Next: puzzle
From: spinoza1111 on 8 Feb 2005 00:46

infobahn wrote:
> spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > No, because I do it by hand
>
> That much, at least, is not in dispute.
>
> > and in contexts where my book is useful.
>
> Ah, you have me there.
>
> > That's called participation. Whereas wild and silly accusations and
> > deliberate campaigns of personal destruction is called Fascism.
>
> According to my dictionary, Fascism is "the authoritarian form of
> government in Italy from 1922-1943". There does seem to be a word
> comp.programming use for wild and silly accusations and deliberate
> campaigns of personal destruction, though. It starts with N.

Gee, your dictionary must be a comforting book indeed.

Educated usage has, of course, long used Fascism not only to describe
existing regimes but also in order to forestall its recurrence (what
part of Never Again don't you understand?).

Funded by the American Jewish community, Theodore Adorno performed
empirical studies of pre-Fascist personality types in Southern
California. He found that Fascist sympathies (evidenced in low support
for the Soviet ally during the war, and favoring the American war
effort primarily against the Japanese) are associated with the
"authoritarian" personality.

I have discovered that in mathematical exchanges, the authoritarian
personality is math-anxious and loth for this point to post rebuts,
preferring here instead to make a global comment about an individual.

This is because the authoritarian personality, drawn to
comp.programming in many cases because he's been excluded from other
venues, is here concerned to establish a false community, dominated by
personalities rather than the free exchange of ideas.

A good example of this surfaced in the 2000 political debate, in which
Bush's response to Gore's analysis of medicare was "fuzzy math" which
polluted Gore's ideas at the source by re-presenting Gore as a boring
nerd, whose ideas were too verbose and too complex to be trustworthy.

This was, it's now clear, a pre-Fascist gesture given the Fascist
attack on civil liberties and the triggering of an illegal war.

The use, in the manner of Randy Howard, of electronic media to
replicate baseless charges, the habit of responding to a constructive
suggestion with a bald denial of its global worth (which is what CB
Falconer did here) are both characteristic of Fascist media praxis in
Fascist societies. You might consider reading outside the dictionary.

Campaigns of trashing and personal destruction are Fascist although
they also appeared in Stalinism, because they relieve the campaigner of
any mental effort involved in dealing with issues.

Political phenomena are constituted not in reified events which never
recur in the same way for the very good reason that each
near-recurrence incorporates the memory of the prior occurence.
>
> Returning to the subject at hand, the OP may find Wirth's "Algorithms
> + Data Structures = Programs" to be very helpful.

From: infobahn on 8 Feb 2005 01:12
spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> infobahn wrote:
> > spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > No, because I do it by hand
> >
> > That much, at least, is not in dispute.
> >
> > > and in contexts where my book is useful.
> >
> > Ah, you have me there.

When you respond to some parts but not others, it shows you have at
least received the article, at which point silence indicates
agreement.

> >
> > > That's called participation. Whereas wild and silly accusations and
> > > deliberate campaigns of personal destruction is called Fascism.
> >
> > According to my dictionary, Fascism is "the authoritarian form of
> > government in Italy from 1922-1943". There does seem to be a word
> > comp.programming use for wild and silly accusations and deliberate
> > campaigns of personal destruction, though. It starts with N.
>
> Gee, your dictionary must be a comforting book indeed.

Not only comforting, but useful, unlike the rest of your response,
which I have snipped.
From: spinoza1111 on 8 Feb 2005 22:52

infobahn wrote:
> spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > infobahn wrote:
> > > spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No, because I do it by hand
> > >
> > > That much, at least, is not in dispute.
> > >
> > > > and in contexts where my book is useful.
> > >
> > > Ah, you have me there.
>
> When you respond to some parts but not others, it shows you have at
> least received the article, at which point silence indicates
> agreement.

You may take what appears on your side to be silence as me, ROTFLMAO.
My default response to whachoo say may be taken to be bwah, most
assuredly, ha ha.
>
> > >
> > > > That's called participation. Whereas wild and silly accusations
and
> > > > deliberate campaigns of personal destruction is called Fascism.
> > >
> > > According to my dictionary, Fascism is "the authoritarian form of
> > > government in Italy from 1922-1943". There does seem to be a word
> > > comp.programming use for wild and silly accusations and
deliberate
> > > campaigns of personal destruction, though. It starts with N.
> >
> > Gee, your dictionary must be a comforting book indeed.
>
> Not only comforting, but useful, unlike the rest of your response,
> which I have snipped.

You might consider that unlike technical and scientific phenomena,
HUMAN phenomena, such as "Fascism" do not come in little boxes
identified by your pocket dictionary.

OK, suppose, chump, the proper definition of Fascism is also the
narrowest: buncha former socialists in Italy getting off until 1943 on
flipping each other the Roman salute, etc.

The problem is that such a narrow definition makes Fascism a
nonrepeatable historical curio like the St. Bartholemew's Day massacre.
All we have to do to enforce Never Again is keep an eye on the
eyetalians, make sure they don't start again with them salutes.

Which is of course nonsense, UNLESS Fascism is not particularly
anti-Semitic...and, in fact Italian fascism was not particularly
anti-Semitic until well after 1938, during which year some Jews
belonged to the Fascisti in Italy.

You see, chump, as a human phenomenon, Fascism incorporates the memory
of what's occured before and for this reason, its laws are Structural
in the sense of structuralist theory. We cannot consistently assign
specific behavior patterns to Fascists without missing recrudescences
of Fascism which, for public relations purposes, change the behavior
patterns.

This is no license for overgeneralizing "Fascism". Structuralism can't,
as indisciplined thinkers believe, transmute lead into gold. In fact,
it demands the sort of historical awareness that isn't cultivated even
in the higher reaches of American universities, where leading lights
including Harold Bloom use graduate students to produce their content
and in which people read, if at all, only inside their field.

For example, Israel's treatment of Palestinians bears a structural
similarity to Fascism because in Israel's unwritten (and, given the
very norms of the United Nations under which the state of Israel was
formed, unwritable) constitution there are two classes of citizens in
Israel, defined theologically and racially.

In the US, the reasoning behind Brown v. the Board of Education has
demonstrated the impossibility, practical and in theory, of "separate
but equal", because equality means the same. Given economic scarcity,
it appears impossible to guarantee Israel's Moslem or even Christian
citizens separate but equal treatment. Brown contains the realization
that in social life, separate IS unequal, period.

Which MEANS that the unfairness as basic law places you on a slippery
slope to "fascism" in the pragmatic form of its worst consequences.

In this ng, the use of the media has disturbing parallels structural
and nonstructural to the use of media in Fascist societies, including
inappropriately transitive thinking (a is like b which is like c, c is
nasty, a is nasty), personality and anti-personality cultlike thinking,
fear of women, and the replication of lies.

In this ng, as in a Fascist and pre-Fascist society, associative
thinking and personality/anti-personality cults replace useful content
such as arise from fair discussion.

For example, Randy Howard failed to install my software on a high-end
machine but made no further attempt to research or fix the problem. He
instead used the failure to pursue his anti-personality cult. Clearly
authoritarian and right-wing in general politics, he's called for the
exclusion of posters from this ng, a violation of the overall usenet
charter in letter and in spirit and is a structural Fascist.

But, I'm well aware, that in the 1970s and 1960s, "Fascist" was indeed
an all purpose signifier which did indeed replace thought. It was
overgeneralized. Here, it is undergeneralized with the result that
people fail to spot authoritarian personality disorders.

Randy was attracted to the metathread "pile on Nilges" because a
dominant personality, Richard Heathfield, was conducting a good-faith
campaign against posts which Richard felt were off topic. Throughout
Richard's participation, which ended in March 2003 when a poster failed
to heed Richard's warning that my then-forthcoming book was probably a
load of cod, Mr. Heathfield maintained a professional tone.

However, his genuine claim to authority as the editor of C Unleashed
attracted a sort of flash mob of people who, commencing with Howard,
did not do due diligence on the thread and reasoned in an authoritarian
fashion.

They saw the discussion as between one trying to enforce a norm, and
did not realize it wasn't supported by the charter. But because today,
enforcement of norms attracts, they chose to ally themselves, in a dim
virtual community, with the norm-enforcer as against one who was
putting the norm in question.

They were, at arm's length and in the ignorance that is embedded in
accessing usenet in the first place, playing a role in a 1970s
psychodrama in which any discussion of an expanded or revised norm
threatens personal boundaries.

Randy Howard is a survivor of these incidents, who has persisted in
spamming when most of us (us?) have gotten tired of the whole issue.

From: spinoza1111 on 9 Feb 2005 20:01
No comment: no read. Because Mr. Howard is spamming, I won't join a
dialog with him.

Randy Howard wrote:
> In article <1107921124.603478.119310(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
spinoza1111
> @yahoo.com says...
> > For example, Randy Howard failed to install my software on a
high-end
> > machine but made no further attempt to research or fix the problem.

>
> Factually incorrect. I installed your "software" on a medium-range
system,
> and executing the sample (precompiled) binaries, I received a very
large
> number of errors. In disgust, I removed the whole sorry mess from my
> computer.
>
> I also note that you are too cowardly to respond to me directly, but
once again
> have begun slinging arrows at me indirectly because you are too
childish, or
> simply incapable of responding directly. Yet another area in which
you are
> woefully inadequate.
>
> > He instead used the failure to pursue his anti-personality cult.
>
> Factually incorrect. I only mentioned it after you continually
spammed this
> newsgroup in weak attempts at generating sales for your tome. I
*would*
> have reported the problem to you directly, but you asked that I not
contact
> you via email.
>
> > Clearly authoritarian and right-wing in general politics,
>
> Patently false. Your inability to distinguish more subtle
differences in
> political opinion outside of your socialist view of the world is duly
noted.
> If anything, I am a libertarian (little "l"), who is not at all happy
with
> the current Libertarian (big "L") party in the USA.
>
> > he's called for the exclusion of posters from this ng,
>
> Factually incorrect. Since this is not a moderated newsgroup, it's
not even
> a valid option. You see nilgewater, us programmers tend to try and
stay
> within the bounds of reason in most aspects of our daily lives. You
appear
> to not be bound by such constraints.
>
> > a violation of the overall usenet charter in letter and in spirit
>
> Chapter and Verse please. I am keen to guess, but find that
following up
> such claims, especially when uttered by you, to be less than
fruitful.
>
> > and is a structural Fascist.
>
> Incorrect. A google search for "structural Fascist" resulted in only
one
> unique hit, entitled:
> THE FASCIST STATES OF DISNEYLAND: American fascism as the
perfection
> of fascist techniques
>
> It reads very much like nilgewater, but is uncredited. It bears no
> resemblance to anything that I am concerned about, so as is typical,
> you're full of it.
>
> > However, his genuine claim to authority as the editor of C
Unleashed
> > attracted a sort of flash mob of people who, commencing with
Howard,
> > did not do due diligence on the thread and reasoned in an
authoritarian
> > fashion.
>
> Actually it is far simpler than that, as the google archives show. I

> read your source code, and your inadequate defense of the poor coding
> practices contained therein, and came to what can only be described
as
> a nearly unanimous conclusion shared by other readers of same.
>
> You are full of it. You can't program your way out of a wet paper
bag,
> and you have no concept of what is typically second nature to most
> professional programmers.
>
> During the course of those discussions, when faced with factual
arguments,
> you actually changed your own position throughout the exchange, in
effect
> arguing with your own earlier positions, as if you were suffering
from
> multiple personality disorder, yet never admitting it yourself, even
when
> it was pointed out to you.
>
> Furthermore, at one point you even misidentified the source language
of a
> code fragment posted here. That, combined with a complete lack of
> understanding of what compilers can and do perform in the way of
optimization
> (which was demonstrated with compilable example code and timing
results from
> several different compiler/platform combinations, to which you never
were
> adult enough to even admit after it was proven) as well as
demonstrable lack
> of comprehension of "big O" notation served as icing on the cake.
>
> In short, you proved that you either are, or pretend (in a very
convincing
> manner) to be completely incompetent on pretty much any topic you
have
> undertaken in this forum in recent memory.
>
> > They were, at arm's length and in the ignorance that is embedded in
> > accessing usenet in the first place, playing a role in a 1970s
> > psychodrama in which any discussion of an expanded or revised norm
> > threatens personal boundaries.
> >
> > Randy Howard is a survivor of these incidents, who has persisted in
> > spamming when most of us (us?) have gotten tired of the whole
issue.
>
> Yeah, I was victimized. The very first time I used nn, which was
written by a
> misguided FBI programmer not familiar with boolean logic, in an
effort to
> constrain free speech on usenet, segfaulted and I have been whining
about it
> ever since. Oops, that's not true. I just made it up as a silly
example to
> point out the ridiculous nature of your psychobabble.
>
> --
> Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
> "Making it hard to do stupid things often makes it hard
> to do smart ones too." -- Andrew Koenig

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Next: puzzle