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: Madhu on 17 Nov 2009 20:37 * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-F2DFFC.17305417112009(a)news.albasani.net> : Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:30:54 -0800: | 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.) You do not say WHAT you find interesting. So you rely on everybody's subjective interpretation of the word again? -- Madhu
From: mdj on 17 Nov 2009 21:43 On Nov 17, 11:54 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > 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. Okay. Now that you concede that you're sloppy and your use of language is poor, you can no longer argue that your usage of it accurately conveys your point. This statement, like many of your others, is an obvious non sequitur. > 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. You are neither qualified nor capable to tell me what is or isn't important. > This is impossible when your intent is not to move forward but to troll > and bicker. This would be laughable if it wasn't so obviously fatuous. You've just 'bickered' for a couple of dozen posts over 'intent'. Of course you did. It's your intent you're trying to hide. > | 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. Come now Madhu, you're quite familiar with using 'cheap language tricks' to suit your argument, aren't you. I've made no statement I'm not prepared either qualify or retract, so your pathetic attempt at demonising my position is an obvious lie. > |> | 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? I'm not trolling. > |> 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. You do realise don't you, that repeatedly calling me a troll while all your arguments fall to pieces is the intellectual equivalent of a small child placing its hands over it's ears and yelling "LALALALALALALA" so it can no longer hear the truth ? > 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 I'm quite familiar with the sense you used the word in. Back to the other 'thread'
From: Madhu on 17 Nov 2009 21:59 | |> 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. | | You are neither qualified nor capable to tell me what is or isn't | important. I'm telling you what is important for me. COmmunication is important for me. Trolling is important for you. |> This is impossible when your intent is not to move forward but to troll |> and bicker. | | This would be laughable if it wasn't so obviously fatuous. You've just | 'bickered' for a couple of dozen posts over 'intent'. Of course you | did. It's your intent you're trying to hide. No, I have been restating the same intent, in response to your trolling attempts |> | 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. | | Come now Madhu, you're quite familiar with using 'cheap language | tricks' to suit your argument, aren't you. I've made no statement I'm | not prepared either qualify or retract, so your pathetic attempt at | demonising my position is an obvious lie. The `pathetic demonization' and lies are new `preposterous claims'. I'll pass. See, to ask you to qualify or retract would be the very trolling you are after and would be the very pathological bickering you are seeking to indulge in. This is the cheap trick language game you are playing,. |> | Nonsense. |> |> Do you have any other intention in continuing to troll? | | I'm not trolling. more trollbait I'll pass. |> I cannot do better except wait for you to stop trolling. | | You do realise don't you, that repeatedly calling me a troll while all | your arguments fall to pieces is the intellectual equivalent of a | small child placing its hands over it's ears and yelling | "LALALALALALALA" so it can no longer hear the truth ? You miss my point. I am not here to prove my intellectual prowess or bickering about language you are trolling for. My intention was to use the english language to make a point. I thought you misunderstood unintentionally, and sought to clarify it. You are just trolling to bicker about language. Arent you exhibiting the OCD you started accusing me of ? |> 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 | | I'm quite familiar with the sense you used the word in. There is a subjective view in which this can be shown to be a lie. -- Madhu
From: Madhu on 17 Nov 2009 22:05 * mdj <a9dae59d-24a2-4607-b38a-c51b23038f3e(a)u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:43:14 -0800 (PST): | On Nov 17, 11:54 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: | |> 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. | | Okay. Now that you concede that you're sloppy and your use of language | is poor, you can no longer argue that your usage of it accurately | conveys your point. |This statement, like many of your others, is an obvious non sequitur. Why? because you say so? |> 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. | | You are neither qualified nor capable to tell me what is or isn't | important. I just did. So now you want to follow your agenda and bicker pathologically on the meaning of the word `important' and how it is subjective and how I have completety misused it? |> This is impossible when your intent is not to move forward but to |> troll and bicker. I think you just proved your intent again -- Madhu
From: Madhu on 17 Nov 2009 22:09
* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-B32764.19034217112009(a)news.albasani.net> : Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:03:42 -0800: |> Concretely, how do you think Vassil's method differs in technique |> from what Rob illustrated to you many times in the earlier thread? | | Vassil's code worked. Rob's didn't. Rob's approach is pretty much | what I tried that I couldn't get to work, and I posted a detailed | description of the problems that I encountered. I would look it up, | but you have given me no reason to believe that it would not be wasted | effort, and you should do your own homework anyway. I'm not talking of code, I'm talking of the technique. I was curious if you had followed the approach Rob outlined at all. And No, I have done that piece of homework. -- Madhu |