term").
 
A

Argonaut

Well, that's how it sounds if you're attention disordered and unable
to parse, and "scan" for "regular expressions".


I can understand your writing, despite your obfuscation and endless
repetition. I just can't see any reason to bother. It's like the
stream of consciousness of Paul Schrader's "Taxi Driver" might have
been in real life.
 
S

spinoza1111

I can understand your writing, despite your obfuscation and endless
repetition. I just can't see any reason to bother. It's like the
stream of consciousness of Paul Schrader's "Taxi Driver" might have
been in real life.

Who has prophesied these people? Only TRAVIS! Come in Travis!

If you think it's in any way like "all the animals come out at night,
queers, fairies, sick venal...listen you screwheads, here is a man who
wouldn't take it any more, a man who stood up against the scum, the
filth..." then you don't understand it. I think Travis Bickle was a
complex character who saw subhuman politicians betraying people, but
I'm not a taxi driver at this time, I don't go around shooting pimps,
and Travis' stream of consciousness isn't grammatical.

All you've demonstrated is that your culture extends no further than
Pop culture circa 1981.

The problem isn't my stream of consciousness, it's the fact that you
don't have a stream of consciousness. You skip over hard stuff and
make foolish objections that betray your own limitations.
 
S

stan

Did you cut and paste this from somewhere?


In contrast to the above, this sure seems like an unprovoked personal
attack with absolutely no attempt to solve any problem; particularly
any on topic C problem.
Nothing has anything to do with anything if an addictive system has no
memory. However, Heathfield's conduct does resemble, as far as I can
tell from (1) my experience here, (2) my experience in SDS in the
1960s, and (3) my reading that of radical left students in the 1960s
and that of Nazi youth in the 1930s.

How would you describe your behavior?

This particular rant is an unprovoked attack which uses non-free
bandwidth. Why not go green and give us a break for the new year?
Nope, I just decided to investigate the matter of Schildt, because
when I submitted intelligent and well received comments on programming
professionalism to comp.programming in 2000, about the time I was
invited by Princeton University Press to an online panel on Internet
issues alongside Mike Godwin, I found myself targeted by Richard
Heathfield in a Topic Vendetta in which he said "comp.programming is
not about programmers".

So in 2000 you submitted a rebuttal; now years down the road it's
simply venomous, irrational screetching.

Overall, that is correct. Yes, Heathfield pisses me off.

We really do get it, you don't really need to say it every 15 minutes.
But this is because he's disruptive and a trouble maker who
consistently interrupts technical discussions by labeling, or
enabling the labeling, of one of the discussants as
incompetent.

Actually he neither disrupted nor hijacked this thread; that was you.

I prefer to think about what I write. If I have to repeat myself, so
be it. I am saying that this newsgroup could be useful if people came
here less ready to INITIATE such campaigns, and more ready to DEFEND
themselves like men.

I suppose if you think the best defense is a good offense your
behavior could constitute some kind of attempted defense. If you want
to appear at least slightly rational, try quoting the attack you feel
threatened you. Your fear is really hard to understand, and your
response seems unproportional in any event.

Just a thought; why not write a C program that generates hateful
responses and accuses people. Then you could simply post the program
instead of endless rants and at least you would have mentioned
something relevant to this newsgroup. You could then polish it over
time and demonstrate you self-proclaimed considerable skill and we
could learn something about C programming.
 
K

Keith Thompson

Argonaut said:
My posts are peripheral. Please just killfile my name if they bother
you. I'm sure the troll will keep trolling regardless of whether I
post or not.

Most of "spinoza1111"'s posts are followups to other people's posts.
If people stop posting followups, he'll have less opportunity for
trolling.
In any case, I'm getting weary of the buckets of toxic waste he
empties over every topic, it's not worth the time to try to make sense
of them, since he just keeps repeating himself regardless.

I'm eagerly waiting for you to figure out that you're wasting your
time (and ours).

Others, myself included, have tried to engage "spinoza1111" in
reasonable discourse. You've seen the results. Please consider
learning from our mistakes rather than publicly repeating them.

Merry Christmas!
 
A

Argonaut

Who has prophesied these people? Only TRAVIS! Come in Travis!

If you think it's in any way like "all the animals come out at night,
queers, fairies, sick venal...listen you screwheads, here is a man who
wouldn't take it any more, a man who stood up against the scum, the
filth..." then you don't understand it. I think Travis Bickle was a
complex character who saw subhuman politicians betraying people, but
I'm not a taxi driver at this time, I don't go around shooting pimps,
and Travis' stream of consciousness isn't grammatical.

All you've demonstrated is that your culture extends no further than
Pop culture circa 1981.

If the Mohawk fits, and it does, wear it.
(Wrong year, by the way.)
The problem isn't my stream of consciousness, it's the fact that you
don't have a stream of consciousness. You skip over hard stuff and
make foolish objections that betray your own limitations.

Your endless gushing of absurd insults is not "hard to parse" as you
fondly imagine, it's "hard to stomach" and aside from that, boring,
like a cheap slasher movie.

And as Keith Thompson may be happy to hear, I'm thus signing off from
any further attempt to stem your toxic flow. So feel free to issue
libel writes, contact the Wiesenthal Center about the Nazis infesting
c.l.c., whatever turns you on.
 
K

Keith Thompson

Argonaut said:
And as Keith Thompson may be happy to hear, I'm thus signing off from
any further attempt to stem your toxic flow.

I am, thank you.

Merry Christmas!
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,482
Members
44,901
Latest member
Noble71S45

Latest Threads

Top