Re: Irrational numbers
From: Richard Heathfield (dontmail_at_address.co.uk.invalid)
Date: 11/08/03
- Next message: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Challenge. Break This"
- Previous message: John Niven: "Re: One-Time_Pad"
- In reply to: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Irrational numbers"
- Next in thread: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Irrational numbers"
- Reply: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Irrational numbers"
- Reply: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Irrational numbers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 14:56:18 +0000 (UTC)
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>> > As to my side, it is understandable that I
>> > have to defend myself against such attacks made in the
>> > public. (Would you defend yourself, if you were attacked,
>> > physically or in words, on the street?)
>>
>> This isn't a street. It's Usenet. People who are unjustly attacked tend
>> to get defended, at least if they've built up a good reputation. If you
>> are not defended when attacked, consider the idea of building up a good
>> reputation. It works for me, at least in newsgroups where I care about my
>> rep.
>
> That's your strategy and that's may be you are capable.
Capable? Not in cryptography, and I've never claimed it.
> My strategy is to defend myself staightaway. What's
> fundamentally wrong in that??
I'll tell you what's wrong with it. It's terribly, terribly boring to read,
at least when it goes on and on and on.
<snip>
> [...] If I am unjustified
> scolded on the street with bad words, it is the unjust
> that I have to remove.
This is not a street. It's Usenet. You can't remove people just because you
don't like them or because they don't like you.
>> > (I conjecture that could even possibly be
>> > due to 'hereditary' reasons of hetred of one type or
>> > the other, though I would certainly never be able to
>> > exactly know)
>>
>> You mean racism? I don't think that's the cause of your problems in this
>> newsgroup.
>
> There are lots of other deep-rooted hatred, for religious,
> familiar, business etc. etc. reasons.
Try applying the time-honoured principle of Occam's Razor. It is indeed
possible that people are sometimes opposed to you because they are racist,
sexist, creedist, familialist, businessist, or ManchesterUnitedist; but
it's far more likely that people are sometimes opposed to you for the very
simple reason that you sometimes act like a pillock.
<snip>
> If a poor guy is blamed for being poor by
> a rich man, your logic is to have him try to become rich,
> such that he could eventually even blame back. Is that
> your 'logic'??
No. Acquiring knowledge is not the same as acquiring riches. It's a lot
easier, and (I would argue) it is also more valuable. Having acquired that
knowledge, you wouldn't need to "blame back" as you put it.
> Anyway, I don't accept your logic. I'll
> defend myself when attacked. That's my natural right.
Yes, it's your natural right to make yourself such a pain in the neck that
people end up not reading what you post. Is that what you're after?
-- 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
- Next message: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Challenge. Break This"
- Previous message: John Niven: "Re: One-Time_Pad"
- In reply to: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Irrational numbers"
- Next in thread: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Irrational numbers"
- Reply: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Irrational numbers"
- Reply: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Irrational numbers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|