Re: [EGN] Re: [OT] Re: Hackers

From: EMonk (emonk_at_slingshot.no.uce)
Date: 09/08/04 

Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:02:27 +1200

Edward G. Nilges wrote:

> "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <ajo@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.60-041.0409052327560.16098@unix49.andrew.cmu.edu>...
>
<snip>
>> Well, they did lower the bandwidth a /little/ bit. But my
>>exasperated request did have the desired effect, after a few weeks:
>>the Nilges-related flamewars decreased to a very tolerable level.
>
> It had that effect because I conformed to your request. Neither
> Murtagh nor Howard did so, and you yourself as of today have violated
> your own rule. For this reason I shall agree to no such undertaking in
> the future.

He requested nothing of you. He asked Randy and myself to stop baiting
you (if not in so many words), and we declined. How exactly does that
translate into a request that you not respond to us?

>>>But it's plain to me that any more than Murtagh or Howard had the
>>>self-discipline to accede to your request, you yourself cannot follow
>>>it.
>>
>> Huh?
>
> What part of self-discipline don't you understand?

The bit that relates in any way, shape or form to my (and Randy's)
decision not to accede to Arthur's request perhaps?

>>>Therefore my silence in response to Murtagh or Howard is at an end,
>>>and, in fact, I shall reply to their posts retrospectively.
>>
>> Why? Just because you want to be disruptive? It'd be a lot nicer
>
> No, I don't want to be disruptive. I am instead concerned that after
> THIRTY YEARS of big talk by programmers, Colleen Rowley, and FBI agent
> on the trail of the Sep 11 highjackers, was unable to enter simple
> Boolean queries and do her fucking job. I am instead concerned that

Oh, for crying out loud.

The above statement has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with me or
my treatment of you. I am in no way responsible for the FBI's computer
problems - and I really, really do not want to get into a futile and
off-topic discussion with you about that ancient story, save to point
out that the root of the problem was the planning, not the programming.

> 80% of all enterprise systems fail, in part because so many
> programmers are obsessed with micro-efficiencies including a
> misunderstood "variable hoisting", and spend their time bullying
> others into their own twisted shape.

And that must be #23 on your list of "things that cause 80% of all
enterprise systems to fail"... an assertion which you have consistently
ignored all invitations to prove.

You may think you have all the answers, but the horrible truth is that
you do not. No one does.

<snip>
> You asked Randy and Corey to cease replying in July. They did not. But
> I ceased replying to them. Then, you abused me by name. This was to go
> back on your own committment, and you can forget about me doing this
> in the future.

He asked, we declined. End of story. Stop trying to make such a big
deal out of it, you insufferable fool.

Oh, and another thing: stop trying to guess at my psychosocial profile
based on whatever whack-job's theories you've been reading this week. I
am not homophobic - or homophilic for that matter. I do not have anger
management issues, etc. ad nauseum. In fact, not a single one of the
many pseudo-psychological claims you've made in relation to me and my
actions have been even a tiny bit correct.

I'd hazard a guess - as I've done a many times in the past - that you're
the one with the deep-rooted psychological issues. I've said it before
and I'll say it again: seek professional psychiatric help. Of all of
the people who post here regularly, you're the one who appears to need
it the most. 

-- 
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"