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: mdj on 18 Nov 2009 02:43 On Nov 18, 5:27 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > You're out of depth now? > Or can you state clearly on what count of fraud you have succeeded in > convicting me of, and what evidence and reasoning you used to arrive at > your `proof' My use of language is perfectly clear; a point you've complimented me on more than once. Go back and read my posts again. There is nothing to be gained by repeating myself further
From: Madhu on 18 Nov 2009 02:44 * mdj <432d0f2f-fe98-4bc4-b26a-cfe6b52c173b(a)2g2000prl.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:41:33 -0800 (PST): | On Nov 18, 5:19 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: | |> |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. | | Unless time is now running backwards and nobody told me, I see no | reason why your response would predate my statement. I give up! What is it that you have misunderstood here, that you wish me to correct? -- Madhu
From: Madhu on 18 Nov 2009 02:48 * mdj <90f4505d-eecf-4647-9939-4f3348c2bac7(a)z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:43:41 -0800 (PST): |> You're out of depth now? |> Or can you state clearly on what count of fraud you have succeeded in |> convicting me of, and what evidence and reasoning you used to arrive at |> your `proof' | | My use of language is perfectly clear; a point you've complimented me | on more than once. Go back and read my posts again. There is nothing | to be gained by repeating myself further But your posts perfectly clearly when when seen as trollposts, where you are inviting me to correct your misunderstandings, inviting me to bicker pathologically about the meanings of subjective words and usages, and gratuitious insults like calling me a fraud. I'm not sure what it is you think you have "exposed". -- Madhu
From: mdj on 18 Nov 2009 02:55 On Nov 18, 5:48 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > | My use of language is perfectly clear; a point you've complimented me > | on more than once. Go back and read my posts again. There is nothing > | to be gained by repeating myself further > > But your posts perfectly clearly when when seen as trollposts, where you > are inviting me to correct your misunderstandings, inviting me to bicker > pathologically about the meanings of subjective words and usages, and > gratuitious insults like calling me a fraud. There is an unresolvable incongruity between asking me for further clarification and your decision to label everything I say as troll. That being the case, solving that impasse depends completely on you. I am not going to retract my remarks without refutation, and you are not going to refute anything on the grounds that it's trollbait. So we have a stalemate. Others can decide their POV based on the already voluminous extant material. > I'm not sure what it is you think you have "exposed". Troll ;-)
From: Kenneth Tilton on 18 Nov 2009 07:42
Madhu 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> ) "than than than"? Your editor has a stutter. kt -- http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf |