Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2008-07-22, szr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> J?rgen Exner wrote: >>> Chris Rathman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> I can't say that I see any particular point to the essay. >>> >>> You must be new here. There never is any particular point to >>> Xah Lee's rantings except to cross-post borderline topics to >>> borderline relevant NGs and then lay back and enjoy the >>> ensuing slaughter. >> >> Admittedly, I'm not all too familiar with his postings, but on >> a general note, isn't it possible that someone else might not >> see it the same as you do? I really didn't see anything really >> sinister about the posting or it's content. > > That's the, uh, "beauty" of Xah Lee's posts. There's enough > "there" there to suck people into what they think is going to > be a conversation. But it's not really a conversation. He > doesn't really read (or doesn't comprehend) responses to his > posts and will just continue to ramble on in a somewhat > insulting, half-rational stream of utterly opaque metaphors > that he thinks makes him sound deeply philosphical. It has > been theorized that he's an AI project.
So, some dark government experiment gone horribly wrong? >> It may very well be someone attempting to create a >> conversation, someone who may not be generally well received a >> lot of the time I gather. > > Quite a few people here in c.l.p put forth a a lot of effort > (for Usenet, anyway) trying to have a reasonable exchange with > xah lee, but it seems to be pointless. He's a perpetual critic > who looks down his nose at everything and thinks he could do > everything better than everybody else (not that he has actually > ever _done_ anything, AFAICT). That's good to know. >> Also, if have such a distaste for his postings, you are free >> to ignore them as well. That said, I am all for alerting >> someone of something which may be a complete waste of their >> time, > > It's not a waste of your time if you find him entertaining, but > I wouldn't expect any actual conversation where he reads and > understands your replies and responds to them in a rational > manner. Yeah I wasn't really aware it was that bad. >> but in this case it feels like you are projecting your >> own dislike for the OP. Unless the OP really is deserving of >> such branding (in which case I'd stand corrected), I don't >> think it is reason enough to tell others not to read of his >> work just because you aren't particularly fond of it. >> >> Perhaps citing an actual example illustrating a reason to >> avoid him like the plague would of helped :-) > > google groups should be able to find you plenty of examples > both here and in perl groups. Thank you for filling in some voids. -- szr -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list