;; 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; EVAL and APPLY are
;; not involved; these constructs can be mixed with standard Common
;; Lisp constructs.  I don't know what exactly constraints, and how
;; different from the above, various interested parties may have in
;; mind.

;; Some tests are given below.  I may or may not get around to setting
;; up proper test drivers for this (which automatically compare the
;; results before and after substituting LET and FUNCTION for LLET and
;; LFUNCTION, something that poses no technical difficulties).

;; This was written from scratch, but I am not the inventor of any of
;; this approach, I don't think.  In part, it matches one of Rob
;; Warnock's sketches in a recent post.  Disclaimers apply.


(defun get-var (binding)
  "Return the variable part of a binding (as a syntactic element).
<binding> ::= <varname> | (<varname>) | (<varname> <initform>)."
  (check-type binding (not null))
  (if (listp binding) (first binding) binding))

(defun get-value (binding)
  "Return the initialization-form part of a binding."
  (if (listp binding) (second binding) 'nil))

(defun augment-lenv (var value lenv)
  (acons var value lenv))

(defmacro augment*-lenv (bindings lenv)
  "Expand into AUGMENT-LENV calls to add bindings to an environment."
  (if (endp bindings) lenv
    (destructuring-bind (b &rest bs) bindings
    `(augment-lenv ',(get-var b) ,(get-value b) (augment*-lenv ,bs ,lenv)))))

(defun lvar (var lenv)
  "Accessor for a simulated local lexical variable."
  (cdr (assoc var lenv)))

(defun (setf lvar) (value var lenv)
  (setf (cdr (assoc var lenv)) value))

(defun make-contour ()
  (gensym "CONTOUR-"))

(defun lenv (contour)
  "Accessor for the lexical environment of a lexical contour."
  (symbol-value contour))

(defun (setf lenv) (value contour)
  (setf (symbol-value contour) value))

(defun lbinding (var contour)
  "Construct a binding (as a syntactic element) for a simulated variable."
  `(,var (lvar ',var (lenv ,contour))))

(defun make-lclosure (fn contour)
  "Combine a captured simulated lexical environment with a function."
  (if contour
      (coerce `(lambda (&rest args)
                 (progv '(,contour) '(,(lenv contour)) (apply ',fn args)))
              'function)
    fn))

;; the current (simulated) lexical contour:
(define-symbol-macro %lcontour% nil)

;; the work horses:

(defmacro lfunction (name)
  `(make-lclosure (function ,name) %lcontour%))

(defmacro llet ((&rest bindings) &body body)
  (if (null bindings) `(progn ,@body)
    (let ((new-contour (make-contour)))
      `(progn
         (setf (lenv ',new-contour) (lenv %lcontour%))
         (symbol-macrolet ((%lcontour% ',new-contour))
           (setf (lenv %lcontour%) (augment*-lenv ,bindings (lenv %lcontour%)))
           (symbol-macrolet (,@(mapcar #'(lambda (b)
                                           (lbinding (get-var b) '%lcontour%))
                                       bindings))
             ,@body))))))


;;; "control implementation" (to compare to Common Lisp itself):

(defmacro lfunction (name)
  `(function ,name))

(defmacro llet (&body body)
  `(let ,@body))


;;; testing:

(defun test-llet-1 (x0 x1 x2 x3 x4)
  (llet ((x x0))
    (llet ((f0 (lfunction (lambda (v) (prog1 x (setf x v)))))
           (f1 (lfunction (lambda () x))))
      (llet ((x~ x))
        (setf x x1)
        (llet ((x x2))
          (list x (setf x x3) x~ (funcall f0 x4) (funcall f1) x))))))

(assert (equal (test-llet-1 'a 'b 'c 'd 'e) '(c d a b e d)))

;; TEST-LLET-2 is based on one of Ron Garret's tests, improved to
;; catch more non-solutions:

(defun make-pair-of-closures (i d)
  (llet ((x i))
    (list (lfunction (lambda ()
                       (list (incf x d) (incf x d) (incf x d))))
          (lfunction (lambda ()
                       (list (decf x d) (decf x d)))))))

(defun test-llet-2 (i1 d1 i2 d2)
  (let ((p1 (make-pair-of-closures i1 d1))
        (p2 (make-pair-of-closures i2 d2)))
    (list (funcall (first p1))
          (funcall (second p1))
          (funcall (first p2))
          (funcall (second p2)))))

(assert (equal (test-llet-2 0 1 2 3) '((1 2 3) (2 1) (5 8 11) (8 5))))

(defun |Ron Garret's "acid test"| ()
  (let ((l1 (llet ((x 1)) (list (lfunction (lambda () (incf x)))
                                (lfunction (lambda () (decf x))))))
        (l2 (llet ((x 5)) (list (lfunction (lambda () (incf x)))
                                (lfunction (lambda () (decf x)))))))
    (list (funcall (first l1)) (funcall (first l1)) (funcall (second l1))
          (funcall (first l2)) (funcall (first l2)) (funcall (second l2)))))

(assert (equal (list (|Ron Garret's "acid test"|) (|Ron Garret's "acid test"|))
               '((2 3 2 6 7 6) (2 3 2 6 7 6))))

---Vassil.


-- 
Vassil Nikolov <vnikolov@pobox.com>

  (1) M(Gauss);
  (2) M(a) if M(b) and declared(b, M(a)),
  where M(x) := "x is a mathematician".

In article <snzk4y5ha34.fsf@luna.vassil.nikolov.name>,
 Vassil Nikolov <vnikolov@pobox.com> wrote:

> (defun make-lclosure (fn contour)
>   "Combine a captured simulated lexical environment with a function."
>   (if contour
>       (coerce `(lambda (&rest args)
>                  (progv '(,contour) '(,(lenv contour)) (apply ',fn args)))
>               'function)
>     fn))


Bravo!  So Madhu was wrong about everything after all ;-)

rg

* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-D15CCC.22064405112009@news.albasani.net> :
Wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:06:47 -0800:

| Bravo!  So Madhu was wrong about everything after all ;-)

You seem to have infected Kaz with the disease where you try to pass off
all your own mistakes by accusing the person who pointed your mistake
of the very mistake you make.

--
Madhu

Vassil Nikolov <vnikolov@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.

  -T.

In article <87eio54f3b.fsf@freebits.de>,
 "Tobias C. Rittweiler" <tcr@freebits.de.invalid> wrote:

> Vassil Nikolov <vnikolov@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:

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

rg

* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-3BD29C.15513111112009@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

--
Madhu

In article <m3639g8qs5.fsf@moon.robolove.meer.net>,
 Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:

> * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-3BD29C.15513111112009@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

How fortunate that we have Madhu to tell us what is and is not 
interesting.  What ever would we do without him?

rg

* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-914274.17531511112009@news.albasani.net> :
Wrote on Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:53:16 -0800:

| How fortunate that we have Madhu to tell us what is and is not 
| interesting.  What ever would we do without him?

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.

--
Madhu

In article <m31vk48q28.fsf@moon.robolove.meer.net>,
 Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:

> * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-914274.17531511112009@news.albasani.net> :
> Wrote on Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:53:16 -0800:
> 
> | How fortunate that we have Madhu to tell us what is and is not 
> | interesting.  What ever would we do without him?
> 
> 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?

rg

* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-E3E566.21312511112009@news.albasani.net> :
Wrote on Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:31:26 -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, in the very thing I
accused of above (and it is not how you reinterpreted it for the sake of
your reply)

--
Madhu

The Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:09:54 +0530, Madhu wrote:

> * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-3BD29C.15513111112009@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

I disagree. This article is spot on in adressing the issues which cause 
side effects. It is more sad to peolple like youself so unappriciative.



-- 
John Thingstad

* John Thingstad <77adnd7wJ-0gf2bXRVnzvQA@telenor.com> :
Wrote on Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:26:05 -0600:

|> 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
|
| I disagree. This article is spot on in adressing the issues which
| cause side effects. It is more sad to peolple like youself so
| unappriciative.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with: the part you quoted was an
exchange with Ron Garret, where I'm talking about a claim which Ron
made.  I believe you have been misled by Ron about what I claimed is not
`interesting'.

I do not dispute or doubt that  you or others will find Costanza's
article interesting.

However the point is CL's macro system is not hygienic and CL is not
about restricting side effects.  The fact that CL macro system it is
powerful enough to implement a hygienic subset is not an especially
interesting result, in the same sense that you can always use a more
powerful system to build a more restricted less expressive system. You
can implement other languages in CL etc. Vassil's thread starts in this
route.  This has echoes of Turing's results.  Note while in mathematics,
everybody knows 4 = 2 + 2.  The result that 4 = 3 + 1 is not especially
interesting, however in CS, because of Turing, it is always possible to
find a point of view where 3 + 1 is `interesting', because some
developer market does not have this knowledge, and publish a paper.
This activity will always be defensible

--
Madhu

In article <m3ws1w6q46.fsf@moon.robolove.meer.net>,
 Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:

> * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-E3E566.21312511112009@news.albasani.net> :
> Wrote on Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:31:26 -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?  Good 
thing I have you to set me straight because those old-timers have 
obviously abdicated their responsibilities.

rg

[slightly corrected supersede]

* John Thingstad <77adnd7wJ-0gf2bXRVnzvQA@telenor.com> :
Wrote on Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:26:05 -0600:

|> No, this is exactly an example of `pedagogical/pathological': Ir be
                                                              *It may be
|> of academic interest for the purpose of Costanza's tenure, but is not
|> interesting to CL
|
| I disagree. This article is spot on in adressing the issues which
| cause side effects. It is more sad to peolple like youself so
| unappriciative.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with: the part you quoted was an
exchange with Ron Garret, where I'm talking about a claim which Ron
made.  I believe you have been misled by Ron about what I claimed is not
`interesting'.

I do not dispute or doubt that you or others will find Costanza's
article interesting.

However the point is CL's macro system is not hygienic and CL is not
about restricting side effects.  The fact that the CL macro system is
powerful enough to implement a hygienic subset is not an especially
interesting result, in the same sense that you can always use a more
powerful system to build a more restricted less expressive system.  You
can implement other languages in CL etc. Vassil started this thread in
this direction.  This has echoes of Turing's results.  Note while in
mathematics, everybody knows 4 = 2 + 2.  The result that 4 = 3 + 1 is
not especially interesting.  However in CS, because of Turing, it is
always possible to find a point of view where 3 + 1 is `interesting', to
some developer market (that will not have this knowledge), and publish a
paper.  This activity will always be defensible

--
Madhu

This is not the first time you shoot an uninformed response to my posts.
Earlier, you have proved you were not willing to accept or understand my
answers to the questions which are already answered in the portions you
cite, the only discernable purpose of your post seems to be to quote
some text and add insults at the bottom

* Tamas K Papp <7m2jdgF3eluaoU1@mid.individual.net> :
Wrote on 12 Nov 2009 14:12:00 GMT:

| On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:40:03 +0530, Madhu wrote:
|
|> However the point is CL's macro system is not hygienic and CL is not
|> about restricting side effects.  The fact that the CL macro system is
|> powerful enough to implement a hygienic subset is not an especially
|> interesting result, in the same sense that you can always use a more
|> powerful system to build a more restricted less expressive system.  You
|> can implement other languages in CL etc. Vassil started this thread in
|> this direction.  This has echoes of Turing's results.  Note while in
|> mathematics, everybody knows 4 = 2 + 2.  The result that 4 = 3 + 1 is
|> not especially interesting.  However in CS, because of Turing, it is
|> always possible to find a point of view where 3 + 1 is `interesting', to
|> some developer market (that will not have this knowledge), and publish a
|> paper.  This activity will always be defensible
|
| This paragraph indicates that either you haven't read Pascal's
| article, or misunderstood it completely.

No. This paragraph talks about a more general case, the specific case
you lost above

| The result has nothing to do with Turing completeness.  The paper is
| interesting because Pascal shows how _easy_ it is to implement the
| hygienic subsystem.

I do not dispute that you find it interesting.  What is not interesting
is that you can implement something less powerful and more restrictive
by using a more powerful system.

| Hint: it does not require reimplementing CL inside CL.  

This hint indicates you have not understood anything I've said. Not
surprising

| Far from it.  Go read the article.

| First, it was entertaining to watch to talk about things you don't
| understand, but the novelty is wearing out.  Maybe you could
| understand something occasionally, just to break the monotony

Instead of calling my understanding of these issues into question you
should point the scanner at yourself.

From your posts on linguistics it is clear that you are not interested
meaningful analysis, but perhaps more in tune to your funded economics
research, you are instead about providing support for an
anti-intellectual environment which thwarts any real analysis.

--
Madhu

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:40:03 +0530, Madhu wrote:

> However the point is CL's macro system is not hygienic and CL is not
> about restricting side effects.  The fact that the CL macro system is
> powerful enough to implement a hygienic subset is not an especially
> interesting result, in the same sense that you can always use a more
> powerful system to build a more restricted less expressive system.  You
> can implement other languages in CL etc. Vassil started this thread in
> this direction.  This has echoes of Turing's results.  Note while in
> mathematics, everybody knows 4 = 2 + 2.  The result that 4 = 3 + 1 is
> not especially interesting.  However in CS, because of Turing, it is
> always possible to find a point of view where 3 + 1 is `interesting', to
> some developer market (that will not have this knowledge), and publish a
> paper.  This activity will always be defensible

This paragraph indicates that either you haven't read Pascal's
article, or misunderstood it completely.

The result has nothing to do with Turing completeness.  The paper is
interesting because Pascal shows how _easy_ it is to implement the
hygienic subsystem.  Hint: it does not require reimplementing CL inside 
CL.  Far from it.  Go read the article.

First, it was entertaining to watch to talk about things you don't
understand, but the novelty is wearing out.  Maybe you could
understand something occasionally, just to break the monotony.

Tamas

In article <m3my2r7utw.fsf@moon.robolove.meer.net>,
 Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:

> The fact that the CL macro system is
> powerful enough to implement a hygienic subset is not an especially
> interesting result,

That may be true, but that is not Costanza's result.

You may wish to consider taking the trouble to actually learn what you 
are talking about before proclaiming things uninteresting.  I'm pretty 
sure you will find these exchanges less frustrating if you do.  Whatever 
it is you are hoping to accomplish you'll probably do better if you stop 
showcasing your ignorance so prominently.

rg

* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-47B774.13470912112009@news.albasani.net> :
Wrote on Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:47:10 -0800:

| In article <m3my2r7utw.fsf@moon.robolove.meer.net>,
|  Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:
|
|> The fact that the CL macro system is
|> powerful enough to implement a hygienic subset is not an especially
|> interesting result,
|
| That may be true, but that is not Costanza's result.

The one making a claim that it was Costanza's result was you.  I have
only responded to the claim you made.

| You may wish to consider taking the trouble to actually learn what you
| are talking about before proclaiming things uninteresting.  I'm pretty
| sure you will find these exchanges less frustrating if you do.
| Whatever it is you are hoping to accomplish you'll probably do better
| if you stop showcasing your ignorance so prominently.

These exchanges are apparently frustrating, not because of lack of
knowledge on my part but because you continue to INDULGE in dishonest
debate.  You accuse me of ignorance to cover all ignorance of CL
yourself exhibit. One of your claims about symbol macros that lead to
this thread is an example.

--
Madhu

* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-9377B6.05012412112009@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, misstate my position to make it
appear I am uneducated or ignorant, as if to detract from the fact I am
drawing attention to: that you lack of intellectual integrity,

--
Madhu

* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-9377B6.05012412112009@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, as if to detract from the fact I am
drawing attention to: that you lack intellectual integrity,

--
Madhu

In article <m37htv76vl.fsf@moon.robolove.meer.net>,
 Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:

> * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-47B774.13470912112009@news.albasani.net> :
> Wrote on Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:47:10 -0800:
> 
> | In article <m3my2r7utw.fsf@moon.robolove.meer.net>,
> |  Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:
> |
> |> The fact that the CL macro system is
> |> powerful enough to implement a hygienic subset is not an especially
> |> interesting result,
> |
> | That may be true, but that is not Costanza's result.
> 
> The one making a claim that it was Costanza's result was you.  I have
> only responded to the claim you made.

No, you have not.  You need to go back and read more carefully.

> | You may wish to consider taking the trouble to actually learn what you
> | are talking about before proclaiming things uninteresting.  I'm pretty
> | sure you will find these exchanges less frustrating if you do.
> | Whatever it is you are hoping to accomplish you'll probably do better
> | if you stop showcasing your ignorance so prominently.
> 
> These exchanges are apparently frustrating, not because of lack of
> knowledge on my part but because you continue to INDULGE in dishonest
> debate.  You accuse me of ignorance to cover all ignorance of CL
> yourself exhibit. One of your claims about symbol macros that lead to
> this thread is an example.

This thread was started by Vassil Nikolov, who posted a constructive 
proof that my conjecture about symbol macros being able to emulate local 
as well as global lexical variables (I presume that is the claim to 
which you are alluding) was in fact correct.  I don't know how to get 
any more honest than that.

So no, I do not "accuse" you of ignorance.  You wear your ignorance (to 
say nothing of your brazen foolishness) on your sleeve.  You post it on 
the Internet for all to see.  You go out of your way to draw attention 
to it when you could have just let sleeping dogs lie.  You brazenly 
manifest your ignorance again and again and again, and when someone 
calls you on it you whine, "I'm NOT ignorant.  I'm not!  I'm not!  I'M 
NOT!"

Bah.

rg

In article <m3zl6r5ray.fsf@moon.robolove.meer.net>,
 Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:

> * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-9377B6.05012412112009@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.

rg

Like others have pointed out in the past one cannot engage in honest
debate with you.

Your posts are also on the internet for anyone to see. 

| So no, I do not "accuse" you of ignorance.  You wear your ignorance (to 
| say nothing of your brazen foolishness) on your sleeve.  

Except when you follow up on my posts to confuse the readers. I've
marked these as such

|You post it on the Internet for all to see.  You go out of your way to
|draw attention to it when you could have just let sleeping dogs lie.


Your posts are also for everyone to see, except you hide your ignorance
and mistakes by attributing those to others, in this case, me.


|You brazenly manifest your ignorance again and again and again, and
|when someone calls you on it you whine, "I'm NOT ignorant.  I'm not!
|I'm not!  I'M NOT!"

Wrong.  I am not doing that.  I am pointing out you are merely accusing
me and portraying me as ignorant and you are portraying me this way to
divert attention from your own ignorance and dishonesty

The posts are there for anyone to see, providing you dont add to the
crap with intent to confuse, so no one can see the issues or where you
have been wrong.

But that is your winning tactic.

--
Madhu

* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-19A81D.17093412112009@news.albasani.net> :
Wrote on Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:09:34 -0800:

| In article <m3zl6r5ray.fsf@moon.robolove.meer.net>,
|  Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:
|
|> * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-9377B6.05012412112009@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

On Nov 12, 11:39 am, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-3BD29C.15513111112...@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

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

| On Nov 12, 11:39 am, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|> * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-3BD29C.15513111112...@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 <m3pr7n7vhu.fsf@moon.robolove.meer.net>

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/ba412edad2e8ef57>

| 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/ba412edad2e8ef57>

--
Madhu

[supersede with superceded Message-Ids and URLs]

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

| On Nov 12, 11:39 am, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|> * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-3BD29C.15513111112...@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@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

On Nov 13, 3:32=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@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. =A0I am not attempting to tell you
> what is interesting or not interesting to you. =A0I explained my position
> of what is and not interesting from a CL point of view in my reply to
> Thingstad in <m3pr7n7vhu....@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. =A0

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. =A0Is there any point I've
> stated in my reply to Thingstad that you disagree with? =A0again, 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

* mdj <6f710ff7-5a2a-4b61-88d2-119e5b5e30fc@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....@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

Madhu <enometh@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

Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon@flownet.com> writes:

> In article <87eio54f3b.fsf@freebits.de>,
>  "Tobias C. Rittweiler" <tcr@freebits.de.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Vassil Nikolov <vnikolov@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.

In article <87aayqn7ln.fsf@ma-patru.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
 Nicolas Neuss <lastname@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:

> Madhu <enometh@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

On Nov 13, 5:58=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@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. =A0Also I have not made the `grammatically flawed
> construct' with any intent of dishonesty, it was made in response to a
> Garret post. =A0Garret 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 ?

> | =A0This is of course not only intellectually lazy, but ethically
> | bankrupt.
>
> This is just your accusation. =A0The paradigm I was following in stating
> `interesting' is common in mathematics. =A0Trivial results are not
> interesting. =A0They 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. =A0I have outlined the reasons of my
> belief in that model in that message. =A0I 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. =A0But there is a deeper point. =A0For example yo=
ur
> 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. =A0This is essentially necessarily implicit.
>
> This also leads to a loophole. [That Ron (and others in CS/Programming
> Language business) exploit]. =A0One 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'. =A0i.e. Now any faculty of the observer for perceiving
> similarity with the original (or even a true image) now belongs to the
> model itself. =A0This simulacrum is then used to exclude originality,
> subvert history etc. and move farther away from any semblance to the
> original. =A0Defensibility 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. =A0So =
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. =A0and a business is based on this
> model without relevance to the original. =A0How 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. =A0But Ron's "point" was invalid
> from several perspectives I can identify with. =A0I 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 languag=
e
> |> | 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. =A0I 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. =A0Is there any point I've
> |> stated in my reply to Thingstad that you disagree with? =A0again, 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? =A0My misuse of the language was not intentional. =A0I=
'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
> =A0T. 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

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

On Nov 16, 12:59 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> 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>

Nonsense. My point was to highlight that *your* misuse of language and/
or hiding your own viewpoint behind authoritarian positions is the
*cause* of bickering about terminology. I have not at any stage
insisted that my usage of a term be considered objective because of
its association with a particular field of study. In any case, the
words in question here have specialist definitions in a variety of
philosophical disciplines and to insist that the definition you choose
to elevate to highest personal import does not reveal the point you
want to make, it only reveals your prejudice, and only then after you
are challenged. Do you see the problem here?

> |> 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.

Again, nonsense. I specifically drew attention to your misuse of
language in hiding your point behind an unimpeachable authority. That
is both dishonest and logically vacuous (argumentum ad verecundium),
and to continue to argue about it after you've already admitted to the
error is irrational.

> |> |  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?

| 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.

Context re-inserted. My 'accusation' was an inference from the above
observation. You deliberately isolated it, and then in the post I'm
replying to removed it entirely in order to make it appear that my
words were nothing but an ad hominem attack. *That* is 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.

Not prejudiced? Surely you jest. The word 'pathological' (I'll spare
you the translation) is far less prejudiced in the biology/medicine
domains where the *harm* caused by a phenomena is often recognised
before the phenomena that causes it. Mathematics on the other hand is
replete with examples of phenomena once considered to be pathological
only to have the label revoked once general theories that explained
them were developed.

It's important to recognise that in mathematics you can 'prove' (in
the mathematical sense) a phenomena is *not* pathological, but any
statement that declares that *is* is subjective by definition. In
terms of the statements that *you* make, this means your statements
are just *your* opinion, and your attempts to label them objective by
hiding them behind authorities is dishonest and logically fallacious.

> You fell for Garret's line.

Are we sure about that? :-)

> |> | 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.

I think this post makes it clear what I am objecting to. I wonder what
contorted lengths you will go to in order to obscure my objection this
time?

I am not attempting to insult you Sir, you are bringing the insult
upon yourself.

> |> | 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.

Oh, please. You don't have anywhere near the credibility required to
pull off such pedagogical sophistry. You'll get far more respect if
you at least *try* to construct a dialectical argument. The admission
of ones own ignorance is the essence of philosophy.

<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.

Merely using language? Would you prefer I painted you a picture
instead? I will take this nonsensical response to mean that you
concede.

> |> |> | 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 understand that it's possible to create "scheme like" structures
using CL since it has greater expressive power. I also understand your
pathological desire to continually point this out, and find it
uninteresting.

I do *not* however possess the behavior of continually mistaking my
own views on what I consider pathological as some form of "proof by
contradiction" theorem.

<snip>

> 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

You seem to be unaware of how your appeals to authority falsify your
own arguments, force you to conspiratorialise other peoples
objections, and once you believe you've created enough smoke simply
restate your original position with an appeal to a slightly different
authority. You never make the effort to make an argument stand on its
own merits, and subsequently reveal that your arguments are nothing
more than weakly held prejudices.

It's merely an elaborate form of "circulus in probando", but I would
prefer to call it "petitio principii". Best not to call it "begging
the question" since that's open to colloquial ambiguity. May I suggest
that in future you consider using terms that actually convey your
meaning, rather than terms you *think* are sufficient to hide your
prejudice, or as you previously conceded, simply shut up when you have
nothing 'interesting' to say.

Matt

* mdj <191c5ec7-6cfd-4f41-813c-d55ba605c372@w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:26:04 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 16, 12:59 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|> 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>
|
| Nonsense. My point was to highlight that *your* misuse of language and/
| or hiding your own viewpoint behind authoritarian positions is the
| *cause* of bickering about terminology. I have not at any stage
| insisted that my usage of a term be considered objective because of
| its association with a particular field of study. In any case, the
| words in question here have specialist definitions in a variety of
| philosophical disciplines and to insist that the definition you choose
| to elevate to highest personal import does not reveal the point you

I am not doing this.  Youre just trolling me now.  If you have any
objections follow up on that thread where I explained it stating what
there is you are objecting to.

This thread has no contribution except your insults.


| want to make, it only reveals your prejudice, and only then after you
| are challenged. Do you see the problem here?

| Again, nonsense. I specifically drew attention to your misuse of
| language in hiding your point behind an unimpeachable authority. That
| is both dishonest and logically vacuous (argumentum ad verecundium),

No I am doing no such thing.  I explained my position you continue to
misunderstand and state your incorrect postition. If you disagree you
should say.

| and to continue to argue about it after you've already admitted to the
| error is irrational.

I am responding to your baseless pointless posts.  Stop trolling me if
you have nothing to add.

|> I am not isolating anything.  You removed the context yourself.  Add the
|> context.  Where am I dishonest?
|
| | 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.
|
| Context re-inserted. My 'accusation' was an inference from the above
| observation. You deliberately isolated it, and then in the post I'm
| replying to removed it entirely in order to make it appear that my
| words were nothing but an ad hominem attack. *That* is dishonest.

Are you Ron Garret posting anonymously as mdj ?

|> | 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.
|
| Not prejudiced? Surely you jest. The word 'pathological' (I'll spare
| you the translation) is far less prejudiced in the biology/medicine
| domains where the *harm* caused by a phenomena is often recognised
| before the phenomena that causes it. Mathematics on the other hand is
| replete with examples of phenomena once considered to be pathological
| only to have the label revoked once general theories that explained
| them were developed.

Like `hygienic macros' are prejudiced. yes.

| It's important to recognise that in mathematics you can 'prove' (in
| the mathematical sense) a phenomena is *not* pathological, but any
| statement that declares that *is* is subjective by definition. In
| terms of the statements that *you* make, this means your statements
| are just *your* opinion, and your attempts to label them objective by
| hiding them behind authorities is dishonest and logically fallacious.

|> You fell for Garret's line.
|
| Are we sure about that? :-)

Yes, I believe youre just Ron trolling under a different name.

|> |> | 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.
|
| I think this post makes it clear what I am objecting to. I wonder what
| contorted lengths you will go to in order to obscure my objection this
| time?
|
| I am not attempting to insult you Sir, you are bringing the insult
| upon yourself.

If you agree with my position, why are you bothering to post?

| Matt

Better sign off as `Ron Garret'

--
Madhu

On Nov 16, 3:42=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:

> This thread has no contribution except your insults.

On the contrary. I've made several challenges that have gone
unanswered (sans your amateurish attempt at philosophy). The 'silence'
in terms of answering the question I had is as they say, deafening.

> No I am doing no such thing. =A0I explained my position you continue to
> misunderstand and state your incorrect postition. If you disagree you
> should say.

So I misunderstand and am stating my disagreement incorrectly but if I
disagree I should say so?

I'll be polite and just call this a non sequitur.

> I am responding to your baseless pointless posts. =A0Stop trolling me if
> you have nothing to add.

> Are you Ron Garret posting anonymously as mdj ?

No. It should be obvious from the way I use language that I'm not from
the same part of the world.

> Like `hygienic macros' are prejudiced. yes.

Yes, they are, but not inherently useless as a result.

> Yes, I believe youre just Ron trolling under a different name.

Please explain why my posts are trolling.

> If you agree with my position, why are you bothering to post?

I was interested to find out if your position was based on a deeper
understanding of the issues, or simply based on rhetorical pooh-
poohing of anything you consider 'not common lispy enough'. I suppose
I could've read the archives to determine this, but I thought this
might be more fun and/or enlightening.

> Better sign off as `Ron Garret'

I can only assume that from your perspective this is an insult. I can
also only assume from the quality of your responses here that it's
actually in fact a compliment.

Matt

[I notice you have not followed my suggestion of posting something
 substantial, so I have something I can usefully respond to.  I am just
 responding to the continued trolling on your part, and this is
 necessarily not interesting since I have no wish to respond in "irony"]


* mdj <cff1231c-a277-4ca9-8abd-65deb224fa7d@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:54:21 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 16, 3:42 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|
|> This thread has no contribution except your insults.
|
| On the contrary. I've made several challenges that have gone
| unanswered (sans your amateurish attempt at philosophy). The 'silence'
| in terms of answering the question I had is as they say, deafening.


No, your basic accusation is false.  The assumptions underlying your
accusation are wrong.  I not need to resort to philosophy or rely on any
capacity for philosophical thought on your part to prove it.  You can
ignore my earlier attempt, as I do not believe you will benefit from
that.


|> No I am doing no such thing.  I explained my position you continue to
|> misunderstand and state your incorrect position. If you disagree you
|> should say.
|
| So I misunderstand and am stating my disagreement incorrectly but if I
| disagree I should say so?


I asked you to respond to the post and state what it is in my
explanation and exactly WHAT you were disagreeing with.  Instead you
have only been stating a characterization of what I've done, and have
been disagreeing with that.

AFAICT Your accusation is based on a misunderstanding and the error is
in your own head.  I am powerless to correct any misperception on your
part.  If I tell you that neither am I conformibng to your
characterization, nor is it my intent to do what you are alleging, given
your lack of understanding, its best you accept what I say.


| I'll be polite and just call this a non sequitur.

No

|> I am responding to your baseless pointless posts.  Stop trolling me if
|> you have nothing to add.
|
|> Are you Ron Garret posting anonymously as mdj ?
|
| No. It should be obvious from the way I use language that I'm not from
| the same part of the world.

OK

|> Like `hygienic macros' are prejudiced. yes.
|
| Yes, they are, but not inherently useless as a result.

So prejudiced means useless in your brain?


|> Yes, I believe youre just Ron trolling under a different name.
|
| Please explain why my posts are trolling.

Your only intent appears to be to mock (you stated as much).  and harp
on a viewpoint which has been disclaimed from the start.


|> If you agree with my position, why are you bothering to post?
|
| I was interested to find out if your position was based on a deeper
| understanding of the issues, or simply based on rhetorical pooh-
| poohing of anything you consider 'not common lispy enough'. 

[This is again a mischaracterization.  BTW I made more useful posts to
 CLL before Clojure was invented].

Besides, there is nothing great about my `position'.  I was making a
trivial claim and about a contrary claim --- expressed from a certain
viewpoint.  I called it `trivial' and `non-interesting' even in that
sense, in a way that's accepted usage. AND I've explained that this was
all there was to it.  Where is your problem?  There is nothing deep in
it except how you can choose to misunderstand it, and restate it to
"mock me".  AND you are not upto coming to any deeper understanding of
how _you_ can make the misunderstanding.


| I suppose I could've read the archives to determine this, but I
| thought this might be more fun and/or enlightening.

And get your kicks from "mocking me".  That is trolling me and wasting
my time.

|> Better sign off as `Ron Garret'
|
| I can only assume that from your perspective this is an insult. I can
| also only assume from the quality of your responses here that it's
| actually in fact a compliment.

No, the meta-crap-responses in this thread is deja-vu from the earlier
Ron Garret threads.  Make sure you are not in communication with him.
Remember that the quality of my responses is subject to your own limited
interpretation based on your own limited knowledge, and your necessarily
subjective opinion is yours alone.

--
Madhu

In article <m3bpj3kotg.fsf@moon.robolove.meer.net>,
 Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:

> Are you Ron Garret posting anonymously as mdj ?

No, he isn't.  And that's quite the cheeky question considering the fact 
that you conceal your own identity behind a pseudonym.

Who are you, "Madhu"?

rg

In article <m31vjylv8e.fsf@moon.robolove.meer.net>,
 Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:

> |> Better sign off as `Ron Garret'
> |
> | I can only assume that from your perspective this is an insult. I can
> | also only assume from the quality of your responses here that it's
> | actually in fact a compliment.
> 
> No, the meta-crap-responses in this thread is deja-vu from the earlier
> Ron Garret threads.  Make sure you are not in communication with him.
> Remember that the quality of my responses is subject to your own limited
> interpretation based on your own limited knowledge, and your necessarily
> subjective opinion is yours alone.

Ah, I think I understand now.  When *we* (meaning Matt and myself) think 
*you* are wrong, that's proof that *our* knowledge is limited and our 
opinions subjective.  But when *you* think *we* are wrong, that's proof 
of nothing because your knowledge is unlimited and your opinion is 
objective and always correct.  Have I got that right?

Do tell us, how did you achieve this exalted state of enlightenment?

rg

* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-5F3504.13480716112009@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.

I didnt change my name like you did, Erran Gat, didn't have any past to
hide.
--
Madhu

[Since you had indicated you would no longer post to the thread]

* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-5A38C0.13540116112009@news.albasani.net> :
Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:54:01 -0800:

| In article <m31vjylv8e.fsf@moon.robolove.meer.net>,
|  Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:
|
|> |> Better sign off as `Ron Garret'
|> |
|> | I can only assume that from your perspective this is an insult. I can
|> | also only assume from the quality of your responses here that it's
|> | actually in fact a compliment.
|> 
|> No, the meta-crap-responses in this thread is deja-vu from the earlier
|> Ron Garret threads.  Make sure you are not in communication with him.
|> Remember that the quality of my responses is subject to your own limited
|> interpretation based on your own limited knowledge, and your necessarily
|> subjective opinion is yours alone.

| Ah, I think I understand now.  When *we* (meaning Matt and myself)
| think *you* are wrong, that's proof that *our* knowledge is limited
| and our opinions subjective.  when *you* think *we* are wrong, that's
| proof of nothing because your knowledge is unlimited and your opinion
| is objective and always correct.  Have I got that right?

| Do tell us, how did you achieve this exalted state of enlightenment?

How you manage to creare wrong opinions started me thinking.

Matt provided the reasoning himself: `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  was paraphrasing it.

Note however, that in the post I have said nothing about `wrong'.  You
seem to WRONGLY indicate that it was what I was discussing Both Matt's
method and your method of creating strawmen are identical.  The question
was whether you two had communicated outside this thread and whether I
am responding to a single `entity', if the *we* you refer to was indeed
one

Who is Matt anyway?  I believe he made his CLL debut attacking me in
this thread.

--
Madhu (real name)

In article <m3tywujf2l.fsf@moon.robolove.meer.net>,
 Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:

> * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-5F3504.13480716112009@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

* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-1D0CAB.14462716112009@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

On Nov 16, 6:38=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> [I notice you have not followed my suggestion of posting something
> =A0substantial, so I have something I can usefully respond to. =A0I am ju=
st
> =A0responding to the continued trolling on your part, and this is
> =A0necessarily not interesting since I have no wish to respond in "irony"=
]

There's plenty of material already for you to respond to, and yet you
choose not to. The irony of course exists more in your continuing to
respond to my posts in such a way that affirms my observations. If you
wish to avoid irony, you have no choice but to concede or shut up.

> * mdj <cff1231c-a277-4ca9-8abd-65deb224f...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>=
 :
> Wrote on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:54:21 -0800 (PST):
>
> | On Nov 16, 3:42=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> |
> |> This thread has no contribution except your insults.
> |
> | On the contrary. I've made several challenges that have gone
> | unanswered (sans your amateurish attempt at philosophy). The 'silence'
> | in terms of answering the question I had is as they say, deafening.
>
> No, your basic accusation is false. =A0The assumptions underlying your
> accusation are wrong. =A0I not need to resort to philosophy or rely on an=
y
> capacity for philosophical thought on your part to prove it. =A0You can
> ignore my earlier attempt, as I do not believe you will benefit from
> that.

Yes, ignore it now before somebody notices how flawed it is. A simple
restatement of Plato's cave in fact, that you're using as a form of
obscurantism. The irony of this is that as you point at the sheet and
accuse the shapes on it of lacking dimensions you believe yourself to
have, you've failed to notice that you're the one in the cave.

> |> No I am doing no such thing. =A0I explained my position you continue t=
o
> |> misunderstand and state your incorrect position. If you disagree you
> |> should say.
> |
> | So I misunderstand and am stating my disagreement incorrectly but if I
> | disagree I should say so?
>
> I asked you to respond to the post and state what it is in my
> explanation and exactly WHAT you were disagreeing with. =A0Instead you
> have only been stating a characterization of what I've done, and have
> been disagreeing with that.

And yet without anything other than 'No Matt, you're wrong' to go on
there's no reason whatsoever to reconsider by characterization.

> AFAICT Your accusation is based on a misunderstanding and the error is
> in your own head. =A0I am powerless to correct any misperception on your
> part. =A0If I tell you that neither am I conformibng to your
> characterization, nor is it my intent to do what you are alleging, given
> your lack of understanding, its best you accept what I say.

Poppycock. Are you seriously suggesting I take it on faith that you're
far more knowledgeable than you appear? That because of my own
ignorance I would not understand your response even if you gave one?

This is charlatanism, pure and simple. Like the snake oil salesman you
want your audience to 'believe' in your product. Well guess what. Your
bluff has been called and you've been left holding squat.

> | I'll be polite and just call this a non sequitur.
>
> No

No? Why no? Have you anything to back up your assertion "No?" No? I
thought not.

> |> I am responding to your baseless pointless posts. =A0Stop trolling me =
if
> |> you have nothing to add.
> |
> |> Are you Ron Garret posting anonymously as mdj ?
> |
> | No. It should be obvious from the way I use language that I'm not from
> | the same part of the world.
>
> OK

Not OK. You owe me an apology.

> |> Like `hygienic macros' are prejudiced. yes.
> |
> | Yes, they are, but not inherently useless as a result.
>
> So prejudiced means useless in your brain?

In the above sentence I said "Prejudiced but NOT useless". Do you have
a reading comprehension problem?

> |> Yes, I believe youre just Ron trolling under a different name.
> |
> | Please explain why my posts are trolling.
>
> Your only intent appears to be to mock (you stated as much). =A0and harp
> on a viewpoint which has been disclaimed from the start.

You have disclaimed nothing. Stop lying.

> |> If you agree with my position, why are you bothering to post?
> |
> | I was interested to find out if your position was based on a deeper
> | understanding of the issues, or simply based on rhetorical pooh-
> | poohing of anything you consider 'not common lispy enough'.
>
> [This is again a mischaracterization. =A0BTW I made more useful posts to
> =A0CLL before Clojure was invented].

So you like Lisp-1's with hygienic macros? Hey look, down there, there
goes your credibility.

(And no I'm not attacking Clojure. I like Clojure. I'm pointing out
the inconsistency of your position)

> Besides, there is nothing great about my `position'. =A0I was making a
> trivial claim and about a contrary claim --- expressed from a certain
> viewpoint. =A0I called it `trivial' and `non-interesting' even in that
> sense, in a way that's accepted usage. AND I've explained that this was
> all there was to it. =A0Where is your problem? =A0There is nothing deep i=
n
> it except how you can choose to misunderstand it, and restate it to
> "mock me". =A0AND you are not upto coming to any deeper understanding of
> how _you_ can make the misunderstanding.

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.

> | I suppose I could've read the archives to determine this, but I
> | thought this might be more fun and/or enlightening.
>
> And get your kicks from "mocking me". =A0That is trolling me and wasting
> my time.

Nonsense. If you thought this was a waste of your time you'd do
something else. I'd recommend that, BTW

> |> Better sign off as `Ron Garret'
> |
> | I can only assume that from your perspective this is an insult. I can
> | also only assume from the quality of your responses here that it's
> | actually in fact a compliment.
>
> No, the meta-crap-responses in this thread is deja-vu from the earlier
> Ron Garret threads. =A0Make sure you are not in communication with him.
> Remember that the quality of my responses is subject to your own limited
> interpretation based on your own limited knowledge, and your necessarily
> subjective opinion is yours alone.

It's more than obvious that the quality of your responses are limited
by your own ignorance and denial.

You can keep stating over and over again that you're operating on a
higher level of understanding, but saying that won't make that true
any more than sticking feathers up your behind would make you a
chicken.

Demonstrate, or capitulate.

Matt

On Nov 17, 7:54=A0am, Ron Garret <rNOSPA...@flownet.com> wrote:
> In article <m31vjylv8e....@moon.robolove.meer.net>,
>
> =A0Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> > |> Better sign off as `Ron Garret'
> > |
> > | I can only assume that from your perspective this is an insult. I can
> > | also only assume from the quality of your responses here that it's
> > | actually in fact a compliment.
>
> > No, the meta-crap-responses in this thread is deja-vu from the earlier
> > Ron Garret threads. =A0Make sure you are not in communication with him.
> > Remember that the quality of my responses is subject to your own limite=
d
> > interpretation based on your own limited knowledge, and your necessaril=
y
> > subjective opinion is yours alone.
>
> Ah, I think I understand now. =A0When *we* (meaning Matt and myself) thin=
k
> *you* are wrong, that's proof that *our* knowledge is limited and our
> opinions subjective. =A0But when *you* think *we* are wrong, that's proof
> of nothing because your knowledge is unlimited and your opinion is
> objective and always correct. =A0Have I got that right?

Pretty much. Its narcissism, but precisely which kind will require
more malarky to decide.

> 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 ;-)

Matt

* mdj <a288ecab-c5f9-482c-927a-634338a99455@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:09:02 -0800 (PST):

|> Besides, there is nothing great about my `position'.  I was making a
|> trivial claim and about a contrary claim --- expressed from a certain
|> viewpoint.  I called it `trivial' and `non-interesting' even in that
|> sense, in a way that's accepted usage. AND I've explained that this was
|> all there was to it.  Where is your problem?  There is nothing deep in
|> it except how you can choose to misunderstand it, and restate it to
|> "mock me".  AND you are not upto coming to any deeper understanding of
|> how _you_ can make the misunderstanding.
|
| 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.  You continue to harp on your
misunderstanding, and representing a misintention even after I've shown
what my intention and meaning was. You are just a troll trolling
comp.lang.lisp for the first time

|> | I suppose I could've read the archives to determine this, but I
|> | thought this might be more fun and/or enlightening.
|>

As this indicates.

|> And get your kicks from "mocking me".  That is trolling me and wasting
|> my time.
|
| Nonsense. If you thought this was a waste of your time you'd do
| something else. I'd recommend that, BTW

Indeed.  

<snip>

| Demonstrate, or capitulate.

[earlier]

| There's plenty of material already for you to respond to, and yet you
| choose not to.

If my point was not already clear, I am not interested in engaging in
dialectic debate.  I assumed you made a misunderstanding and made an
honest attempt to correct it.  But it is clear you are not interested in
accepting what I said, and instead lay accusation upon accusation of
false claim on false claim, wronga assumption upon wrong assumption with
the intent that I should respond to each of those.

You started posting for the first time in comp.lang.lisp with the
explicit intention of mocking me and supply more and more verbiage which
has no basis.  Adding crap does not make your original false accusation
right, or correct the wrong assumptions you have made.  You have
demonstrated beyond doubt that your only honest intention is to troll
and you wonder why I don't reply?

Where do you know Ron Garret from BTW ?

--
Madhu

* mdj <cff03808-f17c-48f6-bad7-b8d8c51342b2@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:29:20 -0800 (PST):

|> > No, the meta-crap-responses in this thread is deja-vu from the earlier
|> > Ron Garret threads.  Make sure you are not in communication with him.
|> > Remember that the quality of my responses is subject to your own limited
|> > interpretation based on your own limited knowledge, and your necessarily
|> > subjective opinion is yours alone.
|>
|> Ah, I think I understand now.  When *we* (meaning Matt and myself) think
|> *you* are wrong, that's proof that *our* knowledge is limited and our
|> opinions subjective.  But when *you* think *we* are wrong, that's proof
|> of nothing because your knowledge is unlimited and your opinion is
|> objective and always correct.  Have I got that right?
|
| Pretty much. Its narcissism, but precisely which kind will require
| more malarky to decide.

|> 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>

What makes it entertaining, I hope is that in attempting to caricature
my position you are accurately characterizing your own

--
Madhu

On Nov 17, 11:45 am, Madhu <enom...@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,
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.

So, it is *not* clear in what sense you are using terms, since you use
subjective ones instead of objective, and then refuse to qualify your
position.

In my opinion, you are misusing these terms because you have a nasty
habit of assuming that correlation implies causation. You might on
occasion make a point that is valid, but since they're based on
vacuous premises there is no reason whatsoever to construe your points
as anything other than a prejudiced rant.

You clearly have no understanding of the terminology you're trying to
hide your ignorance behind.

> You continue to harp on your
> misunderstanding, and representing a misintention even after I've shown
> what my intention and meaning was. You are just a troll trolling
> comp.lang.lisp for the first time

My misunderstanding? That you demonstrated by responding to part of my
point in isolation in order to be able to label my conclusion faulty?
That you can't label as faulty unless you dishonestly cherry pick only
part of my point?

I suggest before you refer to me as a troll you do some research on
the term and compare it to your own behaviour.

> |> | I suppose I could've read the archives to determine this, but I
> |> | thought this might be more fun and/or enlightening.
> |>
>
> As this indicates.

Indicates what?

> |> And get your kicks from "mocking me".  That is trolling me and wasting
> |> my time.
> |
> | Nonsense. If you thought this was a waste of your time you'd do
> | something else. I'd recommend that, BTW
>
> Indeed.
>
> <snip>
>
> | Demonstrate, or capitulate.
>
> [earlier]
>
> | There's plenty of material already for you to respond to, and yet you
> | choose not to.
>
> If my point was not already clear, I am not interested in engaging in
> dialectic debate.  I assumed you made a misunderstanding and made an
> honest attempt to correct it.  But it is clear you are not interested in
> accepting what I said, and instead lay accusation upon accusation of
> false claim on false claim, wronga assumption upon wrong assumption with
> the intent that I should respond to each of those.

I have made only a smaller number of claims, that I have framed a
variety of ways in a hope that I would somehow reach you.

I also accept what you said. I do however think your comments are
facile, and that any interesting qualities they might have are
unverifiable due to your refusal to disclose them.

Your uninterest in engaging in dialectic debate over a point you make
in public again confirms that there is no substance behind your claim.
If substance was there, you'd be keen to discuss it. As it stands you
appear only to be interested in appearing to have something
interesting to say in order to inflate your own ego.

Pop.

> You started posting for the first time in comp.lang.lisp with the
> explicit intention of mocking me and supply more and more verbiage which
> has no basis.  Adding crap does not make your original false accusation
> right, or correct the wrong assumptions you have made.  You have
> demonstrated beyond doubt that your only honest intention is to troll
> and you wonder why I don't reply?

Ridicule is the only retort against irrationality.

Calling me a troll and asserting that I'm mistaken does not undo my
'accusation', it only makes you look like an idiot as you continue to
cling to the very same false thought pattern that got you into this in
the first place.

> Where do you know Ron Garret from BTW ?

I don't. Again, you're making the mistaken inference that correlation
implies causation.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

On Nov 17, 12:21=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> * mdj <cff03808-f17c-48f6-bad7-b8d8c5134...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com> =
:
> Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:29:20 -0800 (PST):
>
> |> > No, the meta-crap-responses in this thread is deja-vu from the earli=
er
> |> > Ron Garret threads. =A0Make sure you are not in communication with h=
im.
> |> > Remember that the quality of my responses is subject to your own lim=
ited
> |> > interpretation based on your own limited knowledge, and your necessa=
rily
> |> > subjective opinion is yours alone.
> |>
> |> Ah, I think I understand now. =A0When *we* (meaning Matt and myself) t=
hink
> |> *you* are wrong, that's proof that *our* knowledge is limited and our
> |> opinions subjective. =A0But when *you* think *we* are wrong, that's pr=
oof
> |> of nothing because your knowledge is unlimited and your opinion is
> |> objective and always correct. =A0Have I got that right?
> |
> | Pretty much. Its narcissism, but precisely which kind will require
> | more malarky to decide.
>
> |> 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."

> 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'm glad you find that funny. It's a step in the right direction :-)

Matt

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@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:27:49 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 17, 11:45 am, Madhu <enom...@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

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@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

* mdj <3248deab-a565-4e07-8c52-04aac4175e8b@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:27:49 -0800 (PST):

| I suggest before you refer to me as a troll you do some research on
| the term and compare it to your own behaviour.

Make no mistake Matt. You're it.

|> If my point was not already clear, I am not interested in engaging in
|> dialectic debate.  I assumed you made a misunderstanding and made an
|> honest attempt to correct it.  But it is clear you are not interested
|> in accepting what I said, and instead lay accusation upon accusation
|> of false claim on false claim, wronga assumption upon wrong
|> assumption with the intent that I should respond to each of those.
|
| I have made only a smaller number of claims, that I have framed a
| variety of ways in a hope that I would somehow reach you.

I have made exactly 1 point in the post you took exception to.  I am not
interested in any other point.  All your claims are unrelated to the
validity of the point I made, which you have not countered except by
untenable accusations and (mis)characterizations, which are baseless and
not worth wasting time to respond.

| I also accept what you said. I do however think your comments are
| facile, and that any interesting qualities they might have are
| unverifiable due to your refusal to disclose them.

I have asked you to ignore all that and focus on the issue at hand,
since it does not affect my point.  There are no interesting qualities.
I've said it. Why do you keep pretending there are "interesting
qualities" anywhere?

| Your uninterest in engaging in dialectic debate over a point you make
| in public again confirms that there is no substance behind your claim.
| If substance was there, you'd be keen to discuss it. As it stands you
| appear only to be interested in appearing to have something
| interesting to say in order to inflate your own ego.

If this were about my ego, and I wanted to appear interesting I WOULD be
engaging in pointless debate with you.  Instead I CHOOSE not fall for
your trolling. And so you accuse me of bluffing or lying or of
narcissism ?

Why are harping on things that have no relevance to the original point?

| Pop.

Pop yourself

|> You started posting for the first time in comp.lang.lisp with the
|> explicit intention of mocking me and supply more and more verbiage which
|> has no basis.  Adding crap does not make your original false accusation
|> right, or correct the wrong assumptions you have made.  You have
|> demonstrated beyond doubt that your only honest intention is to troll
|> and you wonder why I don't reply?
|
| Ridicule is the only retort against irrationality.

Your ridicule is not directed against any irrationality though.

| Calling me a troll and asserting that I'm mistaken does not undo my
| 'accusation', it only makes you look like an idiot as you continue to
| cling to the very same false thought pattern that got you into this in
| the first place.

Classic.  Accuse me of doing what you are doing! See above!


|> Where do you know Ron Garret from BTW ?
|
| I don't. Again, you're making the mistaken inference that correlation
| implies causation.

Again you draw this conclusion/accusation not from anything I've
demonstrated but gratuitious verbiage and impeccable reasoning that you
attribute and supply.

| cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Whatever

--
Madhu

On Nov 17, 3:12=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:

<< irrelevant reference snipped >>

> You can do this as much as you want. =A0I have explained my simple
> position. =A0There 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. =A0Do you think that shows that the established usage in
> |> mathematics for so many centuries has been wrong? =A0I have explained =
I
> |> was using it in the sense used in mathematics. =A0It must be clear I w=
as
> |> not using it in a biological sense. =A0Showing 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? =A0just 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

On Nov 17, 3:17=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:

<<broken record snipped>>

> |> 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? =A0Does this =A0
> 1) demonstrate you understand what parapharsing means?
> 2) demonstrate I do not undestand what parapharsing means?

Yes, to 1) and 2). As to why I offered it:

> Stop wasting my time, jerk!

You wasted your own time by accusing me of something and using
fraudulent evidence. It should be obvious to you by now you can't get
away with that, but alas it's not.

You owe me an apology. That's two.

> |> 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. =A0

A reinterpretation of something that doesn't mean the same thing isn't
'some errors'. It *is* an error.

> Why do you think
> I do not know what `paraphrasing means' or I misused it?

Because you did misuse it, demonstrating either your lack of
understanding or (more likely) your dishonesty and reliance on
obscurantism.

Pick one

On Nov 17, 3:49=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> * mdj <3248deab-a565-4e07-8c52-04aac4175...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>=
 :
> Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:27:49 -0800 (PST):
>
> | I suggest before you refer to me as a troll you do some research on
> | the term and compare it to your own behaviour.
>
> Make no mistake Matt. You're it.

Is that irony? ;-)

> |> If my point was not already clear, I am not interested in engaging in
> |> dialectic debate. =A0I assumed you made a misunderstanding and made an
> |> honest attempt to correct it. =A0But it is clear you are not intereste=
d
> |> in accepting what I said, and instead lay accusation upon accusation
> |> of false claim on false claim, wronga assumption upon wrong
> |> assumption with the intent that I should respond to each of those.
> |
> | I have made only a smaller number of claims, that I have framed a
> | variety of ways in a hope that I would somehow reach you.
>
> I have made exactly 1 point in the post you took exception to. =A0I am no=
t
> interested in any other point. =A0All your claims are unrelated to the
> validity of the point I made, which you have not countered except by
> untenable accusations and (mis)characterizations, which are baseless and
> not worth wasting time to respond.

I'm sorry, but my claims seem quite tenable to me.

> | I also accept what you said. I do however think your comments are
> | facile, and that any interesting qualities they might have are
> | unverifiable due to your refusal to disclose them.
>
> I have asked you to ignore all that and focus on the issue at hand,
> since it does not affect my point. =A0There are no interesting qualities.
> I've said it. Why do you keep pretending there are "interesting
> qualities" anywhere?

Because you don't have the faintest idea what "interesting quality"
actually means.

<snip>

> Again you draw this conclusion/accusation not from anything I've
> demonstrated but gratuitious verbiage and impeccable reasoning that you
> attribute and supply.

Since you feel that my reasoning is impeccable, there's no reason for
this conversation to continue. Thanks for playing, I'm glad you
learned something.

> | cum hoc ergo propter hoc
>
> Whatever

When I say it in Latin, at least you can be sure *exactly* what I
mean.

Matt

* mdj <7e4a14c2-9b76-4d61-a3e8-64319a6858c3@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:30:45 -0800 (PST):

| << irrelevant reference snipped >>

Here is the reference again in case you missed it: 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> )

Its relevant in that you are responding to each of my remarks asking for
material already supplied, ignoring it

|> 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 ?

Not anymore. I am just going to mark your perposterous statements that
you are inviting me to respond, after citing the URL.

I stopped playing after your 3rd post Matt


|> | 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'

Why? because you made some accusations I didnt bother to justify?  Can
it be about your intentions in continuing to post?

|> |> | 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

I'm not playing Matt.  You just respond to every sentence shooting holes
based on language.  For a `debate' now it just remains to establish
intentions.  My intention was to make a point.

It has been made.  our intention is to troll by making preposterous
claims

Can you bring someone else to play now?

|> | 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.

Yeah, I'm glad for that

--
Madhu

* mdj <8e1c6440-8a89-4359-9117-8a8232f1e02f@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:42:01 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 17, 3:49 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|> * mdj <3248deab-a565-4e07-8c52-04aac4175...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com> :
|> Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:27:49 -0800 (PST):
|>
|> | I suggest before you refer to me as a troll you do some research on
|> | the term and compare it to your own behaviour.
|>
|> Make no mistake Matt. You're it.
|
| Is that irony? ;-)

No, its establishment of your intent in "engaging me" in this thread.
What is your interest in lisp anyway?


|> |> If my point was not already clear, I am not interested in engaging
|> |> in dialectic debate.  I assumed you made a misunderstanding and
|> |> made an honest attempt to correct it.  But it is clear you are not
|> |> interested in accepting what I said, and instead lay accusation
|> |> upon accusation of false claim on false claim, wronga assumption
|> |> upon wrong assumption with the intent that I should respond to
|> |> each of those.
|> |
|> | I have made only a smaller number of claims, that I have framed a
|> | variety of ways in a hope that I would somehow reach you.
|>
|> I have made exactly 1 point in the post you took exception to.  I am
|> not interested in any other point.  All your claims are unrelated to
|> the validity of the point I made, which you have not countered except
|> by untenable accusations and (mis)characterizations, which are
|> baseless and not worth wasting time to respond.
|
| I'm sorry, but my claims seem quite tenable to me.

Now you want to us to bicker pathologically on the meaning of the word
`tenable', instead of `interesting', and how it is subjective and I have
misused it while you supply brilliant flawless reasoning? 


|> | I also accept what you said. I do however think your comments are
|> | facile, and that any interesting qualities they might have are
|> | unverifiable due to your refusal to disclose them.
|>
|> I have asked you to ignore all that and focus on the issue at hand,
|> since it does not affect my point.  There are no interesting qualities.
|> I've said it. Why do you keep pretending there are "interesting
|> qualities" anywhere?
|
| Because you don't have the faintest idea what "interesting quality"
| actually means.

Not in any sense you seem you use it at least.  Or do you now want to
indulge in pathological bickering on the meaning `interesting quality'
and argue brilliantly and flawlessly how I've misused it to support my
ego?


| <snip>
|
|> Again you draw this conclusion/accusation not from anything I've
|> demonstrated but gratuitious verbiage and impeccable reasoning that you
|> attribute and supply.
|
| Since you feel that my reasoning is impeccable, there's no reason for
| this conversation to continue. Thanks for playing, I'm glad you
| learned something.

Impeccable reasoning based on false misleading assumptions is the game
you are playing Matt, and its common here, along with making
preposterous conclusions that beg to be corrected.  I'd prefer to avoid
the trollbait at least I'm only saying I'm not interested in correcting
your mistakes made for debate's-sake.  At best I can mark them as such.


|> | cum hoc ergo propter hoc
|>
|> Whatever
|
| When I say it in Latin, at least you can be sure *exactly* what I
| mean.

Like I said what I meant: *whatever*

--
Madhu

* mdj <3e3c969b-1c47-4850-a6d1-b5d0b22b9711@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:36:41 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 17, 3:17 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|
| <<broken record snipped>>

You havent snipped your own repetition the same <broken record> pattern
yourself: That pattern where you ``return each remark with a machine gun
burst of no less than than than four preposterous remarks each just
screaming for rebuttal'' Not that I'm playing, but I really think that
characterization suits your activity in comp.lang.lisp

|> |> 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?
|
| Yes, to 1) and 2). As to why I offered it:

I claim you have done neither, --- I have my post upthread and your
original sentence to back up my claim as evidence.

|> Stop wasting my time, jerk!
|
| You wasted your own time by accusing me of something and using
| fraudulent evidence. It should be obvious to you by now you can't get
| away with that, but alas it's not.

Wrong.  I accuse you of trolling me for the purpose of mocking me.  The
`fradulent evidence' is a new preposterous claim, that I'll pass

My intent from the start was to point out a false claim made by Ron
Garret.  You apparently accepted it, I'm done when you stop trolling.


| You owe me an apology. That's two.
|
|> |> 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.  
|
| A reinterpretation of something that doesn't mean the same thing isn't
| 'some errors'. It *is* an error.

Shall we now pathologically bicker on the meaning of the word `error'
and how the `error' you are referring to is not the `error' I am
referring to and how I have misused the word error to mislead, so you
can construct brilliant logical proofs that I have to refute?

Jerk.


|> Why do you think I do not know what `paraphrasing means' or I misused
|> it?

| Because you did misuse it, demonstrating either your lack of
| understanding or (more likely) your dishonesty and reliance on
| obscurantism.  Pick one

Your phrasing of the question in an either-or form, excludes the answer
that I have not misused it.  Now you want to us to bicker pathologically
on the meaning of the word `parapharsing', instead of `interesting' like
you started of with, and how it is subjective and construct brilliant
dialectical arguments to support your point?

Lets see what you come up with.  I'm not playing.  Really.

--
Madhu

On Nov 17, 5:03=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:

> | Is that irony? ;-)
>
> No, its establishment of your intent in "engaging me" in this thread.

I'll establish my own intent thank you very much.

> What is your interest in lisp anyway?

Many and varied. Principally as an ideal vehicle to explore compiler
optimisation techniques.

> |> |> If my point was not already clear, I am not interested in engaging
> |> |> in dialectic debate. =A0I assumed you made a misunderstanding and
> |> |> made an honest attempt to correct it. =A0But it is clear you are no=
t
> |> |> interested in accepting what I said, and instead lay accusation
> |> |> upon accusation of false claim on false claim, wronga assumption
> |> |> upon wrong assumption with the intent that I should respond to
> |> |> each of those.
> |> |
> |> | I have made only a smaller number of claims, that I have framed a
> |> | variety of ways in a hope that I would somehow reach you.
> |>
> |> I have made exactly 1 point in the post you took exception to. =A0I am
> |> not interested in any other point. =A0All your claims are unrelated to
> |> the validity of the point I made, which you have not countered except
> |> by untenable accusations and (mis)characterizations, which are
> |> baseless and not worth wasting time to respond.
> |
> | I'm sorry, but my claims seem quite tenable to me.
>
> Now you want to us to bicker pathologically on the meaning of the word
> `tenable', instead of `interesting', and how it is subjective and I have
> misused it while you supply brilliant flawless reasoning?

Not at all! I'm happy to stick with interesting. I will note for the
record however that your usage of pathological in this context shows a
marked improvement. Bravo.

> |> | I also accept what you said. I do however think your comments are
> |> | facile, and that any interesting qualities they might have are
> |> | unverifiable due to your refusal to disclose them.
> |>
> |> I have asked you to ignore all that and focus on the issue at hand,
> |> since it does not affect my point. =A0There are no interesting qualiti=
es.
> |> I've said it. Why do you keep pretending there are "interesting
> |> qualities" anywhere?
> |
> | Because you don't have the faintest idea what "interesting quality"
> | actually means.
>
> Not in any sense you seem you use it at least. =A0Or do you now want to
> indulge in pathological bickering on the meaning `interesting quality'
> and argue brilliantly and flawlessly how I've misused it to support my
> ego?

Actually my intent was to show how you misused it to make your point.
I believe I've made that point, but if you disagree post again! I've
got a few rounds left in me yet.

> | <snip>
> |
> |> Again you draw this conclusion/accusation not from anything I've
> |> demonstrated but gratuitious verbiage and impeccable reasoning that yo=
u
> |> attribute and supply.
> |
> | Since you feel that my reasoning is impeccable, there's no reason for
> | this conversation to continue. Thanks for playing, I'm glad you
> | learned something.
>
> Impeccable reasoning based on false misleading assumptions is the game
> you are playing Matt, and its common here, along with making
> preposterous conclusions that beg to be corrected. =A0I'd prefer to avoid
> the trollbait at least I'm only saying I'm not interested in correcting
> your mistakes made for debate's-sake. =A0At best I can mark them as such.

My original post stands.

Matt

On Nov 17, 5:23=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:

> Shall we now pathologically bicker on the meaning of the word `error'
> and how the `error' you are referring to is not the `error' I am
> referring to and how I have misused the word error to mislead, so you
> can construct brilliant logical proofs that I have to refute?

Let's stick to interesting.

> Jerk.

Now look here sonny. Just calm down and take a deep breath and think.
Feeling better? Good. Now consider this:

If you consider that your own use of language is 'perfectly logical'
and insist upon using that presumption as a means to support your
point, is that:

a) A prime example of 'bickering' over language
b) A recipe for creating more 'bickering' over language
c) Exactly what you did

I have no desire to 'bicker'. I simply wish to point out that your
pattern of behaviour will lead to exactly this outcome, over and over
again.

All you have to do to avoid it is use the technique of "paraphrasing"
your meaning in a way that contextualises it. If you attempt to be too
succinct you'll become overly reliant on your own subjective
definitions of terms that frankly, are subjective.

Now, why don't you give us *your* definition of the word
'interesting'. I for one am quite 'interested' to know what it is
because for the life of me I cannot find a definition that would make
your usage of it make sense.

Matt

[for a second I thought your trolling had stopped.]

* mdj <dfd488d2-f073-4e26-8309-d4c2a37b2e7a@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:21:32 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 17, 5:23 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|
|> Shall we now pathologically bicker on the meaning of the word `error'
|> and how the `error' you are referring to is not the `error' I am
|> referring to and how I have misused the word error to mislead, so you
|> can construct brilliant logical proofs that I have to refute?
|
| Let's stick to interesting.
|
|> Jerk.

| Now look here sonny. Just calm down and take a deep breath and think.
| Feeling better? Good. Now consider this:
|
| If you consider that your own use of language is 'perfectly logical'
| and insist upon using that presumption as a means to support your
| point, is that:
|
| a) A prime example of 'bickering' over language
| b) A recipe for creating more 'bickering' over language
| c) Exactly what you did

| I have no desire to 'bicker'. I simply wish to point out that your
| pattern of behaviour will lead to exactly this outcome, over and over
| again.

Wrong.  You are ALL about bickering. The outcome is determined by the
agenda you set when you made your first post. I was going to bicker
about `interesting' in your first post, which I immediately sought to
correct and I established my intention was to make a point.  Your
intention however is to show I was doing it from a point of bickering,
and I have refrained, you troll me by making perposterous remarks about
meanings of words. Pick a new word each time and use english language to
construct a prime facie wrong argument that you use as a preposterous
claim[1] that begs to be rebutted

| All you have to do to avoid it is use the technique of "paraphrasing"
| your meaning in a way that contextualises it. If you attempt to be too
| succinct you'll become overly reliant on your own subjective
| definitions of terms that frankly, are subjective.

This was the precisely basis of your trolling. You can always find a
subjective perspective in which your prime facie argument is
justifiable.  Screw any points.  Start the flame fest!

Or do you now you want to us to bicker pathologically on the meaning of
the word `subjective, instead of `interesting', and how it is subjective
and I have misused it while you supply brilliant flawless reasoning?

| Now, why don't you give us *your* definition of the word
| 'interesting'. I for one am quite 'interested' to know what it is
| because for the life of me I cannot find a definition that would make
| your usage of it make sense.

My intent is not to bicker about the word `interesting' which appears to
be your sole area of competence, and which you repeatedly wish to drag
me into, but to point out a false claim made by Ron Garret,

--
Madhu

* mdj <599cd5bd-6d58-4b55-94af-bd4c1fe81683@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:30:44 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 17, 5:03 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|
|> | Is that irony? ;-)
|>
|> No, its establishment of your intent in "engaging me" in this thread.
|
| I'll establish my own intent thank you very much.

And yet you will establish my intent in using words as I choose to
convey the meanings I wanted to convey?

Please.


|> What is your interest in lisp anyway?
|
| Many and varied. Principally as an ideal vehicle to explore compiler
| optimisation techniques.
|
|> |> |> If my point was not already clear, I am not interested in engaging
|> |> |> in dialectic debate.  I assumed you made a misunderstanding and
|> |> |> made an honest attempt to correct it.  But it is clear you are not
|> |> |> interested in accepting what I said, and instead lay accusation
|> |> |> upon accusation of false claim on false claim, wronga assumption
|> |> |> upon wrong assumption with the intent that I should respond to
|> |> |> each of those.
|> |> |
|> |> | I have made only a smaller number of claims, that I have framed a
|> |> | variety of ways in a hope that I would somehow reach you.
|> |>
|> |> I have made exactly 1 point in the post you took exception to.  I am
|> |> not interested in any other point.  All your claims are unrelated to
|> |> the validity of the point I made, which you have not countered except
|> |> by untenable accusations and (mis)characterizations, which are
|> |> baseless and not worth wasting time to respond.
|> |
|> | I'm sorry, but my claims seem quite tenable to me.
|>
|> Now you want to us to bicker pathologically on the meaning of the word
|> `tenable', instead of `interesting', and how it is subjective and I have
|> misused it while you supply brilliant flawless reasoning?
|
| Not at all! I'm happy to stick with interesting. I will note for the
| record however that your usage of pathological in this context shows a
| marked improvement. Bravo.

I told you in my first response I am not interested in bickering on the
your subjective interpretation of words.

you continue to trollbait me on this issue.

|> |> | I also accept what you said. I do however think your comments are
|> |> | facile, and that any interesting qualities they might have are
|> |> | unverifiable due to your refusal to disclose them.
|> |>
|> |> I have asked you to ignore all that and focus on the issue at hand,
|> |> since it does not affect my point.  There are no interesting qualities.
|> |> I've said it. Why do you keep pretending there are "interesting
|> |> qualities" anywhere?
|> |
|> | Because you don't have the faintest idea what "interesting quality"
|> | actually means.
|>
|> Not in any sense you seem you use it at least.  Or do you now want to
|> indulge in pathological bickering on the meaning `interesting quality'
|> and argue brilliantly and flawlessly how I've misused it to support my
|> ego?
|
| Actually my intent was to show how you misused it to make your point.
| I believe I've made that point, but if you disagree post again! I've
| got a few rounds left in me yet.

Yes, Most of what have been doing is nothing but bicker about your
subjective definitions as per the agenda you set out, because you can
construct flawless arguments based on your subjective definitions.
Please to be continuing.

|> | <snip>
|> |
|> |> Again you draw this conclusion/accusation not from anything I've
|> |> demonstrated but gratuitious verbiage and impeccable reasoning that you
|> |> attribute and supply.
|> |
|> | Since you feel that my reasoning is impeccable, there's no reason for
|> | this conversation to continue. Thanks for playing, I'm glad you
|> | learned something.
|>
|> Impeccable reasoning based on false misleading assumptions is the game
|> you are playing Matt, and its common here, along with making
|> preposterous conclusions that beg to be corrected.  I'd prefer to avoid
|> the trollbait at least I'm only saying I'm not interested in correcting
|> your mistakes made for debate's-sake.  At best I can mark them as such.
|
| My original post stands.

[needless to state] 
my original correction to that post stands

--
Madhu

On Nov 17, 6:40=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:

> | I have no desire to 'bicker'. I simply wish to point out that your
> | pattern of behaviour will lead to exactly this outcome, over and over
> | again.
>
> Wrong. =A0You are ALL about bickering. The outcome is determined by the
> agenda you set when you made your first post. I was going to bicker
> about `interesting' in your first post, which I immediately sought to
> correct and I established my intention was to make a point. =A0

That would be true, were I the only intelligent agent acting on
this... hang on a second ...

> Your
> intention however is to show I was doing it from a point of bickering,
> and I have refrained, you troll me by making perposterous remarks about
> meanings of words.

Excuse me, but I believe you are the one who was claiming that your
point was valid because your use of the terms 'interesting' and
'pathological' had valid (and unambiguous) mathematical definitions.

I see that you are at least smart enough to realise you lost that
battle, hence this puffery and smokery about  other words.

Not much of a segue is it, really ?

> Pick a new word each time and use english language to
> construct a prime facie wrong argument that you use as a preposterous
> claim[1] that begs to be rebutted

Were I making any preposterous claims I've no doubt they'd be rebutted
by now.

> | All you have to do to avoid it is use the technique of "paraphrasing"
> | your meaning in a way that contextualises it. If you attempt to be too
> | succinct you'll become overly reliant on your own subjective
> | definitions of terms that frankly, are subjective.
>
> This was the precisely basis of your trolling. You can always find a
> subjective perspective in which your prime facie argument is
> justifiable. =A0Screw any points. =A0Start the flame fest!

Nonsense.

> Or do you now you want to us to bicker pathologically on the meaning of
> the word `subjective, instead of `interesting', and how it is subjective
> and I have misused it while you supply brilliant flawless reasoning?

Oh now you're just being silly. Bicker over the meaning of subjective?
Next you'll be accusing me of bickering over the definition of bicker.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that sunshine.

> | Now, why don't you give us *your* definition of the word
> | 'interesting'. I for one am quite 'interested' to know what it is
> | because for the life of me I cannot find a definition that would make
> | your usage of it make sense.
>
> My intent is not to bicker about the word `interesting' which appears to
> be your sole area of competence, and which you repeatedly wish to drag
> me into, but to point out a false claim made by Ron Garret,

By misappropriating the word interesting, and then when challenged,
claim you possess some high and mighty objective definition of it.
This is bollocks. Haven't you been paying attention ?

Matt

On Nov 17, 6:46=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> * mdj <599cd5bd-6d58-4b55-94af-bd4c1fe81...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com> =
:
> Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:30:44 -0800 (PST):
>
> | On Nov 17, 5:03=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> |
> |> | Is that irony? ;-)
> |>
> |> No, its establishment of your intent in "engaging me" in this thread.
> |
> | I'll establish my own intent thank you very much.
>
> And yet you will establish my intent in using words as I choose to
> convey the meanings I wanted to convey?

No no no. Read before commenting. I am merely asking you to establish
your own intent.

> I told you in my first response I am not interested in bickering on the
> your subjective interpretation of words.

And I call bullshit. Your entire statement is based upon definitions
of words that only apparently you posess.

Far more parsimonious to say you're simply full of it, but I was
trying to be nice.

> | Actually my intent was to show how you misused it to make your point.
> | I believe I've made that point, but if you disagree post again! I've
> | got a few rounds left in me yet.
>
> Yes, Most of what have been doing is nothing but bicker about your
> subjective definitions as per the agenda you set out, because you can
> construct flawless arguments based on your subjective definitions.
> Please to be continuing.

And in response you don't construct an argument. You just fling about
words like 'troll', 'jerk' and 'bickerer', and try to avoid actually
confronting the actual point I'm making.

You're a charlatan. A fraud. A liar.

Hey look! Three of a kind :-)

* Hanne Gudiksen <275e083a-33db-4edd-b544-21e98204c322@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:35:21 -0800 (PST):

|> |
|> |> | Is that irony? ;-)
|> |>
|> |> No, its establishment of your intent in "engaging me" in this thread.
|> |
|> | I'll establish my own intent thank you very much.
|>
|> And yet you will establish my intent in using words as I choose to
|> convey the meanings I wanted to convey?
|
| No no no. Read before commenting. I am merely asking you to establish
| your own intent.

I Stated it in my reply to your first post and many times since. You
wont accept it.

Again Stated in the next line:

|> I told you in my first response I am not interested in bickering on the
|> your subjective interpretation of words.
|
| And I call bullshit. Your entire statement is based upon definitions
| of words that only apparently you posess.

You took exception because you were not familiar with the usage.  I am
not here to educate you about the usage, why dont you just excuse
yourself from the target audience?


| Far more parsimonious to say you're simply full of it, but I was
| trying to be nice.
|
|> | Actually my intent was to show how you misused it to make your point.
|> | I believe I've made that point, but if you disagree post again! I've
|> | got a few rounds left in me yet.
|>
|> Yes, Most of what have been doing is nothing but bicker about your
|> subjective definitions as per the agenda you set out, because you can
|> construct flawless arguments based on your subjective definitions.
|> Please to be continuing.
|
| And in response you don't construct an argument. You just fling about
| words like 'troll', 'jerk' and 'bickerer', and try to avoid actually
| confronting the actual point I'm making.

No I wont construct an argument because I am not interested in the
pathological bickering behaviour you wish to indulge in were I to
construct an argument --- note I have not responded to the arguments you
gave. Maybe you should concede that I appreciate that words have
subjective usages in specific contexts.

When something is not clear, or misleading it is best to clarify the
intent of the speaker.  I've made my intent clear.  What is your problem
after that?

Your problem is I'm not falling for your trolling and indulging you in
the pathological bickering you solicit in every post.

| You're a charlatan. A fraud. A liar.
|
| Hey look! Three of a kind :-)

Spare the insults. 

--
Madhu

Madhu wrote:
> 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> )

Yeah, but Matt is neither Ron nor Erann. The latter are 
passive-aggressive, Matt is more disputatious and more genuinely 
engaging. Ron just messes with people.

kny



-- 

http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf

* Hanne Gudiksen <a5e1f831-0877-4280-9ea9-a4deede91cc9@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:29:20 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 17, 6:40 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|
|> | I have no desire to 'bicker'. I simply wish to point out that your
|> | pattern of behaviour will lead to exactly this outcome, over and over
|> | again.
|>
|> Wrong.  You are ALL about bickering. The outcome is determined by the
|> agenda you set when you made your first post. I was going to bicker
|> about `interesting' in your first post, which I immediately sought to
|> correct and I established my intention was to make a point.  
|
| That would be true, were I the only intelligent agent acting on
| this... hang on a second ...
|
|> Your intention however is to show I was doing it from a point of
|> bickering, and I have refrained, you troll me by making perposterous
|> remarks about meanings of words.
|
| Excuse me, but I believe you are the one who was claiming that your
| point was valid because your use of the terms 'interesting' and
| 'pathological' had valid (and unambiguous) mathematical definitions.

No.  My point was valid.  I use language to make a point.  I accept I am
sloppy and my languge is not the best, but I am making it in a context
that does not include you among your target audience.  I expect the
audience to be familiar with the jargon.  Even if I make a mistake, it
makes no difference --- I'm using the words to communicate a point. 

When language is subject to different interpretation or misunderstanding
the way forward is to clarify intentions and seek clarification. I've
provided those and you accepted that.  You can disagree till you burn in
hell that I misused `pathological', which is a word I did not introduce
into the thread.  But there is a subjective view (common among
mathematicians) where it is valid use.  There is no need to justify that
to you --- what is important to you is I convey the point I was intent
on conveying.

This is impossible when your intent is not to move forward but to troll
and bicker.

| I see that you are at least smart enough to realise you lost that
| battle, hence this puffery and smokery about  other words.
|
| Not much of a segue is it, really ?

Whatever.

|> Pick a new word each time and use english language to construct a
|> prime facie wrong argument that you use as a preposterous claim[1]
|> that begs to be rebutted
|
| Were I making any preposterous claims I've no doubt they'd be rebutted
| by now.

No, they are all subjective positions that change as you change your
view to suit your argument.  Your language games are cheap well
recognized tricks --- No one in their sane minds will come near them.
Best to avoid them like I did and focus on issues in understanding.

|> | All you have to do to avoid it is use the technique of
|> | "paraphrasing" your meaning in a way that contextualises it. If you
|> | attempt to be too succinct you'll become overly reliant on your own
|> | subjective definitions of terms that frankly, are subjective.
|>
|> This was the precisely basis of your trolling. You can always find a
|> subjective perspective in which your prime facie argument is
|> justifiable.  Screw any points.  Start the flame fest!
|
| Nonsense.

Do you have any other intention in continuing to troll?


|> Or do you now you want to us to bicker pathologically on the meaning
|> of the word `subjective, instead of `interesting', and how it is
|> subjective and I have misused it while you supply brilliant flawless
|> reasoning?
|
| Oh now you're just being silly. Bicker over the meaning of subjective?
| Next you'll be accusing me of bickering over the definition of bicker.
|
| You're going to have to do a lot better than that sunshine.

I cannot do better except wait for you to stop trolling.


|> | Now, why don't you give us *your* definition of the word
|> | 'interesting'. I for one am quite 'interested' to know what it is
|> | because for the life of me I cannot find a definition that would make
|> | your usage of it make sense.
|>
|> My intent is not to bicker about the word `interesting' which appears to
|> be your sole area of competence, and which you repeatedly wish to drag
|> me into, but to point out a false claim made by Ron Garret,
|
| By misappropriating the word interesting, and then when challenged,
| claim you possess some high and mighty objective definition of it.
| This is bollocks. Haven't you been paying attention ?

I was using the word in a sense you were not familiar with.  What is
important is the point I was making through it, not bickering about
the word, which is the object of your trolls

--
Madhu

In article <4b02a9f7$0$22542$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
 Kenneth Tilton <kentilton@gmail.com> wrote:

> Madhu wrote:
> > 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> )
> 
> Yeah, but Matt is neither Ron nor Erann. The latter are 
> passive-aggressive, Matt is more disputatious and more genuinely 
> engaging. Ron just messes with people.

Only with people who deserve to be messed with.

rg

In article <2009111722493016807-tfb@cleycom>,
 Tim Bradshaw <tfb@cley.com> wrote:

> I'd just like to point out that it turns out we never did need Erik for 
> this kind of endless futility.  Indeed, I think this whole thing would 
> probably have been a lot more entertaining if he'd still been here 
> (though I've not read any of the last fixnum articles including the one 
> I'm following up to, so maybe there is entertainment yet to be had).

It would be funnier if not for the sad fact that Vassil Nikolov's code, 
which IMHO is very interesting indeed, has been completely ignored by 
everyone participating in this farce.  (For those of you too young to 
remember, Vassil's code is the first message in this thread.)

rg

* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-F2DFFC.17305417112009@news.albasani.net> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:30:54 -0800:

| In article <2009111722493016807-tfb@cleycom>,
|  Tim Bradshaw <tfb@cley.com> wrote:
|
|> I'd just like to point out that it turns out we never did need Erik for 
|> this kind of endless futility.  Indeed, I think this whole thing would 
|> probably have been a lot more entertaining if he'd still been here 
|> (though I've not read any of the last fixnum articles including the one 
|> I'm following up to, so maybe there is entertainment yet to be had).
|
| It would be funnier if not for the sad fact that Vassil Nikolov's code, 
| which IMHO is very interesting indeed, has been completely ignored by 
| everyone participating in this farce.  (For those of you too young to 
| remember, Vassil's code is the first message in this thread.)

You do not  say WHAT you find interesting. So you rely on everybody's
subjective interpretation of the word  again?

--
Madhu

In article <m3y6m4fw9f.fsf@moon.robolove.meer.net>,
 Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:

> * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-F2DFFC.17305417112009@news.albasani.net> :
> Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:30:54 -0800:
> 
> | In article <2009111722493016807-tfb@cleycom>,
> |  Tim Bradshaw <tfb@cley.com> wrote:
> |
> |> I'd just like to point out that it turns out we never did need Erik for 
> |> this kind of endless futility.  Indeed, I think this whole thing would 
> |> probably have been a lot more entertaining if he'd still been here 
> |> (though I've not read any of the last fixnum articles including the one 
> |> I'm following up to, so maybe there is entertainment yet to be had).
> |
> | It would be funnier if not for the sad fact that Vassil Nikolov's code, 
> | which IMHO is very interesting indeed, has been completely ignored by 
> | everyone participating in this farce.  (For those of you too young to 
> | remember, Vassil's code is the first message in this thread.)
> 
> You do not  say WHAT you find interesting. So you rely on everybody's
> subjective interpretation of the word  again?

Of course.  Interesting is always subjective.  The other day I met 
someone who is really into handbags.  (Did you know that there are 
waiting lists of people wanting to buy Hermes handbags?  I didn't.)  
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about handbags, and my 
correspondent doesn't even know what a lexical binding *is*.  But that 
doesn't mean that either topic is uninteresting in any kind of absolute 
sense.  Actually, the people who make Hermes handbags make more than 
enough money in a month to acquire every single existing CL vendor if 
that's what they chose to do.  That to me is an indication that if there 
were some sort of objective measure of interestingness, handbags would 
kick CL's tushie.

But I digress.

There are lots of things I find interesting about Vassil's code.  Note 
that all of these are just my own personal opinion.  YMMV.

I find it interesting that it was possible at all, and in particular, 
that it was possible to integrate seamlessly without rewriting all of 
CL's binding constructs.  Having made an attempt at it myself and 
failed, I have a first-hand appreciation for how non-trivial the problem 
is.  (In my defense, I will say that I was not working under optimal 
conditions.  I've had a lot of distractions for the last few weeks, and 
I'm pretty sure that if I'd kept at it I would eventually have figured 
it out.  But be that as it may, I didn't and he did.)

I find it interesting that he used PROGV to keep track of the stack 
frames.  This is indicates a potentially deep theoretical connection 
between lexical and dynamic bindings which, when I have a chance to dig 
into it (I've been on the road), I suspect will turn out to be common 
knowledge, but which was a bit of a revelation to me.  And it's not out 
of the question that this really is a new -- or at least 
under-appreciated -- result.  Other things (like DLists) that I would 
have thought would have been common knowledge have turned out not to be.

I find it interesting that he took the time to produce very high-quality 
code, including documentation and a test-suite.  I find it interesting 
that he has resisted the temptation to participate in the ensuing 
silliness.  Or maybe he wasn't tempted.  I don't know Vassil so I don't 
know what makes him tick.  But I find it interesting that, for whatever 
reason, a lot of people have gotten sucked into the Madhu black-hole and 
he hasn't.

I think we could all learn a thing or two from Vassil Nikolov.

rg

On Nov 17, 11:54=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:

> No. =A0My point was valid. =A0I use language to make a point. =A0I accept=
 I am
> sloppy and my languge is not the best, but I am making it in a context
> that does not include you among your target audience. =A0I expect the
> audience to be familiar with the jargon. =A0Even if I make a mistake, it
> makes no difference --- I'm using the words to communicate a point.

Okay. Now that you concede that you're sloppy and your use of language
is poor, you can no longer argue that your usage of it accurately
conveys your point. This statement, like many of your others, is an
obvious non sequitur.

> When language is subject to different interpretation or misunderstanding
> the way forward is to clarify intentions and seek clarification. I've
> provided those and you accepted that. =A0You can disagree till you burn i=
n
> hell that I misused `pathological', which is a word I did not introduce
> into the thread. =A0But there is a subjective view (common among
> mathematicians) where it is valid use. =A0There is no need to justify tha=
t
> to you --- what is important to you is I convey the point I was intent
> on conveying.

You are neither qualified nor capable to tell me what is or isn't
important.

> This is impossible when your intent is not to move forward but to troll
> and bicker.

This would be laughable if it wasn't so obviously fatuous. You've just
'bickered' for a couple of dozen posts over 'intent'. Of course you
did. It's your intent you're trying to hide.

> | I see that you are at least smart enough to realise you lost that
> | battle, hence this puffery and smokery about =A0other words.
> |
> | Not much of a segue is it, really ?
>
> Whatever.
>
> |> Pick a new word each time and use english language to construct a
> |> prime facie wrong argument that you use as a preposterous claim[1]
> |> that begs to be rebutted
> |
> | Were I making any preposterous claims I've no doubt they'd be rebutted
> | by now.
>
> No, they are all subjective positions that change as you change your
> view to suit your argument. =A0Your language games are cheap well
> recognized tricks --- No one in their sane minds will come near them.
> Best to avoid them like I did and focus on issues in understanding.

Come now Madhu, you're quite familiar with using 'cheap language
tricks' to suit your argument, aren't you.

I've made no statement I'm not prepared either qualify or retract, so
your pathetic attempt at demonising my position is an obvious lie.

> |> | All you have to do to avoid it is use the technique of
> |> | "paraphrasing" your meaning in a way that contextualises it. If you
> |> | attempt to be too succinct you'll become overly reliant on your own
> |> | subjective definitions of terms that frankly, are subjective.
> |>
> |> This was the precisely basis of your trolling. You can always find a
> |> subjective perspective in which your prime facie argument is
> |> justifiable. =A0Screw any points. =A0Start the flame fest!
> |
> | Nonsense.
>
> Do you have any other intention in continuing to troll?

I'm not trolling.

> |> Or do you now you want to us to bicker pathologically on the meaning
> |> of the word `subjective, instead of `interesting', and how it is
> |> subjective and I have misused it while you supply brilliant flawless
> |> reasoning?
> |
> | Oh now you're just being silly. Bicker over the meaning of subjective?
> | Next you'll be accusing me of bickering over the definition of bicker.
> |
> | You're going to have to do a lot better than that sunshine.
>
> I cannot do better except wait for you to stop trolling.

You do realise don't you, that repeatedly calling me a troll while all
your arguments fall to pieces is the intellectual equivalent of a
small child placing its hands over it's ears and yelling
"LALALALALALALA" so it can no longer hear the truth ?

> I was using the word in a sense you were not familiar with. =A0What is
> important is the point I was making through it, not bickering about
> the word, which is the object of your trolls

I'm quite familiar with the sense you used the word in.

Back to the other 'thread'

* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-174A2D.18213317112009@news.albasani.net> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:21:33 -0800:

| Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about handbags, and my 
| correspondent doesn't even know what a lexical binding *is*.  

Inversion.  The threads which spawned this thread (Ron Garret considered
harmful) revealed that despite the fact you are an author of the
`Idiot's guide' and some blog posts on symbol macros, you were clueless
of their implications or how they are typically used,

This you have concealed under your attempts to confuse, along the lines
you are proceeding above in the parts I snipped.

I also notice you attributed all your own confusion to make it appear I
was confused in the earlier threads, and created a totally false
position covering your own confusion but just adding my name in front of
it, indicating that I was in anyway linked to any of your speculations.
And you followed up to Vassil's post saying I was `wrong', which is a
lie in any model of interpretation.


| I find it interesting that it was possible at all, and in particular, 
| that it was possible to integrate seamlessly without rewriting all of 
| CL's binding constructs.  Having made an attempt at it myself and 
| failed, I have a first-hand appreciation for how non-trivial the problem 
| is. 

Earlier Ron Warnock had indicated basic the method Vassil used several
times, without you getting a clue of how this could be done.

I am curious if you have yet understood how trivially and superficially
this is different from the methods Warnock had tried explaining to you.

| (In my defense, I will say that I was not working under optimal
| conditions.  I've had a lot of distractions for the last few weeks,
| and I'm pretty sure that if I'd kept at it I would eventually have
| figured it out.  But be that as it may, I didn't and he did.)
|
| I find it interesting that he used PROGV to keep track of the stack 
| frames.  This is indicates a potentially deep theoretical connection 
| between lexical and dynamic bindings which, when I have a chance to dig 
| into it (I've been on the road), I suspect will turn out to be common 
| knowledge, but which was a bit of a revelation to me.

Indeed.

| And it's not out of the question that this really is a new -- or at
| least under-appreciated -- result.  Other things (like DLists) that I
| would have thought would have been common knowledge have turned out
| not to be.

Indeed

| I find it interesting that he took the time to produce very
| high-quality code, including documentation and a test-suite.  I find
| it interesting that he has resisted the temptation to participate in
| the ensuing silliness.  Or maybe he wasn't tempted.  I don't know
| Vassil so I don't know what makes him tick.  But I find it interesting
| that, for whatever reason, a lot of people have gotten sucked into the
| Madhu black-hole and he hasn't.

Astute readers may note that the black hole starts and ends with you.

| I think we could all learn a thing or two from Vassil Nikolov.

The learning is not going to come from the spin you put put on top of
it.

Concretely, how do you think Vassil's method differs in technique from
what Rob illustrated to you many times in the earlier thread?

--
Madhu

|
|> When language is subject to different interpretation or misunderstanding
|> the way forward is to clarify intentions and seek clarification. I've
|> provided those and you accepted that.  You can disagree till you burn in
|> hell that I misused `pathological', which is a word I did not introduce
|> into the thread.  But there is a subjective view (common among
|> mathematicians) where it is valid use.  There is no need to justify that
|> to you --- what is important to you is I convey the point I was intent
|> on conveying.
|
| You are neither qualified nor capable to tell me what is or isn't
| important.

I'm telling you what is important for me.  COmmunication is important
for me.  Trolling is important for you. 


|> This is impossible when your intent is not to move forward but to troll
|> and bicker.
|
| This would be laughable if it wasn't so obviously fatuous. You've just
| 'bickered' for a couple of dozen posts over 'intent'. Of course you
| did. It's your intent you're trying to hide.

No, I have been restating the same intent, in response to your trolling
attempts

|> | I see that you are at least smart enough to realise you lost that
|> | battle, hence this puffery and smokery about  other words.
|> |
|> | Not much of a segue is it, really ?
|>
|> Whatever.
|>
|> |> Pick a new word each time and use english language to construct a
|> |> prime facie wrong argument that you use as a preposterous claim[1]
|> |> that begs to be rebutted
|> |
|> | Were I making any preposterous claims I've no doubt they'd be rebutted
|> | by now.
|>
|> No, they are all subjective positions that change as you change your
|> view to suit your argument.  Your language games are cheap well
|> recognized tricks --- No one in their sane minds will come near them.
|> Best to avoid them like I did and focus on issues in understanding.
|
| Come now Madhu, you're quite familiar with using 'cheap language
| tricks' to suit your argument, aren't you.  I've made no statement I'm
| not prepared either qualify or retract, so your pathetic attempt at
| demonising my position is an obvious lie.

The `pathetic demonization' and lies are new `preposterous claims'. I'll
pass.  See, to ask you to qualify or retract would be the very trolling
you are after and would be the very pathological bickering you are
seeking to indulge in.  This is the cheap trick language game you are
playing,.


|> | Nonsense.
|>
|> Do you have any other intention in continuing to troll?
|
| I'm not trolling.

more trollbait I'll pass.


|> I cannot do better except wait for you to stop trolling.
|
| You do realise don't you, that repeatedly calling me a troll while all
| your arguments fall to pieces is the intellectual equivalent of a
| small child placing its hands over it's ears and yelling
| "LALALALALALALA" so it can no longer hear the truth ?

You miss my point.  I am not here to prove my intellectual prowess or
bickering about language you are trolling for.  My intention was to use
the english language to make a point. I thought you misunderstood
unintentionally, and sought to clarify it. You are just trolling to
bicker about language.  Arent you exhibiting the OCD you started
accusing me of ?

|> I was using the word in a sense you were not familiar with.  What is
|> important is the point I was making through it, not bickering about
|> the word, which is the object of your trolls
|
| I'm quite familiar with the sense you used the word in.

There is a subjective view in which this can be shown to be a lie.

--
Madhu

In article <m3tywsfswb.fsf@moon.robolove.meer.net>,
 Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:

[Worthless crap elided.  Life is too short.]

> Concretely, how do you think Vassil's method differs in technique from
> what Rob illustrated to you many times in the earlier thread?

Vassil's code worked.  Rob's didn't.  Rob's approach is pretty much what 
I tried that I couldn't get to work, and I posted a detailed description 
of the problems that I encountered.  I would look it up, but you have 
given me no reason to believe that it would not be wasted effort, and 
you should do your own homework anyway.

rg

 
* mdj <a9dae59d-24a2-4607-b38a-c51b23038f3e@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:43:14 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 17, 11:54 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|
|> No.  My point was valid.  I use language to make a point.  I accept I
|> am sloppy and my languge is not the best, but I am making it in a
|> context that does not include you among your target audience.  I
|> expect the audience to be familiar with the jargon.  Even if I make a
|> mistake, it makes no difference --- I'm using the words to
|> communicate a point.
|
| Okay. Now that you concede that you're sloppy and your use of language
| is poor, you can no longer argue that your usage of it accurately
| conveys your point. 

|This statement, like many of your others, is an obvious non sequitur.

Why? because you say so?

|> When language is subject to different interpretation or misunderstanding
|> the way forward is to clarify intentions and seek clarification. I've
|> provided those and you accepted that.  You can disagree till you burn in
|> hell that I misused `pathological', which is a word I did not introduce
|> into the thread.  But there is a subjective view (common among
|> mathematicians) where it is valid use.  There is no need to justify that
|> to you --- what is important to you is I convey the point I was intent
|> on conveying.
|
| You are neither qualified nor capable to tell me what is or isn't
| important.

I just did.

So now you want to follow your agenda and bicker pathologically on the
meaning of the word `important' and how it is subjective and how I have
completety misused it?

|> This is impossible when your intent is not to move forward but to
|> troll and bicker.

I think you just proved your intent again

--
Madhu

* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-B32764.19034217112009@news.albasani.net> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:03:42 -0800:

|> Concretely, how do you think Vassil's method differs in technique
|> from what Rob illustrated to you many times in the earlier thread?
|
| Vassil's code worked.  Rob's didn't.  Rob's approach is pretty much
| what I tried that I couldn't get to work, and I posted a detailed
| description of the problems that I encountered.  I would look it up,
| but you have given me no reason to believe that it would not be wasted
| effort, and you should do your own homework anyway.

I'm not talking of code, I'm talking of the technique.  I was curious if
you had followed the approach Rob outlined at all.  And No, I have done
that piece of homework.

--
Madhu

In article <m3einwfs0i.fsf@moon.robolove.meer.net>,
 Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:

> * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-B32764.19034217112009@news.albasani.net> :
> Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:03:42 -0800:
> 
> |> Concretely, how do you think Vassil's method differs in technique
> |> from what Rob illustrated to you many times in the earlier thread?
> |
> | Vassil's code worked.  Rob's didn't.  Rob's approach is pretty much
> | what I tried that I couldn't get to work, and I posted a detailed
> | description of the problems that I encountered.  I would look it up,
> | but you have given me no reason to believe that it would not be wasted
> | effort, and you should do your own homework anyway.
> 
> I'm not talking of code, I'm talking of the technique.  I was curious if
> you had followed the approach Rob outlined at all.  And No, I have done
> that piece of homework.

Why am I not surprised?

rg

* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-F4D1E9.19113617112009@news.albasani.net> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:11:36 -0800:

| Why am I not surprised?

Because you had no point to make when following up to Bradshaw?

--
Madhu

On Nov 17, 11:43 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:

<snip>

> | And I call bullshit. Your entire statement is based upon definitions
> | of words that only apparently you posess.
>
> You took exception because you were not familiar with the usage.  I am
> not here to educate you about the usage, why dont you just excuse
> yourself from the target audience?

The time has come to revisit your 'point', and to return to my
original purpose which was to question your intent. Are you ready?

Your 'point' was that the results in question are 'uninteresting', and
that Ron's (and others) claim that they are is 'misleading'.

My objection, since you're either too stupid or dishonest to recognise
it is your completely inappropriate and incorrect suggestion that
other peoples perspectives are 'misleading'.

When mocked for your vapid use of language, you 'justify' your
position by pointing out (correctly) that CL is Turing complete and
can be used to construct other turing complete languages of lesser
expressive power. Well congratulations Einstein, that'll get you a C
in CS101

Of course, any Turing complete language can be used to construct
another of lesser or greater expressive power (You can, in fact, write
a Lisp interpreter in BASIC, complete with a 'compiler' that emits
BASIC statements).

The point is, you've declared somebody elses work to be uninteresting,
in order to portray another person as misleading, and your entire
justification is a vacuous statement that could've been uttered by any
first year CS undergraduate.

Frankly, I don't particularly care about your personal vendetta
against Ron, but I think your behaviour in this instance is
deplorable, since you've used other peoples interesting and creative
work as a means to further it.

You're a disgrace.

> | Far more parsimonious to say you're simply full of it, but I was
> | trying to be nice.
> |
> |> | Actually my intent was to show how you misused it to make your point.
> |> | I believe I've made that point, but if you disagree post again! I've
> |> | got a few rounds left in me yet.
> |>
> |> Yes, Most of what have been doing is nothing but bicker about your
> |> subjective definitions as per the agenda you set out, because you can
> |> construct flawless arguments based on your subjective definitions.
> |> Please to be continuing.
> |
> | And in response you don't construct an argument. You just fling about
> | words like 'troll', 'jerk' and 'bickerer', and try to avoid actually
> | confronting the actual point I'm making.
>
> No I wont construct an argument because I am not interested in the
> pathological bickering behaviour you wish to indulge in were I to
> construct an argument --- note I have not responded to the arguments you
> gave. Maybe you should concede that I appreciate that words have
> subjective usages in specific contexts.

You're avoiding constructing the argument because it would reveal your
true intentions. You were prepared to go far enough to do this to not
only call me stupid, but attempt to hide *again*, this time behind
poorly constructed philosophical claptrap which *again* only barely
qualifies as philosophy 101. Plato's Cave indeed.

You're a petty, vindictive, arrogant little fool.

> When something is not clear, or misleading it is best to clarify the
> intent of the speaker.  I've made my intent clear.  What is your problem
> after that?

See above.

> Your problem is I'm not falling for your trolling and indulging you in
> the pathological bickering you solicit in every post.
>
> | You're a charlatan. A fraud. A liar.
> |
> | Hey look! Three of a kind :-)
>
> Spare the insults.

I've been quite sparing with the insults all things considered. Since
the best you seem to be able to come with is 'Jerk' might I suggest to
you that this is a predictable preoccupation for someone of your
limited education and intellect and that you go and 'jerk' it
someplace else.

Matt

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> )

* mdj <44ad9a9a-9c1a-4775-8d7d-139904056adb@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:34:26 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 17, 11:43 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|
| <snip>
|
|> | And I call bullshit. Your entire statement is based upon definitions
|> | of words that only apparently you posess.
|>
|> You took exception because you were not familiar with the usage.  I am
|> not here to educate you about the usage, why dont you just excuse
|> yourself from the target audience?
|
| The time has come to revisit your 'point', and to return to my
| original purpose which was to question your intent. Are you ready?
|
| Your 'point' was that the results in question are 'uninteresting', and
| that Ron's (and others) claim that they are is 'misleading'.

Wrong.  I was making a point which was the exact opposite of a claim
made by Ron.  You cannot understand my point without understanding Ron's
claim.  Instead you misunderstood the way I used the word `interesting'.
I clarified it in my reply to Thingstad which you accepted.


| My objection, since you're either too stupid or dishonest to recognise
| it is your completely inappropriate and incorrect suggestion that
| other peoples perspectives are 'misleading'.

Your objection is based on a misunderstanding which you refuse to
correct.  This is not surprising since your intent is not to come to an
understanding of my point or intent but to troll and exhibit
pathological bickering behaviour on your subjective understanding of the
subjective meanings of words.

| When mocked for your vapid use of language, you 'justify' your
| position by pointing out (correctly) that CL is Turing complete and
| can be used to construct other turing complete languages of lesser
| expressive power. Well congratulations Einstein, that'll get you a C
| in CS101 Of course, any Turing complete language can be used to
| construct another of lesser or greater expressive power (You can, in
| fact, write a Lisp interpreter in BASIC, complete with a 'compiler'
| that emits BASIC statements).


| The point is, you've declared somebody elses work to be uninteresting,

You are intent on bickering about the meaning of the word `interesting'.
I'm sorry you cant see past your misunderstanding.

| in order to portray another person as misleading, and your entire
| justification is a vacuous statement that could've been uttered by any
| first year CS undergraduate.

Wrong. 

| Frankly, I don't particularly care about your personal vendetta
| against Ron, but I think your behaviour in this instance is
| deplorable, since you've used other peoples interesting and creative
| work as a means to further it.
|
| You're a disgrace.

Spare your insults for your gf


|> | Far more parsimonious to say you're simply full of it, but I was
|> | trying to be nice.
|> |
|> |> | Actually my intent was to show how you misused it to make your point.
|> |> | I believe I've made that point, but if you disagree post again! I've
|> |> | got a few rounds left in me yet.
|> |>
|> |> Yes, Most of what have been doing is nothing but bicker about your
|> |> subjective definitions as per the agenda you set out, because you can
|> |> construct flawless arguments based on your subjective definitions.
|> |> Please to be continuing.
|> |
|> | And in response you don't construct an argument. You just fling about
|> | words like 'troll', 'jerk' and 'bickerer', and try to avoid actually
|> | confronting the actual point I'm making.
|>
|> No I wont construct an argument because I am not interested in the
|> pathological bickering behaviour you wish to indulge in were I to
|> construct an argument --- note I have not responded to the arguments you
|> gave. Maybe you should concede that I appreciate that words have
|> subjective usages in specific contexts.
|
| You're avoiding constructing the argument because it would reveal your
| true intentions. You were prepared to go far enough to do this to not
| only call me stupid, but attempt to hide *again*, this time behind
| poorly constructed philosophical claptrap which *again* only barely
| qualifies as philosophy 101. Plato's Cave indeed.

No, I'm avoiding constructing arguments because if I did I would be
falling for your trollbait.


| You're a petty, vindictive, arrogant little fool.

Surprisingly your insults accurately portray yourself in every post
on comp.lang.lisp starting from the first.

|> When something is not clear, or misleading it is best to clarify the
|> intent of the speaker.  I've made my intent clear.  What is your
|> problem after that?
|
| See above.

No, you see below vvvvvvv. Your problem is I am not falling for your
disputatious lines of reasoning based on subjective views.

|> Your problem is I'm not falling for your trolling and indulging you in
|> the pathological bickering you solicit in every post.
|>
|> | You're a charlatan. A fraud. A liar.
|> |
|> | Hey look! Three of a kind :-)
|>
|> Spare the insults.
|
| I've been quite sparing with the insults all things considered. Since
| the best you seem to be able to come with is 'Jerk' might I suggest to
| you that this is a predictable preoccupation for someone of your
| limited education and intellect and that you go and 'jerk' it
| someplace else.

No it shows that I have no intention to insult you gratuitiously, your
intentions are clear

Why dont you go make some other posts about lisp and come back to this
thread next year?

I'll be waiting

--
Madhu

mdj wrote:
> On Nov 17, 11:54 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> 
>> No.  My point was valid.  I use language to make a point.  I accept I am
>> sloppy and my languge is not the best, but I am making it in a context
>> that does not include you among your target audience.  I expect the
>> audience to be familiar with the jargon.  Even if I make a mistake, it
>> makes no difference --- I'm using the words to communicate a point.
> 
> Okay. Now that you concede that you're sloppy and your use of language
> is poor, you can no longer argue that your usage of it accurately
> conveys your point. This statement, like many of your others, is an
> obvious non sequitur.

Oh, my, what a disappointing rejoinder, twisting the man's words like 
that to suit your porpoises.

Does your Mom know you post this stuff?

> 
>> When language is subject to different interpretation or misunderstanding
>> the way forward is to clarify intentions and seek clarification.

Come on, let's use English, shall we?

"Language, being subject to disjoint interpopulatory sets of people, 
hey, all hell breaks loose."

hth,kt

-- 

http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf

On Nov 18, 11:30=A0am, Ron Garret <rNOSPA...@flownet.com> wrote:

> It would be funnier if not for the sad fact that Vassil Nikolov's code,
> which IMHO is very interesting indeed, has been completely ignored by
> everyone participating in this farce. =A0(For those of you too young to
> remember, Vassil's code is the first message in this thread.)

I completely agree. I had a play with it over the weekend and think
it's beautifully done.

Sorry Vassil for generating so much noise :-S

Matt

On Nov 18, 2:47=A0pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> mdj wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 11:54 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
>
> >> No. =A0My point was valid. =A0I use language to make a point. =A0I acc=
ept I am
> >> sloppy and my languge is not the best, but I am making it in a context
> >> that does not include you among your target audience. =A0I expect the
> >> audience to be familiar with the jargon. =A0Even if I make a mistake, =
it
> >> makes no difference --- I'm using the words to communicate a point.
>
> > Okay. Now that you concede that you're sloppy and your use of language
> > is poor, you can no longer argue that your usage of it accurately
> > conveys your point. This statement, like many of your others, is an
> > obvious non sequitur.
>
> Oh, my, what a disappointing rejoinder, twisting the man's words like
> that to suit your porpoises.

:-) You're right, that was lazy. Flippant even, or perhaps flipperant
if that suits your sense of punnery better.

> Does your Mom know you post this stuff?

She would probably forgive me on relative grounds, since my response
was less vacuous than the statement but she's currently unavailable
for comment so for the moment Mum will have to be the word.

> >> When language is subject to different interpretation or misunderstandi=
ng
> >> the way forward is to clarify intentions and seek clarification.
>
> Come on, let's use English, shall we?
>
> "Language, being subject to disjoint interpopulatory sets of people,
> hey, all hell breaks loose."

Indeed. I sought clarification but met only chicanery. Thank you
though for the amusing segue.

Matt

* mdj <6d4ea688-5be7-48d1-b551-97ab05604110@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:10:52 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 18, 2:47 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
|> mdj wrote:
|> > On Nov 17, 11:54 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|>
|> >> No.  My point was valid.  I use language to make a point.  I accept I am
|> >> sloppy and my languge is not the best, but I am making it in a context
|> >> that does not include you among your target audience.  I expect the
|> >> audience to be familiar with the jargon.  Even if I make a mistake, it
|> >> makes no difference --- I'm using the words to communicate a point.
|>
|> > Okay. Now that you concede that you're sloppy and your use of language
|> > is poor, you can no longer argue that your usage of it accurately
|> > conveys your point. This statement, like many of your others, is an
|> > obvious non sequitur.
|>
|> Oh, my, what a disappointing rejoinder, twisting the man's words like
|> that to suit your porpoises.

<snip>

| Indeed. I sought clarification but met only chicanery. Thank you
| though for the amusing segue.

You continually receive the clarification you seek for instead choose to
twist it to chicanery which suits your purpose (of trolling)

See what you're doing here?
--
Madhu

* mdj <6d4ea688-5be7-48d1-b551-97ab05604110@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:10:52 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 18, 2:47 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
|> mdj wrote:
|> > On Nov 17, 11:54 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|>
|> >> No.  My point was valid.  I use language to make a point.  I accept I am
|> >> sloppy and my languge is not the best, but I am making it in a context
|> >> that does not include you among your target audience.  I expect the
|> >> audience to be familiar with the jargon.  Even if I make a mistake, it
|> >> makes no difference --- I'm using the words to communicate a point.
|>
|> > Okay. Now that you concede that you're sloppy and your use of language
|> > is poor, you can no longer argue that your usage of it accurately
|> > conveys your point. This statement, like many of your others, is an
|> > obvious non sequitur.
|>
|> Oh, my, what a disappointing rejoinder, twisting the man's words like
|> that to suit your porpoises.

<snip>

|> >> When language is subject to different interpretation or misunderstanding
|> >> the way forward is to clarify intentions and seek clarification.

| Indeed. I sought clarification but met only chicanery. Thank you
| though for the amusing segue.

You continually receive the clarification you seek for instead choose to
twist it to chicanery which suits your purpose (of trolling)

See what you're doing here?
--
Madhu

mdj wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2:47 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> mdj wrote:
>>> On Nov 17, 11:54 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
>>>> No.  My point was valid.  I use language to make a point.  I accept I am
>>>> sloppy and my languge is not the best, but I am making it in a context
>>>> that does not include you among your target audience.  I expect the
>>>> audience to be familiar with the jargon.  Even if I make a mistake, it
>>>> makes no difference --- I'm using the words to communicate a point.
>>> Okay. Now that you concede that you're sloppy and your use of language
>>> is poor, you can no longer argue that your usage of it accurately
>>> conveys your point. This statement, like many of your others, is an
>>> obvious non sequitur.
>> Oh, my, what a disappointing rejoinder, twisting the man's words like
>> that to suit your porpoises.
> 
> :-) You're right, that was lazy. Flippant even, or perhaps flipperant
> if that suits your sense of punnery better.
> 
>> Does your Mom know you post this stuff?
> 
> She would probably forgive me on relative grounds, since my response
> was less vacuous than the statement but she's currently unavailable
> for comment so for the moment Mum will have to be the word.
> 
>>>> When language is subject to different interpretation or misunderstanding
>>>> the way forward is to clarify intentions and seek clarification.
>> Come on, let's use English, shall we?
>>
>> "Language, being subject to disjoint interpopulatory sets of people,
>> hey, all hell breaks loose."
> 
> Indeed. I sought clarification but met only chicanery. Thank you
> though for the amusing segue.

Jeez, what a suck up!

kzo

-- 

http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf

Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> I'd just like to point out that it turns out we never did need Erik for 
> this kind of endless futility.  Indeed, I think this whole thing would 
> probably have been a lot more entertaining if he'd still been here 
> (though I've not read any of the last fixnum articles including the one 
> I'm following up to, so maybe there is entertainment yet to be had).
> 

You just smell a reality series and are trying to horn your way in.

End of the line, buddy!

kzo

-- 

http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf

On Nov 18, 1:57=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> 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> )

Since Ken has already posted to this thread and pointed out that is
observations of Ron in that context don't apply to me, continuing to
post this only makes you look like more of an idiot than you already
do, and provides yet another example (like we needed one) of your
stupidity and dishonesty.

Shame on you :-P

> * mdj <44ad9a9a-9c1a-4775-8d7d-139904056...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>=
 :
> Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:34:26 -0800 (PST):
>
> | On Nov 17, 11:43 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> |
> | <snip>
> |
> |> | And I call bullshit. Your entire statement is based upon definitions
> |> | of words that only apparently you posess.
> |>
> |> You took exception because you were not familiar with the usage. =A0I =
am
> |> not here to educate you about the usage, why dont you just excuse
> |> yourself from the target audience?
> |
> | The time has come to revisit your 'point', and to return to my
> | original purpose which was to question your intent. Are you ready?
> |
> | Your 'point' was that the results in question are 'uninteresting', and
> | that Ron's (and others) claim that they are is 'misleading'.
>
> Wrong. =A0I was making a point which was the exact opposite of a claim
> made by Ron. =A0You cannot understand my point without understanding Ron'=
s
> claim. =A0Instead you misunderstood the way I used the word `interesting'=
..
> I clarified it in my reply to Thingstad which you accepted.

Yes, I accepted it and dispute it. Catch up.

> | My objection, since you're either too stupid or dishonest to recognise
> | it is your completely inappropriate and incorrect suggestion that
> | other peoples perspectives are 'misleading'.
>
> Your objection is based on a misunderstanding which you refuse to
> correct. =A0This is not surprising since your intent is not to come to an
> understanding of my point or intent but to troll and exhibit
> pathological bickering behaviour on your subjective understanding of the
> subjective meanings of words.

"I call troll" says the man who tries to make points using another
persons words after than person has refuted their applicability.

The peanuts called, they want their brother back.

> | When mocked for your vapid use of language, you 'justify' your
> | position by pointing out (correctly) that CL is Turing complete and
> | can be used to construct other turing complete languages of lesser
> | expressive power. Well congratulations Einstein, that'll get you a C
> | in CS101 Of course, any Turing complete language can be used to
> | construct another of lesser or greater expressive power (You can, in
> | fact, write a Lisp interpreter in BASIC, complete with a 'compiler'
> | that emits BASIC statements).
>
> | The point is, you've declared somebody elses work to be uninteresting,
>
> You are intent on bickering about the meaning of the word `interesting'.
> I'm sorry you cant see past your misunderstanding.

No, I'm intent on exposing you as a fraud.

> | in order to portray another person as misleading, and your entire
> | justification is a vacuous statement that could've been uttered by any
> | first year CS undergraduate.
>
> Wrong.

Yes it is. Very wrong. You should apologise to them for being so
nasty.

> | You're avoiding constructing the argument because it would reveal your
> | true intentions. You were prepared to go far enough to do this to not
> | only call me stupid, but attempt to hide *again*, this time behind
> | poorly constructed philosophical claptrap which *again* only barely
> | qualifies as philosophy 101. Plato's Cave indeed.
>
> No, I'm avoiding constructing arguments because if I did I would be
> falling for your trollbait.

You're avoiding it because you exhausted your supply of argument in
your reply to Thingstad. It's been refuted, sorry.

> | You're a petty, vindictive, arrogant little fool.
>
> Surprisingly your insults accurately portray yourself in every post
> on comp.lang.lisp starting from the first.

Unsurprisingly in a tit for tat exchange it can be difficult to
seperate the tats from the tits. At least, it is if you're somewhat
dim.

> |> When something is not clear, or misleading it is best to clarify the
> |> intent of the speaker. =A0I've made my intent clear. =A0What is your
> |> problem after that?
> |
> | See above.
>
> No, you see below vvvvvvv. Your problem is I am not falling for your
> disputatious lines of reasoning based on subjective views.

Careful there sonny. Introducing Ken's word shows you read his post
(and decided to engage in more plagiarism) but you failed to realise
what disputatious actually means.

Don't you have anything original to say?

> | I've been quite sparing with the insults all things considered. Since
> | the best you seem to be able to come with is 'Jerk' might I suggest to
> | you that this is a predictable preoccupation for someone of your
> | limited education and intellect and that you go and 'jerk' it
> | someplace else.
>
> No it shows that I have no intention to insult you gratuitiously, your
> intentions are clear

A lie, in light of your attempts to categorise my 'simulacrum' as
missing several items necessary to comprehend yours.

Lying seems to come to you easily however.

> Why dont you go make some other posts about lisp and come back to this
> thread next year?

At this rate the year will end before the thread does.

Matt

* mdj <d0233017-3433-469e-b15e-424950027a64@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:05:58 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 18, 1:57 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> 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> )
|
| Since Ken has already posted to this thread and pointed out that is
| observations of Ron in that context don't apply to me,

But They do.  "Everyone" can see that.

|  continuing to post this only makes you look like more of an idiot
| than you already do, and provides yet another example (like we needed
| one) of your stupidity and dishonesty.
|
| Shame on you :-P

The dishonesty is on your part.

--
Madhu

* mdj <d0233017-3433-469e-b15e-424950027a64@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:05:58 -0800 (PST):

|> * mdj <44ad9a9a-9c1a-4775-8d7d-139904056...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com> :
|> Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:34:26 -0800 (PST):
|>
|> | On Nov 17, 11:43 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|> |
|> | <snip>
|> |
|> |> | And I call bullshit. Your entire statement is based upon definitions
|> |> | of words that only apparently you posess.
|> |>
|> |> You took exception because you were not familiar with the usage.  I am
|> |> not here to educate you about the usage, why dont you just excuse
|> |> yourself from the target audience?
|> |
|> | The time has come to revisit your 'point', and to return to my
|> | original purpose which was to question your intent. Are you ready?
|> |
|> | Your 'point' was that the results in question are 'uninteresting', and
|> | that Ron's (and others) claim that they are is 'misleading'.
|>
|> Wrong.  I was making a point which was the exact opposite of a claim
|> made by Ron.  You cannot understand my point without understanding Ron's
|> claim.  Instead you misunderstood the way I used the word `interesting'.
|> I clarified it in my reply to Thingstad which you accepted.
|
| Yes, I accepted it and dispute it. Catch up.

|
|> | My objection, since you're either too stupid or dishonest to recognise
|> | it is your completely inappropriate and incorrect suggestion that
|> | other peoples perspectives are 'misleading'.
|>
|> Your objection is based on a misunderstanding which you refuse to
|> correct.  This is not surprising since your intent is not to come to an
|> understanding of my point or intent but to troll and exhibit
|> pathological bickering behaviour on your subjective understanding of the
|> subjective meanings of words.
|
| "I call troll" says the man who tries to make points using another
| persons words after than person has refuted their applicability.

This describes your behaviour so far.

| The peanuts called, they want their brother back.
|
|> | When mocked for your vapid use of language, you 'justify' your
|> | position by pointing out (correctly) that CL is Turing complete and
|> | can be used to construct other turing complete languages of lesser
|> | expressive power. Well congratulations Einstein, that'll get you a C
|> | in CS101 Of course, any Turing complete language can be used to
|> | construct another of lesser or greater expressive power (You can, in
|> | fact, write a Lisp interpreter in BASIC, complete with a 'compiler'
|> | that emits BASIC statements).
|>
|> | The point is, you've declared somebody elses work to be uninteresting,
|>
|> You are intent on bickering about the meaning of the word `interesting'.
|> I'm sorry you cant see past your misunderstanding.
|
| No, I'm intent on exposing you as a fraud.

Have you succeeded yet?


|> | You're avoiding constructing the argument because it would reveal your
|> | true intentions. You were prepared to go far enough to do this to not
|> | only call me stupid, but attempt to hide *again*, this time behind
|> | poorly constructed philosophical claptrap which *again* only barely
|> | qualifies as philosophy 101. Plato's Cave indeed.
|>
|> No, I'm avoiding constructing arguments because if I did I would be
|> falling for your trollbait.
|
| You're avoiding it because you exhausted your supply of argument in
| your reply to Thingstad. It's been refuted, sorry.

No, I'm avoiding it because all your arguments are trollbait, intended
to bicker about meanings of words.

--
Madhu

On Nov 18, 12:59=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:

> I'm telling you what is important for me. =A0COmmunication is important
> for me. =A0Trolling is important for you.

A particularly laughable statement considering the hoops you're
jumping through to avoid actually saying anything at all.

> |> This is impossible when your intent is not to move forward but to trol=
l
> |> and bicker.
> |
> | This would be laughable if it wasn't so obviously fatuous. You've just
> | 'bickered' for a couple of dozen posts over 'intent'. Of course you
> | did. It's your intent you're trying to hide.
>
> No, I have been restating the same intent, in response to your trolling
> attempts

Yes, yes. Your intent is to make a point. On that at least we can
agree and have some common ground.

> | Come now Madhu, you're quite familiar with using 'cheap language
> | tricks' to suit your argument, aren't you. =A0I've made no statement I'=
m
> | not prepared either qualify or retract, so your pathetic attempt at
> | demonising my position is an obvious lie.
>
> The `pathetic demonization' and lies are new `preposterous claims'. I'll
> pass. =A0See, to ask you to qualify or retract would be the very trolling
> you are after and would be the very pathological bickering you are
> seeking to indulge in. =A0This is the cheap trick language game you are
> playing,.

Ok then, Mr Communicator. Qualifying a statement would be trolling and
not communicating. Life must be strange on planet Madhu.

> | You do realise don't you, that repeatedly calling me a troll while all
> | your arguments fall to pieces is the intellectual equivalent of a
> | small child placing its hands over it's ears and yelling
> | "LALALALALALALA" so it can no longer hear the truth ?
>
> You miss my point. =A0I am not here to prove my intellectual prowess or
> bickering about language you are trolling for. =A0My intention was to use
> the english language to make a point. I thought you misunderstood
> unintentionally, and sought to clarify it. You are just trolling to
> bicker about language. =A0Arent you exhibiting the OCD you started
> accusing me of ?

No, I'm pointing out the dishonest and nasty behaviour you keep
indulging in, and calling you on it whenever you try to hide your
malicious intent behind a scientific concept.

This is easy.

> |> I was using the word in a sense you were not familiar with. =A0What is
> |> important is the point I was making through it, not bickering about
> |> the word, which is the object of your trolls
> |
> | I'm quite familiar with the sense you used the word in.
>
> There is a subjective view in which this can be shown to be a lie.

In what subjective sense is a lie not a lie ?

No, wait. That's a question. We know you don't answer questions.

Matt

* mdj <d0233017-3433-469e-b15e-424950027a64@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:05:58 -0800 (PST):

|> | You're a petty, vindictive, arrogant little fool.
|>
|> Surprisingly your insults accurately portray yourself in every post
|> on comp.lang.lisp starting from the first.

| Unsurprisingly in a tit for tat exchange it can be difficult to
| seperate the tats from the tits. At least, it is if you're somewhat
| dim.

Some of the readers may not be dim

|> |> When something is not clear, or misleading it is best to clarify the
|> |> intent of the speaker.  I've made my intent clear.  What is your
|> |> problem after that?
|> |
|> | See above.
|>
|> No, you see below vvvvvvv. Your problem is I am not falling for your
|> disputatious lines of reasoning based on subjective views.
|
| Careful there sonny. Introducing Ken's word shows you read his post
| (and decided to engage in more plagiarism) but you failed to realise
| what disputatious actually means.

Now you want to pathologically bicker about the meaning of the word
"disputatious" and how it is subjective and how I misued it.

| Don't you have anything original to say?

Do you?

|> | I've been quite sparing with the insults all things considered. Since
|> | the best you seem to be able to come with is 'Jerk' might I suggest to
|> | you that this is a predictable preoccupation for someone of your
|> | limited education and intellect and that you go and 'jerk' it
|> | someplace else.
|>
|> No it shows that I have no intention to insult you gratuitiously, your
|> intentions are clear
|
| A lie, in light of your attempts to categorise my 'simulacrum' as
| missing several items necessary to comprehend yours.
|
| Lying seems to come to you easily however.

Another meaningless piece of chicanery.

|> Why dont you go make some other posts about lisp and come back to this
|> thread next year?
|
| At this rate the year will end before the thread does.

Depends on when you want to stop trolling alt.lang.anglish and decide to
demonstrate an interest in lisp

--
Madhu

* mdj <6ac15a82-c0bb-4507-bfa1-c8db6bc2a4d4@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:15:29 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 18, 12:59 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|
|> I'm telling you what is important for me.  COmmunication is important
|> for me.  Trolling is important for you.
|
| A particularly laughable statement considering the hoops you're
| jumping through to avoid actually saying anything at all.

Maybe you want to state instead of me what it is that I have not said?

|> | This would be laughable if it wasn't so obviously fatuous. You've just
|> | 'bickered' for a couple of dozen posts over 'intent'. Of course you
|> | did. It's your intent you're trying to hide.
|>
|> No, I have been restating the same intent, in response to your trolling
|> attempts
|
| Yes, yes. Your intent is to make a point. On that at least we can
| agree and have some common ground.


If you haven't realised yet We do not have any common ground. Your
intent is to troll me into bickering about the meaning of `interested'
and debate on the subjective interpretations.

I am not interested in your language games.


|> | Come now Madhu, you're quite familiar with using 'cheap language
|> | tricks' to suit your argument, aren't you.  I've made no statement I'm
|> | not prepared either qualify or retract, so your pathetic attempt at
|> | demonising my position is an obvious lie.
|>
|> The `pathetic demonization' and lies are new `preposterous claims'. I'll
|> pass.  See, to ask you to qualify or retract would be the very trolling
|> you are after and would be the very pathological bickering you are
|> seeking to indulge in.  This is the cheap trick language game you are
|> playing,.
|
| Ok then, Mr Communicator. Qualifying a statement would be trolling and
| not communicating. Life must be strange on planet Madhu.

Segue or non-sequitor? you decide!

--
Madhu

On Nov 18, 3:35=A0pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jeez, what a suck up!

Now that's just cheap. After starting the joke the least you could do
is run with for a bit.

Bloody New Yorkers, always in a hurry :-P

* mdj <6ac15a82-c0bb-4507-bfa1-c8db6bc2a4d4@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:15:29 -0800 (PST):

|> | You do realise don't you, that repeatedly calling me a troll while
|> | all your arguments fall to pieces is the intellectual equivalent of
|> | a small child placing its hands over it's ears and yelling
|> | "LALALALALALALA" so it can no longer hear the truth ?
|>
|> You miss my point.  I am not here to prove my intellectual prowess or
|> bickering about language you are trolling for.  My intention was to
|> use the english language to make a point. I thought you misunderstood
|> unintentionally, and sought to clarify it. You are just trolling to
|> bicker about language.  Arent you exhibiting the OCD you started
|> accusing me of ?
|
| No, I'm pointing out the dishonest and nasty behaviour you keep
| indulging in, and calling you on it whenever you try to hide your
| malicious intent behind a scientific concept.

What Nasty behaviour?
What malicious intent?
What scientific concept?


| This is easy.



|> |> I was using the word in a sense you were not familiar with.  What is
|> |> important is the point I was making through it, not bickering about
|> |> the word, which is the object of your trolls
|> |
|> | I'm quite familiar with the sense you used the word in.
|>
|> There is a subjective view in which this can be shown to be a lie.
|
| In what subjective sense is a lie not a lie ?
|
| No, wait. That's a question. We know you don't answer questions.

You just want to indulge in pathological bickering to display your l33t
english language skills.

Do you have any other point to make?

--
Madhu

On Nov 18, 4:10=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> * mdj <d0233017-3433-469e-b15e-424950027...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com> =
:
> Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:05:58 -0800 (PST):
>
> | On Nov 18, 1:57=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> 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> )
> |
> | Since Ken has already posted to this thread and pointed out that is
> | observations of Ron in that context don't apply to me,
>
> But They do. =A0"Everyone" can see that.

Either my newsfeed is broken or there's a lot of extra voices in your
head agreeing with you.

Which one, it's hard to tell. Maybe "Everyone" will chime in and clear
it up.

> | =A0continuing to post this only makes you look like more of an idiot
> | than you already do, and provides yet another example (like we needed
> | one) of your stupidity and dishonesty.
> |
> | Shame on you :-P
>
> The dishonesty is on your part.

Oh yes, shame on my for being so crooked and taking Ken at his word!

* mdj <c26c6206-bccb-4e15-93b6-5ea60d1d173a@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:26:41 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 18, 3:35 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
|
|> Jeez, what a suck up!
|
| Now that's just cheap. After starting the joke the least you could do
| is run with for a bit.

In case you missed it the joke is carried on elsewhere in your respnse
to Ron


| Bloody New Yorkers, always in a hurry :-P

--
Madhu

* mdj <069eaaed-3557-4d94-b874-7b21f85353e9@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:33:29 -0800 (PST):

|> |> 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> )
|> |
|> | Since Ken has already posted to this thread and pointed out that is
|> | observations of Ron in that context don't apply to me,
|>
|> But They do.  "Everyone" can see that.
|
| Oh yes, shame on my for being so crooked and taking Ken at his word!

You really want me to tell you what logical fallacy you are comitting
here dont you?

troll

--
Madhu

On Nov 18, 4:14=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:

> | No, I'm intent on exposing you as a fraud.
>
> Have you succeeded yet?

I believe so. All the evidence of course is circumstantial, but the
extremely one dimensional nature of it does not permit any other
conclusion.

Tally ho.

* mdj <eacee83c-aed4-4b7a-a311-d44c4f4e26dd@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:42:21 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 18, 4:14 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|
|> | No, I'm intent on exposing you as a fraud.
|>
|> Have you succeeded yet?
|
| I believe so. All the evidence of course is circumstantial, but the
| extremely one dimensional nature of it does not permit any other
| conclusion.

Can I get a citation stating I am a fraud on Such-and-such-a-count?
Also, a solid proof of how you exposed me would be useful.  I'd like to
have proof to show prospective employers and such, you know

--
Madhu

On Nov 18, 4:29=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:

> | No, I'm pointing out the dishonest and nasty behaviour you keep
> | indulging in, and calling you on it whenever you try to hide your
> | malicious intent behind a scientific concept.
>
> What Nasty behaviour?
> What malicious intent?
> What scientific concept?

This covered it. No need to expand on it when it's had no refutation.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/4fa15d1543542987

On Nov 18, 4:37=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:

> |> But They do. =A0"Everyone" can see that.
> |
> | Oh yes, shame on my for being so crooked and taking Ken at his word!
>
> You really want me to tell you what logical fallacy you are comitting
> here dont you?

I did not make that (admittedly sarcastic) remark in response to that
statement, you deleted text to make it appear that way.

Fraud.

* mdj <b5eb427a-9e5a-4985-9794-2f63ef98986a@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:05:10 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 18, 4:37 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|
|> |> But They do.  "Everyone" can see that.
|> |
|> | Oh yes, shame on my for being so crooked and taking Ken at his word!
|>
|> You really want me to tell you what logical fallacy you are comitting
|> here dont you?
|
| I did not make that (admittedly sarcastic) remark in response to that
| statement, you deleted text to make it appear that way.

Here is the context reinserted:

* mdj <d0233017-3433-469e-b15e-424950027a64@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:05:58 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 18, 1:57=C2=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> 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> )
|
| Since Ken has already posted to this thread and pointed out that is
| observations of Ron in that context don't apply to me,

They do apply to all your activity on comp.lang.lisp

You really want me to tell you what logical fallacy you are comitting
here dont you?

Troll.
--
Madhu

* mdj <7e19fabc-3bf9-4e32-bed6-7273bef912e9@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:59:46 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 18, 4:29 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|
|> | No, I'm pointing out the dishonest and nasty behaviour you keep
|> | indulging in, and calling you on it whenever you try to hide your
|> | malicious intent behind a scientific concept.
|>
|> What Nasty behaviour?
|> What malicious intent?
|> What scientific concept?
|
| This covered it. No need to expand on it when it's had no refutation.

Since there was no nasty behaviour, no malicious intent, and no
scientific concept, there is nothing to refute.


| 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.

--
Madhu

On Nov 18, 5:13=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> * mdj <b5eb427a-9e5a-4985-9794-2f63ef989...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>=
 :
> Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:05:10 -0800 (PST):
>
> | On Nov 18, 4:37=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> |
> |> |> But They do. =A0"Everyone" can see that.
> |> |
> |> | Oh yes, shame on my for being so crooked and taking Ken at his word!
> |>
> |> You really want me to tell you what logical fallacy you are comitting
> |> here dont you?
> |
> | I did not make that (admittedly sarcastic) remark in response to that
> | statement, you deleted text to make it appear that way.
>
> Here is the context reinserted:
>
> * mdj <d0233017-3433-469e-b15e-424950027...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com> =
:
> Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:05:58 -0800 (PST):
>
> | On Nov 18, 1:57=3DC2=3DA0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> 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> )
> |
> | Since Ken has already posted to this thread and pointed out that is
> | observations of Ron in that context don't apply to me,
>
> They do apply to all your activity on comp.lang.lisp

No, they don't. It only looks that way to you.

> You really want me to tell you what logical fallacy you are comitting
> here dont you?

No. I've already convinced myself you're incapable of such. Your
further input on this point is neither requested nor required.

On Nov 18, 4:45=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> * mdj <eacee83c-aed4-4b7a-a311-d44c4f4e2...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com>=
 :
> Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:42:21 -0800 (PST):
>
> | On Nov 18, 4:14=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> |
> |> | No, I'm intent on exposing you as a fraud.
> |>
> |> Have you succeeded yet?
> |
> | I believe so. All the evidence of course is circumstantial, but the
> | extremely one dimensional nature of it does not permit any other
> | conclusion.
>
> Can I get a citation stating I am a fraud on Such-and-such-a-count?
> Also, a solid proof of how you exposed me would be useful. =A0I'd like to
> have proof to show prospective employers and such, you know

Since you've already stated many times that you wish to avoid irony
and troll feeding, I can only summise that you hold that position only
when you're out of your depth, which is of course the point I have
been making.

* mdj <d967ee81-d923-4659-adb0-ba7ae721a063@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:25:13 -0800 (PST):
|> |> | No, I'm intent on exposing you as a fraud.
|> |>
|> |> Have you succeeded yet?
|> |
|> | I believe so. All the evidence of course is circumstantial, but the
|> | extremely one dimensional nature of it does not permit any other
|> | conclusion.
|>
|> Can I get a citation stating I am a fraud on Such-and-such-a-count?
|> Also, a solid proof of how you exposed me would be useful.  I'd like to
|> have proof to show prospective employers and such, you know
|
| Since you've already stated many times that you wish to avoid irony
| and troll feeding, I can only summise that you hold that position only
| when you're out of your depth, which is of course the point I have
| been making.

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'

--
Madhu

* mdj <8a3f2e56-5748-4113-856f-2cc2703ae113@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:22:15 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 18, 5:13 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|> * mdj <b5eb427a-9e5a-4985-9794-2f63ef989...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
|> Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:05:10 -0800 (PST):
|>
|> | On Nov 18, 4:37 pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|> |
|> |> |> But They do.  "Everyone" can see that.
|> |> |
|> |> | Oh yes, shame on my for being so crooked and taking Ken at his word!
|> |>
|> |> You really want me to tell you what logical fallacy you are comitting
|> |> here dont you?
|> |
|> | I did not make that (admittedly sarcastic) remark in response to that
|> | statement, you deleted text to make it appear that way.
|>
|> Here is the context reinserted:
|>
|> * mdj <d0233017-3433-469e-b15e-424950027...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com> :
|> Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:05:58 -0800 (PST):
|>
|> | On Nov 18, 1:57=C2=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> 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> )
|> |
|> | Since Ken has already posted to this thread and pointed out that is
|> | observations of Ron in that context don't apply to me,
|>
|> They do apply to all your activity on comp.lang.lisp
|
| No, they don't. It only looks that way to you.

Oh.  where did you figure that out?


|> You really want me to tell you what logical fallacy you are comitting
|> here dont you?
|
| No. I've already convinced myself you're incapable of such. Your
| further input on this point is neither requested nor required.

Don't worry, I'm not going to tell you, because that would be falling
for your trollbait (which is implied in the quoted text)

--
Madhu

On Nov 18, 5:19=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@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.

On Nov 18, 5:27=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@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

* mdj <432d0f2f-fe98-4bc4-b26a-cfe6b52c173b@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:41:33 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 18, 5:19 pm, Madhu <enom...@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

* mdj <90f4505d-eecf-4647-9939-4f3348c2bac7@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

On Nov 18, 5:48=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@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 ;-)

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

* Kenneth Tilton <4b03eba4$0$31285$607ed4bc@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 in multiple places---in my haste to out-troll
the troll, but I see I've lost points on sloppy and lack of proofreading.

Ideally, I'd have been dictating to a secretary with a British accent of
course.
--
Madhu

On Nov 18, 11:38=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:

> Ideally, I'd have been dictating to a secretary with a British accent of
> course.

I agree. Any secretary worth her salary would lose your drivel
somewhere between your uttering it, and us reading it.

* mdj <e95ec41f-a71f-4690-a980-901a1ffa5522@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:55:46 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 18, 5:48 pm, Madhu <enom...@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

You know this is rather unfair after you made me repeat myself so many
times.

|> But posts are perfectly clearl 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.

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>

|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.

Troll
--
Madhu

* Hanne Gudiksen <ebcc5c4f-46c2-43f5-b2c3-20d6d9327d15@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:12:16 -0800 (PST):


|> Ideally, I'd have been dictating to a secretary with a British accent of
|> course.
|
| I agree. Any secretary worth her salary would lose your drivel
| somewhere between your uttering it, and us reading it.

I believe you are demonstrating a pathological obsessive compulsive
disorder which results in a need to have the last word in the thread.
Do you think that having the last post somehow makes your position
correct?

--
Madhu

On Nov 19, 12:30=A0am, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:

> |> Ideally, I'd have been dictating to a secretary with a British accent =
of
> |> course.
> |
> | I agree. Any secretary worth her salary would lose your drivel
> | somewhere between your uttering it, and us reading it.
>
> I believe you are demonstrating a pathological obsessive compulsive
> disorder which results in a need to have the last word in the thread.
> Do you think that having the last post somehow makes your position
> correct?

I think that posing a question phrased as a tautology is the last
resort of a moron.

* Hanne Gudiksen <961f898e-767b-4303-89c2-ee06e39a8888@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:39:12 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 19, 12:30 am, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
|
|> |> Ideally, I'd have been dictating to a secretary with a British accent of
|> |> course.
|> |
|> | I agree. Any secretary worth her salary would lose your drivel
|> | somewhere between your uttering it, and us reading it.
|>
|> I believe you are demonstrating a pathological obsessive compulsive
|> disorder which results in a need to have the last word in the thread.
|> Do you think that having the last post somehow makes your position
|> correct?
|
| I think that posing a question phrased as a tautology is the last
| resort of a moron.

I give up. Where do you see a `tautology'?  Who do you think is a moron
and for what reason?

Or is this an even better example of 'pathological' behaviour, in the
form of OCD, and manifesting itself as the delusional belief that you
not only know what `tautology' means but find it's your duty to tell us
where you think it exists?

Please demonstrate or capitulate.

--
Madhu

On Nov 19, 12:28=A0am, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> * mdj <e95ec41f-a71f-4690-a980-901a1ffa5...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com> =
:
> Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:55:46 -0800 (PST):
>
> | On Nov 18, 5:48=A0pm, Madhu <enom...@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
>
> You know this is rather unfair after you made me repeat myself so many
> times.

Made? Unfair?

Grow up.

> | 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. =A0So 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.

Fraud.

It does however contain brilliant retorts from you such as "Whatever"

> |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. =A0You 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.

Matt

Am I dealing with Dave Searles here??

* Hanne Gudiksen <09b1a258-fbff-4715-9fb8-65a6ccb0a3de@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

On Nov 19, 12:45=A0am, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> * Hanne Gudiksen <961f898e-767b-4303-89c2-ee06e39a8...@b36g2000prf.google=
groups.com> :
> Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:39:12 -0800 (PST):
>
> | On Nov 19, 12:30=A0am, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> |
> |> |> Ideally, I'd have been dictating to a secretary with a British acce=
nt of
> |> |> course.
> |> |
> |> | I agree. Any secretary worth her salary would lose your drivel
> |> | somewhere between your uttering it, and us reading it.
> |>
> |> I believe you are demonstrating a pathological obsessive compulsive
> |> disorder which results in a need to have the last word in the thread.
> |> Do you think that having the last post somehow makes your position
> |> correct?
> |
> | I think that posing a question phrased as a tautology is the last
> | resort of a moron.
>
> I give up. Where do you see a `tautology'? =A0Who do you think is a moron
> and for what reason?

OK then. "pathological obsessive compulsive disorder" contains a
tautology, since it's evidently pathological if it's a disorder. (the
language sense)

Asking a question for which any answer, or lack of, is sufficient is
also a tautology, which your "last word" malarkey demonstrates. (the
formal sense).

You're a moron because it should've been obvious to you by now that
this kind of questioning will only result in you looking more like
one.

> Or is this an even better example of 'pathological' behaviour, in the
> form of OCD, and manifesting itself as the delusional belief that you
> not only know what `tautology' means but find it's your duty to tell us
> where you think it exists?
>
> Please demonstrate or capitulate.

Demonstrated. Thanks for quoting me. I forgive you for your uncreative
plagiarism.

Matt

* Hanne Gudiksen <320cff45-9d28-4afb-88bf-4e4cce477800@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:19:21 -0800 (PST):
|> |> |
|> |> | I agree. Any secretary worth her salary would lose your drivel
|> |> | somewhere between your uttering it, and us reading it.
|> |>
|> |> I believe you are demonstrating a pathological obsessive compulsive
|> |> disorder which results in a need to have the last word in the thread.
|> |> Do you think that having the last post somehow makes your position
|> |> correct?
|> |
|> | I think that posing a question phrased as a tautology is the last
|> | resort of a moron.
|>
|> I give up. Where do you see a `tautology'?  Who do you think is a
|> moron and for what reason?
|
| OK then. "pathological obsessive compulsive disorder" contains a
| tautology, since it's evidently pathological if it's a disorder. (the
| language sense)

Even if this is granted, you You alleged a certain "posing a question
phrased as a tautology "

The phrase `pathological OCD' to characterize your behaviour appeared in
the first sentence.  The QUESTION I asked does not contain this phrase. 
IOW I have not ``posed a question phrased as a tautology'

IOW Another attempt at fraud on your part, except I challenged this for
the first time.

| Asking a question for which any answer, or lack of, is sufficient is
| also a tautology, which your "last word" malarkey demonstrates. (the
| formal sense).

There are two answers: Yes or No.  How is this tautological?

| You're a moron because it should've been obvious to you by now that
| this kind of questioning will only result in you looking more like
| one.

On the contrary.

|> Or is this an even better example of 'pathological' behaviour, in the
|> form of OCD, and manifesting itself as the delusional belief that you
|> not only know what `tautology' means but find it's your duty to tell
|> us where you think it exists?
|>
|> Please demonstrate or capitulate.
|
| Demonstrated. Thanks for quoting me. I forgive you for your uncreative
| plagiarism.

What you have succeeded in demonstrating is 'pathological' behaviour, in
the form of OCD, which manifesting itself as the delusional belief that
you not only know what `tautology' means but find it's your duty to tell
us where you think it exists?

Except you don't know what `tautological' means, and the fact that it
never existed in the context where you applied it.

The same reasoning applies to your original objection in your first
place.

Can you see a pattern?  
Do you blame me for not responding to each of your trolls --- all of
which are answered in the same way?

--
Madhu

Madhu wrote:
> * Kenneth Tilton <4b03eba4$0$31285$607ed4bc@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

* Hanne Gudiksen <320cff45-9d28-4afb-88bf-4e4cce477800@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:19:21 -0800 (PST):
|> |> | I agree. Any secretary worth her salary would lose your drivel
|> |> | somewhere between your uttering it, and us reading it.
|> |>
|> |> I believe you are demonstrating a pathological obsessive
|> |> compulsive disorder which results in a need to have the last word
|> |> in the thread.  Do you think that having the last post somehow
|> |> makes your position correct?
|> |
|> | I think that posing a question phrased as a tautology is the last
|> | resort of a moron.
|>
|> I give up. Where do you see a `tautology'?  Who do you think is a
|> moron and for what reason?
|
| OK then. "pathological obsessive compulsive disorder" contains a
| tautology, since it's evidently pathological if it's a disorder. (the
| language sense)

Even if this is granted, you alleged a certain "posing a question
phrased as a tautology "

The phrase `pathological OCD' to characterize your behaviour appeared in
the first sentence.  The QUESTION I asked, in the next sentence does not
contain this phrase.  IOW I have not ``posed a question phrased as a
tautology'

IOW Another attempt at fraud on your part, except I challenged this for
the first time.

| Asking a question for which any answer, or lack of, is sufficient is
| also a tautology, which your "last word" malarkey demonstrates. (the
| formal sense).

Without getting into bickering about "formal sense" and "malarkey", The
 question I asked was: ``Do you think that having the last post somehow
 makes your position correct?''

There are two answers possible depending on your belief.  Yes or no. How
is this tautological?

| You're a moron because it should've been obvious to you by now that
| this kind of questioning will only result in you looking more like
| one.

On the contrary, I wanted to get to the bottom of why insist on having
the last word --- perhaps its a belief that `Others' will only look at
your last post, and believe whatever position you state therin?

|> Or is this an even better example of 'pathological' behaviour, in the
|> form of OCD, and manifesting itself as the delusional belief that you
|> not only know what `tautology' means but find it's your duty to tell
|> us where you think it exists?
|>
|> Please demonstrate or capitulate.
|
| Demonstrated. Thanks for quoting me. I forgive you for your uncreative
| plagiarism.

What you have succeeded in demonstrating is 'pathological' behaviour, in
the form of OCD, which is manifesting itself as the delusional belief
that you not only know what `tautology' means but find it's your duty to
tell us where you think it exists.

Except you don't know what `tautological' means, and the fact that it
never existed in the context where you applied it.

The same reasoning applies to your original objection in your first
post.

Can you see a pattern?  
Do you blame me for not responding to each of your trolls --- all of
which are answered in the same way?

--
Madhu

* Kenneth Tilton <4b0416af$0$22533$607ed4bc@cv.net> :
Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:45:52 -0500:

| Madhu wrote:
|> * Kenneth Tilton <4b03eba4$0$31285$607ed4bc@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

On Nov 19, 1:28=A0am, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:

> |> I give up. Where do you see a `tautology'? =A0Who do you think is a
> |> moron and for what reason?
> |
> | OK then. "pathological obsessive compulsive disorder" contains a
> | tautology, since it's evidently pathological if it's a disorder. (the
> | language sense)
>
> Even if this is granted, you You alleged a certain "posing a question
> phrased as a tautology "
>
> The phrase `pathological OCD' to characterize your behaviour appeared in
> the first sentence. =A0The QUESTION I asked does not contain this phrase.
> IOW I have not ``posed a question phrased as a tautology'
>
> IOW Another attempt at fraud on your part, except I challenged this for
> the first time.

Nonsense. Your question contained a tautology. I pointed it out.

> | Asking a question for which any answer, or lack of, is sufficient is
> | also a tautology, which your "last word" malarkey demonstrates. (the
> | formal sense).
>
> There are two answers: Yes or No. =A0How is this tautological?

Do you want the last word? Yes
Do you want the last word? No

Either answer illustrates a desire to have the last word. Any answer
illustrates a desire to have the last word.

Moron.

> | You're a moron because it should've been obvious to you by now that
> | this kind of questioning will only result in you looking more like
> | one.
>
> On the contrary.

Three words used as a prelude to an explanation. On their own,
pointless.

> |> Or is this an even better example of 'pathological' behaviour, in the
> |> form of OCD, and manifesting itself as the delusional belief that you
> |> not only know what `tautology' means but find it's your duty to tell
> |> us where you think it exists?
> |>
> |> Please demonstrate or capitulate.
> |
> | Demonstrated. Thanks for quoting me. I forgive you for your uncreative
> | plagiarism.
>
> What you have succeeded in demonstrating is 'pathological' behaviour, in
> the form of OCD, which manifesting itself as the delusional belief that
> you not only know what `tautology' means but find it's your duty to tell
> us where you think it exists?

Taking my own text and substituting a new word does not demonstrate
your cleverness. Particularly in this case since a more than adequate
understanding of 'tautology' has been demonstrated

[Here we will dissect how you commit logical fraud in evading the
 rebuttal of any of your claims.]

* Hanne Gudiksen <4b63f7b9-8f93-4c78-8af6-bca8b4889b1d@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:01:57 -0800 (PST):

|> |> I give up. Where do you see a `tautology'?  Who do you think is a
|> |> moron and for what reason?
|> |
|> | OK then. "pathological obsessive compulsive disorder" contains a
|> | tautology, since it's evidently pathological if it's a
|> | disorder. (the language sense)
|>
|> Even if this is granted, you You alleged a certain "posing a question
|> phrased as a tautology "
|>
|> The phrase `pathological OCD' to characterize your behaviour appeared
|> in the first sentence.  The QUESTION I asked does not contain this
|> phrase.  IOW I have not ``posed a question phrased as a tautology'
|>
|> IOW Another attempt at fraud on your part, except I challenged this
|> for the first time.
|
| Nonsense. Your question contained a tautology. I pointed it out.

The question does not contain any tautology. You pointed out an alleged
tautology in the first sentence, (which is a question for another post)
To repeat You have not pointed out any tautology in the question.


|> | Asking a question for which any answer, or lack of, is sufficient is
|> | also a tautology, which your "last word" malarkey demonstrates. (the
|> | formal sense).
|>
|> There are two answers: Yes or No.  How is this tautological?
|
| Do you want the last word? Yes
| Do you want the last word? No

Misleading Lies.  This is not the question I asked.
The question I asked was: ``Do you think that having the last post
somehow makes your position correct?''

If you answered Yes (to my question, not your fraudulent restatement),
it would give us a reason as to why you would want to have the last post
in the thread.  If you answered No, we'd have to search elsewhere for
the root of your pathological disorder.

There are two possible answers, I do not see any tautology here.

| Either answer illustrates a desire to have the last word. Any answer
| illustrates a desire to have the last word.

It is not your desire to have the last word that is being questioned. 

| Moron.

^^

|
|> | You're a moron because it should've been obvious to you by now that
|> | this kind of questioning will only result in you looking more like
|> | one.
|>
|> On the contrary.
|
| Three words used as a prelude to an explanation. On their own,
| pointless.

On the contrary, I wanted to get to the bottom of why insist on having
the last word --- perhaps its a belief that `Others' will only look at
your last post, and believe whatever position you state therin?


|> |> Or is this an even better example of 'pathological' behaviour, in
|> |> the form of OCD, and manifesting itself as the delusional belief
|> |> that you not only know what `tautology' means but find it's your
|> |> duty to tell us where you think it exists?
|> |>
|> |> Please demonstrate or capitulate.
|> |
|> | Demonstrated. Thanks for quoting me. I forgive you for your uncreative
|> | plagiarism.
|>
|> What you have succeeded in demonstrating is 'pathological' behaviour, in
|> the form of OCD, which manifesting itself as the delusional belief that
|> you not only know what `tautology' means but find it's your duty to tell
|> us where you think it exists?
|
| Taking my own text and substituting a new word does not demonstrate
| your cleverness. Particularly in this case since a more than adequate
| understanding of 'tautology' has been demonstrated

It demonstrates how your other questions should be handled, and you are
talking about yourself when you accused me of those things in your first
post.

See a shrink, maybe.

--
Madhu

On Nov 19, 2:11=A0am, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote:
> [Here we will dissect how you commit logical fraud in evading the
> =A0rebuttal of any of your claims.]

LOL. Fool.

> * Hanne Gudiksen <4b63f7b9-8f93-4c78-8af6-bca8b4889...@y32g2000prd.google=
groups.com> :
> Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:01:57 -0800 (PST):
>
> |> |> I give up. Where do you see a `tautology'? =A0Who do you think is a
> |> |> moron and for what reason?
> |> |
> |> | OK then. "pathological obsessive compulsive disorder" contains a
> |> | tautology, since it's evidently pathological if it's a
> |> | disorder. (the language sense)
> |>
> |> Even if this is granted, you You alleged a certain "posing a question
> |> phrased as a tautology "
> |>
> |> The phrase `pathological OCD' to characterize your behaviour appeared
> |> in the first sentence. =A0The QUESTION I asked does not contain this
> |> phrase. =A0IOW I have not ``posed a question phrased as a tautology'
> |>
> |> IOW Another attempt at fraud on your part, except I challenged this
> |> for the first time.
> |
> | Nonsense. Your question contained a tautology. I pointed it out.
>
> The question does not contain any tautology. You pointed out an alleged
> tautology in the first sentence, (which is a question for another post)

First sentence of the question, yes. That is where the first tautology
I spotted exists.

> To repeat You have not pointed out any tautology in the question.

I pointed out a tautology in the first sentence of the question. What
are you repeating?

> Misleading Lies. =A0This is not the question I asked.
> The question I asked was: ``Do you think that having the last post
> somehow makes your position correct?''

No. The question you asked was:

"I believe you are demonstrating a pathological obsessive compulsive
disorder which results in a need to have the last word in the thread.
Do you think that having the last post somehow makes your position
correct?"

> If you answered Yes (to my question, not your fraudulent restatement),
> it would give us a reason as to why you would want to have the last post
> in the thread. =A0If you answered No, we'd have to search elsewhere for
> the root of your pathological disorder.
>
> There are two possible answers, I do not see any tautology here.

Poppycock. Your question has no meaning without it's qualifying
sentence, which contains a tautology.

How about you ask a sensible question.

Matt

Madhu wrote:
> * Kenneth Tilton <4b0416af$0$22533$607ed4bc@cv.net> :
> Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:45:52 -0500:
> 
> | Madhu wrote:
> |> * Kenneth Tilton <4b03eba4$0$31285$607ed4bc@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

* Kenneth Tilton <4b0450e7$0$22512$607ed4bc@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

On 2009-11-18 16:27:32 +0000, Madhu <enometh@meer.net> said:

> Maybe i should take my long vacation now..

I was going to say "oh yes, please" but I realise of course you're 
quite entertaining.  I'm thinking of adding an entry to my mad list for 
the first time in *years*.

* Tim Bradshaw <2009111820492416807-tfb@cleycom> :
Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:49:24 +0000:

| On 2009-11-18 16:27:32 +0000, Madhu <enometh@meer.net> said:
|
|> Maybe i should take my long vacation now..
|
| I was going to say "oh yes, please" but I realise of course you're
| quite entertaining.  I'm thinking of adding an entry to my mad list
| for the first time in *years*.

Please do!!

I'm not sure who you are, and I'm sorry I didn't read the article I'm
replying to or any of your other posts, and I won't follow up to you
again on this thread, but I think your'e that schemer who has been wrong
on a few counts about the Common Lisp spec when trolling this newsgroup?

--
Madhu

Madhu wrote:
> * Tim Bradshaw <2009111820492416807-tfb@cleycom> :
> Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:49:24 +0000:
> 
> | On 2009-11-18 16:27:32 +0000, Madhu <enometh@meer.net> said:
> |
> |> Maybe i should take my long vacation now..
> |
> | I was going to say "oh yes, please" but I realise of course you're
> | quite entertaining.  I'm thinking of adding an entry to my mad list
> | for the first time in *years*.
> 
> Please do!!
> 
> I'm not sure who you are, and I'm sorry I didn't read the article I'm
> replying to or any of your other posts, and I won't follow up to you
> again on this thread, but I think your'e that schemer who has been wrong
> on a few counts about the Common Lisp spec when trolling this newsgroup?

No, this guy is a Java fruitcake who thinks he has black helicopters he 
can send after you. Nuff said?

kt

-- 

http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf

On Nov 18, 8:54=A0pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Madhu wrote:
> > * Kenneth Tilton <4b0416af$0$22533$607ed...@cv.net> :
> > Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:45:52 -0500:
>
> > | Madhu wrote:
> > |> * Kenneth Tilton <4b03eba4$0$31285$607ed...@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 c=
ome
> > |> |> back to this thread later? All you are doing is continuing to
> > |> |> ``return each remark with a machine gun burst of no less than tha=
n
> > |> |> 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/f965378a4e2d4a=
be>
> > |> |> )
> > |> |
> > |> | "than than than"? Your editor has a stutter.
> > |>
> > |> Indeed. =A0Apologies for misquoting you---I notice I yanked this inc=
orrect
> > |> 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 bu=
rst
> > | 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 =A0not 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.

No Ken, don't do it! Don't you realize this was in the old usenet
prophecies? It will mean the end of the internet!

Actually, that's your point, isn't it? You're just trying to fan the
flames in order to make usenet melt down so that no one will see your
lies about Cells and your anti-Steele agenda.

(cue a flamewar about you provoking a flamewar about enometh not
fessing up to misquoting you about someone he is having a flamewar
with -- IN, I might add, a flamewar with yet another third party --
about their usenet style in discussing the simulation of local lexical
variables with symbol macros, as boil-over from a flamewar about the
lexical environment of inherited defstruct initforms)

Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> On Nov 18, 8:54 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Madhu wrote:
>>> * Kenneth Tilton <4b0416af$0$22533$607ed...@cv.net> :
>>> Wrote on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:45:52 -0500:
>>> | Madhu wrote:
>>> |> * Kenneth Tilton <4b03eba4$0$31285$607ed...@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.
> 
> No Ken, don't do it! Don't you realize this was in the old usenet
> prophecies? It will mean the end of the internet!

Fear not, grasshopper. The proof is too big for the margin, but 
Gat-Naggum .ca 20th Century was a proof-by-example of the Asymptotic 
nature of any flamathon involving Erann or any anagram thereof. But Ron 
has lost a lot of oomph and as a secondary result we observe that these 
systems require more and more energy be supplied as the curve approaches 
the limit line.

That's where you and I come in.

> 
> Actually, that's your point, isn't it? You're just trying to fan the
> flames in order to make usenet melt down so that no one will see your
> lies about Cells and your anti-Steele agenda.
> 
> (cue a flamewar about you provoking a flamewar about enometh not
> fessing up to misquoting you about someone he is having a flamewar
> with -- IN, I might add, a flamewar with yet another third party --
> about their usenet style in discussing the simulation of local lexical
> variables with symbol macros, as boil-over from a flamewar about the
> lexical environment of inherited defstruct initforms)

Cells! Did someone mention Cells?! Want to hear about it? Or them? Hang 
on.... here ya go:

   http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/2008/02/cells-manifesto.html

I like that MIT bozo giving a talk on it and desperately explaining how 
his approach is completely different than the twenty/thirty other prior 
arts. Where was I? Oh, yeah...

It's going well. Enormous and I are about to lock horns over how much 
slack he deserves and that BS about this being his first flamewar. Check 
back in a year, we might need boosting to a higher orbit.

kt


-- 

http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf

On 2009-11-19 05:26:34 +0000, Kenneth Tilton <kentilton@gmail.com> said:

> No, this guy is a Java fruitcake who thinks he has black helicopters he 
> can send after you. Nuff said?

Given up Java, now using Python as it's more fashionable.  Ruby is 
next, I think.  The helicopters are a real problem - used to be funded 
by those nice bank people but they're all civil servants now, and it 
appears that the tfb helicopter co was not too big to fail.  We can 
probably still afford to have Madhu abducted...

Now, seriously.  I have a program in mind which:
* will need to parse XML config files (realistically: I'd use sexps if 
I have the choice but the target market will not accept that.
* needs to run on a wide variety of Unix/Linux platforms (recompilation 
is fine) including very old versions of the OS
* needs to be pretty intimate with POSIX
* probably will ship source but do not want GPL contagion

i was thinking of doing this in Java (and shipping a JRE it works on, 
the way everyone else does), but there seems to be no serious posix 
bindings for Java at the level I need (things like working out the 
current UIDs/GIDs of the process, calling setuid &c).  So I'm thinking, 
realistically, Perl (and ship a perl runtime with it).

Looks to me like the only Lisp option would be CLISP.

The Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:40:03 +0530, Madhu wrote:

> | I disagree. This article is spot on in adressing the issues which |
> cause side effects. It is more sad to peolple like youself so |
> unappriciative.
> 

> However the point is CL's macro system is not hygienic and CL is not
> about restricting side effects.  

No, the interesting point is to know what causes side-effects and how you 
can get around them.
Less interesting is that you can implement a unhygienic macro facility in 
a hygienic one.

> The fact that the CL macro system is
> powerful enough to implement a hygienic subset is not an especially
> interesting result, in the same sense that you can always use a more
> powerful system to build a more restricted less expressive system.

But Hygienic macros are not more restrictive. It is more work to 
introduce side effects but you can certainly do so.
In fact the paper describes how this is done.

All it really comes down to is: Do you spend more time writing code to 
avoid side effects in CL than you would writing code to produce them in 
Scheme? Not spending a lot of time writing macros in Scheme I can't 
answer that.

-- 
John Thingstad

In article <2009111921551816807-tfb@cleycom>,
 Tim Bradshaw <tfb@cley.com> wrote:

> On 2009-11-19 05:26:34 +0000, Kenneth Tilton <kentilton@gmail.com> said:
> 
> > No, this guy is a Java fruitcake who thinks he has black helicopters he 
> > can send after you. Nuff said?
> 
> Given up Java, now using Python as it's more fashionable.  Ruby is 
> next, I think.  The helicopters are a real problem - used to be funded 
> by those nice bank people but they're all civil servants now, and it 
> appears that the tfb helicopter co was not too big to fail.  We can 
> probably still afford to have Madhu abducted...
> 
> Now, seriously.  I have a program in mind which:
> * will need to parse XML config files (realistically: I'd use sexps if 
> I have the choice but the target market will not accept that.
> * needs to run on a wide variety of Unix/Linux platforms (recompilation 
> is fine) including very old versions of the OS
> * needs to be pretty intimate with POSIX
> * probably will ship source but do not want GPL contagion
> 
> i was thinking of doing this in Java (and shipping a JRE it works on, 
> the way everyone else does), but there seems to be no serious posix 
> bindings for Java at the level I need (things like working out the 
> current UIDs/GIDs of the process, calling setuid &c).  So I'm thinking, 
> realistically, Perl (and ship a perl runtime with it).

Noooooooooo!!!  Perl is a freakin' nightmare.  (That's one thing Erik 
and I definitely agreed on.)

> 
> Looks to me like the only Lisp option would be CLISP.

Try CCL (Clozure Common Lisp).  I believe you will find it meets all 
your needs.

rg

On 2009-11-19, Tim Bradshaw <tfb@cley.com> wrote:
> Now, seriously.  I have a program in mind which:
> * will need to parse XML config files (realistically: I'd use sexps if 
> I have the choice but the target market will not accept that.
> * needs to run on a wide variety of Unix/Linux platforms (recompilation 
> is fine) including very old versions of the OS
> * needs to be pretty intimate with POSIX
> * probably will ship source but do not want GPL contagion

You could use C. 

Seriously. Just base it on the internals of my new txr program.

http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/txr

Running on very old versions should be fine. You do need the <wchar.h> header
from C95. Other than that, just C89 and POSIX.1 and POSIX.2 is needed.

Portabilty could be a bit dodgy due to the GC.  Works on x86_64 and i386.

Intimate with POSIX: check.

Ship source: New BSD license, no GPL: check.

You've got:

- everything written in C, using C functions, with C local variables
  on the real stack.
- dynamic typing and garbage collection.
  - gc scans the stack, so no special protocol to ``hold'' local variables
    to protect them from gc.
  - simple mechanism to register globals into the root set.
- hashes with weak keys and values (poorly tested, but there)
- all text in wide characters, and UTF-8 streams.
- string streams, and a simple formatter.
- simple regular expression engine with an s-exp input language,
  which handles Unicode character classes.
- symbols
- nonlocal transfers and exceptions
- very basic library, but easy to extend.

It's easy to add your custom objects whose guts are written in C
and play along with the garbage collected world.

A flavor of the code:

/* exhibit 0: formatting

   ``nao'' is a special symbol used for terminating variable argument
   lists; helps variadic functions detect errors. nao is a distinct
   bit pattern from any object, including nil.

   If format sees nao when extracting an argument, it throws an exception.
   If format does not see nao as the next argument after processing
   the format string, ditto.

   So format is a lot more safe that C printf.

   lit() is a macro. It efficiently turns a string literal into a first-class
   object, without consing any memory, so the format function's API does not
   use C strings.

   L is added to the literals, making them wide strings (wchar_t chars). */

   std_output performs UTF-8 encoding, outputting bytes. */


{
  format(std_output, lit("Hello, ~a!\n"), lit("world!"), nao);
  ...
}


/* exhibit 1: lispy code

   Note: this is not at all a normal Lisp-like eval and not in the basic
         library; it's a concept specific to the txr application.
         No evaluator is provided in the library, since code is
         written in C and compiled.

         identity_f is a "pre-cooked" function object for identity,
         so we don't have to cons it up when we need it.
         
         regexp means regex_p: ``is a regex'' :) */

obj_t *eval_form(obj_t *form, obj_t *bindings)
{
  if (!form)
    return cons(t, form);
  else if (symbolp(form))
    return assoc(bindings, form);
  else if (consp(form)) {
    if (car(form) == quasi) {
      return cons(t, cat_str(subst_vars(rest(form), bindings), nil));
    } else if (regexp(car(form))) {
      return cons(t, form);
    } else {
      obj_t *subforms = mapcar(bind2other(func_n2(eval_form), bindings), form);

      if (all_satisfy(subforms, identity_f, nil))
        return cons(t, mapcar(func_n1(cdr), subforms));
      return nil;
    }
  } if (stringp(form)) {
    return cons(t, form);
  }

  return cons(t, form);
}


/* exhibit 2: posixy
   ooops, I see a bug here: the handle == 0 case should throw a file_err;
   someone is trying to read a directory stream with no handle. */

static obj_t *dir_get_line(obj_t *stream)
{
  DIR *handle = (DIR *) stream->co.handle;

  if (handle == 0) {
    return nil;
  } else {
    for (;;) {
      struct dirent *e = readdir(handle);
      if (!e)
        return nil;
      if (!strcmp(e->d_name, ".") || !strcmp(e->d_name, ".."))
        continue;
      return string_utf8(e->d_name);
    }
  }
}

/* exhibit 3: snippet  illustrating named blocks use */


{
  uw_block_begin(block_symbol, result_variable);

  /* 

    code dynamically in here uses
    uw_block_return(<symbol>, <value>) to
    dynamically exit from this block.

    */

  uw_block_end;

  /* result_variable holds block return value */
}

/* exhibit 4: long snippet showing flavor of combined exception
   catching and unwind-protect.

   NOTE: this code is /interpreting/ a language that provides
   try/catch/finally, that's why there are references to these
   names.  Don't get confused.

   The items of interest here are the uw_catch_begin,
   uw_catch, uw_do_unwind and uw_unwind macros.

   uw_catch_begin/end wrap the whole protected block.
   catch_syms is a list of exception symbol types, subtypes of which
   are caught; exsym is the name of a variable that is defined
   by the macro which will hold the actual type of the exception caught,
   exvals is the name to use for the variable that holds the exceptino
   value.

   The uw_catch (..., ...) catch block is invoked when a matching
   exceptino is caught.

   the uw_unwind block is run always whenever a non-local
   jump passes through.

   The uw_do_unwind; macro is a little hack. In the normal return
   case from the protected code, or in the case of catching,
   it provides the glue to run the unwind cleanup code also
   in the uw_unwind block.  But not only a hack, this gives you a choice to
   always do the cleanup, or skip it. */


{
  uw_block_begin(nil, result);
  uw_catch_begin(catch_syms, exsym, exvals);

  {
    result = match_files(try_clause, files, bindings,
        data, num(data_lineno));
    uw_do_unwind;
  }

  uw_catch(exsym, exvals) {
    {
      obj_t *iter;

      for (iter = catch_fin; iter; iter = cdr(iter)) {
        obj_t *clause = car(iter);
        obj_t *type = first(second(clause));
        obj_t *params = second(second(clause));
        obj_t *body = third(clause);
        obj_t *vals = if3(listp(exvals),
                          exvals,
                          cons(cons(t, exvals), nil));

        if (first(clause) == catch) {
          if (uw_exception_subtype_p(exsym, type)) {
            obj_t *all_bind = t;
            obj_t *piter, *viter;

            for (piter = params, viter = vals;
                piter && viter;
                piter = cdr(piter), viter = cdr(viter))
            {
              obj_t *param = car(piter);
              obj_t *val = car(viter);

              if (val) {
                bindings = dest_bind(bindings, param, cdr(val));

                if (bindings == t) {
                  all_bind = nil;
                  break;
                }
              }
            }

            if (all_bind) {
              cons_bind (new_bindings, success,
                  match_files(body, files, bindings,
                    data, num(data_lineno)));
              if (success) {
                bindings = new_bindings;
                result = t; /* catch succeeded, so try succeeds */
                if (consp(success)) {
                  data = car(success);
                  data_lineno = c_num(cdr(success));
                } else {
                  data = nil;
                }
              }
            }
            break;
          }
        } else if (car(clause) == finally) {
          finally_clause = body;
        }
      }
    }
    uw_do_unwind;
  }

  uw_unwind {
    obj_t *iter;

    /* result may be t, from catch above. */
    if (consp(result)) {
      /* We process it before finally, as part of the unwinding, so
         finally can accumulate more bindings over top of any bindings
         produced by the main clause. */
      cons_bind (new_bindings, success, result);
      if (consp(success)) {
        data = car(success);
        data_lineno = c_num(cdr(success));
      } else {
        data = nil;
      }
      bindings = new_bindings;
    }

    if (!finally_clause) {
      for (iter = catch_fin; iter; iter = cdr(iter)) {
        obj_t *clause = car(iter);
        if (first(clause) == finally) {
          finally_clause = third(clause);
          break;
        }
      }
    }

    if (finally_clause) {
      cons_bind (new_bindings, success,
          match_files(finally_clause, files, bindings,
            data, num(data_lineno)));
      if (success) {
        bindings = new_bindings;
        result = t; /* finally succeeds, so try block succeeds */
        if (consp(success)) {
          data = car(success);
          data_lineno = c_num(cdr(success));
        } else {
          data = nil;
        }
      }
    }
  }

  uw_catch_end;
  uw_block_end;

  if (!result)
    return nil;

  if ((spec = rest(spec)) == nil)
    break;

  goto repeat_spec_same_data;
}

On Nov 20, 7:55=A0am, Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> wrote:

> Now, seriously. =A0I have a program in mind which:
> * will need to parse XML config files (realistically: I'd use sexps if
> I have the choice but the target market will not accept that.
> * needs to run on a wide variety of Unix/Linux platforms (recompilation
> is fine) including very old versions of the OS
> * needs to be pretty intimate with POSIX
> * probably will ship source but do not want GPL contagion

That's not enough information to base a recommendation on, but I would
say if you're going to have to ship a runtime, CL would be ideal.

Other than that, you mentioned Python. Most of your target platforms
will already have an implementation installed so as long as you target
an older edition (say 2.4) you'll be fine.

Unless of course you need to be 'intimate' with POSIX threads, but
like I said not enough information.

Matt

In article <20091119165505.75@gmail.com>,
 Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2009-11-19, Tim Bradshaw <tfb@cley.com> wrote:
> > Now, seriously.  I have a program in mind which:
> > * will need to parse XML config files (realistically: I'd use sexps if 
> > I have the choice but the target market will not accept that.
> > * needs to run on a wide variety of Unix/Linux platforms (recompilation 
> > is fine) including very old versions of the OS
> > * needs to be pretty intimate with POSIX
> > * probably will ship source but do not want GPL contagion
> 
> You could use C. 
> 
> Seriously. Just base it on the internals of my new txr program.

Greenspun's tenth in all its horrible glory.

rg

On Nov 20, 3:53=A0pm, Ron Garret <rNOSPA...@flownet.com> wrote:

> > You could use C.
>
> > Seriously. Just base it on the internals of my new txr program.
>
> Greenspun's tenth in all its horrible glory.

Just as I was reading that, Emacs went into a spinloop I couldn't C-g
out of ....

On 2009-11-20, Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon@flownet.com> wrote:
> In article <20091119165505.75@gmail.com>,
>  Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-11-19, Tim Bradshaw <tfb@cley.com> wrote:
>> > Now, seriously.  I have a program in mind which:
>> > * will need to parse XML config files (realistically: I'd use sexps if 
>> > I have the choice but the target market will not accept that.
>> > * needs to run on a wide variety of Unix/Linux platforms (recompilation 
>> > is fine) including very old versions of the OS
>> > * needs to be pretty intimate with POSIX
>> > * probably will ship source but do not want GPL contagion
>> 
>> You could use C. 
>> 
>> Seriously. Just base it on the internals of my new txr program.
>
> Greenspun's tenth in all its horrible glory.

Ti ti di daaaaaa!

No wait, that's Beethoven's Fifth.

In article <20091120010731.432@gmail.com>,
 Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2009-11-20, Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon@flownet.com> wrote:
> > In article <20091119165505.75@gmail.com>,
> >  Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-11-19, Tim Bradshaw <tfb@cley.com> wrote:
> >> > Now, seriously.  I have a program in mind which:
> >> > * will need to parse XML config files (realistically: I'd use sexps if 
> >> > I have the choice but the target market will not accept that.
> >> > * needs to run on a wide variety of Unix/Linux platforms (recompilation 
> >> > is fine) including very old versions of the OS
> >> > * needs to be pretty intimate with POSIX
> >> > * probably will ship source but do not want GPL contagion
> >> 
> >> You could use C. 
> >> 
> >> Seriously. Just base it on the internals of my new txr program.
> >
> > Greenspun's tenth in all its horrible glory.
> 
> Ti ti di daaaaaa!
> 
> No wait, that's Beethoven's Fifth.

I thought Beethoven's Fifth went "Da da da dumb..."

rg

On 2009-11-20 00:46:49 +0000, Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon@flownet.com> said:

> Noooooooooo!!!  Perl is a freakin' nightmare.  (That's one thing Erik
> and I definitely agreed on.)

Yes, it is, but I'm pretty good at writing clean Perl ("clean" meaning 
"I can maintain it years later"), and things like tainting are pretty 
useful for what I have in mind.  Also I have to be pragmatic: Perl can 
actually do what I need, can actually run on everything and so on.

> 
> Try CCL (Clozure Common Lisp).  I believe you will find it meets all
> your needs.

CCL is a fine CL (it's what I use day to day), but I need at least x86, 
SPARC, Itanium, PA-RISC and POWER as targets (and 
LInux/Solaris/HP-UX/AIX as platforms), which I suspect rules it out 
(and probably rules out almost any native-code thing).

Someone else suggested C: I am not up to writing complicated 
security-sensitive code in C in which I have enough confidence (runs as 
root on production systems where compromises are (a) very expensive and 
(b) have my name somewhere in the "responsible people" chain).  There 
probably are people who can do this, but it is pretty hard I think.

Python I could use I guess, and I was fairly fluent in it a while ago, 
though I kind of dislike it for the same reasons I dislike Scheme: too 
much religion in there.

For someone else who said I've not given enough information: no, I 
haven't, but its a bit hard for me to do so as my ideas are not really 
completely sorted, and the initial cut will be tied to a large 
customer's internal processes which I'm not at liberty to talk about.  
Sorry!

They got beam round LHC last night, it looks like.

--tim

Tim Bradshaw <tfb@cley.com> writes:

> Yes, it is, but I'm pretty good at writing clean Perl ("clean" meaning
> "I can maintain it years later"), and things like tainting are pretty
> useful for what I have in mind.  Also I have to be pragmatic: Perl can
> actually do what I need, can actually run on everything and so on.

I would be looking at Perl (which I know) or Ruby (which I don't much, 
but I reasonably expect would be up to the job).  Unless you expect to
be using unicode significantly, because the unicode in ruby 1.8 is Not
There Yet.  


-dan

On 2009-11-21 14:47:36 +0000, dan@telent.net said:

> I would be looking at Perl (which I know) or Ruby (which I don't much,
> but I reasonably expect would be up to the job).  Unless you expect to
> be using unicode significantly, because the unicode in ruby 1.8 is Not
> There Yet.

Yes, ruby would be interesting.  I think I only need to deal with 
Unicode in the sense that I'm (again, pragmatically) expecting 
configuration files which are XML and the parse of these  might 
therefore throw Unicode at me by the nature of XML  However I don't 
think I need to worry about that too much.

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:12:27 +0000, Tim Bradshaw wrote:

> CCL is a fine CL (it's what I use day to day), but I need at least x86,
> SPARC, Itanium, PA-RISC and POWER as targets (and
> LInux/Solaris/HP-UX/AIX as platforms), which I suspect rules it out (and
> probably rules out almost any native-code thing).
> 
> Someone else suggested C: I am not up to writing complicated
> security-sensitive code in C in which I have enough confidence (runs as
> root on production systems where compromises are (a) very expensive and
> (b) have my name somewhere in the "responsible people" chain).  There
> probably are people who can do this, but it is pretty hard I think.

C is, never the less, the one common factor that will hit all of those 
targets.  The other languages that you're considering (Perl and Python) 
work because they're interpreted by a portable C program.

So: you could try other languages that are either implemented by C 
interpreters (Perl, Python, ruby, LUA, CLISP, many of the schemes) or 
compile with C as the intermediate language (ECL, many of the schemes 
(chicken and gambit seem to get good raps for this sort of thing)), or 
have a GCC back-end (besides C, C++ has all of the security issues that 
you're worried about, but gcc also has Pascal, Ada and Java front ends, 
which might fit the bill.)

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew

Tim Bradshaw  <tfb@cley.com> wrote:
+---------------
| They got beam round LHC last night, it looks like.
+---------------

Even better, they got R.F. capture and stored beam for "several
minutes"!! In both directions!! [...albeit only one at a time so far.]

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/11/20/circulating-beam-in-lhc-imminent/

First collisions expected "soon"...


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock			<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607

On 2009-11-21 22:54:30 +0000, Andrew Reilly <areilly---@bigpond.net.au> said:

> C is, never the less, the one common factor that will hit all of those
> targets.  The other languages that you're considering (Perl and Python)
> work because they're interpreted by a portable C program.

Yes. The platforms I'm aiming at all have OSs implemented largely in C, 
with some small amounts of assembler.  Fortunately that does not mean 
*I* need to write C.

On Nov 19, 10:55=A0pm, Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> wrote:
>
> Looks to me like the only Lisp option would be CLISP.
[...and on a separate message...]
> CCL is a fine CL (it's what I use day to day), but I need at least x86,
> SPARC, Itanium, PA-RISC and POWER as targets (and
> LInux/Solaris/HP-UX/AIX as platforms), which I suspect rules it out
> (and probably rules out almost any native-code thing).

What is wrong with ECL? It already runs on x86, SPARC, Itanium, and
porting to the other two targets should be pretty easy.

POSIX bindings are not yet implemented natively in lisp, but it allows
you to embed C statements in Lisp code: http://ecls.sourceforge.net/new-man=
ual/re14.html

Juanjo

On 2009-11-22 19:30:53 +0000, Juanjo 
<juanjose.garciaripoll@googlemail.com> said:

> What is wrong with ECL? It already runs on x86, SPARC, Itanium, and
> porting to the other two targets should be pretty easy.

Nothing, this is exactly the kind of suggestion I was after!  Thanks, I 
will check it out.

--tim

On Nov 24, 9:45=A0am, Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> wrote:
> On 2009-11-22 19:30:53 +0000, Juanjo
> <juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com> said:
>
> > What is wrong withECL? It already runs on x86, SPARC, Itanium, and
> > porting to the other two targets should be pretty easy.
>
> Nothing, this is exactly the kind of suggestion I was after! =A0Thanks, I
> will check it out.

I forgot to mention that I will make a release this week that adds the
required support for Itanium and includes some important fixes -- the
change for Itanium was minimal but it was not included in previous
versions due to lack of a testing platform.

Juanjo