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 01:45 * mdj <eacee83c-aed4-4b7a-a311-d44c4f4e26dd(a)t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:42:21 -0800 (PST): | On Nov 18, 4:14 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: | |> | No, I'm intent on exposing you as a fraud. |> |> Have you succeeded yet? | | I believe so. All the evidence of course is circumstantial, but the | extremely one dimensional nature of it does not permit any other | conclusion. Can I get a citation stating I am a fraud on Such-and-such-a-count? Also, a solid proof of how you exposed me would be useful. I'd like to have proof to show prospective employers and such, you know -- Madhu
From: mdj on 18 Nov 2009 01:59 On Nov 18, 4:29 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > | 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. > > What Nasty behaviour? > What malicious intent? > What scientific concept? This covered it. No need to expand on it when it's had no refutation. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/4fa15d1543542987
From: mdj on 18 Nov 2009 02:05 On Nov 18, 4:37 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > |> But They do. "Everyone" can see that. > | > | Oh yes, shame on my for being so crooked and taking Ken at his word! > > You really want me to tell you what logical fallacy you are comitting > here dont you? I did not make that (admittedly sarcastic) remark in response to that statement, you deleted text to make it appear that way. Fraud.
From: Madhu on 18 Nov 2009 02:13 * mdj <b5eb427a-9e5a-4985-9794-2f63ef98986a(a)b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:05:10 -0800 (PST): | On Nov 18, 4:37 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: | |> |> But They do. "Everyone" can see that. |> | |> | Oh yes, shame on my for being so crooked and taking Ken at his word! |> |> You really want me to tell you what logical fallacy you are comitting |> here dont you? | | I did not make that (admittedly sarcastic) remark in response to that | statement, you deleted text to make it appear that way. Here is the context reinserted: * 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=C2=A0pm, 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, They do apply to all your activity on comp.lang.lisp You really want me to tell you what logical fallacy you are comitting here dont you? Troll. -- Madhu
From: Madhu on 18 Nov 2009 02:19
* mdj <7e19fabc-3bf9-4e32-bed6-7273bef912e9(a)r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:59:46 -0800 (PST): | On Nov 18, 4:29 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: | |> | 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. |> |> What Nasty behaviour? |> What malicious intent? |> What scientific concept? | | This covered it. No need to expand on it when it's had no refutation. Since there was no nasty behaviour, no malicious intent, and no scientific concept, there is nothing to refute. | http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/4fa15d1543542987 See <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/e18056ac28857be7> Or pick any of my responses to you before that. -- Madhu |