Re: Theodore Adorno, a prophet of data systems design

• Previous message: Zalek Bloom: "Tata Consulting India"
• In reply to: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: Theodore Adorno, a prophet of data systems design"
• Next in thread: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Theodore Adorno, a prophet of data systems design"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 02:35:13 +0000 (UTC)

Edward G. Nilges wrote:

> Richard Heathfield <invalid@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<3ffa98a2@news2.power.net.uk>...
>>
>> dbtid's point is that [...] your reasoning is screwed.
>
> Of course, you have snipped the context.

Of course. We can't leave the context hanging around forever, you know. You
can always Google for it.

> The context is that you have been repeatedly shown wrong on one issue

No, that's not the context at all, because I /haven't/ been repeatedly shown
wrong on one issue. In fact, it's quite rare for me to be shown wrong on
one issue even as much as twice, because (and I hope I don't confuse you
here by using "because" in the proper way) when I am wrong I accept that
I'm wrong, learn from that mistake, and generally don't make that mistake
again. This, in fact, appears to be where we differ.

> and this is the reading of the newsgroup charter, and therefore you are
> a troll.

The logic is still screwed, because people /don't/ use the word "troll" to
mean "someone who has been repeatedly shown wrong on the issue of reading
the newsgroup charter", any more than they mean "someone who has been
repeatedly shown wrong". So even if you were right about your facts (which
you are not), you have joined them together in a form that mimics deductive
logic but in fact bears no real relation to it.

> You make a common mistake of the autodidact and that's content free
> logic.

You make a common mistake of the ignorant fool and that's logic-free
content. As for "autodidact", I'd be curious to know your grounds for using
the term. (Not that I mind it. I feel truly sorry for any adult who is
/only/ capable of learning when in a classroom. All good programmers are
autodidacts in some sense or other.)

>> Experience is indeed a wonderful teacher. I've found that it's generally
>> possible to skim through your stuff quite quickly in a search for topical
>> material. Sometimes I might overlook a topical point or two amongst the
>> hundreds of lines of verbiage; we're only human, after all. But on the
>> whole, I think my snips are sensible and reasonable.
>>
> You have said repeatedly that you don't skim or read,

Have I? Message ID please. Support Your Assertions!

> and now you are backing down because you know that you've
> done something very seriously wrong.

If I have done something very seriously wrong, backing down would be the
right thing to do, would it not? That would be wise. That would be
sensible. That would, in fact, be very unNilgesque. But I haven't done
anything wrong, and I have no particular need to back down.

> And you haven't followed up on the Princeton issue
> because I have clarified the situation completely,

Have you? I /still/ don't recall seeing any independent corroboration being
posted here about your presence at Princeton, or otherwise.

> and your behavior
> in that subthread exposes you as a character assassin.

No, I don't think so. All I asked you to do was provide independent
corroborating evidence for your claims, for the benefit of those of us who
have learned to distrust the things you say.

>> > But what this means, literally, is that you are making
>> > pronouncements [...] which you have no right whatsoever to make.
>>
>> I have every right to offer my opinion on what is topical on this
>> newsgroup.
>
> Under international legal standards which control this right isn't
> absolute

No right is absolute. So what?

> and it does not cover "replying" to posts you skim or skip
> without understanding.

If that were true, Usenet would collapse in a wobbly heap on the floor.
Usenet has not collapsed in a wobbly heap on the floor.
I conclude that your premise is false.

Incidentally, I am under no more obligation to "understand" the drivel you
post (and I snip) than I would be required to know the habits, character
traits, and shoe size of every person mentioned in the NY phone book when
snipping /that/ from my reply.

> You have fully failed to exhibit comprehension

No, I haven't. I have merely snipped OT nonsense. There's a big difference.

> of several themes in that which you've snipped notably the fact that
> speed and understandability and memory efficiency and time efficiency
> are inversely correlated.

Whilst it is likely to be generally true that code performance and size are
likely to be roughly inversely correlated, I have shown that this is not
100% true, and that your naive arguments failed to take this into account.
You, on the other hand, have advanced no evidence whatsoever in support of
your view.

> You have NO right to repeatedly call me a liar nor throw into question
> the facts I've volunteered about my background.

Logic again:

A person who tells lies is a liar (from my dictionary's definition of
"liar").
I can show (and indeed have shown) that you have lied on more than one
occasion.
Therefore you are a liar.

As for throwing into question the "facts" you've volunteered about your
background, well, /I/ didn't do that. /You/ did that, by lying about other
things. A known liar can sometimes find it hard to get even his true
statements believed. It may be that your description of your background is
accurate, but you have not yet shown this as far as I am aware.

>> > You snip without reading passages which you then irresponsibly
>> > describe to third parties AS IF YOU HAD READ THEM.
>>
>> Don't be silly. If someone posted the contents of the New York phone
>> directory here, I could skim it (VERY briefly), snip it, and opine that
>> it's off-topic here. [...]
>
> This analogy is ridiculous.

I don't think so at all.

> You are a narrow autodidact and as such
> you would have no right to make this meta-judgement even if you'd read
> and not "skimmed" (which is a change to your initial story that you
> did not read at all.)

You talk a lot about "rights", and yet you're usually wrong. Even here.
Neither the charter nor RFC 1855 discusses the rights of autodidacts of any
kind, let alone narrow autodidacts. I'm not clear that you understand what
an autodidact /is/. I'm not even clear of your basis for calling me one. Is
it simply because I had cause to dip into three books on GTK yesterday? Or
is it because I had to look up Rabin-Miller in Knuth a few weeks ago? Or is
there some more deep-seated reason?

> You are not qualified outside the C language

Please provide supporting evidence for your assertion.

> nor are you qualified to
> define the subject matter of this ng

Nor is anyone. The charter defines the subject matter of the newsgroup.

> as "algorithms":

Nor would I try. I have, however, /described/ the subject matter of this
newsgroup in that way; accurately, I believe.

> the latter is
> not only true because of your lack of qualifications

Please provide supporting evidence for your assertion that I lack
qualifications.

> it is also true
> because you cannot seriously discuss the correctness or time or space
> complexity of algorithms without having completed, at a minimum, an
> undergraduate class in Algorithms approved by the ACM or the
> equivalent professional body

And yet I *have* seriously discussed the correctness (or otherwise) and time
and space complexity of your algorithms, and I have shown that you are
wrong. So your assertion here is incorrect.

> in your ridiculous little country.

This is calculated to offend, I know, but I won't rise to that. I will
instead merely point out that my country is England, which has a land area
of around 50,000 square miles and a population of approximately 50 million
people. If it is a "little" country, then so, presumably, is any country
which has a smaller population or land area. Here is a list of a few such
countries:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia (both of them, in fact), Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky... etc.

In fact, not a single one of the US states (all of which, by my dictionary's
definition, are countries) exceeds both the population and the land area of
England. (27 have a larger land area than England.)

If my country is "little", then, what does that say about your own?

> You are not qualified to address the relationship of programming to
> society because of your lack of general culture added to your lack of
> computing culture.

Please provide supporting evidence for both your premise and the link
between it and your conclusion, because the premise is dubious and the link
unclear.

<snip>

>> But your constant lack of respect
>> for those with whom you interact does your reputation no good at all.
>>
> In sales and corporate situations, where the issues are complex, we
> indeed learn to project an abstract, content-free "respect".

My respect for the regular crew on this newsgroup is far from content-free.
They have earned my genuine respect, and I value their contributions to
this newsgroup. If you were able to read for comprehension, you would have
realised that.

> However, usenet is no such situation because people (especially the
> anonymous as well as the partly anonymous who have now concealed their
> email address)

Many people conceal their email addresses, for very good and non-sinsister
reasons. (For example, I get about a thousand unsolicited commercial emails
a day, and I presume I'm not unique in this.)

> initiate actions of striking and unprecedent verbal
> violence.

Well, I know you do. I don't think many other people do. BTW the word for
which you strive is "unprecedented".

<OT sentence snipped>

> I have indeed responded to this with a global lack of respect

Yes, you have. For once, I won't ask you to provide supporting evidence,
since this is self-evident from your articles.

> but I
> have been very precise on the targets of this respect. For this reason
> I have made friends on the Internet

I find this very hard to believe.

<OT stuff snipped>

> I also read that people who read Dijkstra's acerbic comments on the
> computing establishment of the 1970s were struck when they actually
> met the monster as to how friendly, indeed collegial Dijsktra was in
> person.

I am not, nor have I ever been, one of those who thought of Dijkstra as a
"monster". It seems to me that he had some perfectly sensible things to
say, and he said them.

<repeat of "NY phone book" analogy>

> Still wrong

Please provide supporting evidence for that assertion.

>>
>> > And don't make the obvious dodge, boyo.
>>
>> Ah, you seek pre-emptively to prescribe the giving of a correct response.
>> "What is three times four? Come on! What is three times four? And don't
>> make the obvious dodge, boyo - none of that 'twelve' nonsense." Well, I
>> have answered as I saw fit to answer. If you think of it as a dodge, that
>> is your problem, not mine.
>
> "Do you know arithmetic?

Yes.

> What's one and one and one and one and one
> and one?"

In a normal arithmetic context, six. In a bitwise arithmetic context, one.

>> > Don't tell us that you read one or two and concluded that to do so in
>> > future would yield the same result. If you make this conclusion from
>> > one or two about any poster,
>>
>> I have read many thousands of lines of Nilges stuff, more fool me. I have
>
> You've backpedaled, you swine.

I think you've just failed to understand what I've written, actually. I see
there's been no improvement in your gutter language.

>> > just shut your fucking yap.
>>
>> You have, on several occasions, compared my behaviour - very offensively,
>> I might add - to that of Fascism and even Nazism (a comparison which
>> inevitably leads your fellow Usenet subscribers to question the merits of
>> your argument). But I have never sought to silence you. I have suggested,
>
> Well, "shut your fucking yap" was a request and no more.

Next time you ask for something, please remember to say "please", and please
remember to be polite.

>> it is true, that you find a more topical forum in which to post your
>> claptrap, but I've never told you not to post to Usenet. Yet you seek to
>
> This is a typical dodge. Usenet basically pretends that if we all
> isolate, our Hobbesian desires will somehow vanish, and we will
> conduct "free and open" discussion and nobody will get hurt.

Nobody /has/ been hurt. Well, I haven't been, anyway. My supply of bandages
remains untouched. My wife's medical expertise has not had to be pressed
into service. The brave folks who work for my country's emergency services,
who have undoubtedly been on standby ever since this whole discussion
started, are still playing Trivial Pursuit and keeping an anxious eye on
the alarm bell. No casualties at this end. How about over there? Are any
hospitals reporting a huge influx of Usenet casualties?

> Instead, the anonymity and the isolation allows the negative feelings
> to emerge but because technical males have little self awareness the
> lack of a language for feelings means that the bile is never reduced.

Speak for yourself. My self-awareness is doing just fine, and my doctor
would assure me my bile levels were normal if I could ever be bothered to
visit him.

>> silence me. Indeed, you insist on it with a most forceful and offensive
>> imperative. I have no desire to compare /your/ behaviour to any
>> right-wing political party, but nevertheless I invite comp.programming
>> subscribers to reflect upon the ironic nature of your demand.
>>
> I have compared your conduct to Fascist conduct

Indeed, and that you have done so is contemptible.

> Whereas you have based a global attack on my honesty based on a series
> of deliberate misintrpretations which you made in May 2002 because I
> refused to allow you to misread the charter of this newsgroup.

1) At the time in question I showed that it was quite clear you were a liar.
2) I do not deliberately misinterpret what you say. If you do not wish to be
misinterpreted, write more clearly.
3) I have not misread the charter of this newsgroup.
4) You may, if you wish, think that you have refused to allow me something,
but I am not constrained by that refusal.

>> Now, back to logic. If you think that all Usenet articles are obviously
>> garbage, why do you bother with Usenet at all? (It's a rhetorical
>> question, but don't let that stop you answering it if you wish.)
>
> Because I need to contact genuinely honest people

And yet, when you find them, you abuse them.

> and talk not only
> about programming independent of platforms but also its place in a
> social context.

As you can see, you have mentioned two subjects:

1) programming independent of platforms
2) the place of programming in a social context

This newsgroup is appropriate for discussing the first of those subjects. It
is not appropriate for articles on the second subject. You will need to
subscribe to another newsgroup if you wish to discuss the social context of
programming.

> I am in fact in the process of driving you creeps out of this ng,

I don't know who you mean by "creeps", but it's quite obvious that you're
not driving anyone anywhere.

> or
> hopefully getting you to shape up and if I succeed I shall publish a
> book about how to clean up a ng.

Let me give you some hints. You don't "clean up" a newsgroup by posting
drivel. You don't "clean up" a newsgroup by continually posting off-topic
articles. You don't "clean up" a newsgroup by comparing your disputants
with Fascists and Nazis. You don't "clean up" a newsgroup by swearing at
people. You don't "clean up" a newsgroup by demonstrating an almost
incredible inability to trim old material. You don't "clean up" a newsgroup
by lying. You don't "clean up" a newsgroup by dodging the issues. You don't
"clean up" a newsgroup by arguing indefensible positions. And you don't
"clean up" a newsgroup by boring it half to death.

>> > By anyone of any decency or merit, which
>> > is the only sort of person I care to be associated with in a true
>> > personal or business relationship.
>>
>> I can't make sense of this sentence except by s/\. B/b/ so I'll assume
>> you meant that. Well, okay, if you don't care to be associated with those
>> who value Usenet, again, why do you bother with it?
>>
> Because you've mischaracterised my credibility and background in a way
> that MIGHT be damaging.

In that case, you can stop bothering with Usenet, because I'm delighted to
tell you that I haven't mischaracterised your credibility or background /at
all/. Since your belief that I /had/ done so is your stated reason for
bothering with Usenet, you can now safely stop using it.

> What you say here comes close, mate, to an
> admission that you are a damaged soul and wish to be left alone in a
> damaged community.

I /think/ you're addressing yourself here. At any rate, I can think of no
other person who you might correctly call "mate". So I will not intrude on
private grief.

<something about child molesters snipped - where does he get this stuff
from?>

> Usenet is not your personal property, nor is it mine.

Indeed. That's why we have charters (on those groups young enough not to
pre-date them).

> Instead the
> intention was that truth would drive out falsehood because eventually
> people would admit they were wrong, usually if the community persuaded
> him.

You'd have thought so, wouldn't you? And yet, here you are, beyond
persuasion.

> But what its designers missed in the 1970s was the possibility
> that the entire community could be deviant and the in "duh" vidual
> could be right.

Not having the original immediately to hand, I must paraphrase: "They
laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Galois. But
never forget that they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

It is, of course, possible for one individual to be right, and all his
disputants to be wrong, but you have not shown that you are that
individual. Where you have expressed technical opinions, they have
generally been shown to be erroneous. Where you have written source code,
it has generally been shown to be flawed. Where you have made claims with
regard to logic, they have generally been shown to be false. This is not
the track record of a Galileo, or even a Galois.

>> Common sense seems to be alive and well in comp.programming, or at least
>> in most parts thereof. As for common decency: your constant name abuse,
>> your barrack-room language, your desperate attempts to belittle those
>> with whom
>
> I am not certain that my language would be acceptable at Horse Guards.

I am very certain that it is not acceptable in any kind of civilised
discussion. I conclude that you do not wish to hold civilised discussions.

> What you are missing is the idea of adequacy, for you have engaged in
> seriously wrong conduct.

I don't believe this contention to be true, and you have not provided
evidence to support it.

> To snip without reading and replying in
> detail is fucked because you cannot get the sense of a complex points
> by skimming.

I can, however, tell whether it's about programming or politics. And if it's
about politics, or sociology, or psychology, then I couldn't care less
about getting the "sense" of it, since it's clearly off-topic.

As I write this line, my news client tells me it's line 470 of this 512-line
reply. If I didn't snip mercilessly, the replies would be even longer. This
would, in my view, be counter-productive.

> Furthermore, you have mastered the managerial technique of delegating
> the rough stuff to other posters who take your apparent authority as a
> license to take out their worse instincts on the outlier case.

I have delegated *nothing*. I have claimed *no* authority. What other
contributors write is up to them. They are acting independently. You are
mistaken to view your opponents as an army under the command of a general.
Rather, you've bumped into a lot of very clueful people who all think
you're being extremely silly. There's a lesson there, if you would only
take the time to learn it.

>> you conduct discussions, your invective, your insistence on posting OT
>> stuff, and your general refusal to meet a certain basic modicum of
>> civility
>
> "Civility?" What civility have you shown?

Since I don't believe you to be capable of understanding the answer, I see
no point in your asking the question. Nevertheless, I'll take it nice and
easy, just in case you really can get this.

Civility is not so much about what one does; it's more about what one might
like to do, but does not do, in the interests of harmonious relations with
other people, either singly or in a group. (On Usenet, of course, we're
typically dealing with groups.) You are exceptionally bad at being civil,
and it's hard to tell whether this is deliberate or through utter social
ineptness. For example, it is quite clear that you like to swear. Some
other people on this newsgroup like to swear, I expect. But they refrain
(on the whole) from doing so, but you very frequently do not so refrain.
That's up to you, obviously, but it's one tiny instance of what I mean when
I say that you are not behaving in a civil way. There are many other
instances. If you like, in future I'll try to remember to point them out as
I see them. Would you enjoy that?

-- 
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

• Previous message: Zalek Bloom: "Tata Consulting India"
• In reply to: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: Theodore Adorno, a prophet of data systems design"
• Next in thread: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Theodore Adorno, a prophet of data systems design"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]