Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.

On Aug 16, 9:58*pm, "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 4:40 pm, "jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de" <jos...@corporate-
> world.lisp.de> wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 1:20 am, "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 16, 3:03 pm, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
>
> > > > "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>
> > > > >> >> "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
> > > > >> >> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> > > > > Publish it. Post it here. Post whatever certificates or test you have, with
> > > > > a scan of the cert or test, date etc. When i see that you published yours
> > > > > and mean it, i'll post mine.
>
> > > > Again, I'm not the one making any claims.
>
> > > > I just note that, as usual, you make strong assertions in your posts, but
> > > > when challenged to back up your statements with actual evidence, you
> > > > completely crumble.
>
> > > LOL.
>
> > > Crumble my ass. It appears you, who completely crumbled.

Why do Lispers feed this troll so much? Arrogant, senseless,
downright ass sometimes. I like to LOL at some of his inconsequential
fun posts, but not when he acts like a nuisance.

> > > It appears to me, anytime some Lisper want to challenge me head to
> > > head, then i follow up with explict terms, they put their tail between
> > > their ass and run off all politely. This happened to Rainer, Geuner,
> > > Tim, others, and now you.

Well, it seems to me you're doing exactly what you claim they did.
I'd guess they preferred to just ignore a crazy man.

> That seems to be my situation here in comp.lang.lisp, repeatedly. I
> can again, start to write elaborately, cite url to past threads,
> describe the situation, etc. But it's no use.

Poor Xah. I'd recommend less drugs and hookers. They are driving you
insane, I tell you.

xahlee@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 16, 4:40 pm, "jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de" <jos...@corporate-
> world.lisp.de> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 17, 1:20 am, "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Aug 16, 3:03 pm, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>"xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>>
>>>>>>>>"xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>>
>>>>>Publish it. Post it here. Post whatever certificates or test you have, with
>>>>>a scan of the cert or test, date etc. When i see that you published yours
>>>>>and mean it, i'll post mine.
>>
>>>>Again, I'm not the one making any claims.
>>
>>>>I just note that, as usual, you make strong assertions in your posts, but
>>>>when challenged to back up your statements with actual evidence, you
>>>>completely crumble.
>>
>>>LOL.
>>
>>>Crumble my ass. It appears you, who completely crumbled.
>>
>>>My statement that IQ that lead to your challenge was:
>>>«If you have fairly above average IQ like me, then, my general advice
>>>for long-term career choices is that pursue what you like and the
>>>bosses will compete their heads off to employ you. While you are still
>>>in a shoehorning stage, you can meanwhile mop McDonald's toilets.»
>>
>>>The remark was made in the context of making fun about lisp jobs
>>>status inquiry. You want to dig theXah'sIQ part.
>>
>>>LOL. Don, I LOL.
>>
>>>It appears to me, anytime some Lisper want to challenge me head to
>>>head, then i follow up with explict terms, they put their tail between
>>>their ass and run off all politely. This happened to Rainer, Geuner,
>>>Tim, others, and now you.
>>
>>>I LOLz. Comp.lang.lisp makes me happy. As Roger Rabbit said in Who
>>>Framed Roger Rabbit as he makes a silhouette of a window:
>>
>>> H A P P Y
>>
>>> Xah
>>>∑http://xahlee.org/
>>
>>>☄
>>
>
>>Well, given that you seem to be unable to learn much Lisp beyond basic
>>Emacs scripting,
>
>
> Huh? Rainer, suppose you have a argument in a bar, then you reasonably
> proved that you are right. But the monkeys simply kept on about how
> you are stupid and wrong? What can you do?
>
> That seems to be my situation here in comp.lang.lisp, repeatedly. I
> can again, start to write elaborately, cite url to past threads,
> describe the situation, etc. But it's no use.
>
>
>>nobody here is impressed yet.
>
>
> You think?
>
>
>>Most of your posts show that you have a
>>confused understanding of Lisp.
>
>
> Yeah, keep saying that doesn't make you right. You know at least that
> right?
>
>
>
>>comp.lang.lisp seems to be your
>>favorite
>>newsgroup now, but you are on a beginner level.
>
>
> Yeah, keep saying that doesn't make you right. You know at least that
> right?
>
>
>>If somebody
>>shows you some basic Lisp code (like I showed you how to easily
>>implement your Mathematica function with a better interface) you
>>run away and can't find the post.
>
>
> Huh? And i gave you explanation on how you are just incorrect and just
> very silly.
>
> The thread is here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp....519b32b4ef5d5/
>
> You know, in science there's a priciple of falsifiable. That is, if a
> claim is made, one important aspect of science with regards to claims
> is whether it is falsifiable.
>
> So, in our debates or argument, whatever the topic, it is often
> possible, to make the claim, argument, or subject, in such as way,
> that can clearly show which party is wrong. I have tried to suggest
> this here and there. But you morons, simply ignores it. Then, just
> kept claiming that how i was wrong.
>
> I don't think i need to tress or repeat again, that i think you guys,
> although knows lisp technical details, but as far as the general
> argument here, especial on any argument against me, are completely
> idiotic.
>
> And again, this can be phrased into into a reasonable way so we can
> all see who's all just hot air. Again, i tried to do this many times,
> with end result that you morons simply become quite, or start to went
> off completely off topic drivel, or whatnot.
>
> As far as newsgroup goes, perhaps it is doomed to be stupid drivels
> when it comes to issues or argument that has some element of opinion.
> What can i do?

The trick is an energy-saving one-liner high on wit and low on anger.
That manifests by example your superiority. And saves a lot of energy.
And scores better with the judges (the lurkers).

You see clearly you have no more hope with the average Usenet denizen
did Alice with her brunchmates, yet you persist. Doh!*

Your countryman said it best, "Win without fighting." Toss off a mot and
get on with yoru coding. Even if I slip and write something long and
angry I delete it all and replace with a one-liner.

Unless I am looped.

hth, kenny

* Wouldn't it be cool to have not a moderated forum but a /judged/
forum? Lurkers could score without unlurking? Talk about an addictive NG. k

---
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/


>
>
>>I haven't seen any significant amount of Lisp code (remember, this
>>is comp.lang.lisp) in all the years from you.
>
>
> LOL. I didn't claim to have write many lisp code. What's your problem?
>
> I have claimed, for example, that i know functional programing more
> than you morons, and i have claimed and claim now, the fundamental
> problems lisp as shown in my essay here:
> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w..._problems.html
>
> We can, itemize the essay, make it into precise statements, and we can
> argue in detail. The statements can be made so that each is verifiable
> and falsifiable, and most of us would agree that it is a reasonable
> rephrasing from my essay. Then, we can argue in detail about which. Do
> you want to do that??
>
> And also, perhaps you might consider the whole essay is rather ill
> conceived by some wrong perspective, or perhaps there are more
> important or practical perpective, etc. But you have to give detail
> ok? You can't just say your opponent is wrong and think that you won a
> argument, ok?
>
> I mean, before i thought most morons in newsgroup just tried to fuck
> around. I made this suggestion particular about you in some thread
> maybe 6 months back. I made it explicit, a suggestion that we can each
> put money in paypal, as some way to make sure at least we are sincere.
> But if i recall, you more or less chicken out with some friendly
> words.
>
> Let me be more positive on this... since we don't have nothing to do.
> Let me suggest, you pick some particular claim i made that you think
> i'm stupid or wrong. Then, we can go on, with above guidelines perhaps
> about precision of statement, verifiability, fasifiability, and any
> other things about argument that make it a better one. Then, we can
> argue in detail. So, in the end, we can see who's more right.
>
> I'm not actually sure i want to do this since i'm quite tired and my
> REPEATED tries to be reasonable are often met with fucking morons or
> no response, here in this year, as well as the large, hundred+ threads
> in gnu.emacs.help this month. (go ahead, you can read it in
> group.google.com or nicely summarized and linked here bottom:
> http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/chat_style_posts.html
> )
>
>
>>All I saw is
>>some basic code how to script Emacs.
>
>
> Don't be a moron. What's scripting emacs has to do with what??
>
> Well, i haven't see you post a single line of Mathematica. LOL.
> All i see you do is posting Common Lisp scripts.
>
> Is creditial you are after now?? hum?
>
> I mean, i wrote some 500 or 1000 words on this to you in some thread
> about maybe 6 months ago. You forgot it all? huuh?
>
> What is your exact argument? What you trying to say??
>
> Let me help you... are you trying to say, that because since i don't
> have Common Lisp experience, and haven't written a lot emacs lisp,
> therefore my lisp language criticism is wrong or incorrect?
>
> Is that what you are trying to say? C'mon, no problem. If it is, it's
> a valid statement. We can start to argue about that.
>
>
>>All I see is long
>>text with often little information for this newsgroup. It's
>>not that everybody needs to be a good programmer, but from
>>you we have seen mostly zero.
>
>
> See above.
>
>
>>Maybe it is about time to actually learn the programming language you are writing so much about?
>
>
> I think, perhaps it is time, for you to open your eyes, and see that
> the world doesn't revolve around Common Lisp.
>
> I don't think this will ever happen. As i have explicitly said in one
> of the criticisms on your posts, that whever other lang is mentioned
> in a argument in a relevant way, you always as far as i've seen,
> completely ignore it, then bury your head into Common Lisp.
>
> I tried to not waste my time and type as fast as i can in this reply
> because from my past experiences repsonding you to in any argument
> that is negative on CL is fruitless.
>
> Rainer, suppose you have a argument in a bar, then you reasonably
> proved that you are right. But the monkeys simply kept on about how
> you are stupid and wrong? What can i do?
>
> What to do with the monkeys, seriously? I say 1+1 is 2, they say no.
> Then i show them logic, then say logic is not all. Then i show
> history, social context, but then they say it's all made up. I mention
> science, they say science can be wrong. I mention philosophy about
> epismitology, they say argument is not philosophy. I mention about 2
> stones placed together makes it 2. They say that's obvious but 1+1 is
> still not 2. I mention how abstraction is used, but they say stones
> are not abstraction. Rainer, what to do with the monkeys? This happens
> repeatedly here. Should i now take 10 min to find the exact url in
> groups.google.com about these threads? hum? should i should i should
> i? Is it worth that effort? worth it worth it worth it?
>
> I mentioned, explicitly, in one of my post to you, that we could hire
> arbitors for our argument. For example, we can hire renowned computer
> scientists to judge their valuation of my criticism of lisp. The
> hiring we can share, or prhaps someone knows someone can we can get
> him in here. We can make sure, that the arbitor is fair, and his
> result will be published say in some reputable publication. The
> arbitor will be ones we both agree as qualified. Right? I suggested
> this line of thought in the past, remember? But Rainer, what to do
> with the monkeys?
>
> Monkeys! Really fucking stupid monkeys. Stupid, fucking stupid,
> moronic, sloppy, idiotic, dumb, lackluster, brainless. Very ignorant
> about almost all subject except some technical details of CL.
> Extremely stupid....
>
> ok, this is what you get for fast typing. Try to respond, and i'll
> respond appropriately. I don't fear of typing fast now. For the moment
> i take a break of elaborate construction and composition. Folks,
> respond! show me the degree of your moronicity, and i'll show you in
> detail how it is so. (gratis!)
>
> Xah
> ∑ http://xahlee.org/
>
> ☄

Clearly ridiculous. Since intelligence is more or less the ability to
solve new problems,
you would need that same intelligence to be musically intelligent
(solving problems in music).
Clearly proven by the fact that solving musical problems is a type of
solving new problems.

As far as I can skim-read, google doesn't want us to knol about
multiple intelligence either:
http://knol.google.com/k/boris-kazac...zxw65mxxlt7/2#
Although they also have articles on business intelligence [cries].

Kenny <kentilton@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
> * Wouldn't it be cool to have not a moderated forum but a /judged/ forum?
> Lurkers could score without unlurking? Talk about an addictive NG. k

I greatly prefer threaded newsreaders for Usenet.

But in some sense, web forums like Digg or Reddit or Slashdot are much like
you suggest, aren't they? A place to post messages, with the audience voting
on how interesting those posts are. And the most interesting ones bubble up
to the top.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don@geddis.org
It's true that every time you hear a bell, an angel gets his wings. But what
they don't tell you is, every time you hear a mousetrap snap, an angel gets set
on fire. -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey

"xahlee@gmail.com" <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
> [...] stupid and wrong? [...]
> But you morons [...]
> you guys [...] are completely idiotic.
> [...] just hot air. [...] off topic drivel [...]
> [...] newsgroup [...] doomed to be stupid drivels [...]
> [...] you morons [...]
> [...] morons in newsgroup just tried to fuck around. [...]
> my REPEATED tries to be reasonable are often met with fucking morons [...]
> Don't be a moron. [...]
> [...] show me the degree of your moronicity [...]

Hey, quick suggestion for you Xah: if you're actually trying to convince
your audience of your point of view, you might have more success if you
aren't so rude to them at the same time.

Perhaps -- just perhaps -- you're generally ignored ... because you deserve
to be.

> the fundamental problems lisp as shown in my essay here:
> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w..._problems.html
> We can, itemize the essay, make it into precise statements, and we can
> argue in detail. The statements can be made so that each is verifiable
> and falsifiable, and most of us would agree that it is a reasonable
> rephrasing from my essay. Then, we can argue in detail about which. Do
> you want to do that??

Ok. At least it will get the thread finally on-topic again.

> Let me be more positive on this... since we don't have nothing to do.
> Let me suggest, you pick some particular claim i made that you think
> i'm stupid or wrong. Then, we can go on, with above guidelines perhaps
> about precision of statement, verifiability, fasifiability, and any
> other things about argument that make it a better one. Then, we can
> argue in detail. So, in the end, we can see who's more right.

Sure. Let's do it.

Your first claimed "fundamental problem" of Lisp is:

Lisp relies on a regular nested syntax. However, the lisp syntax has
several irregularities, that reduces such syntax's power and confuses
the language semantics. (i.e. those «' # ; ` ,» chars.)

I'm aware that Lisp's reader, with the standard readtable, offers a
syntax that includes the characters your mentioned. I happen to think
they're convenient to the programmer, offer additional benefit, and cause
no problems.

Let me grant that the majority of Lisp has a "regular nested syntax".
Let me grant that there are a few (deliberate!) "irregularities".

The topics in dispute are:

1. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
"reduce the syntax's power".

2. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters
"confuses the language semantics".

3. Whether the syntax "irregularities" due to the five mentioned characters,
even if (hypothetically) agreed to be non-optimal, are they a "fundamental
problem of Lisp"?

You make all three claims. I disagree (strongly!) with all three.

How can we resolve this? What process do you recommend, for eventually
discovering whether you or I are in fact correct about this topic?

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don@geddis.org
Boss: Hey, I liked how you got me the RJ-17 form.
Scott: You mean, "slowly, and with a bad attitude"?
Boss: No, I mean "without making me threaten to fire you."
Scott: Well, I aim to please, to a very small extent.
-- "Basic Instructions", Scott Meyer, 7/9/2008

On Aug 17, 2:58*am, "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Maybe it is about time to actually learn the programming language you are writing so much about?
>
> I think, perhaps it is time, for you to open your eyes, and see that
> the world doesn't revolve around Common Lisp.

Note that I said Lisp, not Common Lisp. Pick one.
Learn Scheme. Use it. Write code with it. Stuff that's longer
than five lines. Currently you are on a beginner level
in any Lisp.

The 'technical talk' here is to help people to write Lisp software.
That's why it is comp.lang.lisp.

Btw., I don't do Mathematica programming - I also don't post
to Mathematica-related newsgroups or mailing lists and try
to 'educate' people there. I would only expose my lack of
knowledge about Mathematica - like you expose your
lack of knowledge of Lisp here. Even if I learn enough
Mathematica to argue with people, why and who would care?
It would be a waste of time, unless I really have some
interest in the topic. But I don't have it.

Xah Lee wrote:
«As far as newsgroup goes, perhaps it is doomed to be stupid drivels
when it comes to issues or argument that has some element of opinion.
What can i do?»

Kenny <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The trick is an energy-saving one-liner high on wit and low on anger.
> That manifests by example your superiority. And saves a lot of energy.
> And scores better with the judges (the lurkers).

i can see that's the style you are inclined. LOL.

the problem with that is, there are already too many tech geekers who
like to do one-liner smart-ass comments. Forum are filled with so many
smart-ass one-liner slipslops. Other than amusement, there's not much
in depth opinion to be seen.

> You see clearly you have no more hope with the average Usenet denizen
> did Alice with her brunchmates, yet you persist. Doh!*

well, it's not like i dived into drivels to realize its the wrong
pool.

Writing, is kinda therapeutic to me, and is so to perhaps most
professional writers. In the past 10+ years, most of my newsgroup
posts are carefully crafted to sting the tech geeking morons and
illustrate their moronicity. I had a plan, that these writings not
only serve temporal purpose of venting and as etudes of creative
writing, but also contained content. These careful compositions, are
later archived and edited, so that i can eventually form a coherent
thesis. See for example, i've expressed this line of thougth in a post
in 2002 to Kent Pitman in comp.lang.lisp:

http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...recursion.html

Excerpt:
«
The second important reason for me reading comp.lang.lisp, is that i
use it as on outlet of my meticulous crafted rants when opportune. I
could pick other newsgroups, but in general it is not fun if the
community does not welcome it. Trolling per se is not something that
interest me. As it so happens, that i started to read lisp newsgroups
around 1998 because i was learning Scheme, and i find the lispers in
general much more educated than, say, comp.lang.perl.* in which i use
to discuss on-topic perl related stuff now and then. So have i used
comp.emacs or xemacs often, and some ohter mailing lists as well. In
any case, my lavish rants tends to go to comp.lang.lisp.

The harmony of authorship and readership takes a matching. Imagine
Einstein ranting his physics theories to 17th century physicists, he'd
probably be kill-filed to death. Likewise, Larry Wall's drivel fits
the unix moron's minds to a tee; and that i find comp.lang.lisp has
the best readership for my rants among the few online discussions
groups i use.

My vague motivation, is for me in the future to collect my rants and
form a book. May it be a coherent account of unix & perl's damage to
society, with technical criticisms, or similar attacks to the slew of
fantastic fucking stupid imperative languages or the SQL language and
other software “technologies�, or cogent commentaries on the idiocies
of software industry such as the Design Patterns... i don't know. In
the last few years as i write more and more, i find myself enjoy
writing. I consider my act of writing soothing to my anger caused by
unthinkers in society. When my rants are offensive to unhtinkers, i
consider it a form of sweet revenge.

The other motivation is to educate people, but let's not talk about
that. Once you tell people that, all sorts of things come flying
against you, from hats of hypocrisy to spontaneous resistance. I find
that the best way to educate, is by means of covert brain washing. I
try to go in unassuming and rant my rants and get myself attacked and
kill-file announced, but behind the scene i stab people's brain with
sharp thoughts, jam their wires and screw their programs, totally
shattering the world of their minds. And when they try to recuperate,
to think ways of counter-attack, bang! I have succeeded in my goal.
»

* * *

You see, so i had some kinda master plan, that my posting in
newsgroups serves partly as a writing exercise, a soothing activity,
as well as basis for formulating a thesis. Most of my writings are
today edited and collected on my web site. For example, some entry
points are:

Computing And Its People
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/skami_prosa.html

Emacs and Lisp Related Essays
http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_essays_index.html

The Unix Pestilence (A gander into unix info tech industry & a logo
tour)
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/freebooks.html

Pathetically Elational Regex Language
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/perlr.html

Python Documentation Problems
http://xahlee.org/perl-python/python_doc_index.html

Netiquette Anthropology
http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/troll.html

Essays on logos (needs a index page)
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/logo_design.html
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/lambda_logo.html
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/logo_lisp.html

Almost all the essays in the above index pages are originally online
forum posts accumulated in the past 10+ years.

These essays on my site, are partly responsible for my site's high
popularity, as well the periodic “great thinker� email praises from
professors and all sort of unexpected walks of life i receive.

It is true that sometimes that these tech geeking moron's behavior
caused me some grief. Such happens more often, for example, in places
like Wikipedia or in places where these morons can ban you, censor you
etc, such as in irc, some online sites.

Once, in newsgroup, the spatting with morons escalated to legally
definable harassment. As you know, this happened during 2006 with a
guy who lives in comp.lang.perl.misc, which resulted in my web hosting
service provider kicking me off. I have a written record of it on my
site:
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_di...arassment.html

So yeah, spatting with these morons are not always a pleasurable
activity, but you can't enjoy gardening without getting pricked
sometimes.

> Your countryman said it best, "Win without fighting." Toss off a mot and
> get on with yoru coding. Even if I slip and write something long and
> angry I delete it all and replace with a one-liner.
>
> Unless I am looped.
>
> hth, kenny
>
> * Wouldn't it be cool to have not a moderated forum but a /judged/
> forum? Lurkers could score without unlurking? Talk about an addictive NG.k

that won't work. That is effectively done in slashdot and lots other
tech geeking forums, including for example, reddit.com . What happens
in such a system is that the tech geeking morons trash articles just
because they feels like it, then starting some mod wars among
themselves. The score of articles by popular vote has little
correspondence to the quality of the articles. At best, the articles
that floats to the top are just those that these tech geeking morons
like. For example, how OpenSource should rule the world, how Microsoft
is evil, how lisp is great, but how Perl gets the job done, how emacs
vs vi, how one should format his code, how scheme is most beautiful,
what's the latest fashion in coding (patterns, eXtreme Programing) ...
etc type of stupidities. You read these type of trite stupidities in
newsgroup at all times.

The problem at heart, is something like the cost of giving a opinion.
In conferences or meetings in a day job, people are more responsible,
because it effects their daily bread. Similarly, in more important
conferences or meetings, where people have to pay to join or give
opinion, such as voting in stocks, people are quite considerate about
what opinion or vote they give. I wrote elements of this in this
essay, see:

“Microsoft Hatred, FAQ�
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...hatredfaq.html

excerpt:

Q: US Judges are not morons, and quite a few others are not morons.
They find MS guilty, so it must be true.

so did the German population thought Jews are morons by heritage, to
the point that Jews should be exterminated from earth. Apparently, the
entire German population cannot be morons, they must be right.

Judge for yourself, is a principle i abide by. And when you judge, it
is better to put some effort into it.

How much you invest in this endearvor depends on how important the
issue is to you. If you are like most people, for which the issue of
Microsoft have remote effect on your personal well-being, then you can
go out and buy a case of beer on one hand and pizza on the other, and
rap with your online confabulation buddies about how evil is MS. If
you are a author writing a book on this, then obviously its different
because your reputation and ultimately daily bread depend on what you
put down. If you are a MS competitor such as Apple or Sun, then
obviously you will see to it with as much money as you can cough out
that MS is guilty by all measures and gets put out of business. If you
are a government employee such as a judge, of course it is your
interest to please your boss, with your best accessment of the air.

When i judge things, i like to imagine things being serious, as if my
wife is a wager, my daughter is at stake, that any small factual error
or mis-judgement or misleading perspective will cause unimaginable
things to happen. Then, my opinions become better ones.

----------------------

Dear Kenny, this important letter is to inform you that you are a
winner of a free beer and pizza in bay area!

Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

On Aug 17, 1:23*am, "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the past 10+ years, most of my newsgroup
> posts are carefully crafted to sting the tech geeking morons and
> illustrate their moronicity.

What is more moronic: a moron or a guy arguing with a moron? They
look the same to me. And indeed here I am looking downright stupid...

> I had a plan, that these writings not
> only serve temporal purpose of venting and as etudes of creative
> writing, but also contained content. These careful compositions, are
> later archived and edited, so that i can eventually form a coherent
> thesis.

Not that anyone will ever read them any more than old Erik Naggum
posts...

> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...recursion.html

"Dear Kent, like you, i also am curious about lots of things. For
example, i'm curious about why courtesans sell their pussies, and why
pussies have profound attraction to me."

LOL. At least you're a funny guy.

xahlee@gmail.com wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote:
> «As far as newsgroup goes, perhaps it is doomed to be stupid drivels
> when it comes to issues or argument that has some element of opinion.
> What can i do?»
>
> Kenny <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The trick is an energy-saving one-liner high on wit and low on anger.
>>That manifests by example your superiority. And saves a lot of energy.
>>And scores better with the judges (the lurkers).
>
>
> i can see that's the style you are inclined. LOL.
>
> the problem with that is, there are already too many tech geekers who
> like to do one-liner smart-ass comments. Forum are filled with so many
> smart-ass one-liner slipslops.

Ah, but not all quips are created equal. It becomes like a shoot-out
instead of a 90-min football match. And the goal is not even to win the
shoot-out rather to disengage. The obtuse interlocutor is a blackhole
for us quixotics.

> Other than amusement, there's not much
> in depth opinion to be seen.

Once we have identified an unsatisfying correspondent we must break off,
using killfiles where their idiocy is irresistible to respond. Speaking
of which, do we have a name for the trick Harrop and before him Garret
mastered of saying things deliberately easy to knock down and then
ignoring the knockdowns and simply tossing out more fat pitches? Does
"Venus fly-trap" work?

>
>
>>You see clearly you have no more hope with the average Usenet denizen
>>did Alice with her brunchmates, yet you persist. Doh!*
>
>
> well, it's not like i dived into drivels to realize its the wrong
> pool.
>
> Writing, is kinda therapeutic to me, and is so to perhaps most
> professional writers. In the past 10+ years, most of my newsgroup
> posts are carefully crafted to sting the tech geeking morons and
> illustrate their moronicity. I had a plan, that these writings not
> only serve temporal purpose of venting and as etudes of creative
> writing, but also contained content.

Why you old idealist you! Actually, that is fine. Remember, we address
the lurkers, not those with whom we cross swords.


> Once, in newsgroup, the spatting with morons escalated to legally
> definable harassment. As you know, this happened during 2006 with a
> guy who lives in comp.lang.perl.misc, which resulted in my web hosting
> service provider kicking me off. I have a written record of it on my
> site:
> http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_di...arassment.html

Yes, your stock went up, the provider's went down on that one.

> that won't work. That is effectively done in slashdot and lots other
> tech geeking forums, including for example, reddit.com . What happens
> in such a system is that the tech geeking morons trash articles just
> because they feels like it, then starting some mod wars among
> themselves.

It is funny what happens when one creates rules. We fancy ourselves more
sophisticated than the myna bird and laugh at its gathering trinkets for
no reason (is it the myna?) and then dash off to these groups to pile up
points that mean nothing.

[Pascal, close your eyes, I am going to mention a commercial product.}

I am trying to tap that primitive aggrandizing instinct in my software
(http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/) by awarding points and virtual medals I
am sure Bear Stearns would eventually try to create a market in if they
were still around.

Are you a mathematician? I'll create a Xah Lee medal, confuse the hell
out of the kids. Might only be a bronze, though.

> When i judge things, i like to imagine things being serious, as if my
> wife is a wager, my daughter is at stake, that any small factual error
> or mis-judgement or misleading perspective will cause unimaginable
> things to happen. Then, my opinions become better ones.

Ouch. I like to say things I am only 51% sure of and see if some yobbo
puts a full-metal jacket correction between my eyes. Cheap thrills,
that's me.

>
> ----------------------
>
> Dear Kenny, this important letter is to inform you that you are a
> winner of a free beer and pizza in bay area!
>

woo-hoo! Thx, Xah.

kenny

namekuseijin wrote:
> On Aug 17, 1:23 am, "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In the past 10+ years, most of my newsgroup
>>posts are carefully crafted to sting the tech geeking morons and
>>illustrate their moronicity.
>
>
> What is more moronic: a moron or a guy arguing with a moron? They
> look the same to me. And indeed here I am looking downright stupid...
>
>
>>I had a plan, that these writings not
>>only serve temporal purpose of venting and as etudes of creative
>>writing, but also contained content. These careful compositions, are
>>later archived and edited, so that i can eventually form a coherent
>>thesis.
>
>
> Not that anyone will ever read them any more than old Erik Naggum
> posts...

The good news being that Xah like Erik before him are Usenet Hall of
Fame shoe-ins, no matter what people read or do not read.

>
>
>>http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...recursion.html
>
>
> "Dear Kent, like you, i also am curious about lots of things. For
> example, i'm curious about why courtesans sell their pussies, and why
> pussies have profound attraction to me."
>
> LOL. At least you're a funny guy.

There is some other criterion?



kt