Prev: Mistake in the specification of rotatef ?
Next: [ann] LTK based libraries Runtime Library 3.0 and Gestalt Items 1.1
From: Madhu on 12 Nov 2009 20:22
* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-19A81D.17093412112009(a)news.albasani.net> :
Wrote on Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:09:34 -0800:

| In article <m3zl6r5ray.fsf(a)moon.robolove.meer.net>,
| Madhu <enometh(a)meer.net> wrote:
|
|> * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-9377B6.05012412112009(a)news.albasani.net> :
|> Wrote on Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:01:25 -0800:
|>
|> |> |> It is sad. It seems the other old-timers are not interested in
|> |> |> correcting the intentionally misleading posts you make or pointing out
|> |> |> your dishonest debate tactics you continue to indule in.
|> |> |
|> |> | Yes, damn all those old timers. They should all be taking me to task
|> |> | for "unduling" in the dishonest debate tactic of agreeing with you.
|> |> | What is wrong with these people?
|> |>
|> |> You have introduced a typo when misstating what I've said to take away
|> |> the point I'm making. You are INDULGING, again,
|> |
|> | Are you sure? I thought I was undoling. But what do I know?
|>
|> You know how to twist, misrepresent, and misstate my position to make it
|> appear I am uneducated or ignorant
|
| You give me far too much credit. When it comes to making it appear that
| you are uneducated and ignorant, you are truly the master and I merely
| the humble student.

I am not giving you any credit. I am pointing out what you are
continuing to do. I am pointing out what you are doing to divert
attention from your own mistakes and the muddles you make
by attributing those to me.

People like Papp will always get misled of course

--
Madhu




From: mdj on 13 Nov 2009 00:02
On Nov 12, 11:39 am, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote:
> * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-3BD29C.15513111112...(a)news.albasani.net> :
> Wrote on Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:51:32 -0800:
>
> | It's good for more than just pedagogy (and pathology). Pascal Costanza
> | has recently shown how to use it to implement hygienic macros:
>
> No, this is exactly an example of `pedagogical/pathological': Ir be of
> academic interest for the purpose of Costanza's tenure, but is not
> interesting to CL

This is an even better example of 'pathological', probably in the form
of OCD, and manifesting itself as the delusional belief that you not
only know what CL finds interesting, but that's your duty to tell us
all what it is...

More seriously, I can only a assume that *you* don't find this
interesting. This is a position you can convey implicitly by saying
nothing at all, which avoids the (also pathological) bickering that
will ensue from attempting to hold an unsupportable position.

My own perspective is this: The ability to easily create new language
semantics that allow me to more succinctly solve problems is exactly
*why* I find CL interesting. Somehow I doubt I'm alone here.

The more I read however it becomes increasingly obvious how alone
*you* are here, and if you consider your own pathology in the light of
the increasing social ostracism you're experiencing I'm sure you'll be
compelled to, well, tell us all at how completely incorrectly I've
managed to interpret your (subjective to the point of arbitrary)
remarks.

Matt
From: Madhu on 13 Nov 2009 00:43
[supersede with superceded Message-Ids and URLs]

* mdj <3d461c69-a2e4-446b-b0ed-d8886ca62e0b(a)a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:02:36 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 12, 11:39 am, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote:
|> * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-3BD29C.15513111112...(a)news.albasani.net> :
|> Wrote on Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:51:32 -0800:
|>
|> | It's good for more than just pedagogy (and pathology). Pascal Costanza
|> | has recently shown how to use it to implement hygienic macros:
|>
|> No, this is exactly an example of `pedagogical/pathological': Ir be of
|> academic interest for the purpose of Costanza's tenure, but is not
|> interesting to CL
|
| This is an even better example of 'pathological', probably in the form
| of OCD, and manifesting itself as the delusional belief that you not
| only know what CL finds interesting, but that's your duty to tell us
| all what it is...

You are following the path Ron laid open by suggesting that I'm telling
everyone what is or not interesting. I am not attempting to tell you
what is interesting or not interesting to you. I explained my position
of what is and not interesting from a CL point of view in my reply to
Thingstad in <m3my2r7utw.fsf(a)moon.robolove.meer.net>

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/6d08e8c6dbc43009>

| More seriously, I can only a assume that *you* don't find this
| interesting. This is a position you can convey implicitly by saying
| nothing at all, which avoids the (also pathological) bickering that
| will ensue from attempting to hold an unsupportable position.
|
| My own perspective is this: The ability to easily create new language
| semantics that allow me to more succinctly solve problems is exactly
| *why* I find CL interesting. Somehow I doubt I'm alone here.

I find CL interesting for that reason too.

| The more I read however it becomes increasingly obvious how alone
| *you* are here, and if you consider your own pathology in the light of
| the increasing social ostracism you're experiencing

I find much of the social ostracism that you perceive to be a result of
Ron's misportrayals of my position and his subsequent attacks.

| I'm sure you'll be compelled to, well, tell us all at how completely
| incorrectly I've managed to interpret your (subjective to the point of
| arbitrary) remarks.

I already explained this in my reply to Thingstad. I believe you are
making the same mistake as he was making. Is there any point I've
stated in my reply to Thingstad that you disagree with? again, here:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/6d08e8c6dbc43009>

--
Madhu
From: mdj on 13 Nov 2009 01:32
On Nov 13, 3:32 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote:

> | This is an even better example of 'pathological', probably in the form
> | of OCD, and manifesting itself as the delusional belief that you not
> | only know what CL finds interesting, but that's your duty to tell us
> | all what it is...
>
> You are following the path Ron laid open by suggesting that I'm telling
> everyone what is or not interesting.  I am not attempting to tell you
> what is interesting or not interesting to you.  I explained my position
> of what is and not interesting from a CL point of view in my reply to
> Thingstad in <m3pr7n7vhu....(a)moon.robolove.meer.net>

No, I was pointing out through the use of irony that you were hiding
your own view of what is '(dis)interesting' behind the grammatically
flawed construct "but is not interesting to CL". I presume that this
obviously authoritarian (and borderline Orwellian) choice of words
comes from a desire to have your opinions appear to have greater
veracity that those of others without going to the bother of
justifying them. This is of course not only intellectually lazy, but
ethically bankrupt.

And then again above, you attempt it again, by placing your own
viewpoint behind a "position of what is interesting from a CL point of
view". Your position of course is justifiable as your later attempt to
explain it shows, but only if you are prepared to actually own it by
referring to it as *yours* rather than applying an obscurantist tactic
of attributing it to some unimpeachable authority, in this case "the
CL perspective".

I don't believe I have to remind you that perspectives are only valid
from the perspective of an entity that's aware of them, and the CL is
neither an entity nor a supernatural force capable of asserting its
own position, but I will anyway.

> | More seriously, I can only a assume that *you* don't find this
> | interesting. This is a position you can convey implicitly by saying
> | nothing at all, which avoids the (also pathological) bickering that
> | will ensue from attempting to hold an unsupportable position.
> |
> | My own perspective is this: The ability to easily create new language
> | semantics that allow me to more succinctly solve problems is exactly
> | *why* I find CL interesting. Somehow I doubt I'm alone here.
>
> I find CL interesting for that reason too.

An ironic statement considering the position you're currently
espousing.

> | The more I read however it becomes increasingly obvious how alone
> | *you* are here, and if you consider your own pathology in the light of
> | the increasing social ostracism you're experiencing
>
> I find much of the social ostracism that you perceive to be a result of
> Ron's misportrayals of my position and his subsequent attacks.  

I don't doubt it. You are however mistaken. My position is derived
from my own reading of your posts. If I wished to follow Ron's path I
would simply reply to him in kind.

> | I'm sure you'll be compelled to, well, tell us all at how completely
> | incorrectly I've managed to interpret your (subjective to the point of
> | arbitrary) remarks.
>
> I already explained this in my reply to Thingstad. I believe you are
> making the same mistake as he was making.  Is there any point I've
> stated in my reply to Thingstad that you disagree with?  again, here:

Make no mistake, you are being mocked, and my intent was quite
deliberately to mock. Your failure to recognise irony, or your own
misuse of language in order to add artificial weight to your opinions
may be deliberate or accidental, but any apparent dichotomy is
irrelevant since they're both antecedents to the fact that your
actions derive from ignorance.

Matt
From: Madhu on 13 Nov 2009 02:58

* mdj <6f710ff7-5a2a-4b61-88d2-119e5b5e30fc(a)u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:32:33 -0800 (PST):

|> You are following the path Ron laid open by suggesting that I'm telling
|> everyone what is or not interesting.  I am not attempting to tell you
|> what is interesting or not interesting to you.  I explained my position
|> of what is and not interesting from a CL point of view in my reply to
|> Thingstad in <m3pr7n7vhu....(a)moon.robolove.meer.net>
|
| No, I was pointing out through the use of irony that you were hiding
| your own view of what is '(dis)interesting' behind the grammatically
| flawed construct "but is not interesting to CL". I presume that this
| obviously authoritarian (and borderline Orwellian) choice of words
| comes from a desire to have your opinions appear to have greater
| veracity that those of others without going to the bother of
| justifying them.

Mockery aside, I am willing to justify them, and I pointed you to an
initial justification. Also I have not made the `grammatically flawed
construct' with any intent of dishonesty, it was made in response to a
Garret post. Garret had earlier tried to pass off trivial facts as
`trivial CL mechanisms' as `interesting',

| This is of course not only intellectually lazy, but ethically
| bankrupt.

This is just your accusation. The paradigm I was following in stating
`interesting' is common in mathematics. Trivial results are not
interesting. They are pathological.

| And then again above, you attempt it again, by placing your own
| viewpoint behind a "position of what is interesting from a CL point of
| view". Your position of course is justifiable

So you are not disagreeing with my position or you accept my
justification.

| as your later attempt to explain it shows, but only if you are
| prepared to actually own it by referring to it as *yours* rather than
| applying an obscurantist tactic of attributing it to some
| unimpeachable authority, in this case "the CL perspective".

Yes, But I believe there is a point of view over and above my own, under
which the usage is justifiable. I have outlined the reasons of my
belief in that model in that message. I am stating the position, so it
its my perspective, but I am making and justifying the position in a
metamodel of something (CL) that necessarily exists outside my
perception.

I do not want to state this explicitly, because ALL of Garret's points
are defensible in similar ways even though I consider them misleading or
even wrong. The difference is I am not adopting a stance for a dishonest
or with an intent-to-mislead purpose.


| I don't believe I have to remind you that perspectives are only valid
| from the perspective of an entity that's aware of them, and the CL is
| neither an entity nor a supernatural force capable of asserting its
| own position, but I will anyway.

No, I am aware of this. But there is a deeper point. For example your
insults and arguments are based on a model of perception which you have
internalized and which includes the perspectives of others that agree
with you. This is essentially necessarily implicit.

This also leads to a loophole. [That Ron (and others in CS/Programming
Language business) exploit]. One exhibits a simulacrum (false
similarity---in the Platonian sense) where, one states a less-correct
model that includes in its construction, the angle of the observer.
Subscribing to this simulacrum means you have internalized the
`dissimilitude'. i.e. Now any faculty of the observer for perceiving
similarity with the original (or even a true image) now belongs to the
model itself. This simulacrum is then used to exclude originality,
subvert history etc. and move farther away from any semblance to the
original. Defensibility of claims and repudiation of claims are all
controlled within the model, and need not answer the original, since the
observer is internal to the model.

Now if I were to come in and say you are subscribing to a false model,
here is a real model, my point of view is automatically thrown out,
because it exists outside your model. Your model will not admit the
point of view of an observer outside the model, since the angle of the
observer is internalized.

This applies here: Trivial points (trivial from certain perspectives)
are however interesting from other perspectives, say of newcomers. So a
metamodel of `exploitation' is now open --- a [developer] market (of
first timers, `willing to suffer for the first time' is seeded or
brought in and fed the simulacrum. and a business is based on this
model without relevance to the original. How can I to tell the people
subscribing to the simulacrum of a point of view that DOES NOT EXIST
outside it?


|> | More seriously, I can only a assume that *you* don't find this
|> | interesting. This is a position you can convey implicitly by saying
|> | nothing at all, which avoids the (also pathological) bickering that
|> | will ensue from attempting to hold an unsupportable position.

Saying nothing at all would have helped. But Ron's "point" was invalid
from several perspectives I can identify with. I am not interested
bickering on the usage of the word `interesting' as you have been lead
to believe, or as you seem to imply.

|> | My own perspective is this: The ability to easily create new language
|> | semantics that allow me to more succinctly solve problems is exactly
|> | *why* I find CL interesting. Somehow I doubt I'm alone here.
|>
|> I find CL interesting for that reason too.
|
| An ironic statement considering the position you're currently
| espousing.

Not at all. I do not know why you think that.

|> I already explained this in my reply to Thingstad. I believe you are
|> making the same mistake as he was making.  Is there any point I've
|> stated in my reply to Thingstad that you disagree with?  again, here:
|
| Make no mistake, you are being mocked, and my intent was quite
| deliberately to mock.

It was not clear if you were mocking from a misunderstanding or from
spite.

| Your failure to recognise irony, or your own misuse of language in
| order to add artificial weight to your opinions may be deliberate or
| accidental, but any apparent dichotomy is irrelevant since they're
| both antecedents to the fact that your actions derive from ignorance.

Ignorance of what? My misuse of the language was not intentional. I'd
prefer if you laid off the irony, I am avoiding all sarcasm and skipped
many opportunities for making ironical statements in the Garret thread,
these are more easily misrepresented/misunderstood, like Papp did with
my rims on schemers.


[1] my simulacrum line of thought follows usages made by by Antonio
T. de Nicolas.

--
Madhu
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Prev: Mistake in the specification of rotatef ?
Next: [ann] LTK based libraries Runtime Library 3.0 and Gestalt Items 1.1