endless onanism about semantics

Would anyone like to setup a comp.lang.scheme.hackers as a place for
Scheme hackers to hang out and avoid anyone who uses the word
'compositionality'?

I like reading challenging posts by clever people, but really...

--
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk

Nic Ferrier wrote:
>
> Would anyone like to setup a comp.lang.scheme.hackers as a place for
> Scheme hackers to hang out and avoid anyone who uses the word
> 'compositionality'?
>
> I like reading challenging posts by clever people, but really...
>
> --
> Nic Ferrier
> http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk

I feel your pain.  A bunch of smart people who should know
better have turned c.l.s. into a forum for their inexplicable
obsession with proving their superiority over one rather clueless
crank.  It is all rather ...

Andre <andre@het.brown.edu> writes:

> Nic Ferrier wrote: 
>
> I feel your pain.  A bunch of smart people who should know
> better have turned c.l.s. into a forum for their inexplicable
> obsession with proving their superiority over one rather clueless
> crank.  It is all rather ...

Mea culpa.  I'll try to tone down.

Bill Richter has explicitly said (privately, but given me permission
to quote him) he has no stake in the Scheme community.  He is using
the newsgroup as a medium to advance his career.  He doesn't care how
many people he drives away.

The Schemers who "should know better" are trying to preserve the honor
of the regimen.  If Bill posts drivel and it goes unanswered, there is
a danger a person subsequently reading the discussion record will
conclude that Bill was right.  They might even believe Richter's
original presumption that there are no semanticists on c.l.s, and we
really do need a "real" mathematician to save us.  Hence, for
instance, Clinger's FAQ.

To give credit, people other than Richter have asked perfectly
reasonable questions about semantics, and been given perfectly good
responses.  These sub-threads represent the best of what c.l.s is
about.  Sadly, these have been lost in the noise.  It would be nice to
return to Eden.

I have long since decided that nobody could possibly be  by
Richter any longer, and have sworn off the thread.  Anyone who still
is would have to be someone who will not be swayed by any number of
follow-ups -- ie, a Usenet crank high on the Richter scale.

Different people, however, have different thresholds.

Most recently, wise folks tried to move a thread entirely, totally
unrelated to c.l.s to sci.logic.  Richter cleverly avoided taking the
bait, presumably because he knew he'd get his ass handed to him on a
platter over there -- and worse, a "real" mathematician might see him
there.  Better to treat c.l.s as his personal soapbox.

If you are disgusted, speak up.  If Richter posts off-topic, tell him
to go to a more appropriate forum.  To paraphrase the inimitable Henry
Baker, avoid the Silence of the Lambdas.

Shriram

PS: Semantics *is* endless onanism.  So your subject line is redundant.

Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk@cs.brown.edu> writes:

> [ ... ] a Usenet crank high on the Richter scale.

> [ ... ] Semantics *is* endless onanism.

Two good ones.  I wish I had a .plan file.

Matthias

I don't want to continue this thread either so this is my last mail on
the subject.


Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk@cs.brown.edu> writes:

> The Schemers who "should know better" are trying to preserve the honor
> of the regimen.  If Bill posts drivel and it goes unanswered, there is
> a danger a person subsequently reading the discussion record will
> conclude that Bill was right.  They might even believe Richter's
> original presumption that there are no semanticists on c.l.s, and we
> really do need a "real" mathematician to save us.  Hence, for
> instance, Clinger's FAQ.

Bill is a troll. Trolls can simply be killed. There is no danger
people will see his posts and take notice of them except when sensible
people discuss stuff with him.

I know this because I only recently started reading this group again
after an absence of a few months. I took me 2 days to work out that
Richter really was a troll because smart people keep increasing the
signal of his threads.

If you stop talking to him then my kill file will work properly.


Please. Stop feeding the troll.



Nic

In article <w7dr7pmhxem.fsf@cs.brown.edu>,
Shriram Krishnamurthi  <sk@cs.brown.edu> wrote:
>Bill Richter has explicitly said (privately, but given me permission
>to quote him) he has no stake in the Scheme community.  He is using
>the newsgroup as a medium to advance his career.  He doesn't care how
>many people he drives away.

This is total speculative bullshit.

Brad

Bradley J Lucier wrote:
> In article <w7dr7pmhxem.fsf@cs.brown.edu>,
> Shriram Krishnamurthi  <sk@cs.brown.edu> wrote: 
>
> This is total speculative bullshit.

At the very least, Bill is using the newsgroup to learn some very basic CS
points, the hard way, that he should really pick up by doing some basic
reading and groundwork.  (E.g.: "computable" doesn't mean that you need to
be able to compute the entire range of a function in a finite number of
steps; other examples abound in the threads).

Now, I've been guilty of that kind of thing myself in the past, and have
appreciated the patience of smarter & better educated c.l.s.ers in helping
me, but (a) at some point you realize what's happening and should go off and
do some of the reading, and (b) if you're going to get your info that way,
it's just simple politeness to not start out by attacking the credentials
and competence of the people you're trying to learn from.

Bill seems to have developed a strategy which often works for his
personality, of bugging people enough that he gets responses despite his
obnoxiousness (i.e. trolling for education, a relatively unusual
phenomenon).  I love, in particular, the phrase "sounds wrong", which he
usually applies to incontrovertible common knowledge, and is Billspeak for
"I don't understand that, and I want you to explain it to me".  Perhaps this
translation should be added to the RichterFAQ, if it's not there already.

It should also be recognized that this kind of experience isn't unfamiliar
to Bill - he's said that his Math peers are "worse" (from his perspective).
So he's just indulging in what he must see as more or less ordinary
competitive academic interplay, and the kinds of insults and digs that bug
those assisting him just roll off his back as part of the cost of doing
business.

My perspective here comes from some long private threads with him, which I
finally terminated when he admitted (I'll paraphrase) that part of his
attitude comes from being uncomfortable with accepting help if he can't
offer anything in return and/or doesn't feel like a peer (or superior), and
as a result (my interpretation) he has to insist on being a Math expert who
is teaching his correspondents as much as they are teaching him.  I stopped
replying to him when I heard this; some barriers just aren't worth trying to
overcome.

Bill, feel free to take this as constructive criticism.

Anton

Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> Bill Richter has explicitly said (privately, but given me permission
> to quote him) he has no stake in the Scheme community.  He is using
> the newsgroup as a medium to advance his career.  He doesn't care how
> many people he drives away.
>
> The Schemers who "should know better" are trying to preserve the honor
> of the regimen.  If Bill posts drivel and it goes unanswered, there is
> a danger a person subsequently reading the discussion record will
> conclude that Bill was right.  They might even believe Richter's
> original presumption that there are no semanticists on c.l.s, and we
> really do need a "real" mathematician to save us.  Hence, for
> instance, Clinger's FAQ.
>

The correct method for handling a troll is not by attempting a
point-by-point refutation.  The correct method, if you can't
bear to leave the inaccuracies unanswered, is to post a simple
short followup that provides the troll with neither a sense
that he is being taken seriously nor further grist for the
argument.  Specifically, it should point to some other source
of information rather than trying to refute individual
points inline.

Instead of addressing the troll's pretended points individually,
it is sufficient to post a message such as:

"<$TROLL> is, according to the opinions of <list names and
qualifications> a crank whose ideas are without merit.  We
have argued with him in the past and found him not only
without clue, but also actively clue-resistant.  Because
arguing with him appears only to encourage him, and because
the argument is annoying and useless to the majority of the
newsgroup, we now choose not to continue.  Specific
information about the subject matter here misrepresented
can be found at <$URL>."


Bear

Bradley J Lucier wrote:
> In article <w7dr7pmhxem.fsf@cs.brown.edu>,
> Shriram Krishnamurthi  <sk@cs.brown.edu> wrote:
> 
>
>
> This is total speculative bullshit.
>

I have not always agreed with Shriram, but I have not known
him to lie, nor to speculate without labeling it a speculation.
I am not inclined to agree with you, and believe that you are
being rude.  Please stop.

Bear