| Markus 2007-07-26, 10:05 pm |
|
> Markus E Leypold wrote:
>
>
> That was directed more at *your* ridiculous levels of outrage at minor
Well. Probably you don't understand xkcd at all. That would explain
ist. (Just think: What is the message of this comic, actually? :-).
> childishness (at least interpreting your reaction naively, I could be
> more charitable and assume Germans find name diminution and/or
> childishness in general peculiarly offensive compared to English or
> Irish people. Neoteny being a defining characteristic of our species,
Ah, so calling JH "Jonnie boy" was a term of endearment, or what?
Believe me: I understand English much better than I write it, so don't
bullshit me.
> I'd recommend not being so down on childishness).
Yes, I admit: Your behaviour is giving childishness a bad name. It's
the behaviour of a stupid and aggressive child.
> I'd expect Jon to be roughly as insulted by Jonnie Boy as I would be by
> Golden Boy. That is to say, very, very mildly. If anything, such
Oh yes. Fine. If you're not insulted, then it's OK. Regarding your
"answers" to JH it's the overall pattern:
- no arguments
- "mild" insults
- F'up to alt.killfile
- multiple followups to Jon's posts in that style
> devices are usually used to soften insults (in the English speaking
> world): "Oh Lord Mark," (mild) versus "Markus, you pompous ass,"
> (nasty). Remember insults, curses, formality and such don't
> translate well interculturally.
Oh yes. Because UK/GB is "another culture". Don't be ridiculous. The
differences are only slight.
>
> Perhaps you're following the argument in the "wrong" group (not that
> comp.lang.functional is necessarily the wrong place for the discussion,
I left the followups intact -- with the exception of those set to
alt.killfile. I suggest you answer where you post (that is in c.l.f)
or stop posting to c.l.f.
> it'd certainly be better than cluttering up comp.lang.lisp from my
> perspective, but it's not where a lot of the posting happened), and/or
> are missing historical context from other threads.
No. I'm not doing a usenet search do vindicate you. Your footprint in
c.l.f is what counts since I'm reading you at c.l.f and that was, I
repeat: Childish and without any arguments to be take seriously.
> Don't mistake lack of serious response to Jon this time around
> as lack of any responses to Jon over the years- it just wears thin after
> a while.
Yes, yes, yes: We know you don't like Jon. I don't care. Giving what I
have seen in the ant-Jon-threads at c.l.f that only reflects badly on
the c.l.l crowd: (As I think Jo Durchholz alread said:) I've
experienced Jon a rather persistent disputant with well defined
positions and opinions, never though as spammer or troll and never
totally unfair, though pushing his points rather aggressivly. I seldom
saw Jon holding a grudge against anybody (even people that more or
less would have insulted me), an attitude that strikes me as rather
professional. Jon also follows up his arguments and provides either
references to literature (off- and online) or sample code to at least
make his points plausible.
Indeed it strikes me that usenet would be a better (if perhaps more
exhausting) place if there were more people like Jon.
And to top that: Jon is a rather visible and committed participant in
usenet and various mailinglist discussion. I think he's entitled to
mention his book now and then. Even if it costs money.
(And no: I don't always like Jon's positions nor his way to argue.)
> Given certain peculiarities of human perception, Jon's
> persistent postings in various fora could be considered rather more
> harmful and nasty than many people might realise:
> http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/07/lo...ity-opinion.php
Certainly. Jon as a danger for public opinion. Pull the other one (got
bells on it).
Regards -- Markus
|