Re: Seeking computer-programming job (Sunnyvale, CA)
Arne Vajhøj
> On May 18, 9:38 pm, Arne Vajh�j <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> Series Expansion wrote:
>>> On May 17, 3:09 am, gugamilare <gugamil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It has windows.
>>> Faking windows with ASCII has been done before, and always fails to
>>> impress, or to achieve as high a level of usability as an actual GUI.
>> Emacs has been running on X for 20 years (give or take a few).
>
> I'm sure it's been running on X for as long as there've been xterms to
> run it in.
Running in an xterm is not considered running on X.
Emacs has been running as a true GUI app for 20 years (give or
take a few).
>>> An ASCII editor lacks Unicode support by definition.
>>Wrong on two counts:
>>* Emacs is not (entirely) an a text mode editor
>>* A text mode editor can support Unicode fine vi UTF-8
>
> Fascinating. Arne appears to believe that Unicode is a subset of
> ASCII.
Fascinating that someone is so dumb that he can not distinguish between
the strings "UTF-8" and "ASCII" but are still capable of posting to
usenet.
Arne
Series Expansion
> >> Series Expansion wrote:
> >>> On May 17, 3:09 am, gugamilare <gugamil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> It has windows.
> >>> Faking windows with ASCII has been done before, and always fails to
> >>> impress, or to achieve as high a level of usability as an actual GUI.
> >> Emacs has been running on X for 20 years (give or take a few).
>
> > I'm sure it's been running on X for as long as there've been xterms to
> > run it in.
>
> Running in an xterm is not considered running on X.
That was precisely my point. Running in an xterm does not really
qualify you to claim to be graphical, contrary to what several other
people have implied.
> >>> An ASCII editor lacks Unicode support by definition.
> >>Wrong on two counts:
> >>* Emacs is not (entirely) an a text mode editor
> >>* A text mode editor can support Unicode fine vi UTF-8
>
> > Fascinating. Arne appears to believe that Unicode is a subset of
> > ASCII.
>
> Fascinating that someone is so dumb [rest deleted]
These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either emacs or Eclipse, Arne.
Hand-editing UTF-8 (where it includes some double-wide characters) in
an ASCII editor is not a recommended way to edit text.
Graphics hardware, and software that acknowledges its existence, is
needed in order to display the full Unicode character set at one time.
Alessio Stalla
This is a screenshot of Emacs on my machine taken right now:
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3889/thisisemacs.png
As you can see, it is a GUI app, and not because it's running in xterm.
Tim X
Series, you have said on numerous occasions that your here to debate
matters and are not interested in personal attacks. Thats all good and I
hope you can accept the following as an attempt to correct your
misunderstanding of emacs and not as a personal attack.
I suspect some of the confusion is due to the terminology used by emacs,
which unfortunately is different to what has become the 'norm'. However,
this is understandable when you consider that emacs was often the first
to have certain features. As an example, emacs uses the terms window and
frame in ways that are different to what most people think of when they
see those terms. However, they seemed very naturaul when they first
adopted them. Some have argued that emacs should revise its terminology
to be more in line with common usage. Regardless of where someone stands
on that argument, it doesn't change what functionality the software has.
Emacs uses the term 'window' in a similar way to what other systems may
refer to as a 'pane' and uses the term 'frame' for what other systems
would call a window.
Emacs has had native support for X windows for over 20 years. By native
support, I do not mean running in an X term. I mean full native X
support with the ability to open new frames (aka windows), move frames
to different virtual desktops, stack frames on top of each other, tile
frames, iconify frames etc. Unlike other editors, I also get the added
benefit of being able to run under non-graphics environments, such as
the linux console. In fact, I can open multiple console frames on the
multiple console terminals you have under Linux - this means even if I
don't have X installed I can run emacs with multiple frames and have
each of those frames split into multiple windows. If I used the advanced
features of the Linux console, I can even have more sophisticated
fonts than the default 'fixed' version.
You are correct when you state that emacs is not a fully graphical
application. However, you are incorrect when you state that it is just
an ascii editor. Emacs has had support for a much wider range of
character sets for quite a long time. The version I'm using right now
has full UTF-8 support as well as support for a number of
asian and western european character ses. It also support true type and
anti-aliased fonts, GTK widgets for pop-ups and GTK menus, full mouse
support, tooltips (with different fonts, colors and borders to the
buffer text), toolbars with icons etc. I can use proportionally spaced,
condensed or fixed width fonts. I have italic, bold, underlined,
supersubscripts etc. I can have fonts of varying sizes, font families
etc.
Emacs also has built-in support for numerous graphics types, including
GIF, TIFF, SVGA, JPG etc and built-in support for playing sounds. You
can even display PDF, PostScript and DVI documents inside an emacs
buffer as they would look in a dedicated viewer (not as translated into
text, but graphically) and you can search those documents.
Out of the box, Emacs is not what would be considered a modern fully
integrated development environment in the same way Eclipse or a purpose
built system, such as SQL Developer or NetBeans is. However, the
components are there, they just need someone to put them together. This
can result in a far more productive environment, because it is built to
fit the individuals needs and their preferred way of working. However,
not everyone wants to go through that process and thats fine - different
strokes for different folks.
In some cases, such as with Slime, the IDE that has been put together
using basic Emacs facilities and some elisp code to glue it all together
is far superior to the support provided by the well known IDEs such as
Eclipse (which has very poor support for CL BTW).
When new languages come along, Emacs is often the first to provide any
form of IDE. For example, When I programmed in Java (from about 1995 -
1999), there simply wasn't any decent Java IDEs available. Those that
did exist tended to be extremely slow and somewhat unreliable. However,
a couple of smart people put together JDEE (The Java Development
Environment for Emacs). At the time, it was just miles in front of
anything else on offer. Compared to dedicated Java IDE's or IDEs that
have a strong Java orientation, it can look quite outdated now. However,
often the early emacs implementations are the prototypes of what will
follow and many of the good ideas found in dedicated IDEs can be traced
bak to emacs. In a similar way, if CL became more widely adopted, you
would probably eventually see CL IDEs that would make Slime look pretty
tired, but the new dedicated CL IDE would likely borrow many of the
ideas currently in Slime and it would have to do a hell of a lot to make
it much better than it already is.
You made a number of references to your use of emacs in the 90s, over a
remote connection and running it under an xterm. Rather than seeing this
as the limitation of emacs, you should actually view it as one of its
strengths as you were able to run it at all. If it had been eclipse, you
couldn't run it at all.
Running it under an xterm severely limits what Emacs can
do. Its not a limitation of emacs, but rather a limitation of how it is
being run. You should not use your experiences in running Emacs in this
limited mode as the basis for determining what it can and cannot do.In
fact, I'm somewhat confused as to why, if you were running it in an
xterm, you couldn't run it in native X mode. I'll assume it was due to
bandwidth limitations rather than due to a poorly configured
environment.
During the 90s, I administered a number of remote sites. I ran Emacs
remotely, but instead of running it in an xterm, I ran it as a native X
application. To improve performance (we are talking about 56K dial-up at
this time), I used a differential X compression utility. The performance
wasn't fantastic, but it meant I had full windowing support, mouse
support, menus, popups, tooltips etc etc.
There has been at least 1, if not two major releases of Emacs since you
used it in the 90s, emacs 21 and emacs 22. A third one, Emacs 23 is
currently under active development and probably not that far from being
released as its very stable. Each of these releases has brought
improvements and updates. From your apparent experiences with emacs, I'm
guessing the version you used was Emacs 19. There is a world of
difference between that emacs and the one you will find being used by
most people today. It is similar to the world of difference between the
first versions of Java (the ones I coded in) and the version available
today. Consider what would be your response if I stated that Java was a
poor language due to the way dates, time and locales are handled and
made reference to the classes that were part of version 1.02 and all the
problems they had.
The bottom line - your understanding of emacs is outdated and
incorrect. Your experience of emacs has been further skewed due to the
restrictive mode in which it was run. Many of the limitations or missing
features you experienced were due to the environment you were running
the application in and not limitations of the application itself.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Series Expansion
For this, we have only your word, versus the overwhelming common-sense
evidence against.
Series Expansion
> Series Expansion <sere...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On May 22, 10:33 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> >> Fascinating that someone is so dumb [rest deleted]
>
> > These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
> > in favor of either emacs or Eclipse, Arne.
>
> > Hand-editing UTF-8 (where it includes some double-wide characters) in
> > an ASCII editor is not a recommended way to edit text.
>
> > Graphics hardware, and software that acknowledges its existence, is
> > needed in order to display the full Unicode character set at one time.
>
> Series, you have said on numerous occasions that your here to debate
> matters and are not interested in personal attacks. Thats all good and I
> hope you can accept the following as an attempt to correct your
> unread]
These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, Tim and Arne.
Tim X
Yeh, you keep saying that whenever someone points out your errors.
Can't help but notice you cut my text just before the bit where I said
this was *not* a personal attack but rather an attempt to correct your
misunderstanding regarding emacs. I guess leaving it in would have made
your claim of a personal attack even weaker.
Pointing out that you are in error regarding your statements about
something like Emacs is NOT a personal attack. Furthermore, anyone who
wants to verify what I wrote (and others) can easily do so by going to
the Emacs website or by checking out the Emacs wiki or any of a number
of blogs that deal with Emacs. In fact, I wold recommend anyone who is
at all in doubt regarding the facts do so and after having done so,
consider which of the posters to the thread has credibility and which
does not.
It is of little importance to anyone if you wish to continue believing
in Santa, fairies at the bottom of the garden and that emacs is only
capable of ascii editing and has no support for graphics or modern
windowing environments. It may even be true that there is bliss in
ignorance, in which case, you must be a very happy and blissful person.
Alessio Stalla
Oh, of course you're right. This is actually a shot of NetBeans with
the fonts and colors changed, the text pane fully expanded, a fake
menu that explicitly mentions Emacs and a superimposed Emacs-like mode
line and minibuffer. That's the only possible rational explanation...
that doesn't go against your religious dogma that Emacs has no GUI.
Alessio
Series Expansion
> Series Expansion <sere...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On May 24, 12:21 am, Tim X <t...@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
> >> Series, you have said on numerous occasions that your here to debate
> >> matters and are not interested in personal attacks. Thats all good and I
> >> hope you can accept the following as an attempt to correct your
> >> misunderstanding [rest of personal attack, and rest of post, deleted
> >> unread]
>
> > These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
> > in favor of either Lisp or Java, Tim and Arne.
>
> Yeh, you keep saying that whenever someone points out your errors.
These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either emacs or Eclipse, Tim.
> Can't help but notice you cut my text just before the bit where I said
> this was *not* a personal attack
That was a lie. I have little interest in reading lies. If I ever do
develop an inexplicable urge to read lies, I will visit whitehouse.gov
or a similar politician-run site.
> [remaining personal attacks and other nonsense deleted unread]
Series Expansion
Russell Jackson
[much snipped]
> Emacs has had native support for X windows for over 20 years. By native
> support, I do not mean running in an X term. I mean full native X
> support with the ability to open new frames (aka windows), move frames
> to different virtual desktops, stack frames on top of each other, tile
> frames, iconify frames etc. Unlike other editors, I also get the added
> benefit of being able to run under non-graphics environments, such as
> the linux console. In fact, I can open multiple console frames on the
> multiple console terminals you have under Linux - this means even if I
> don't have X installed I can run emacs with multiple frames and have
> each of those frames split into multiple windows. If I used the advanced
> features of the Linux console, I can even have more sophisticated
> fonts than the default 'fixed' version.
>
> used it in the 90s, emacs 21 and emacs 22. A third one, Emacs 23 is
> currently under active development and probably not that far from being
> released as its very stable.
I tried using that beast maybe ten years ago myself. It sucked. From the
sounds of this, things may have changed. Has it now got a user interface
a Windows user could get used to and be productive in reasonably
quickly, or does it still require a cheat sheet and weeks of looking
things up in the help to use effectively?
> Emacs also has built-in support for numerous graphics types, including
> GIF, TIFF, SVGA, JPG etc and built-in support for playing sounds.
I confess I don't see how these would be useful in a text editor. Sounds
like bloat.
On the other subject of this unnecessarily long and noisome thread,
thanks, but no thanks. I hope the following remarks will make the
unshakability of my opinion clear:
Lost In Stupid Parentheses.
Lacking In Syntax and Types.
Lots of Irritating and Superfluous Parentheses.
Like I Stubbed Pinkie.
Language that Interests Some Palaeontologists.
Loris Is Slower Predicate? (NIL)
Language Implicated in Shortage of Parentheses.
Lacking Infix Syntax for Plus.
Ludicrously Involuted System for Programming.
Ludicrously Insular Society of Programmers.
Not that other languages don't sometimes try very hard to live down to
it. Smalltalk was also mentioned in this thread: honorable mention for
Lacking In Syntax and Types and Loris Is Slower Predicate? and a
definite contender in the bad-math-syntax department too -- 3 + 2 * 3 =
15, not 9? Wilcox tango foxtrot, interrogative?
I'll stick to Java*, thanks, and probably return to lurking. But I might
be persuaded to dump Eclipse for emacs if it's really improved a lot
since the nineties.
* Jungle of Architectures, Vendors, and Acronyms. (Hibernate, Struts,
Sun, J2EE, JSF, Oracle, JNI, JAXA, IntelliJ, XML, Glassfish, Apache,
Derby, Tomcat, JAI, Java2D, Swing ... gotta learn 'em all! It's the card
collector's programming language! And the collection you've amassed is
looked at in job interviews, too!)
Tim X
OK, I see, its ok for you to personally attack me by claiming I lied,
but to criticise you for being completely wrong in your statements about
emacs is a personal attack. Nice double standard you have there.
have a good life and enjoy your blissful ignorance and I hope it
continues to keep you in your warm comfortable existance of deluded
superiority .
Paul Donnelly
> I tried using that beast maybe ten years ago myself. It sucked. From
> the sounds of this, things may have changed. Has it now got a user
> interface a Windows user could get used to and be productive in
> reasonably quickly, or does it still require a cheat sheet and weeks
> of looking things up in the help to use effectively?
That depends... how good is your memory? Emacs definitely isn't for
people who never want to learn anything, ever.
But if you thought it sucked ten years ago, you'll think it sucks
now. It's got the same mature interface it's had for the last few
decades and will have for the next few.
> Lacking In Syntax and Types.
Hmm, that implies that syntax is a good thing (and also that Lisp isn't
full of types...).
> Language Implicated in Shortage of Parentheses.
That's a good one. ;)
> Lacking Infix Syntax for Plus.
I believe you've misquoted that one. It's, "Lacking Infix Syntax *a* Plus".
Pascal J. Bourguignon
>> Language Implicated in Shortage of Parentheses.
>
> That's a good one. ;)
Only if you forget than most other languages have more parentheses
than Lisp. Java being C-like syntax-wise, I'd bet it uses more
parentheses than Lisp. C does.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
Paul Donnelly
Well that's not a fair comparison... it takes so much more code to get
anything done; of course it takes more parens.
Do you count {} and [] as parens?
Pascal J. Bourguignon
Yes of course. And < and > in C++.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
gugamilare
> On May 24, 6:32 am, Series Expansion <sere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 7:18 pm, Alessio Stalla <alessiosta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This is a screenshot of Emacs on my machine taken right now:http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3889/thisisemacs.png
>
> > For this, we have only your word, versus the overwhelming common-sense
> > evidence against.
This is impossible.
> Oh, of course you're right. This is actually a shot of NetBeans with
> the fonts and colors changed, the text pane fully expanded, a fake
> menu that explicitly mentions Emacs and a superimposed Emacs-like mode
> line and minibuffer. That's the only possible rational explanation...
> that doesn't go against your religious dogma that Emacs has no GUI.
I've already posted screenshoots of Emacs, and not some windows
running on my machine, but rather the official ones, taken from the
official Emacs page. And Series Expansion only deleted them when he
replied. He also deleted wikipedia's links to places that say that
Emacs runs on X since 198*.
Any reasonable computer user (not even a programmer) who had thought
that Emacs is still terminal-based application and who read your post
(or any post that says otherwise - and there has been lots of them)
would either believe on what you are saying or look for Emacs official
web page or, in worst scenario, he would install Emacs to see it with
his own eyes. Obviously, he has done neither. And note that he
explicitly called you a liar while he does not even allow someone to
say that he is wrong about something without accusing that person of
making a "personal attack". He's been doing this forever.
The only explanation I can conclude from this is that he is indeed
doing this on purpose. There isn't another explanation. He must have a
very strange obsession on posting lies to make people angry. Now I am
glad I quit this thread long ago (with exception of one or two very
small posts).
gugamilare
Ah! And here is the ultimate proof of what I said in the last post.
He's just misquoted you, just like that. Why would he do this? To make
you angry, that's why!
du...@franz.com
wrote:
> Paul Donnelly <paul-donne...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >> Language Implicated in Shortage of Parentheses.
>
> > That's a good one. ;)
>
> Only if you forget than most other languages have more parentheses
> than Lisp. Java being C-like syntax-wise, I'd bet it uses more
> parentheses than Lisp. C does.
Maybe not more, but certainly more wisely. Have a look at
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/lispfloat.ps and note in
section 3.5 (bottom of p9, top of p10) the discussion about the use of
parens. This was one of our first "fight back" forays into dispelling
some of the myths of Lisp.
Duane
Scott Burson
> Lost In Stupid Parentheses.
> [...]
The thing I don't get is this. Lots of people have negative reactions
to Lisp's syntax and aren't shy about saying so. Leaving aside the
fact that these opinions are almost never grounded in substantial
experience, the thing that really weirds me out is that I don't hear
the same obloquy directed towards XML, which is MUCH WORSE than Lisp!
Not only is it full of paired delimiters, these delimiters are much
harder to type than simple parentheses (I'm referring to the strings
like "<element>" and "</element>"; the angle brackets themselves are
not delimiters so much as meta-delimiters). XML-based languages are
far uglier than I could possibly imagine Lisp seeming to anyone.
XSLT, for instance, is just hideous. And yet, I run into more and
more of these things, and hardly anybody seems to complain about
them. It's absolutely unfathomable.
Whatever you think of S-expressions, they're a much better solution to
the problem of representing arbitrary trees than XML, and they existed
decades ago.
-- Scott
P.S. This will be my only post on this topic.
Alessio Stalla
Yes, I know he does like that only to make me angry. Unfortunately,
it's hard to make me angry, I'm very stubborn, and I can't stand
people telling blatant lies and presenting them as objective truth.
(Though being Italian I'm very accustomed to that kind of behavior).
That said, I'm getting tired of this thread, and probably now it's so
huge that no one will ever want to read it, so no one has any chance
to become convinced by Series and Seamus' lies... so, mission
accomplished! :D
Seamus MacRae
> On May 24, 8:53 pm, Russell Jackson <rus...@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
>> Lost In Stupid Parentheses.
>> [...]
>
> The thing I don't get is this. Lots of people have negative reactions
> to Lisp's syntax and aren't shy about saying so. Leaving aside the
> fact that these opinions are almost never grounded in substantial
> experience, the thing that really weirds me out is that I don't hear
> the same obloquy directed towards XML, which is MUCH WORSE than Lisp!
"Lots of Stupid Angle Brackets" doesn't quite have the same ring to it,
nor does its initials spell "XML".
But if you insist that an attempt be made:
eXtremely Muddled Language.
> Whatever you think of S-expressions, they're a much better solution to
> the problem of representing arbitrary trees than XML, and they existed
> decades ago.
Perhaps the ability of cons cells to represent, directly, only binary
trees, and cons trees' use of position instead of name as lookup key,
could have something to do with it?
Paul Donnelly
> Paul Donnelly <paul-d...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes:
>>
>>> Paul Donnelly <paul-d...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>> Language Implicated in Shortage of Parentheses.
>>>>
>>>> That's a good one. ;)
>>>
>>> Only if you forget than most other languages have more parentheses
>>> than Lisp. Java being C-like syntax-wise, I'd bet it uses more
>>> parentheses than Lisp. C does.
>>
>> Well that's not a fair comparison... it takes so much more code to get
>> anything done; of course it takes more parens.
>>
>> Do you count {} and [] as parens?
>
> Yes of course. And < and > in C++.
Well, there's where we disagree.
Paul Donnelly
> Scott Burson wrote:
>> Whatever you think of S-expressions, they're a much better solution to
>> the problem of representing arbitrary trees than XML, and they existed
>> decades ago.
>
> Perhaps the ability of cons cells to represent, directly, only binary
> trees, and cons trees' use of position instead of name as lookup key,
> could have something to do with it?
That likely is what a person who didn't know anything about
s-expressions might think. Good point.
Kaz Kylheku
Let's not forget all of the other superfluous punctuation in these languages,
like commas and semicolons.
The source code of C, C++ or Java is made up of nested list structures. For
instance, a translation unit is essentially a list of external definitions. A
declaration has a list of declarators. A function call has a list of arguments.
A class definition has a list of base classes, list of members, et cetera.
There are all these lists, and for no good reason at all, they have different
lexical syntax. One is delimited with these parentheses, another one with
others. Some lists are not delimited by parentheses at all. Some strictly
have mandatory separators between their elements, others strictly separators,
yet others still go either way: the final terminator is optional.
In a declaration, the declaration specifiers and the terminating semicolon
should be counted as parentheses, because a declaration looks like this:
<specifiers> <declarator> [ "," <declarator> ] ";"
The specifiers say ``here comes a list'', just like an opening parenthesis, and
the terminating semicolon says ``the list is done'', just like a closing
parenthesis.
Series Expansion
> Series Expansion <sere...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On May 24, 4:19 am, Tim X <t...@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
> >> Can't help but notice you cut my text just before the bit where I said
> >> this was *not* a personal attack
>
> > That was a lie. I have little interest in reading lies. If I ever do
> > develop an inexplicable urge to read lies, I will visit whitehouse.gov
> > or a similar politician-run site.
>
> OK, I see, its ok for you to personally attack me by claiming I lied
Well, it's kind of hard not to when you say something won't be a
personal atatck, and then spend four very long paragraphs telling the
whole world how stupid you think I am.
> [many more personal attacks; rest of post deleted]
Series Expansion
wrote:
> Paul Donnelly <paul-donne...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >> Language Implicated in Shortage of Parentheses.
>
> > That's a good one. ;)
>
> Only if you forget than most other languages have more parentheses
> than Lisp. Java being C-like syntax-wise, I'd bet it uses more
> parentheses than Lisp. C does.
Nonsense -- wherever C uses braces, parentheses, OR brackets for
grouping, the equivalent Lisp code will use parentheses, parentheses,
and more parentheses, so C cannot possibly use more. :)
Series Expansion
> On 24 maio, 07:03, Alessio Stalla <alessiosta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 6:32 am, Series Expansion <sere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 23, 7:18 pm, Alessio Stalla <alessiosta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > This is a screenshot of Emacs on my machine taken right now:http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3889/thisisemacs.png
>
> > > For this, we have only your word, versus the overwhelming common-sense
> > > evidence against.
>
> This is impossible.
Exactly my point.
> [lots snipped; talks about me in third person, insults me, several
> other gross breaches of etiquette; even calls me a liar]
I am not.
Series Expansion
> Ah! And here is the ultimate proof of what I said in the last post.
> He's just misquoted you, just like that. Why would he do this? To make
> you angry, that's why!
Lies and errors. These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute
rational arguments in favor of either Lisp or Java, gugamilare.
Series Expansion
> On May 25, 5:02 pm, gugamilare <gugamil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah! And here is the ultimate proof of what I said in the last post.
> > He's just misquoted you, just like that. Why would he do this? To make
> > you angry, that's why!
Errors or outright lies.
> Yes, I know he does like that only to make me angry.
Another one.
> Unfortunately, it's hard to make me angry, I'm very stubborn, and I
> can't stand people telling blatant lies and presenting them as
> objective truth.
Looked in a mirror?
> That said, I'm getting tired of this thread, and probably now it's so
> huge that no one will ever want to read it, so no one has any chance
> to become convinced by Series and Seamus' lies... so, mission
> accomplished! :D
I have told no lies.
These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, Alessio and gugamilare.
Series Expansion
public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> gugamilare <gugamil...@gmail.com> writes:
> > The only explanation I can conclude from this is that he is indeed
> > doing this on purpose. There isn't another explanation. He must have a
>
These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, Paul and gugamilare.
du...@franz.com
public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
[Hey, Paul, How's it going? I like your argumentation, and the fact
that you've kept a level head this last week or two with your answers,
despite the challenges.]
> gugamilare <gugamil...@gmail.com> writes:
> > The only explanation I can conclude from this is that he is indeed
> > doing this on purpose. There isn't another explanation. He must have a
>
> He's pretty clearly insane.
No, he's pretty clearly playing a game. The object of the game is to
keep the thread going as long as possible. He gives himself points
(i.e. the thread is still alive) for answering every post that looks
like they might be taken as a slight, and even some that can't (I love
the way he played the answer "42"... :-) And he's not going to get
tired, because he doesn't have to think of clever twists to every
answer; he just plays the same tired recording over and over again in
order to drive others insane enough to send just one more answer
(which keeps the game going). Sprinkle that with a little on-topic
but flawed logic and you have yourself a very impressive volley.
The only way he loses his game is to lose his audience, which will
happen when everyone stops answering his posts, no matter how insane
and in need of an answer they seem to be. (Or, even more insidious,
no matter how sane but slightly flawed they seem to be - this catches
the ones who are sincerely trying to help him to understand; they
answer and keep the game going).
Duane
Tim X
Well, it seems you want it both ways. In your first reply, you stated
you didn't read what followed, now your claiming it was 4 paragraphs
of me telling the world how stupid you are. Either you read it or you
did not.
Check it out again. I did NOT state you were stupid even once. In fact,
after the initial paragraph where I stated I was not making a personal
attack, I made only passing references to being mistaken. In fact, I
whent to considerable length not to try and make it appear personal
while at the same time trying to point out why your statements were in
error. The bulk of the e-mail was factural statements regarding the
current state of emacs.
It would seem that your so concerned about people thinking your stupid
that your makeing very basic errors in comprehension. I do not know you
and don't know whether your stupid or not, but the evidence does
indicate your overly defensive - to the point of interpreting any
attempt to correct any misinformation you have as a personal attack.
How would someone have to phrase a correction for you so that it is not
seen as a personal attack or do you never get anything wrong?
Tim
PS. I'm now very glad I didn't also correct your misinformation
concerning blind programmers and graphical UIs.
PPS. FYI I've been a blind programmer for over 10 years and do happen to
know a bit about it
Seamus MacRae
This looks like a personal attack with no logical purpose.
I shall provide you with a refresher on cons cells: they have two
pointers in them, called the address register and the decrement
register. Lists are implemented as unidirectional linked lists of cons
cells, with the decrement register pointing to the next list and the
address register to the list item. Hence the names -- address register
for the pointer to the list item, and decrement register for the pointer
to walk to get a one-shorter list, and eventually to reach the end of
the list.
Trees can also be represented, by pointing to more cons cells with the
address register, but a cons cell having only the two registers, these
trees are necessarily binary.
Other data structures, including higher-order trees, can be emulated by
various cumbersome means inside of a binary tree, but this is true of
all non-circular data structures. (And since cons cells can be made to
form circularities, in fact circular data structures can be implemented
on them as well -- but still only binary ones, or else emulated ones. A
fully general cons cell graph is a directed graph with unlimited
in-edges and max two out-edges per node.)
Series Expansion
> On May 25, 7:02 pm, Paul Foley <s...@below.invalid> (http://
>
> public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
>
> [Hey, Paul, How's it going? I like your argumentation, and the fact
> that you've kept a level head this last week or two with your answers,
> despite the challenges.]
He has not. Many of his posts have been laced with personal attacks,
at least implied ones.
> > gugamilare <gugamil...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > The only explanation I can conclude from this is that he is indeed
> > > doing this on purpose. There isn't another explanation. He must have a
>
> > He's pretty clearly insane.
>
> No, he's pretty clearly playing a game.
c) None of the above.
> The object of the game is to keep the thread going as long as possible.
Actually, were it to end tomorrow, I would not be displeased, so long
as no attack on my character, expressed or implied, has gone
unrebutted.
> He gives himself points (i.e. the thread is still alive) for answering
> every post that looks like they might be taken as a slight, and even
> some that can't (I love the way he played the answer "42"... :-)
As is so commonly the case with speculations made in a vacuum, this is
incorrect. Regarding specifically the post with the 42, there was also
an alteration to the quoted material in that post that suggested that
I was crazy, a "fuckhead", or similarly -- I don't recall exactly. It
was that, not the number, to which I was responding. Though now that
you mention it, the number was rather lacking in obvious relevance,
and appeared to constitute a non sequitur.
> And he's not going to get tired, because he doesn't have to think of
> clever twists to every answer;
On the contrary, I put a great deal of thought into my
counterarguments, when presented with things reasonably approximating
rational arguments. It is only when presented with an obviously
logically void "argument" such as "Series Expansion is an idiot" that
I have responded with an uncreative copy-and-paste reply, and that
because there is nothing really to say in response to such an
"argument" except to point out that it fails to logically support the
conclusion that you wish people to draw.
> Sprinkle that with a little on-topic but flawed logic and you have
> yourself a very impressive volley.
Nothing is flawed about my logic, unlike, for instance, that of those
people who see an ad hominem argument as a valid one in support of
Lisp over Java.
> The only way he loses his game is to lose his audience, which will
> happen when everyone stops answering his posts, no matter how insane
> and in need of an answer they seem to be.
None of them are either insane or, with the exception of those that
ask a question, in need of an answer.
> (Or, even more insidious, no matter how sane but slightly flawed
> they seem to be
None of them are flawed, either.
Series Expansion
> Series Expansion <sere...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On May 25, 4:22 am, Tim X <t...@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
> >> Series Expansion <sere...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > On May 24, 4:19 am, Tim X <t...@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
> >> >> Can't help but notice you cut my text just before the bit where I said
> >> >> this was *not* a personal attack
>
> >> > That was a lie. I have little interest in reading lies. If I ever do
> >> > develop an inexplicable urge to read lies, I will visit whitehouse.gov
> >> > or a similar politician-run site.
>
> >> OK, I see, its ok for you to personally attack me by claiming I lied
>
> > Well, it's kind of hard not to when you say something won't be a
> > personal atatck, and then spend four very long paragraphs telling the
> > whole world how stupid you think I am.
>
> Well, it seems you want it both ways. In your first reply, you stated
> you didn't read what followed, now your claiming it was 4 paragraphs
> of me telling the world how stupid you are. Either you read it or you
> did not.
I did not. I extrapolated its likely content after reading the first
sentence or two.
> Check it out again. I did NOT state you were stupid even once.
No, I expect you merely implied it repeatedly, probably mixed in with
liberal quantities of other forms of irrational behavior.
> In fact, I whent to considerable length not to try and make it appear
> personal while at the same time trying to point out why your statements
> were in error.
In other words, you went to considerable evidence to disguise the fact
that you were severely badmouthing me in public, while severely
badmouthing me in public. Hardly an admirable achievement worthy of
tooting one's own horn in this manner.
> The bulk of the e-mail was factural statements regarding the current
> state of emacs.
I believe you have misspelled "usenet article" and "counterfactual".
> It would seem that your so concerned about people thinking your stupid
> that your makeing very basic errors in comprehension.
These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either emacs or Eclipse, Tim.
> I do not know you and don't know whether your stupid or not, but the
> evidence does indicate your overly defensive - to the point of
> interpreting any attempt to correct any misinformation you have as a
> personal attack.
I do not spread misinformation.
Furthermore, I do not agree with your assertions about "overly
defensive". Even if I did, a public forum is not the appropriate place
to be discussing such matters. In a public forum, I must always
present as perfect as possible an appearance, and therefore am
compelled to deny all claims of flaws, regardless of whether or not I
privately think there could be any truth to them. In other words, I
must maintain what is sometimes called "face", and "keep up
appearances". If you have something you wish to discuss with me that
is not appropriate for a public venue such as this, the gmail address
in my news headers is valid. Use it.
> How would someone have to phrase a correction for you so that it is not
> seen as a personal attack
They could do it privately.
> PS. I'm now very glad I didn't also correct your misinformation
I repeat: I do not spread misinformation.
Do not post such a vile accusation again, or I may have to consider
taking legal action. Accusing someone of intentionally corrupt
conduct, where such is not the case, is a violation of defamation laws
in most jurisdictions.
> PPS. FYI I've been a blind programmer for over 10 years
This confirms why your perceptions of the strengths and shortcomings
of various user-interfaces are abnormal. Rest assured that most people
do, and will continue to, find graphical interfaces easier and more
productive to use.
anonymous...@gmail.com
> On May 26, 3:34 am, du...@franz.com wrote:
>
> > On May 25, 7:02 pm, Paul Foley <s...@below.invalid> (http://
>
> > public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
>
> > [Hey, Paul, How's it going? I like your argumentation, and the fact
> > that you've kept a level head this last week or two with your answers,
> > despite the challenges.]
>
> He has not. Many of his posts have been laced with personal attacks,
> at least implied ones.
>
attacks doesn't constitute a personal attack?
> > > gugamilare <gugamil...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > The only explanation I can conclude from this is that he is indeed
> > > > doing this on purpose. There isn't another explanation. He must have a
>
> > > He's pretty clearly insane.
>
> > No, he's pretty clearly playing a game.
>
> c) None of the above.
>
logically, would you admit to it if you were?
> > The object of the game is to keep the thread going as long as possible.
>
> Actually, were it to end tomorrow, I would not be displeased, so long
> as no attack on my character, expressed or implied, has gone
> unrebutted.
>
The only one doing damage to your public image is you. Replying with
the same copy-paste response does more to validate the flames than
ignoring them would.
> > He gives himself points (i.e. the thread is still alive) for answering
> > every post that looks like they might be taken as a slight, and even
> > some that can't (I love the way he played the answer "42"... :-)
>
> As is so commonly the case with speculations made in a vacuum, this is
> incorrect. Regarding specifically the post with the 42, there was also
> an alteration to the quoted material in that post that suggested that
> I was crazy, a "fuckhead", or similarly -- I don't recall exactly. It
> was that, not the number, to which I was responding. Though now that
> you mention it, the number was rather lacking in obvious relevance,
> and appeared to constitute a non sequitur.
>
To some extent, it is crazy to argue so vigorously about something of
which you know very little...
> > And he's not going to get tired, because he doesn't have to think of
> > clever twists to every answer;
>
> On the contrary, I put a great deal of thought into my
> counterarguments, when presented with things reasonably approximating
> rational arguments. It is only when presented with an obviously
> logically void "argument" such as "Series Expansion is an idiot" that
> I have responded with an uncreative copy-and-paste reply, and that
> because there is nothing really to say in response to such an
> "argument" except to point out that it fails to logically support the
> conclusion that you wish people to draw.
>
Your time would be better spent learning than counter-arguing.
> > Sprinkle that with a little on-topic but flawed logic and you have
> > yourself a very impressive volley.
>
> Nothing is flawed about my logic, unlike, for instance, that of those
> people who see an ad hominem argument as a valid one in support of
> Lisp over Java.
>
The problem is that this thread has not been about 'Arguments favoring
lisp over java'.
It has been about correcting yours and Seamus MacRae's misconceptions
(which you state as fact) about Common Lisp.
And it has started appear to some, that these misconceptions may be
deliberate.
(To others it was apparent /literally/ weeks ago).
Paul Donnelly
> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.nospam> writes:
>>
>>> Perhaps the ability of cons cells to represent, directly, only binary
>>> trees, and cons trees' use of position instead of name as lookup key,
>>> could have something to do with it?
>>
>> That likely is what a person who didn't know anything about
>> s-expressions might think. Good point.
>
> This looks like a personal attack with no logical purpose.
That's a problem on your end. Although the "no logical purpose" part
cuts a little close, I must admit. I can't think of a logical reason I
should be responding to your posts... yet here I am. At least I'm not
stooping to reading them, right?
Series Expansion
[snip]
Please do not lie in wait refreshing your view of the newsgroup every
few minutes and then immediately follow up to my new posts to attack
them.
> On May 26, 10:04 pm, Series Expansion <sere...@gmail.com> wrote:> On May 26, 3:34 am, du...@franz.com wrote:
> > public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
>
> > > [Hey, Paul, How's it going? I like your argumentation, and the fact
> > > that you've kept a level head this last week or two with your answers,
> > > despite the challenges.]
>
> > He has not. Many of his posts have been laced with personal attacks,
> > at least implied ones.
>
> I suppose claiming things that aren't personal attacks as personal
> attacks doesn't constitute a personal attack?
I wouldn't know. And since I have done nothing of the sort, it is not
relevant anyway.
> > > > > The only explanation I can conclude from this is that he is indeed
> > > > > doing this on purpose. There isn't another explanation. He must have a
>
> > > > He's pretty clearly insane.
>
> > > No, he's pretty clearly playing a game.
>
> > c) None of the above.
>
> logically, would you admit to it if you were?
Are you calling me a liar?
> > > The object of the game is to keep the thread going as long as possible.
>
> > Actually, were it to end tomorrow, I would not be displeased, so long
> > as no attack on my character, expressed or implied, had gone
> > unrebutted.
>
> The only one doing damage to your public image is you. Replying with
> the same copy-paste response does more to validate the flames than
> ignoring them would.
Based on your behavior, I conclude that your motives in offering the
above "advice" are suspect, and therefore that what you say cannot be
trusted.
Regardless, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with my behavior. I have
nothing to be ashamed of, unlike the numerous persons rudely
speculating about me as if I were absent, calling me names, and
otherwise engaged in petty and vindictive behavior because they
couldn't convince me to convert to their religious beliefs regarding
Lisp.
> > > He gives himself points (i.e. the thread is still alive) for answering
> > > every post that looks like they might be taken as a slight, and even
> > > some that can't (I love the way he played the answer "42"... :-)
>
> > As is so commonly the case with speculations made in a vacuum, this is
> > incorrect. Regarding specifically the post with the 42, there was also
> > an alteration to the quoted material in that post that suggested that
> > I was crazy, a "fuckhead", or similarly -- I don't recall exactly. It
> > was that, not the number, to which I was responding. Though now that
> > you mention it, the number was rather lacking in obvious relevance,
> > and appeared to constitute a non sequitur.
>
> To some extent, it is crazy to argue so vigorously about something of
> which you know very little...
I know enough about myself to know that having one of my posts
misquoted as "> [brain fuck]" is an incorrect assessment of me.
> > > And he's not going to get tired, because he doesn't have to think of
> > > clever twists to every answer;
>
> > On the contrary, I put a great deal of thought into my
> > counterarguments, when presented with things reasonably approximating
> > rational arguments. It is only when presented with an obviously
> > logically void "argument" such as "Series Expansion is an idiot" that
> > I have responded with an uncreative copy-and-paste reply, and that
> > because there is nothing really to say in response to such an
> > "argument" except to point out that it fails to logically support the
> > conclusion that you wish people to draw.
>
> Your time would be better spent learning than counter-arguing.
Ignoring for the time being the factually-incorrect implied insult
contained in your remark, if you honestly believe this, and you
honestly have my best intentions at heart, then you should desist from
harassing me online and thereby free up some time from "counter-
arguing" to expend pursuing another activity, such as learning.
Quite clearly, the more you publicly argue for my mistreatment by
others, the more time I must spend in counter-arguing.
So while your words say one thing, your actions say quite the
opposite.
> > > Sprinkle that with a little on-topic but flawed logic and you have
> > > yourself a very impressive volley.
>
> > Nothing is flawed about my logic, unlike, for instance, that of those
> > people who see an ad hominem argument as a valid one in support of
> > Lisp over Java.
>
> The problem is that this thread has not been about 'Arguments favoring
> lisp over java'.
Yes, it has, although it was originally about someone's job search.
> It has been about correcting yours and Seamus MacRae's misconceptions
> [rest of post deleted unread]
I have no misconceptions.
These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, anonymous.c.lisper.
anonymous...@gmail.com
> On May 26, 10:22 pm, anonymous.c.lis...@gmail.com wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Please do not lie in wait refreshing your view of the newsgroup every
> few minutes and then immediately follow up to my new posts to attack
> them.
I had no idea I was the one making hundreds of posts.
> > On May 26, 10:04 pm, Series Expansion <sere...@gmail.com> wrote:> On May 26, 3:34 am, du...@franz.com wrote:
> > > public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
>
> > > > [Hey, Paul, How's it going? I like your argumentation, and the fact
> > > > that you've kept a level head this last week or two with your answers,
> > > > despite the challenges.]
>
> > > He has not. Many of his posts have been laced with personal attacks,
> > > at least implied ones.
>
> > I suppose claiming things that aren't personal attacks as personal
> > attacks doesn't constitute a personal attack?
>
> I wouldn't know. And since I have done nothing of the sort, it is not
> relevant anyway.
>
> > > > > > The only explanation I can conclude from this is that he is indeed
> > > > > > doing this on purpose. There isn't another explanation. He must have a
>
> > > > > He's pretty clearly insane.
>
> > > > No, he's pretty clearly playing a game.
>
> > > c) None of the above.
>
> > logically, would you admit to it if you were?
>
> Are you calling me a liar?
>
No, I'm saying that your opinion on the matter doesn't have any
weight.
> > > > The object of the game is to keep the thread going as long as possible.
>
> > > Actually, were it to end tomorrow, I would not be displeased, so long
> > > as no attack on my character, expressed or implied, had gone
> > > unrebutted.
>
> > The only one doing damage to your public image is you. Replying with
> > the same copy-paste response does more to validate the flames than
> > ignoring them would.
>
> Based on your behavior, I conclude that your motives in offering the
> above "advice" are suspect, and therefore that what you say cannot be
> trusted.
>
Which behavior?
I've tried to either a.) be civil, or b.) stay out of it.
> Regardless, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with my behavior. I have
> nothing to be ashamed of, unlike the numerous persons rudely
Well, aside from the hundreds of misinformed posts.
> speculating about me as if I were absent, calling me names, and
> otherwise engaged in petty and vindictive behavior because they
> couldn't convince me to convert to their religious beliefs regarding
> Lisp.
I honestly couldn't care less if you like any language.
Posting incorrect information to a public forum is malicious, however.
>
> > > > He gives himself points (i.e. the thread is still alive) for answering
> > > > every post that looks like they might be taken as a slight, and even
> > > > some that can't (I love the way he played the answer "42"... :-)
>
> > > As is so commonly the case with speculations made in a vacuum, this is
> > > incorrect. Regarding specifically the post with the 42, there was also
> > > an alteration to the quoted material in that post that suggested that
> > > I was crazy, a "fuckhead", or similarly -- I don't recall exactly. It
> > > was that, not the number, to which I was responding. Though now that
> > > you mention it, the number was rather lacking in obvious relevance,
> > > and appeared to constitute a non sequitur.
>
> > To some extent, it is crazy to argue so vigorously about something of
> > which you know very little...
>
> I know enough about myself to know that having one of my posts
> misquoted as "> [brain fuck]" is an incorrect assessment of me.
>
Welp!
> > > > And he's not going to get tired, because he doesn't have to think of
> > > > clever twists to every answer;
>
> > > On the contrary, I put a great deal of thought into my
> > > counterarguments, when presented with things reasonably approximating
> > > rational arguments. It is only when presented with an obviously
> > > logically void "argument" such as "Series Expansion is an idiot" that
> > > I have responded with an uncreative copy-and-paste reply, and that
> > > because there is nothing really to say in response to such an
> > > "argument" except to point out that it fails to logically support the
> > > conclusion that you wish people to draw.
>
> > Your time would be better spent learning than counter-arguing.
>
> Ignoring for the time being the factually-incorrect implied insult
> contained in your remark,
Which insult? That you don't know about common lisp?
That isn't implied and it isn't an insult.
It is a very apparent state of affairs.
> if you honestly believe this, and you
> honestly have my best intentions at heart, then you should desist from
> harassing me online and thereby free up some time from "counter-
> arguing" to expend pursuing another activity, such as learning.
So by being polite in responding to you I am harassing you online?
An interesting definition of harassment indeed.
> Quite clearly, the more you publicly argue for my mistreatment by
> others, the more time I must spend in counter-arguing.
Huh? Someone is mistreating you?
> So while your words say one thing, your actions say quite the
> opposite.
>
I've only posted words...
> > > > Sprinkle that with a little on-topic but flawed logic and you have
> > > > yourself a very impressive volley.
>
> > > Nothing is flawed about my logic, unlike, for instance, that of those
> > > people who see an ad hominem argument as a valid one in support of
> > > Lisp over Java.
>
> > The problem is that this thread has not been about 'Arguments favoring
> > lisp over java'.
>
> Yes, it has, although it was originally about someone's job search.
>
Maybe for you.
> > It has been about correcting yours and Seamus MacRae's misconceptions
> > [rest of post deleted unread]
>
> I have no misconceptions.
>
You're not stubborn either.
> These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
> in favor of either Lisp or Java, anonymous.c.lisper.
Well shit, that was about as nice as I get!
Tim X
> On May 26, 3:58 am, Tim X <t...@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
>> Series Expansion <sere...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > On May 25, 4:22 am, Tim X <t...@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
>> >> Series Expansion <sere...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> > On May 24, 4:19 am, Tim X <t...@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
>> >> >> Can't help but notice you cut my text just before the bit where I said
>> >> >> this was *not* a personal attack
>>
>> >> > That was a lie. I have little interest in reading lies. If I ever do
>> >> > develop an inexplicable urge to read lies, I will visit whitehouse.gov
>> >> > or a similar politician-run site.
>>
>> >> OK, I see, its ok for you to personally attack me by claiming I lied
>>
>> > Well, it's kind of hard not to when you say something won't be a
>> > personal atatck, and then spend four very long paragraphs telling the
>> > whole world how stupid you think I am.
>>
>> Well, it seems you want it both ways. In your first reply, you stated
>> you didn't read what followed, now your claiming it was 4 paragraphs
>> of me telling the world how stupid you are. Either you read it or you
>> did not.
>
> I did not. I extrapolated its likely content after reading the first
> sentence or two.
So, you attack me by calling me a liar and you didn't even read what I
wrote.
>
>> Check it out again. I did NOT state you were stupid even once.
>
> No, I expect you merely implied it repeatedly, probably mixed in with
> liberal quantities of other forms of irrational behavior.
So, now you are attacking me by saying I'm irrational based on your
'extrapolation' of what I wrote which you did not read. You must have
one hell of an ego to think anyone could be bothered writing anything
about you one way or the other. My post was not about you, it was about
correcting incorrect statements made concerning emacs. You as a person
are totally irrelevant.
>
>> In fact, I whent to considerable length not to try and make it appear
>> personal while at the same time trying to point out why your statements
>> were in error.
>
> In other words, you went to considerable evidence to disguise the fact
> that you were severely badmouthing me in public, while severely
> badmouthing me in public. Hardly an admirable achievement worthy of
> tooting one's own horn in this manner.
You have admitted that you only read the first couple of
sentences. Where in those sentences did I 'bad mouth you'? In reality,
what your saying is that you believe, without any evidence whatever,
that I attacked and bad mouthed you. There is a term for what you have -
paranoia
You didn't read the rest, so you wouldn't know if I bad mouthed you or
not. Just for the record, I did not. Your attack on me is completely
unjustified. All I did was attempt to point out where you were in
error. In fact, the paragraphs that followed did not reference you at
all. It referenced mistakes and it pointed out how emacs could do what
you claimed it could not.
>
>> The bulk of the e-mail was factural statements regarding the current
>> state of emacs.
>
> I believe you have misspelled "usenet article" and "counterfactual".
>
I believe you realise you got things totally wrong and now your trying
to get back face my picking up one error (writing e-mail when I should
have said 'post' or 'article') and a rather poor attempt at wit with
your reference to counterfactual. The ironic part of this is that your
statements about emacs were the ones that were counterfactual. something
that can be easily established by simply reading the NEWS file for Emacs
23.
>> It would seem that your so concerned about people thinking your stupid
>> that your makeing very basic errors in comprehension.
>
> These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
> in favor of either emacs or Eclipse, Tim.
Talk about pot calling the kettle black
For the record, I don't have any opinion regarding eclipse. I happen to
like emacs, but I don't care if nobody else likes it. As I stated in my
original e-mail, different strokes for different folks. All I was doing
was correcting your errors.
>> I do not know you and don't know whether your stupid or not, but the
>> evidence does indicate your overly defensive - to the point of
>> interpreting any attempt to correct any misinformation you have as a
>> personal attack.
>
> I do not spread misinformation.
>
You have made statements in previous messages that I have lied and I
have bad mouthed you, neither of which are true. Of course I know you
will say otherwise. My challenge to you would be to show actual
instances where I have lied or bad mouthed you.
I used the term misinformation because I thought maybe you would read it
and not consider it a personal attack. The bottom line is that
statements you made about emacs are incorrect. Call it being wrong,
being in error or misinformation, whatever you like.
> Furthermore, I do not agree with your assertions about "overly
> defensive". Even if I did, a public forum is not the appropriate place
> to be discussing such matters. In a public forum, I must always
> present as perfect as possible an appearance, and therefore am
> compelled to deny all claims of flaws, regardless of whether or not I
> privately think there could be any truth to them. In other words, I
> must maintain what is sometimes called "face", and "keep up
> appearances". If you have something you wish to discuss with me that
> is not appropriate for a public venue such as this, the gmail address
> in my news headers is valid. Use it.
>
If that is your aim, I regret to inform you that this has not been the
outcome. You attacked me for doing nothing more than attempt to correct
your mistaken beliefs regarding what emacs could and could not do. My
only criticism of you at that time was to say you were mistaken and in
error. In return, you called me a liar and then later said I bad mouthed
you, which I have not. Again, I challenge you to show me one example of
where I have bad mouthed you. Failing that, I expect a full and sincere
apology.
>> How would someone have to phrase a correction for you so that it is not
>> seen as a personal attack
>
> They could do it privately.
>
If you make a statement of error in a public forum, why is it not also
acceptable for others in that public forum to correct you. If I only
correct you privately, how does that help others who could be led astray
by your error?
I also find this a rather large contradiction. You have stated on more
than one occasion that you cannot let things people have written about
you go without being addressed because they are wrong and could have a
negative impact - what you referred to as keeping face. At the same
time, you don't want anyone to correct your public mistakes in public,
only privately. This seems like a bit of a double standard.
>> PS. I'm now very glad I didn't also correct your misinformation
>
> I repeat: I do not spread misinformation.
>
> Do not post such a vile accusation again, or I may have to consider
> taking legal action. Accusing someone of intentionally corrupt
> conduct, where such is not the case, is a violation of defamation laws
> in most jurisdictions.
>
Are you kidding? Your posts have been chock a block full of errors of
fact, which I would call misinformation. You continue to speak with
authority on matters for which you have at best only a passing
familliarity and refuse to accept correction from others even when the
correction is backed up with verifiable facts.
You have spread misinformation.
Now you threaten me with legal action. Well, come on, bring it on big
mouth. Either put up or shut up! lets go into court. You can enter my
posts in this thread as evidence to support your case and I will enter
yours. The law is an ass, but I'm sure it will spot an even bigger one
once they see the thread of your posts.
I hereby state to all readers of this group to be wary of Series
Expansion. He has a overriding desire to maintain what he believes is
'face' at any cost and will not accept correction on any point in public. He has
failed to recognise that one of the most convincing traits of someone
with good character is the ability to admit when your wrong or have made
a mistake. He will not hesitate to accuse others of being liars and bad
mouthing him with absolutely no evidence. He maintains a double standard
which, in his mind, justifies his personal attacks on others as
reasonable while refusing any criticism of himself as a personal attack
even when that criticism was restricted to the errors in what he has
posted and made no reference to him at a personal level.
In short, his behavior is less than rational, overly defensive and not
what wold be considered normal for a well balanced and mature
individual. He cannot be reasoned with.He is to be avoided.
>> PPS. FYI I've been a blind programmer for over 10 years
>
> This confirms why your perceptions of the strengths and shortcomings
> of various user-interfaces are abnormal. Rest assured that most people
> do, and will continue to, find graphical interfaces easier and more
> productive to use.
Not once did I state a single comment regarding GUIs. I've not made any
judgement call either way, I've not stated emacs is better or worse than
any other editor. All I did was point out the errors you made concerning
what emacs could and could not do. I have made not one reference to the
strengths or weaknesses of GUIs.
Again, find one single reference where I stated GUIs were less
productive or not as good or anything negative. You won't find I made a
single comment. This means your above paragraph is either a deliberate
lie or an honest mistake. either way, it is incorrect information, or as
some would call it misinformation
Just for the record, I've been a blind programmer for 10 years, but I've
been programming for a lot lot longer than that and have used many
graphical GUIs. I've not actually noticed any productivity differences
between a good nonGUI and a good GUI environment. As a touch typist, I
do prefer to use the keyboard over the mouse, but these days, mouse
support is not limited to GUIs anyway.
Are you by any chance suffering from schizophrenia? I use to be a
social worker and a lot of your behavior and delusions are very similar
to how many of my clients would behave. Your obsession over your
reputation is odd to say the least - I mean, what sort of reputation
does 'Series Expansion' have anyway and even if 'Series Expansion' got a
bad reputation, you could just change your childish handle to something
else, like parallel contraction and apart from people wondering if your
going to give birth to twins, nobody would even know it was you. I mean,
its not like you would have to change your identity through legal means
or join the witness protection program or anything - its just a silly
little nickname anyway.
I see no point in continuing this further. My efforts and what I think
of you are now on record. Post as many followups as you like, but don't
expect them to change the facts.
I do hope you find some peace in life because I don't think you will
find it on usernet.
tim
Seamus MacRae
> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>> This looks like a personal attack with no logical purpose.
>
> That's a problem on your end.
No, I can assure you that any potty-mouthedness problem is at your end.
> Although the "no logical purpose" part cuts a little close, I must
> admit. I can't think of a logical reason I should be responding to
> your posts... yet here I am. At least I'm not stooping to reading
> them, right?
And here is another personal attack.
I will, however, note for the record that at 02:38 UCT on May 27, 2009,
you did admit that you reply to posts without even reading them, thus
explaining why many of your posts do not logically refute their
predecessors, or even reference the topic of a debate (such as, say,
Java vs. Lisp), but merely contain an assortment of personal attacks.
Paul Donnelly
> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>> Although the "no logical purpose" part cuts a little close, I must
>> admit. I can't think of a logical reason I should be responding to
>> your posts... yet here I am. At least I'm not stooping to reading
>> them, right?
>
> And here is another personal attack.
To whom are you writing? *I* know what it is because *I* wrote it all by
myself, so not to me. Certainly I couldn't tarnish your reputation
further, so not to other participants in this "discussion". I don't
think your mother reads Usenet, and even if she did, what would she do?
It seems you're attempting to deflect attention from the substance of
the posts in this thread by frantically pursuing other topics. I would
advise you to debate with substance rather than resorting to that
tactic if you want to get anywhere.
Thomas A. Russ
Well, I'm not sure this is the best response. You have at several
points in this thread stated things about how lisp works or how it must
work that are objectively and patently false. Reference to the Common
Lisp specification often backs up that observation.
Now if you truly have no misconceptions and yet continue to make
statements that are untrue, what is the only logical conclusion that
observers can make? It seems that the force of logic would then require
that we conclude that you are knowingly making false statements rather
than making them out of ignorance of the truth.
So is that the conclusion you wish us to derive?
> These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
> in favor of either Lisp or Java, anonymous.c.lisper.
Commenting on incorrect technical arguments is not a personal attack.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
Series Expansion
> On May 26, 10:46 pm, Series Expansion <sere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Please do not lie in wait refreshing your view of the newsgroup every
> > few minutes and then immediately follow up to my new posts to attack
> > them.
>
> I had no idea I was the one making hundreds of posts.
I never made any claim as to how many posts you'd made. I only noted
that you followed up to one of mine within a very few minutes of my
having posted it, which indicates that you are, at least, READING my
posts very obsessively, even if replying only to a very few of them.
> > > > > > > The only explanation I can conclude from this is that he is indeed
> > > > > > > doing this on purpose. There isn't another explanation. He must have a
>
> > > > > > He's pretty clearly insane.
>
> > > > > No, he's pretty clearly playing a game.
>
> > > > c) None of the above.
>
> > > logically, would you admit to it if you were?
>
> > Are you calling me a liar?
>
> No
Yes, you were. You clearly indicated distrust.
> > > The only one doing damage to your public image is you. Replying with
> > > the same copy-paste response does more to validate the flames than
> > > ignoring them would.
>
> > Based on your behavior, I conclude that your motives in offering the
> > above "advice" are suspect, and therefore that what you say cannot be
> > trusted.
>
> Which behavior?
Your hostility. You have posted numerous personal attacks against me
in a public forum. From this I infer a high probability that your
goals include to convince others to regard me or treat me in a hostile
manner. Such goals would indicate that you do not have my best
interests at heart. It is likely that any "advice" you gave me is in
furtherance of your own goals, and given that those goals apparently
include ones harmful to me, it is reasonable to suspect that following
your "advice" might therefore have adverse consequences to me, making
ignoring it the safer course of action.
> I've tried to either a.) be civil, or b.) stay out of it.
Then you've failed.
> > Regardless, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with my behavior. I have
> > nothing to be ashamed of, unlike the numerous persons rudely
>
> Well, aside from the hundreds of misinformed posts.
I have posted no misinformed posts.
> > speculating about me as if I were absent, calling me names, and
> > otherwise engaged in petty and vindictive behavior because they
> > couldn't convince me to convert to their religious beliefs regarding
> > Lisp.
>
> I honestly couldn't care less if you like any language.
> Posting incorrect information to a public forum is malicious, however.
Since I have not done that, this statement is apropos of nothing.
> > > > > He gives himself points (i.e. the thread is still alive) for answering
> > > > > every post that looks like they might be taken as a slight, and even
> > > > > some that can't (I love the way he played the answer "42"... :-)
>
> > > > As is so commonly the case with speculations made in a vacuum, this is
> > > > incorrect. Regarding specifically the post with the 42, there was also
> > > > an alteration to the quoted material in that post that suggested that
> > > > I was crazy, a "fuckhead", or similarly -- I don't recall exactly. It
> > > > was that, not the number, to which I was responding. Though now that
> > > > you mention it, the number was rather lacking in obvious relevance,
> > > > and appeared to constitute a non sequitur.
>
> > > To some extent, it is crazy to argue so vigorously about something of
> > > which you know very little...
>
> > I know enough about myself to know that having one of my posts
> > misquoted as "> [brain fuck]" is an incorrect assessment of me.
>
> Welp!
These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, anonymous.c.lisper.
> > > > > And he's not going to get tired, because he doesn't have to think of
> > > > > clever twists to every answer;
>
> > > > On the contrary, I put a great deal of thought into my
> > > > counterarguments, when presented with things reasonably approximating
> > > > rational arguments. It is only when presented with an obviously
> > > > logically void "argument" such as "Series Expansion is an idiot" that
> > > > I have responded with an uncreative copy-and-paste reply, and that
> > > > because there is nothing really to say in response to such an
> > > > "argument" except to point out that it fails to logically support the
> > > > conclusion that you wish people to draw.
>
> > > Your time would be better spent learning than counter-arguing.
>
> > Ignoring for the time being the factually-incorrect implied insult
> > contained in your remark,
>
> Which insult?
Your implication of incompetence.
> > if you honestly believe this, and you
> > honestly have my best intentions at heart, then you should desist from
> > harassing me online and thereby free up some time from "counter-
> > arguing" to expend pursuing another activity, such as learning.
>
> So by being polite in responding to you I am harassing you online?
No, by being impolite in responding to me, and particularly by
continuing to publicly promulgate undesirable notions about me, you
are harassing me and wasting my time.
> > Quite clearly, the more you publicly argue for my mistreatment by
> > others, the more time I must spend in counter-arguing.
>
> Huh? Someone is mistreating you?
You, for one, by arguing implicitly that others should do so, by
calling me names and making other negative assertions about me in a
public place.
> > So while your words say one thing, your actions say quite the
> > opposite.
>
> I've only posted words...
Posting words is an action.
> > > > > Sprinkle that with a little on-topic but flawed logic and you have
> > > > > yourself a very impressive volley.
>
> > > > Nothing is flawed about my logic, unlike, for instance, that of those
> > > > people who see an ad hominem argument as a valid one in support of
> > > > Lisp over Java.
>
> > > The problem is that this thread has not been about 'Arguments favoring
> > > lisp over java'.
>
> > Yes, it has, although it was originally about someone's job search.
>
> Maybe for you.
My job is secure, thanks.
> > These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
> > in favor of either Lisp or Java, anonymous.c.lisper.
>
> Well shit, that was about as nice as I get!
Then you should seek remedial lessons in politeness, particularly
regarding decorum in public.
Series Expansion
> Series Expansion <sere...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I did not. I extrapolated its likely content after reading the first
> > sentence or two.
>
> So, you attack me by calling me a liar and you didn't even read what I
> wrote.
I read up to the part where it became apparent that the sole purpose
of your post was to publicly lie about me. At that point, it became
apparent that the remainder of it was likely utterly without merit,
and therefore would have been a waste of my time to read.
> >> Check it out again. I did NOT state you were stupid even once.
>
> > No, I expect you merely implied it repeatedly, probably mixed in with
> > liberal quantities of other forms of irrational behavior.
>
> So, now you are attacking me by saying I'm irrational
You have made numerous implausible claims regarding the purported
capabilities of terminal-mode software, and you have viciously
attacked a complete stranger without provocation. Delusional psychoses
are a plausible hypothesis to explain such behavior.
I would respond similarly if I were accosted on the street by a man
haranguing me about black helicopters of highly improbable stealth and
speed, imploring me to beware of government programs of highly
implausible secrecy in the era of Wikileaks, and then, after I had
expressed my skepticism, accusing me loudly of being a CIA agent.
> You must have one hell of an ego to think anyone could be bothered
> writing anything about you one way or the other.
And yet, several people have, though little of it was either
flattering or accurate.
> My post was not about you, it was about correcting incorrect statements
I do not make incorrect statements. This is an excellent example of a
remark about me that is neither flattering nor accurate.
> You as a person are totally irrelevant.
As is this.
You are contradicting yourself every few sentences. This is another
reason for one to call you irrational.
> >> In fact, I whent to considerable length not to try and make it appear
> >> personal while at the same time trying to point out why your statements
> >> were in error.
>
> > In other words, you went to considerable evidence to disguise the fact
> > that you were severely badmouthing me in public, while severely
> > badmouthing me in public. Hardly an admirable achievement worthy of
> > tooting one's own horn in this manner.
>
> You have admitted that you only read the first couple of
> sentences. Where in those sentences did I 'bad mouth you'?
When you accused me of incompetence, if not of outright dishonesty.
> In reality, what your saying is that you believe, without any evidence
> whatever, that I attacked and bad mouthed you.
I have plenty of evidence, as does the Google Groups archive.
> There is a term for what you have - paranoia
This, of course, constitutes one more piece of evidence.
With your every post, you dig yourself into a deeper hole by saying
you have no hostility towards me and no desire to personally attack
me, while simultaneously posting yet more personal attacks.
> You didn't read the rest, so you wouldn't know if I bad mouthed you or
> not.
The part that I did read had already done so, so I did know that you
had.
Did you think it had been just a lucky guess?
> Just for the record, I did not.
This is clearly a lie. The record speaks for itself: you implied
negative things about me, repeatedly.
> Your attack on me is completely unjustified.
On the contrary, it is quite justified. It is your attack on me that
is unjustified.
I posted impersonal statements about computer software. You responded
with counterfactual claims, insults, and other retorts some of them
designed to elicit negative opinions of me in other people. At this
point, I called you on your violent and antisocial behavior. You were
the first to become uncivil.
> All I did was attempt to point out where you were in error.
And that, of course, was yours. Error, that is.
1. I made no error.
2. Even if I had, it would not have been polite for you to publicly
accuse me of having done so, instead of employing a private mode
of communication.
3. Regardless, what you said implied, in public, negative things
about me, which has undesirable side effects I am now endeavoring
to correct.
4. Compounding your error, you are now making containing said side
effects extremely difficult. I suspect you are doing so
intentionally, in which case you cannot claim that this is an
accident and must admit that you have hostile motives and that
these acts of yours constitute deliberate attacks.
> In fact, the paragraphs that followed did not reference you at all.
Not directly. They nonetheless implied certain inaccurate and unwanted
claims about me.
> >> The bulk of the e-mail was factural statements regarding the current
> >> state of emacs.
>
> > I believe you have misspelled "usenet article" and "counterfactual".
>
> I believe you realise you got things totally wrong
I did not.
> and now your trying to get back face
If that were true, it would seem that you are going to a great deal of
effort to deny me that opportunity. And since you apparently believe
your assertions to be true, then you clearly harbor an intent to deny
me that opportunity. Such an intent is clearly a hostile one,
contradicting, once again, your earlier claim to have no hostile
motives toward me.
> a rather poor attempt at wit
Personal attacks like this, of course, furnish further evidence.
Since you have demonstrated clear hostility in multiple ways, while
repeatedly denying harboring any, it is the inescapable conclusion of
logic that you, sir, are a liar, and therefore that none of what you
have written about me should be considered credible by anybody reading
this thread. There are in fact two reasons to disbelieve all negative
claims you have made, or implied, about me: 1. your proven track
record as a liar and 2. your demonstrated hostility, which is an
obvious reason to suspect bias even in the statements you make that
you believe to be true.
> The ironic part of this is that your statements about emacs were the ones
> that were counterfactual.
Calling me a liar is not going to help you much now that you have been
proven to be the liar here. It merely creates the appearance of
projection, a dishonest attempt to deflect blame, and possibly "sour
grapes".
> >> It would seem that your so concerned about people thinking your stupid
> >> that your makeing very basic errors in comprehension.
>
> > These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
> > in favor of either emacs or Eclipse, Tim.
>
> Talk about pot calling the kettle black
The only irony here is that your personal attack, laced with terms
such as "stupid" and accusations of "errors", is laced with multiple
spelling and grammar errors of your own making.
> For the record, I don't have any opinion regarding eclipse. I happen to
> like emacs, but I don't care if nobody else likes it.
Then you have no "horse in this race" and no logical reason to
continue posting, unless, of course, it's personal. Which you've
claimed it's not, a claim already established as being almost
certainly a lie.
> As I stated in my original e-mail, different strokes for different folks.
What e-mail?
> All I was doing was correcting your errors.
I have none for you to correct. What you actually were doing was
publicly smearing a complete stranger. This aggressively hostile act
suggests a need for you to find some alternative outlet for the
frustrations in your life.
> >> I do not know you and don't know whether your stupid or not, but the
> >> evidence does indicate your overly defensive - to the point of
> >> interpreting any attempt to correct any misinformation you have as a
> >> personal attack.
>
> > I do not spread misinformation.
>
> You have made statements in previous messages that I have lied and I
> have bad mouthed you, neither of which are true.
I have just proven that you have, indeed, both lied and bad-mouthed
me. Compounding your moral and strategic errors by telling additional,
easily-refuted lies is not in your best interests, Tim.
> Of course I know you will say otherwise. My challenge to you would
> be to show actual instances where I have lied or bad mouthed you.
I have done so above.
> I used the term misinformation because I thought maybe you would read it
> and not consider it a personal attack.
Accusing someone of spreading misinformation is, of course, a personal
attack.
> The bottom line is that statements you made about emacs are incorrect.
No, they are not. It is the statements you have made about me that are
incorrect, and many of the statements you have made appear now to be
outright lies.
> Call it being wrong, being in error or misinformation, whatever you like.
I call it unwarranted and, at least initially, personal attacks on me
by yourself.
Shame on you.
> > Furthermore, I do not agree with your assertions about "overly
> > defensive". Even if I did, a public forum is not the appropriate place
> > to be discussing such matters. In a public forum, I must always
> > present as perfect as possible an appearance, and therefore am
> > compelled to deny all claims of flaws, regardless of whether or not I
> > privately think there could be any truth to them. In other words, I
> > must maintain what is sometimes called "face", and "keep up
> > appearances". If you have something you wish to discuss with me that
> > is not appropriate for a public venue such as this, the gmail address
> > in my news headers is valid. Use it.
>
> If that is your aim, I regret to inform you that this has not been the
> outcome.
Is that a threat?
> You attacked me for doing nothing more than attempt to correct your
> mistaken beliefs
I have no mistaken beliefs for you to correct.
I attacked you for attacking me in public, which I hope you are now
coming to realize was a grievous error. Perhaps many people roll over
and submit to your particular form of abuse, and allow you to tell the
world what idiots they supposedly are, but you have found, in me, a
person who is unwilling to tolerate that and will fight back.
Next time, choose your target more carefully, or better yet, find a
better method of stress-relief than publicly dumping on random persons
on the Internet.
> My only criticism of you at that time was to say [deleted]
Your error was not in the content of your criticism of me. It was in
the fact of your criticism of me. Do not publicly criticize me.
> In return, you called me a liar and then later said I bad mouthed you
Because you had.
> Again, I challenge you to show me one example of where I have bad mouthed
> you.
Every post to this thread bearing your name, or nearly so.
> Failing that, I expect a full and sincere apology.
Expect what you wish, but as the saying goes, "do not hold your
breath".
> >> How would someone have to phrase a correction for you so that it is not
> >> seen as a personal attack
>
> > They could do it privately.
>
> If you make a statement of error in a public forum, why is it not also
> acceptable for others in that public forum to correct you.
I did not make "a statement of error" in a public forum.
> If I only correct you privately, how does that help others who could
> be led astray by your error?
Your response is yet another vicious accusation. I do not lead people
astray. You will desist from publicly accusing me of that or any other
malfeasance or you will face the consequences. I have already
mentioned, in other posts, that falsely accusing people publicly
without evidence is commonly a tort. That means I can sue you.
> I also find this a rather large contradiction. You have stated on more
> than one occasion that you cannot let things people have written about
> you go without being addressed because they are wrong and could have a
> negative impact - what you referred to as keeping face.
Keeping face is not quite technically accurate, since that would only
be applicable were I guilty, and I am not.
> At the same time, you don't want anyone to correct your public
> mistakes in public, only privately.
I have no public mistakes. Furthermore, there is a difference between
my defending myself when personally badmouthed, and your defending an
unfeeling, inanimate piece of computer software when you feel it is
being badmouthed. The latter certainly is not a situation justifying
badmouthing human beings, even the one that badmouthed your favorite
software.
Human beings have rights, as well as feelings, that software lacks.
Hence the difference, and hence the lack of the symmetry you seem to
be trying to imply.
Another violation of that implied symmetry is that my criticisms of
emacs are valid; your criticisms of me are not.
> > I repeat: I do not spread misinformation.
>
> > Do not post such a vile accusation again, or I may have to consider
> > taking legal action. Accusing someone of intentionally corrupt
> > conduct, where such is not the case, is a violation of defamation laws
> > in most jurisdictions.
>
> Are you kidding?
I do not "kid".
> Your posts have been chock a block full of errors of fact
They have not.
The remaining lies and other pieces of nonsense in your post, of which
there were numerous, have been deleted. This includes a blatant and
probably-illegal attempt to incite hostility in others, multiple
accusations of lying, accusations of various forms of stupidity and
incompetence, and, unsurprisingly, also accusations of mental illness,
as well as such childish namecalling as calling me an "ass" and my
name "childish".
I note that nothing remains after the deletion of all the nonsense.
Your posts seem to have a signal-to-noise ratio of zero. I suggest you
avoid making any more of them.
du...@franz.com
public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> du...@franz.com writes:
> >> gugamilare <gugamil...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > The only explanation I can conclude from this is that he is indeed
> >> > doing this on purpose. There isn't another explanation. He must have a
>
> >> He's pretty clearly insane.
>
> > No, he's pretty clearly playing a game. The object of the game is to
> > keep the thread going as long as possible. He gives himself points
>
> games, and to keep it up for weeks at a time.
Beware, such insanity is contagious.
Duane
Raffael Cavallaro
>> Sure, but i think it takes a certain kind of insanity to play these
>> games, and to keep it up for weeks at a time.
>
> Beware, such insanity is contagious.
Duane speaks from experience here; an experience I share. At some point
you have to let the other guy have the last word, even when that last
word is misinformation, otherwise your Usenet battle will eat your
life. I'm not complaining about the length of the thread (in fact, from
a purely selfish standpoint I find it entertaining, and sometimes
informative); I'm just concerned for the time and mental health of the
lisp posters.
I appreciate that the lisp people here have been acting in good faith,
trying to set the record straight, and they are to be commended for
that. But at this point, anyone lurking who can't see the pattern
(misinformation/falshood/unwarranted assumptions and their consequent
correction by the lisp posters) will never see it, no matter how many
corrections are posted. The result is that the lisp posters, though
well intentioned, are throwing good time after bad. Best to let those
who willfully post misinformation have the last word and use your time
for something productive or just to relax and spend time with your
loved ones.
just my $.02
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
Seamus MacRae
> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>>> Although the "no logical purpose" part cuts a little close, I must
>>> admit. I can't think of a logical reason I should be responding to
>>> your posts... yet here I am. At least I'm not stooping to reading
>>> them, right?
>> And here is another personal attack.
>
> To whom are you writing? *I* know what it is because *I* wrote it all by
> myself, so not to me.
Are you claiming it's not a personal attack? Implying that reading my
posts is "stooping" certainly seems to be.
> Certainly I couldn't tarnish your reputation further
This, of course, is another personal attack.
> It seems you're attempting to deflect attention from the substance of
> the posts in this thread by frantically pursuing other topics.
I think you made a spelling error there. It should have read:
> It seems I'm attempting to deflect attention from the substance of
> the posts in this thread by frantically pursuing other topics.
That, I'd agree with -- instead of discussing Lisp vs. Java, you're
frantically pursuing the topic of what a fuckhead you think Seamus
MacRae is, even though it's completely irrelevant.
> I would advise you to debate with substance rather than resorting
> to that tactic if you want to get anywhere.
Follow your own advice. When you have something relevant to Lisp or Java
to say, I will debate it "with substance". Until then, there is nothing
to debate. Whether or not I am whatever nasty things you're thinking of
is non-negotiable -- I am not, and that's the end of it. Is that clear?
Paul Donnelly
> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>>> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>>>> Although the "no logical purpose" part cuts a little close, I must
>>>> admit. I can't think of a logical reason I should be responding to
>>>> your posts... yet here I am. At least I'm not stooping to reading
>>>> them, right?
>>> And here is another personal attack.
>>
>> To whom are you writing? *I* know what it is because *I* wrote it all by
>> myself, so not to me.
>
> Are you claiming it's not a personal attack? Implying that reading my
> posts is "stooping" certainly seems to be.
No, I'm asking why you're whining about it like someone cares. Man up.
Seamus MacRae
> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>>>> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>>>>> Although the "no logical purpose" part cuts a little close, I must
>>>>> admit. I can't think of a logical reason I should be responding to
>>>>> your posts... yet here I am. At least I'm not stooping to reading
>>>>> them, right?
>>>> And here is another personal attack.
>>> To whom are you writing? *I* know what it is because *I* wrote it all by
>>> myself, so not to me.
>> Are you claiming it's not a personal attack? Implying that reading my
>> posts is "stooping" certainly seems to be.
>
> No, I'm asking why you're whining
I am not whining, and your claim otherwise constitutes yet another
personal attack.
Moreover, none of this seems relevant to either Lisp or Java.
Paul Donnelly
> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>>> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>>>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>>>>> And here is another personal attack.
>>>> To whom are you writing? *I* know what it is because *I* wrote it all by
>>>> myself, so not to me.
>>> Are you claiming it's not a personal attack? Implying that reading my
>>> posts is "stooping" certainly seems to be.
>>
>> No, I'm asking why you're whining
>
> I am not whining, and your claim otherwise constitutes yet another
> personal attack.
>
> Moreover, none of this seems relevant to either Lisp or Java.
Quite right. Thisi whining is completely irrelevant, and doesn't
constitute an argument in favor of either Java or Seamus MacRae. So why
do you feel so compelled to point out every single perceived slight?
Obviously it's because the argument isn't going your way and you wish to
distract everyone with some unrelated topic.
Seamus MacRae
> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>>>> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>>>>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>>>>>> And here is another personal attack.
>>>>> To whom are you writing? *I* know what it is because *I* wrote it all by
>>>>> myself, so not to me.
>>>> Are you claiming it's not a personal attack? Implying that reading my
>>>> posts is "stooping" certainly seems to be.
>>> No, I'm asking why you're whining
>> I am not whining, and your claim otherwise constitutes yet another
>> personal attack.
>>
>> Moreover, none of this seems relevant to either Lisp or Java.
>
> Quite right.
Then please do shut up.
(I've deleted the personal attacks and other nonsense that cluttered
things up after your admission that I was right. It didn't seem worth
keeping or responding to.)
Paul Donnelly
"Please, everyone pay attention to me! Look how abused I am. :("
You're not fooling anybody, but I do believe you're the most
irredeemably boring troll I've ever seen. Kudos to your tenacity which
has kept me following this thread thus far, but no points for style.
I'll save you some bandwidth and ask everyone to please note the
personal attacks in my post here.
Seamus MacRae
> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>>>> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>>>>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>>>>>> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>>>>>>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>>> And here is another personal attack.
>>>>>>> To whom are you writing? *I* know what it is because *I* wrote it all by
>>>>>>> myself, so not to me.
>>>>>> Are you claiming it's not a personal attack? Implying that reading my
>>>>>> posts is "stooping" certainly seems to be.
>>>>> No, I'm asking why you're whining
>>>> I am not whining, and your claim otherwise constitutes yet another
>>>> personal attack.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, none of this seems relevant to either Lisp or Java.
>>> Quite right.
>> Then please do shut up.
>>
>> (I've deleted the personal attacks and other nonsense that cluttered
>> things up after your admission that I was right. It didn't seem worth
>> keeping or responding to.)
>
> "Please, everyone pay attention to me! Look how abused I am. :("
>
> You're not fooling anybody
I'm not trying to fool anybody. I'm trying to get one of two things done:
a) Rerail this discussion to be about Java and Lisp again, or else
b) Shut it down entirely.
I do not want the public commentary about me-personally to continue.
Have I made myself clear?
> I do believe you're the most irredeemably boring troll I've ever
> seen. [rest of post deleted unread]
More personal attacks and zero on-topic substance. Please go away.
Lars Enderin
> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>>> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>>>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>>>>> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>>>>>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>>>>>>>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>>>> And here is another personal attack.
>>>>>>>> To whom are you writing? *I* know what it is because *I* wrote
>>>>>>>> it all by
>>>>>>>> myself, so not to me.
>>>>>>> Are you claiming it's not a personal attack? Implying that
>>>>>>> reading my
>>>>>>> posts is "stooping" certainly seems to be.
>>>>>> No, I'm asking why you're whining
>>>>> I am not whining, and your claim otherwise constitutes yet another
>>>>> personal attack.
You will not escape those "personal attacks" until you stop writing
ill-informed nonsense, which seems to be never, given your track record.
Your problem with "sizeof *foo" is just one of your most glaring errors.
You have to realize that you do make errors.
Seamus MacRae
> Seamus MacRae wrote:
>> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>>>> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>>>>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>>>>>> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>>>>>>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>>> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> And here is another personal attack.
>>>>>>>>> To whom are you writing? *I* know what it is because *I* wrote
>>>>>>>>> it all by
>>>>>>>>> myself, so not to me.
>>>>>>>> Are you claiming it's not a personal attack? Implying that
>>>>>>>> reading my
>>>>>>>> posts is "stooping" certainly seems to be.
>>>>>>> No, I'm asking why you're whining
>>>>>> I am not whining, and your claim otherwise constitutes yet another
>>>>>> personal attack.
>
> You will not escape those "personal attacks" until you stop writing
Why are you butting in, and with more off-topic nonsense? Let's get back
to discussing Java and Lisp please.
Series Expansion
> Series Expansion <sere...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On May 26, 10:22 pm, anonymous.c.lis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > It has been about correcting yours and Seamus MacRae's misconceptions
> > > [rest of post deleted unread]
>
> > I have no misconceptions.
>
> Well, I'm not sure this is the best response.
Indeed, your sneaky attempt to badmouth me behind my back by not
posting this to cljp was not a very good idea at all.
> [calls me a liar]
No, you're the liar.
> So is that the conclusion you wish us to derive?
No. The conclusion I wish you to derive is that I am an okay guy and
should be left in peace and NOT badmouthed in public.
> > These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
> > in favor of either Lisp or Java, anonymous.c.lisper.
>
> [calls me a liar]
These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, Thomas.
Arne Vajhøj
> On May 27, 5:40 pm, t...@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
>> So is that the conclusion you wish us to derive?
>
> No. The conclusion I wish you to derive is that I am an okay guy
If that is your wish, then you should change strategy - the
current one is not working !
Arne
Series Expansion
These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, Duane, Paul, and gugamilare.
Series Expansion
<raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote:
> On 2009-05-28 05:12:26 -0400, du...@franz.com said:
>
> >> Sure, but i think it takes a certain kind of insanity to play these
> >> games, and to keep it up for weeks at a time.
> > Beware, such insanity is contagious.
>
> Duane speaks from experience here; an experience I share. At some point
> you have to let the other guy have the last word, even when that last
These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, Raffael, Duane, and Paul.
Series Expansion
These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, Arne.
Tim Bradshaw
> These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
> in favor of either Lisp or Java, Raffael, Duane, and Paul.
I think this person (and perhaps the other noisy person in this thread)
might be some kind of variant on parry/aliza. If you look at the
responses they certainly have that
superficially-there-is-someone-there-but-actually-it's-just-a-machine
thing about them. the above quoted text (with the names varying) has
been posted about 10x in a row, which I also remember as a
characteristic of these things.
I think we may have been taken for a ride here.
Paul Donnelly
That poster's nature has been clear for quite a while, yet you choose to
respond anyway. Why does it make a difference if it's a machine wasting
your time rather than a human?
Tim Bradshaw
> That poster's nature has been clear for quite a while, yet you choose to
> respond anyway. Why does it make a difference if it's a machine wasting
> your time rather than a human?
It makes no difference. I have time to waste in either case.
Seamus MacRae
> On 2009-07-12 08:36:40 +0100, Series Expansion <ser...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
>> in favor of either Lisp or Java, Raffael, Duane, and Paul.
>
> I think this person (and perhaps the other noisy person in this thread)
Nope.
Seamus MacRae
> Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> writes:
>
>> On 2009-07-12 08:36:40 +0100, Series Expansion <ser...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
>>> in favor of either Lisp or Java, Raffael, Duane, and Paul.
>> I think this person (and perhaps the other noisy person in this
>> thread)
Nope.
Seamus MacRae
> Paul Donnelly <paul-d...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2009-07-12 08:36:40 +0100, Series Expansion <ser...@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
>>>> in favor of either Lisp or Java, Raffael, Duane, and Paul.
>>> I think this person (and perhaps the other noisy person in this
>>> thread)
Nope.
>>> might be some kind of variant on parry/aliza. If you look at
>>> the responses they certainly have that
>>> superficially-there-is-someone-there-but-actually-it's-just-a-machine
>>> thing about them. the above quoted text (with the names varying) has
>>> been posted about 10x in a row, which I also remember as a
>>> characteristic of these things.
>>>
>>> I think we may have been taken for a ride here.
> I am fskn sure of it.
> The asshole has trashed a whole froup where
> we all go to look for free NNTP services.
If you are referring to the newsgroup I think you are, Series Expansion
is definitely not posting there at all. There is an ongoing invasion of
that newsgroup by alt.usenet.kooks, which is trashing the group, but
neither Series Expansion nor I have anything to do with that. The
culprits in that case are Bob Larter and Sarah Ehret, along with Sn!pe,
phlatArse, Hu Flung Dung, China Blue, and a number of similarly
"creative" (by a 10-year-old's standards) pseudonyms, all of whom are
probably used collectively by a grand total of about three people with
way too much free time and way too little sense.
Vassil Nikolov
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:08:01 +0100, Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> said:
> I think this person (and perhaps the other noisy person in this
> thread) might be some kind of variant on parry/aliza. If you look at
> the responses they certainly have that
> superficially-there-is-someone-there-but-actually-it's-just-a-machine
> thing about them. the above quoted text (with the names varying) has
> been posted about 10x in a row, which I also remember as a
> characteristic of these things.
> I think we may have been taken for a ride here.
These tireless rational arguments do not constitute effective
group defense against either Parry or Eliza, Tim.
---Vassil.
P.S. I have received the following reply to the above:
These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of or against either artificial or natural intelligence,
Vassil.
---Prof. Higgins.
--
"Even when the muse is posting on Usenet, Alexander Sergeevich?"
Series Expansion
> On 2009-07-12 08:36:40 +0100, Series Expansion <sere...@gmail.com> said:
> > These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
> > in favor of either Lisp or Java, Raffael, Duane, and Paul.
>
> I think this person (and perhaps the other noisy person in this thread)
> might be some kind of variant on parry/aliza.
Then you think wrong.
> If you look at the responses they certainly have that
> superficially-there-is-someone-there-but-actually-it's-just-a-machine
> thing about them.
>
> I think we may have been taken for a ride here.
These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, Tim.
Series Expansion
> Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> writes:
> > thread) might be some kind of variant on parry/aliza.
No.
> > If you look at the responses they certainly have that
> > superficially-there-is-someone-there-but-actually-it's-just-a-machine
> > thing about them.
>
> > I think we may have been taken for a ride here.
>
> That poster's nature has been clear for quite a while, yet you choose to
> respond anyway. Why does it make a difference if it's a machine wasting
> your time rather than a human?
These tiresome personal attacks do not constitute rational arguments
in favor of either Lisp or Java, Paul and Tim.