Prev: Mistake in the specification of rotatef ?
Next: [ann] LTK based libraries Runtime Library 3.0 and Gestalt Items 1.1
From: Nicolas Neuss on 13 Nov 2009 03:37
Madhu <enometh(a)meer.net> writes:

> [in reply to Ron Garret who replied to Madhu who replied to ...]

I am reminded of a thread between Pascal Bourguignon and Ron Garrett,
who was successfully stopped by Kenny Tilton asking:

"Dumb and Dumber II?"

[http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/Lisp/comp.lang.lisp/2006-12/msg01551.html]

Nicolas


From: Tobias C. Rittweiler on 13 Nov 2009 12:27
Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> writes:

> In article <87eio54f3b.fsf(a)freebits.de>,
> "Tobias C. Rittweiler" <tcr(a)freebits.de.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Vassil Nikolov <vnikolov(a)pobox.com> writes:
> >
> > > ;; LLET is a substitute for LET (for lexical variables) and LFUNCTION
> > > ;; is a substitute for FUNCTION for closing over LLET's bindings (as
> > > ;; well as LET's). The macroexpansions do not contain LET forms for
> > > ;; lexical variables; no code walking is performed;
> >
> > You know, there's a trick for a poor man's code-walker that could be
> > applied for pathological^W pedagogical cases like this. First SUBST
> > CL:LAMBDA, and CL:LET to gensyms, then bind these gensyms via MACROLET
> > and have your implementation walk the code for you.
>
> It's good for more than just pedagogy (and pathology). Pascal Costanza
> has recently shown how to use it to implement hygienic macros:

The "poor man" referred to my suggestion to use SUBST on forms even
though it only operates on trees, and to the fragility of such
substitution to circumvent package locks. (By substituting symbols you
alter code and hence may inadvertently alter semantics.)


> http://p-cos.net/documents/hygiene.pdf

In how far is that not pedagogical (which I originally used instead of
"academic" for the pun with pathological)?

-T.

From: Ron Garret on 13 Nov 2009 20:48
In article <87aayqn7ln.fsf(a)ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
Nicolas Neuss <lastname(a)math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:

> Madhu <enometh(a)meer.net> writes:
>
> > [in reply to Ron Garret who replied to Madhu who replied to ...]
>
> I am reminded of a thread between Pascal Bourguignon and Ron Garrett,
> who was successfully stopped by Kenny Tilton asking:
>
> "Dumb and Dumber II?"
>
> [http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/Lisp/comp.lang.lisp/2006-12/msg01551.html
> ]
>
> Nicolas

Yep. If there's one thing Kenny's good at it's shutting down a party.
:-\

rg
From: mdj on 15 Nov 2009 19:45
On Nov 13, 5:58 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote:

> | 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 has nothing to do with what 'Garret' does or doesn't, this is
about you, unless you're prepared to concede that your dislike for
some individuals compromises your objectivity and makes you post
irrational comments ?

> |  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.

Isolating my observation from its context to make it look like an
accusation only strengthens my position. It shows that you're
dishonest. Again you're appealing to another authority, in this case
mathematics. Perhaps if you'd invoked 'mathematicians' it would appear
less vacuous, but in either case you're hiding your position behind
apparent authorities and not having the courage to stand behind it
yourself.

> | 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.

And?

> | 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.

Belief in a point of view over and above your own, which somehow you
are capable of arguing? This is a faith based argument best left to
theologians. Attempting to use this as a justification makes your
argument appear mystical, and you yourself foolish.

> 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.

So in order to win an argument with another human you're appealing to
an authority that transcends logic? Shall we call you Reverend ? ;-)

> | 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?

Beyond the conspiracy theories and misuse of philosophical terms in
this mostly hocum argument, you've missed the obvious point that this
'loophole' applies to your own point of view just as much as it does
to everyone else. As a result, honest ethical argument begins with
that concession. Believing you're exempt from this is not only
arrogant but delusional, since there is no basis whatsoever for
thinking this exception should be applied to you.

> |> | 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.

Where is the evidence to support that assertion? Or are you just
attempting humour ?

> |> | 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.

Because the topic under discussion fits that model of 'interesting' !

> |> 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.

I think it was to everyone else.

> | 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.

"The only way to attack an irrational belief system is to ridicule it"

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

Nonsense. But since you bring up that author, you might read their
work on the Biocultural Paradigm and medidate on how those
observations manifest themselves in your own psyche.

Matt
From: Madhu on 15 Nov 2009 21:59

You are only interested in bickering about the word `interesting' which
I have already explained. See
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/6d08e8c6dbc43009>

|> 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 has nothing to do with what 'Garret' does or doesn't, this is
| about you, unless you're prepared to concede that your dislike for
| some individuals compromises your objectivity and makes you post
| irrational comments ?

Wrong. You have taken me out of context. I was responding to a Garret
post, responding to a false claim made by Garret, about a particular
usage of symbol macros, which was indeed an exceptional case
(pathological) and was especially pedagogical. There is nothing
irrational or dishonest in this.

|> |  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.
|
| Isolating my observation from its context to make it look like an
| accusation only strengthens my position. It shows that you're
| dishonest.

I am not isolating anything. You removed the context yourself. Add the
context. Where am I dishonest?

| Again you're appealing to another authority, in this case
| mathematics. Perhaps if you'd invoked 'mathematicians' it would appear
| less vacuous, but in either case you're hiding your position behind
| apparent authorities and not having the courage to stand behind it
| yourself.

Wrong. I am citing established usage of the words `pathological' and
`not interesting' in mathematics. Look them up. These are not
prejudiced in mathematics, they obviously are prejudiced in your own
language, which is why you think you have problems with what I said.
This misidentification was what Garret was appealing to. This was not
my intent when I used the words, as I've explained too many times.

You fell for Garret's line.


|> | 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.
|
| And?

So what are you objecting to? Your intent is just to insult me without
accepting facts.

|> | 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.
|
| Belief in a point of view over and above your own, which somehow you
| are capable of arguing? This is a faith based argument best left to
| theologians. Attempting to use this as a justification makes your
| argument appear mystical, and you yourself foolish.

I have provided a framework for you to see something you have not
understood yet.

|> 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.
|
| So in order to win an argument with another human you're appealing to
| an authority that transcends logic? Shall we call you Reverend ? ;-)

No, I have stated above that I am aware of what you accuse me of below

<snip>

| Beyond the conspiracy theories and misuse of philosophical terms in
| this mostly hocum argument, you've missed the obvious point that this
| 'loophole' applies to your own point of view just as much as it does
| to everyone else. As a result, honest ethical argument begins with
| that concession. Believing you're exempt from this is not only
| arrogant but delusional, since there is no basis whatsoever for
| thinking this exception should be applied to you.

You are merely using language. I have already made the concession. You
are just stating false things in characterising my position.


|> |> | 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.
|
| Where is the evidence to support that assertion? Or are you just
| attempting humour ?

My responses to Thingstad and responses your mockery should be evidence
enough that I have clarified my point, and it is not about the word
`interesting'. Can you catch up and please move on?

|> |> | 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.
|
| Because the topic under discussion fits that model of 'interesting' !

No. You demonstrate after all this that you still want to misunderstood
my point entirely. My response to Garret was not about what you or I
find interesting, I used the word in a technical sense which is common
in mathematics.

|> |> 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.
|
| I think it was to everyone else.

You'd be surprised, but I think you have clarified the issue for
`everyone else' or at least more people

|> | 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.
|
| "The only way to attack an irrational belief system is to ridicule it"

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

Eh? I should probably respond to that by saying Bullshit!

| But since you bring up that author, you might read their work on the
| Biocultural Paradigm and medidate on how those observations manifest
| themselves in your own psyche.

I am indeed aware how they manifest in my psyche. A lot of the scheme
vs lisp debates can also be explained on the biocultural paradigm, and
especially your inability to see the point I'm making

--
Madhu
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Prev: Mistake in the specification of rotatef ?
Next: [ann] LTK based libraries Runtime Library 3.0 and Gestalt Items 1.1