What is the best way to process this list
in [Lisp]
|
From: mdj on 6 Jan 2010 08:26 On Jan 6, 7:55 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > Matt, You are posting bullshit in a technical group. I assume most > members have some capacity for rational critical reasoning and > honesty, even if you lack it. Step 1: Appeal to everyone's ego by implying you think they're smart. Predictable, and unfortunately for you gives away the fact that you really don't respect other people's intellect. If you did, you'd refrain from using a cheap salesman's trickery. > You have demonstrated here (and earlier) that you are not honest and > only interested in bickering so debate with you is a waste of time.. I > am not interested in answering every of your fallacious posts or playing > your "How many ways can I get this wrong so you can correct me" game. There's a group of people in this world who insist that Darwin's theory of evolution must be false due to "unexplained gaps in the fossil record". They bring no new evidence or conjecture to the table themselves; they just point to an area with little/no evidence and conspiratorially call an entire field of scientific enquiry into question. Whatever colourful name you'd prefer to give these people, you can't help but recognise that their argument pattern is in fact the same as your own: insist other people are mistaken, but refuse to offer any actual conjecture to the contrary. The fallback position is one of pure Authoritarianism in both their case, and in yours. Another example of how this form of thinking affects you is your failure to recognise when Ron is employing the Socratic method when discussing something. You completely miss the point, intent on pointing out the 'misleading' when the intent is to be 'leading' and encourage the other party to think. > The only item I have pending is Who is Hanne Gudiken and why did you use > her name when posting on Comp.lang.lisp in an earlier thread? In the interest of diplomacy I'll assume you're intelligent enough to figure that out for yourself. Matt
From: Madhu on 6 Jan 2010 08:40 * mdj <65bc0c63-914c-4e3c-a7fa-95ba62e3c00d(a)u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:26:52 -0800 (PST): | On Jan 6, 7:55 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: |> Matt, You are posting bullshit in a technical group. I assume most |> members have some capacity for rational critical reasoning and |> honesty, even if you lack it. [bullshit, nonsense snipped] | Another example of how this form of thinking affects you is your | failure to recognise when Ron is employing the Socratic method when | discussing something. You completely miss the point, intent on | pointing out the 'misleading' when the intent is to be 'leading' and | encourage the other party to think. You have been misled. And you are now bent on misleading others, Ron made a mistake again upthread that I pointed out. He was plainly unambiguously wrong. He cannot admit it because of a pathological condition, and instead to cover his own mistakes he starts accusing me of being Wrong on Everything. This is a recurring behaviour pattern which poisons the usenet newsgroup. This is a disease you have too. You are doing the same thing --- you made a mistake you cannot admit it and cover it up with verbiage non-sequitors and fallacious reasoning, baseless false and irrelevant accusations baseless accusations. You have been doing this since you started posting to CLL, and your non-sequitors and fallacies are an insult to an intelligence and it is an insult to the newsgroup to even start to respond to them --- especially after you have admitted your intent to troll and bicker. |> The only item I have pending is Who is Hanne Gudiken and why did you |> use her name when posting on Comp.lang.lisp in an earlier thread? | | In the interest of diplomacy I'll assume you're intelligent enough to | figure that out for yourself. This isnt about diplomacy, its about your representing and implicating others fraudlently, and about risks to that party in associating with characters like you. -- Madhu
From: mdj on 6 Jan 2010 10:23 On Jan 7, 12:53 am, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > You continue to pollute. Do you have a last name? Yes but since you don't disclose yours it's rude of you to ask. > | So we have to take it "on faith" that you've spotted these heinous > | infractions on my part, and be grateful of the community service > | you're providing us by letting us know? > > Stop pretending you are engaging in an honest exchange. > > It is clear to those who have enough technical knowledge, capacity for > critical thinking and logical reasoning, the members of a technical > group. > > | You're like the witch doctor in a medieval village pointing at a > | stranger and yelling "It was HIM that poisoned the well!" > > There you start off again It's an appropriate analogy for someone who rubbishes other people without evidence. That's you. > |> If you cant make technically relevant ontopic posts in the future, > |> please refrain from polluting the newsgroup. > | > | Oh grow up. You made a mistake. Happens to all of us. > > No. Ron made a mistake, I pointed it out. He responded refusing to > admit it and by instead accusing me of making a mistake in an attempt to > confuse and mislead. You are doing the same thing. I reposted Ron's admission a couple of posts ago. Why are you still insisting he didn't admit it? > If you cant make focussed technically relevant ontopic posts in the > future, please refrain from polluting the newsgroup. Your bluff is called sunshine. It's pretty obvious from your inability to construct a retort any more sophisticated than "Hey everyone! Matt's a Liar!" that you're holding a dud hand. You contribute nothing, Madhu. You proclaim people are wrong at any opportunity and if they disagree with you, you resort to name calling. You don't back your statements up with reasoned arguments because when you do your reason is usually found wanting. I can only summise that you enjoy being the brunt of other peoples jokes.
From: mdj on 6 Jan 2010 21:09 On Jan 7, 11:29 am, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > Establishing you as a liar when you are indeed lying is the only useful > outcome of this exchange. I have merely stated what I think. What I think may be wrong, but it doesn't make me a liar to state it. > | Why is it that you think the fact that someone maye have made a small > | mistake is reason to carry on like a pork chop ? > > I just pointed out a piece of irrelevant nonsense. End of story. Since > then I am only responding to your attempts to add more irrelevant > non-topic nonsense, and your pathological psychological defect to bicker > about it. Irrelevant to you perhaps, but not directed at you. There's no basis for you to claim that it's irrelevant to me. > Note I am NOT answering your non-sequiturs I note you have not responded to any argument I've made. Whether or not they're non-sequiturs remains to be seen. I'll happily concede that they are if you can demonstrate it, I have no problem being shown incorrect. Why would I bother engaging in a discussion if I thought I had nothing more to learn? > You have nothing relevant to say ontopic. Quit pretending you are > engaging in honest debate. Quit calling me a liar without any justification.
From: mdj on 6 Jan 2010 22:14
On Jan 7, 12:26 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > You lie. Don't ask me to convince you, because that request isnt > honest. You are just trolling, and all you have done in CLL is troll me. > It has been done and you have demonstrated you are psychologically > defective and you will only make more irrelevant non-sequiturs to cover > up any demonstration of your bullshit. My contributions to this thread are as follows: 1. To agree with Ken that Pascal's assertion that plists are faster than structures for small values is false, and to state *why* 2. I incorrectly assumed that if a list based representation of a structure was being used then it would be a plist or an alist. Ron helped me see that, and I appreciate his effort. Point 1, IMO, stands. To be honest, I had no desire to 'engage' with you at all. I only did so when you (IMO incorrectly) stated that a structure #S(:a a :b b) which has it's definition altered to (b a) has *not* been re-organised when it later displays as #S(:b a :a b). If it was re-organised it would display as #S(:b b :a a), which it did not. There is, you'll agree, only two possible organisations for that structure. I'm sorry you seem to think this makes me a dishonest person, but it seems clear to me that no reasonable implementation would attempt to reorganise the (potentially terabytes) of existing instances when a defstruct is redefined. One has to check what their own implementation does, but I think you'll find that the one you're advocating is the *least* likely, considering it's only even possible at all if the structures remain the same size, and in that case it isn't even necessary to do it at all. I would contend that the only reason implementations allow redefinition at all is to facilitate prototyping and bottom-up design, since the results of doing so will in practice be unpredictable at best, contrived examples notwithstanding. You're free of course to disagree with my interpretation, either by correcting it, shutting up, or even calling me a liar. Doing the latter however as you can see has no justification whatsoever. The fact that I might be incorrect does not make me dishonest. Your belief that I am dishonest probably stems from your insistence that I take you at your word that I am. Your response to my above explanation was to call it bullshit, and my refusal to accept that as a contradictory statement does not make me dishonest. It is simply a way of thinking. It's perfectly reasonable to hold a position until contrary evidence is discovered Madhu, regardless of your particular views on the matter. Matt |