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 18 Nov 2009 01:10 * mdj <d0233017-3433-469e-b15e-424950027a64(a)j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:05:58 -0800 (PST): | On Nov 18, 1:57 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: |> Why dont you post a few articles on lisp or something and maybe come |> back to this thread later? All you are doing is continuing to ``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's |> words observed of Garret's tactics in |> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/f965378a4e2d4abe> ) | | Since Ken has already posted to this thread and pointed out that is | observations of Ron in that context don't apply to me, But They do. "Everyone" can see that. | continuing to post this only makes you look like more of an idiot | than you already do, and provides yet another example (like we needed | one) of your stupidity and dishonesty. | | Shame on you :-P The dishonesty is on your part. -- Madhu
From: Madhu on 18 Nov 2009 01:14 * mdj <d0233017-3433-469e-b15e-424950027a64(a)j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:05:58 -0800 (PST): |> * mdj <44ad9a9a-9c1a-4775-8d7d-139904056...(a)a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com> : |> Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:34:26 -0800 (PST): |> |> | On Nov 17, 11:43 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: |> | |> | <snip> |> | |> |> | And I call bullshit. Your entire statement is based upon definitions |> |> | of words that only apparently you posess. |> |> |> |> You took exception because you were not familiar with the usage. I am |> |> not here to educate you about the usage, why dont you just excuse |> |> yourself from the target audience? |> | |> | The time has come to revisit your 'point', and to return to my |> | original purpose which was to question your intent. Are you ready? |> | |> | Your 'point' was that the results in question are 'uninteresting', and |> | that Ron's (and others) claim that they are is 'misleading'. |> |> Wrong. I was making a point which was the exact opposite of a claim |> made by Ron. You cannot understand my point without understanding Ron's |> claim. Instead you misunderstood the way I used the word `interesting'. |> I clarified it in my reply to Thingstad which you accepted. | | Yes, I accepted it and dispute it. Catch up. | |> | My objection, since you're either too stupid or dishonest to recognise |> | it is your completely inappropriate and incorrect suggestion that |> | other peoples perspectives are 'misleading'. |> |> Your objection is based on a misunderstanding which you refuse to |> correct. This is not surprising since your intent is not to come to an |> understanding of my point or intent but to troll and exhibit |> pathological bickering behaviour on your subjective understanding of the |> subjective meanings of words. | | "I call troll" says the man who tries to make points using another | persons words after than person has refuted their applicability. This describes your behaviour so far. | The peanuts called, they want their brother back. | |> | When mocked for your vapid use of language, you 'justify' your |> | position by pointing out (correctly) that CL is Turing complete and |> | can be used to construct other turing complete languages of lesser |> | expressive power. Well congratulations Einstein, that'll get you a C |> | in CS101 Of course, any Turing complete language can be used to |> | construct another of lesser or greater expressive power (You can, in |> | fact, write a Lisp interpreter in BASIC, complete with a 'compiler' |> | that emits BASIC statements). |> |> | The point is, you've declared somebody elses work to be uninteresting, |> |> You are intent on bickering about the meaning of the word `interesting'. |> I'm sorry you cant see past your misunderstanding. | | No, I'm intent on exposing you as a fraud. Have you succeeded yet? |> | You're avoiding constructing the argument because it would reveal your |> | true intentions. You were prepared to go far enough to do this to not |> | only call me stupid, but attempt to hide *again*, this time behind |> | poorly constructed philosophical claptrap which *again* only barely |> | qualifies as philosophy 101. Plato's Cave indeed. |> |> No, I'm avoiding constructing arguments because if I did I would be |> falling for your trollbait. | | You're avoiding it because you exhausted your supply of argument in | your reply to Thingstad. It's been refuted, sorry. No, I'm avoiding it because all your arguments are trollbait, intended to bicker about meanings of words. -- Madhu
From: mdj on 18 Nov 2009 01:15 On Nov 18, 12:59 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > I'm telling you what is important for me. COmmunication is important > for me. Trolling is important for you. A particularly laughable statement considering the hoops you're jumping through to avoid actually saying anything at all. > |> 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 Yes, yes. Your intent is to make a point. On that at least we can agree and have some common ground. > | 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,. Ok then, Mr Communicator. Qualifying a statement would be trolling and not communicating. Life must be strange on planet Madhu. > | 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 ? No, I'm pointing out the dishonest and nasty behaviour you keep indulging in, and calling you on it whenever you try to hide your malicious intent behind a scientific concept. This is easy. > |> 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. In what subjective sense is a lie not a lie ? No, wait. That's a question. We know you don't answer questions. Matt
From: Madhu on 18 Nov 2009 01:23 * mdj <6ac15a82-c0bb-4507-bfa1-c8db6bc2a4d4(a)u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:15:29 -0800 (PST): | On Nov 18, 12:59 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: | |> I'm telling you what is important for me. COmmunication is important |> for me. Trolling is important for you. | | A particularly laughable statement considering the hoops you're | jumping through to avoid actually saying anything at all. Maybe you want to state instead of me what it is that I have not said? |> | 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 | | Yes, yes. Your intent is to make a point. On that at least we can | agree and have some common ground. If you haven't realised yet We do not have any common ground. Your intent is to troll me into bickering about the meaning of `interested' and debate on the subjective interpretations. I am not interested in your language games. |> | 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,. | | Ok then, Mr Communicator. Qualifying a statement would be trolling and | not communicating. Life must be strange on planet Madhu. Segue or non-sequitor? you decide! -- Madhu
From: mdj on 18 Nov 2009 01:26
On Nov 18, 3:35 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Jeez, what a suck up! Now that's just cheap. After starting the joke the least you could do is run with for a bit. Bloody New Yorkers, always in a hurry :-P |