xahlee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> It's deja vu all over again.
>
> I feel like i'm a genius, even though i'm really not, but now it
> appears here, there are 4 against me now, and who are these 4 people?
> they are (mostly) experienced lisp programers.
>
> If there are 4 lisp programers, most or all of which i think are
> experienced, and all claim that i was wrong, how can i be right?
>
> <<Laughs out loud to myself a nervous laugh>>
>
> So, logic must dictate, that i'm a real genius, that my thoughts are,
> as they say, beyond the times, transcents the common.
>
> At this point, i have maybe 2 choices. (1) to continue my aloof
> existance, and keep exuding heightened phantasmagorical writings. (2)
> to be down to earth, and explain in earnest, technically, my positions
> in a humble way, with the consequences of (A) utterly proven myself to
> be the biggest idiot who made a big splash but shown to be wrong, at
> the end. (B) proven my distractors wrong, and hence earns the
> admiration and respect with mystic qualities.
>
> This is a dire decision to make. I seems to be unable to make this
> decision. Could this be a false dilemma?
>
> I'm guessing my problem has to do with my personality. A normal
> person, would probably just discuss the issue in earnest. Like, we all
> human beings, some knows some areas better, and we all make mistakes.
> A discussion can just carry on in its course, and everyone can just
> learn something or simply enjoy the conversation.
>
> But Noooo! I can't be like that. People have wronged me. Not because
> i'm wrong, because they are cocks (and comparatively stupid?). Look at
> Rainer's reply to my message, he called me FUD!! He called me FUD,
> everybody! Look there!!!
>
> He sayz: «Fortunately there is. You just have to look it up. »
>
> Now that tone is not pleasant on the ear! I said «There is no
> universal definition of the concept of closure in the context of
> programing languages.» and he retorted me and denied me the pleasure
> to be correct!
>
> He continues: «Closures have nothing to do with global vars. Your
> attempt to explain it does not help.»
>
> Woot! Perhaps his writing skill at the precision aspect needs
> improving, but i don't think my writing claimed that “closures has to
> do with global vars” (nay, i knew i didn't). He sayz my attempt to
> help didn't help. He sullied me! I got sullied. Wrongfulness accused.
> Incompetence of fact-checking charged. I got WRONGED AND SULLIED.
> DENIED the pleasure of helping! A fundamental pleasure of life, denied
> to me, by one tech geeker.
>
> I refused to believe this, and i kindly told Rainer that he should
> think about the issue, to formalize the concept, to take a survey, and
> i'm perfect. Now, one George tech geeker ganged on me and propound
> that i'm a “perfect imbecile”!
>
> Witnesses, you have seen the above. The sequence of affairs is not
> unlike a pack of dogs barking for supremacy. I imagine i still have
> the upper hand though.
>
> Still, it troubles me deeply, how could a patently simple explanation,
> a simple concept, a penetrating view, be not clearly grasped by a
> gaggle of lispers? In this thread, there are 15 messages. Not one
> reply, seems to indicate that what i said is correct. Almost half of
> them actually pointed out that i was incorrect, and even unhelpful.
> I'm greatly troubled by this. To me, this is like going into a bar,
> and when the subject of 1+1 comes up, my nonchalant remark of 2
> suddently made everybody stare. This can be a terrifying experience.
> Like, in a bar you suddenly realized all the people around you are not
> humans but aliens. Or, you realized it's a gay bar and you are not
> gay. Or, they are all black and you are the only white. Or, you are
> standing out like a sole genius.
>
> Suppose, in such a situation, you have some choices. A rational one,
> is to calmly explain, in earnest, your views. And, you think, truth
> will prevail. But nuuuuu! What if they will have none of it? I mean,
> for all you know, these aliens might be cannibals. And remember, you
> are out numbered. Just imagine, 50 bucks on a doe; the lord of the
> flies. A alternative course of action, is to ply the art of
> subterfuge. Feign left and right, give a smile and a nod. Acknowledge,
> that 1+1 can be 3, under the cir***stances. Tech geek with them. Win a
> friend.
>
> Sirs, would you like to have a piece of my mind?
I thought we just did. And it was great. Post on, O Mighty Xah!
I am fascinated by the evidence of soaring social IQ, so high now that
the question of how best to react to reactors distracts from the OQ of
closures. Computers are easy to figure out, but people? Omigod! Now
there is a challenge for any genius in one domain but not others
(Gardner found six).
If I want to improve my lot the most lucrative field of study will be
the one in which I am most deficient: it would be much easier for me to
improve my unicycling than my Lisp never having been on a unicycle. But
with people the stakes are higher than the unicycle.
Above we hear one option to "continue my aloof existence", below we have
another -- "Win a friend.". The evidence I spoke of is these even being
considered. The monk (perhaps wisely!) has taken the easy way out,
abandoning the challenge altogether and at the extreme retiring to a
monastery where one does not speak. But I hear a yearning in the word
"aloof" and in the conjunction of "win" and "friend" and why does "vow
of silence" and "Xah Lee" sound so wrong?
I went woodshed (its a jargon thing) on stand-up recently, found two
things: the audience is all that matters and (2) never mind the
audience, you are right, they are wrong. Reconciliation below.
Most people were disapoointed by my talk at ECLM 2008, a fumbling
walkthru of Cells and a quick look at my Algebra app. Apparently they
were all primed for a dancing bear, and I just talked about the single
most powerful software library one could use. Six liked it and wanted to
talk afterwards, ninety hated it. The organizers want the airfare back.
Otoh, the folks lucky enough to be at the stern of boat #1 and the great
crowd that heeded my ensuing pied piper procession to the bar nearest
the dock got the show.
The moral?
(1) The audience is all that matters, but they respond only to truth. I
have to get the audience, but I must use non-subterfuging subterfuge.
This is the actors problem, to act and be real at once. Brando
dumbfounded Cavett for an hour trying to convince him that Cavett --
simply by being a person -- was as great an actor as anyone.
(2) Next time Kenny yells "Let's go drinking!" at the end of the night,
go drinking.
hth, kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
|
