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: Ron Garret on 16 Nov 2009 17:46 In article <m3tywujf2l.fsf(a)moon.robolove.meer.net>, Madhu <enometh(a)meer.net> wrote: > * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-5F3504.13480716112009(a)news.albasani.net> : > Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:48:09 -0800: > | No, he isn't. And that's quite the cheeky question considering the fact > | that you conceal your own identity behind a pseudonym. > > I don't, > > | Who are you, "Madhu"? > > The person with the same name I was born with. Which you are being quite careful not to reveal. Or were you born without a surname? > I didnt change my name like you did, Erran Gat, didn't have any past to > hide. Doh! Busted! Despite my best efforts to conceal my past, you obviously managed to ferret me out somehow. How ever did you manage to do it? You must be quite the sleuth. (BTW, a few days ago you were accusing me of being a publicity hound, and now I'm trying to hide my identity. Why are you having such a hard time deciding which sort of villainy I'm up to?) rg
From: Madhu on 16 Nov 2009 17:54 * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-1D0CAB.14462716112009(a)news.albasani.net> : Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:46:27 -0800: |> | No, he isn't. And that's quite the cheeky question considering the fact |> | that you conceal your own identity behind a pseudonym. |> |> I don't, [mockery snipped] |> I didnt change my name like you did, Erran Gat, didn't have any past to |> hide. | (BTW, a few days ago you were accusing me of being a publicity hound, | and now I'm trying to hide my identity. Note you accused me of hiding my identity. I'm not doing that. I have not hidden my identity nor changed my name. | Why are you having such a hard time deciding which sort of villainy | I'm up to?) Your question and characterization, the way you phrase it, in an either-or form, excludes any answer I might be inclined to give. -- Madhu
From: Madhu on 17 Nov 2009 00:12 You ignore all justification and ``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 observed of Garret's tactics in <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/f965378a4e2d4abe> ) You can do this as much as you want. I have explained my simple position. There is no contradiction or dishonesty or bluff on my part, and there is no need to answer you once your intention has been made clear. | I also accept what you said. I do however think your comments are | facile, After you accepted whay I said. You can make whatever you want of my comments, since your intent is to parody me and accuse me of the same things I've been accusing Gat, except you make a mockery of it while I'm doing it in all honesty. * mdj <3248deab-a565-4e07-8c52-04aac4175e8b(a)u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:27:49 -0800 (PST): | On Nov 17, 11:45 am, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: | |> | In a previous post I challenged your accepted usage and showed it to |> | be plainly wrong. But go on then, sit in denial land and pretend I |> | didn't do that. |> |> In your previous post you cited a certain usage of `pathological' in |> biology. Do you think that shows that the established usage in |> mathematics for so many centuries has been wrong? I have explained I |> was using it in the sense used in mathematics. It must be clear I was |> not using it in a biological sense. Showing one perspective you not |> invalidated my usage or the perspectiv. | | I presented *both* the biological and mathematical usages of | 'pathological'. I did the for three reasons: one, to demonstrate my | understanding of both by highlighting the differences. two, to show | that your own usage of it is incorrect. three, to illustrate that you | cannot hope to understand the usage of it in mathematics without an | understanding of the words origins. | | (mathematical) pathological phenomena could (IMO) be better described | as "counter-intuitive" and this I believe is a very important point, Nonsense. And all that below fails on this nonsense. If you accepted my explanation and my intent is clear, you are just adding bullshit to troll. | since it means it is simply a subjective value judgement driven by the | knowledge and experience levels of the person making the claim. Like | many borrowed terms, it suffers from a lack of clarity and when used | by an undisciplined party their actual intent can be better described | by the original definition. I used it in a precise logically verifiable sense I've clarified later. You can choose not to understand it and make excuses for your ignorance etc. Why waste time? just so I can accuse you of misrepresenting, just like I accused Gat of misrepresenting things to make a point? Youve made that point. -- Madhu
From: Madhu on 17 Nov 2009 00:17 Again you ``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> ) * mdj <ad576fa6-b4dc-453a-9703-62fa26b9d9e8(a)g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:39:02 -0800 (PST): |> |> Do tell us, how did you achieve this exalted state of enlightenment? |> | |> | As far as I know, the only way to achieve it is to either be born |> | with ones head up ones own backside, or to insert it at a later |> | date. |> | |> | I'm sure Madhu will have a more entertaining explination, however ;-) |> |> Yes, briefly, I was paraphrasing a sentence of yours: See upthread |> |> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/524b3e366e5c1943> | | Obviously you don't understand what paraphrasing means. Let me give | you an example of a correct way to paraphrase my reasoning: | | "Common Lisp (like mathematics) is just a language. As such, it has no | perspective of its own." Why do you offer this? Does this 1) demonstrate you understand what parapharsing means? 2) demonstrate I do not undestand what parapharsing means? Stop wasting my time, jerk! |> What makes it entertaining, I hope is that in attempting to |> caricature my position you are accurately characterizing your own | | What's entertaining? It's observed that you're misusing language, then | in an attempt to rebuke or diffuse the observation you misuse yet | another word. I did not proof read it so it has some errors, sorry. Why do you think I do not know what `paraphrasing means' or I misused it? -- Madhu
From: mdj on 17 Nov 2009 01:30
On Nov 17, 3:12 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: << irrelevant reference snipped >> > You can do this as much as you want. I have explained my simple > position. There is no contradiction or dishonesty or bluff on my part, > and there is no need to answer you once your intention has been made > clear. I can only assume then that you continue to reply because you're curious what my intentions are ? > | I also accept what you said. I do however think your comments are > | facile, > > After you accepted whay I said. You can make whatever you want of my > comments, since your intent is to parody me and accuse me of the same > things I've been accusing Gat, except you make a mockery of it while I'm > doing it in all honesty. Well, one of the ways I'm achieving my intent is by mocking you, yes. Your honesty however is at the very heart of this supposed 'debate' > |> | In a previous post I challenged your accepted usage and showed it to > |> | be plainly wrong. But go on then, sit in denial land and pretend I > |> | didn't do that. > |> > |> In your previous post you cited a certain usage of `pathological' in > |> biology. Do you think that shows that the established usage in > |> mathematics for so many centuries has been wrong? I have explained I > |> was using it in the sense used in mathematics. It must be clear I was > |> not using it in a biological sense. Showing one perspective you not > |> invalidated my usage or the perspectiv. > | > | I presented *both* the biological and mathematical usages of > | 'pathological'. I did the for three reasons: one, to demonstrate my > | understanding of both by highlighting the differences. two, to show > | that your own usage of it is incorrect. three, to illustrate that you > | cannot hope to understand the usage of it in mathematics without an > | understanding of the words origins. > | > | (mathematical) pathological phenomena could (IMO) be better described > | as "counter-intuitive" and this I believe is a very important point, > > Nonsense. And all that below fails on this nonsense. Really? How so? > If you accepted my explanation and my intent is clear, you are just > adding bullshit to troll. Again, correlation does not imply causation. 1. I do not accept your explanation, only your conclusion 2. Because of that your intent is not clear 3. Please clarify > | since it means it is simply a subjective value judgement driven by the > | knowledge and experience levels of the person making the claim. Like > | many borrowed terms, it suffers from a lack of clarity and when used > | by an undisciplined party their actual intent can be better described > | by the original definition. > > I used it in a precise logically verifiable sense I've clarified later. > You can choose not to understand it and make excuses for your ignorance > etc. Why waste time? just so I can accuse you of misrepresenting, just > like I accused Gat of misrepresenting things to make a point? Accuse me of misrepresentation if you wish. I however have your posts in this thread as evidence when I make the counter accusation. Matt |