simulating local lexical variables with symbol macros
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: Mistake in the specification of rotatef ?
Next: [ann] LTK based libraries Runtime Library 3.0 and Gestalt Items 1.1
From: Kenneth Tilton on 17 Nov 2009 08:49 Madhu wrote: > You ignore all justification and ``return each remark with a machine gun > burst of no less than than than four preposterous remarks each just > screaming for rebuttal'' (in Ken Tilton observed of Garret's tactics in > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/f965378a4e2d4abe> ) Yeah, but Matt is neither Ron nor Erann. The latter are passive-aggressive, Matt is more disputatious and more genuinely engaging. Ron just messes with people. kny -- http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf
From: Madhu on 17 Nov 2009 08:54 * Hanne Gudiksen <a5e1f831-0877-4280-9ea9-a4deede91cc9(a)o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:29:20 -0800 (PST): | On Nov 17, 6:40 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: | |> | I have no desire to 'bicker'. I simply wish to point out that your |> | pattern of behaviour will lead to exactly this outcome, over and over |> | again. |> |> Wrong. You are ALL about bickering. The outcome is determined by the |> agenda you set when you made your first post. I was going to bicker |> about `interesting' in your first post, which I immediately sought to |> correct and I established my intention was to make a point. | | That would be true, were I the only intelligent agent acting on | this... hang on a second ... | |> Your intention however is to show I was doing it from a point of |> bickering, and I have refrained, you troll me by making perposterous |> remarks about meanings of words. | | Excuse me, but I believe you are the one who was claiming that your | point was valid because your use of the terms 'interesting' and | 'pathological' had valid (and unambiguous) mathematical definitions. No. My point was valid. I use language to make a point. I accept I am sloppy and my languge is not the best, but I am making it in a context that does not include you among your target audience. I expect the audience to be familiar with the jargon. Even if I make a mistake, it makes no difference --- I'm using the words to communicate a point. When language is subject to different interpretation or misunderstanding the way forward is to clarify intentions and seek clarification. I've provided those and you accepted that. You can disagree till you burn in hell that I misused `pathological', which is a word I did not introduce into the thread. But there is a subjective view (common among mathematicians) where it is valid use. There is no need to justify that to you --- what is important to you is I convey the point I was intent on conveying. This is impossible when your intent is not to move forward but to troll and bicker. | I see that you are at least smart enough to realise you lost that | battle, hence this puffery and smokery about other words. | | Not much of a segue is it, really ? Whatever. |> Pick a new word each time and use english language to construct a |> prime facie wrong argument that you use as a preposterous claim[1] |> that begs to be rebutted | | Were I making any preposterous claims I've no doubt they'd be rebutted | by now. No, they are all subjective positions that change as you change your view to suit your argument. Your language games are cheap well recognized tricks --- No one in their sane minds will come near them. Best to avoid them like I did and focus on issues in understanding. |> | All you have to do to avoid it is use the technique of |> | "paraphrasing" your meaning in a way that contextualises it. If you |> | attempt to be too succinct you'll become overly reliant on your own |> | subjective definitions of terms that frankly, are subjective. |> |> This was the precisely basis of your trolling. You can always find a |> subjective perspective in which your prime facie argument is |> justifiable. Screw any points. Start the flame fest! | | Nonsense. Do you have any other intention in continuing to troll? |> Or do you now you want to us to bicker pathologically on the meaning |> of the word `subjective, instead of `interesting', and how it is |> subjective and I have misused it while you supply brilliant flawless |> reasoning? | | Oh now you're just being silly. Bicker over the meaning of subjective? | Next you'll be accusing me of bickering over the definition of bicker. | | You're going to have to do a lot better than that sunshine. I cannot do better except wait for you to stop trolling. |> | Now, why don't you give us *your* definition of the word |> | 'interesting'. I for one am quite 'interested' to know what it is |> | because for the life of me I cannot find a definition that would make |> | your usage of it make sense. |> |> My intent is not to bicker about the word `interesting' which appears to |> be your sole area of competence, and which you repeatedly wish to drag |> me into, but to point out a false claim made by Ron Garret, | | By misappropriating the word interesting, and then when challenged, | claim you possess some high and mighty objective definition of it. | This is bollocks. Haven't you been paying attention ? I was using the word in a sense you were not familiar with. What is important is the point I was making through it, not bickering about the word, which is the object of your trolls -- Madhu
From: Ron Garret on 17 Nov 2009 15:58 In article <4b02a9f7$0$22542$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Madhu wrote: > > You ignore all justification and ``return each remark with a machine gun > > burst of no less than than than four preposterous remarks each just > > screaming for rebuttal'' (in Ken Tilton observed of Garret's tactics in > > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/f965378a4e2d4abe> ) > > Yeah, but Matt is neither Ron nor Erann. The latter are > passive-aggressive, Matt is more disputatious and more genuinely > engaging. Ron just messes with people. Only with people who deserve to be messed with. rg
From: Tim Bradshaw on 17 Nov 2009 17:49 I'd just like to point out that it turns out we never did need Erik for this kind of endless futility. Indeed, I think this whole thing would probably have been a lot more entertaining if he'd still been here (though I've not read any of the last fixnum articles including the one I'm following up to, so maybe there is entertainment yet to be had).
From: Ron Garret on 17 Nov 2009 20:30
In article <2009111722493016807-tfb(a)cleycom>, Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)cley.com> wrote: > I'd just like to point out that it turns out we never did need Erik for > this kind of endless futility. Indeed, I think this whole thing would > probably have been a lot more entertaining if he'd still been here > (though I've not read any of the last fixnum articles including the one > I'm following up to, so maybe there is entertainment yet to be had). It would be funnier if not for the sad fact that Vassil Nikolov's code, which IMHO is very interesting indeed, has been completely ignored by everyone participating in this farce. (For those of you too young to remember, Vassil's code is the first message in this thread.) rg |