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 09:57 Am I dealing with Dave Searles here?? * Hanne Gudiksen <09b1a258-fbff-4715-9fb8-65a6ccb0a3de(a)g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:47:40 -0800 (PST): |> | 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. |> |> But this situation you outline has persisted from the start because we |> have no common ground. |> |> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/58b348c4ed851268> | | This post is not even early let alone from the start. It has existed from the start, it exists from this point on. So Your attempt at | Fraud. fails again to any reader with critical thinking. | It does however contain brilliant retorts from you such as "Whatever" And tacitly exposes some of your "flying bullshit" you are trying to cover up no doubt. |> |Others can decide their POV based on the already voluminous extant |> |material. |> |> I was just replying to you. not to others but this shows more of your |> intent. You have picked up another aspect of Ron's disease. ---- Bury |> your mistakes in an impenetrable trollfest of verbiage that no one will |> have the patience to dig through. | | Or so you'd like to think. The majority of readers see this as it | unfolds, lying bullshit on your part included. Hopefully not. I'd expect the majority of readers killfiled me when this started, so the only lying bullshit they'll see is yours. -- Madhu
From: Kenneth Tilton on 18 Nov 2009 10:45 Madhu wrote: > * Kenneth Tilton <4b03eba4$0$31285$607ed4bc(a)cv.net> : > Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:42:21 -0500: > > | 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. > > Indeed. Apologies for misquoting you---I notice I yanked this incorrect > text without fixing it.... So it was someone else's mistake? Whose? The citation you keep providing has: "One cannot step into the same stream twice: as I said, I gave up on talking to you when you responded to one remark with a machine gun burst of no less than four preposterous remarks each just screaming for rebuttal but I recognized the phenomenon and was more interested in talking with people than doing a four hour flamewar in person." kt -- http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf
From: Madhu on 18 Nov 2009 10:57 * Kenneth Tilton <4b0416af$0$22533$607ed4bc(a)cv.net> : Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:45:52 -0500: | Madhu wrote: |> * Kenneth Tilton <4b03eba4$0$31285$607ed4bc(a)cv.net> : |> Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:42:21 -0500: |> |> | 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. |> |> Indeed. Apologies for misquoting you---I notice I yanked this incorrect |> text without fixing it.... | | So it was someone else's mistake? Whose? The citation you keep | providing has: | | "One cannot step into the same stream twice: as I said, I gave up on | talking to you when you responded to one remark with a machine gun burst | of no less than four preposterous remarks each just screaming for | rebuttal but I recognized the phenomenon and was more interested in | talking with people than doing a four hour flamewar in person." No, it is this one, except for the misquoted stutter... .... wait. mistake ... Ah my quote left out the `walking away' part, Seeing how I got sucked into the stream when by answering the the current person exhibiting the illustrated behaviour.. Maybe i should take my long vacation now.. -- Madhu
From: Kenneth Tilton on 18 Nov 2009 14:54 Madhu wrote: > * Kenneth Tilton <4b0416af$0$22533$607ed4bc(a)cv.net> : > Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:45:52 -0500: > > | Madhu wrote: > |> * Kenneth Tilton <4b03eba4$0$31285$607ed4bc(a)cv.net> : > |> Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:42:21 -0500: > |> > |> | 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. > |> > |> Indeed. Apologies for misquoting you---I notice I yanked this incorrect > |> text without fixing it.... > | > | So it was someone else's mistake? Whose? The citation you keep > | providing has: > | > | "One cannot step into the same stream twice: as I said, I gave up on > | talking to you when you responded to one remark with a machine gun burst > | of no less than four preposterous remarks each just screaming for > | rebuttal but I recognized the phenomenon and was more interested in > | talking with people than doing a four hour flamewar in person." > > No, it is this one, except for the misquoted stutter... > ... wait. mistake ... > Ah my quote left out the `walking away' part, Seeing how I got sucked > into the stream when by answering the the current person exhibiting the > illustrated behaviour.. > > Maybe i should take my long vacation now.. No, don't go, you are close to the record. If we can get into a flamewar about you not fessing up to misquoting me about someone you are having a flamewar with about their Usenet style in discussing the simulation of local lexical variables with symbol macros it just might put you over the top. hth, kenny -- http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf
From: Madhu on 18 Nov 2009 15:08
* Kenneth Tilton <4b0450e7$0$22512$607ed4bc(a)cv.net> : Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:54:15 -0500: |> Maybe i should take my long vacation now.. | | No, don't go, you are close to the record. If we can get into a | flamewar about you not fessing up to misquoting me about someone you | are having a flamewar with about their Usenet style in discussing the | simulation of local lexical variables with symbol macros it just might | put you over the top. Cut me some slack k? Its my first usenet flamefest. -- Madhu |