Yup. We have another googling word-counter who is unable to do anything more with those words. The probability that this comatose patient will /ever/ wake up and start to think is approaching zero fast.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
* arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> | Your attitude is very stuck up, and there is no way I'm going to | apologise for just being newbie.
Good girl! Way to go! I hope every Common Lisp instructor in the world now goes through the list of "students" in their classes to pay particular attention to any "Melissa" and how she is doing. Anything but a failing grade is an insult to the institution at which she is enrolled.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
> > Oh yeah, I understand the "load" function. You save your text into a > > .lsp file. It still seems like the same thing to me. You "load" the .lsp > > file, but then you have to "load" it again next time you start it. > > Or is there something else I am missing here?
> The .lsp file contains your source code. Look up compile-file in your > documentation. compile-file can be used to create a .fasl file from > your .lsp file, by compiling it. So the .fasl file contains your > object code. You still have to load this into the listener with load, > but then your code runs much faster.
> With Lisp you normally have the option of running your code interpreted, > then compiling it after most if not all of the bugs are out. With C++ > (and Java) you have to compile it before you can run it.
> And as for loading it, "java Foo" loads class Foo.class into the JVM, > and > foo (a compiled C program) is loaded into the shell by typing it at > the command line. With Lisp, the listener replaces the command line, > and you type (load "foo.fasl") or (load "foo.lsp") depending on whether > you want to run the object code, or run the source on the interpreter.
> Hope that clears things up a bit.
> > Mel
> Le Hibou
Ah ok. So you can create a .fasl file. That makes sense.
One more little piece of confusion though. I understood that Java was an interpreted language?
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
> >> >> > Where does labelling people 'dimwit' and 'slut' fit into this > >> >> > defender of the truth mould?
> >> >> Those words are accurate descriptions, as it turned out. How does > >> >> ``Look, just fuck off will you.'' sound to you? Like some nice > >> >> person looking for explanations? You might find it enlightening > >> >> to look up who responded to what in that way.
> >> > It's called frustration after all the abuse I received for just > >> > being a newbie. I did NOT deserve the abuse. I was told I was dumb > >> > and various other name calling and assumptions which are not true.
> >> but the question is: judging by your actions here do they fit the > >> profile of dumb/immature?
> > no, my questions here fit the profile of someone who is a newbie and > > doesn't know a lot about lisp. If you think this is a crime, well then > > that's bad luck. I'm not going to apologise for being a newbie.
> I was not talking about your questions but your actions. Your actions fit > the profile of someone who is remarably childish.
here goes the insults again. You expect me not to get upset when you insult me? Mr Nagger insulted me by suggesting I was dumb. I got upset about that, and I won't apologise for that.
> >> I would say yes. If you want to change peoples perceptions of you > >> act differently.
> > My behaviour would have been very different if I wasn't abused. This > > is the first time it has ever happened to me (I have seen others > > abused in other groups though, and I have always frowned upon it). I'm > > not sorry for not taking the abuse particularly well. I'm sure you > > wouldn't have either if it was you in my position.
> You were not abused. If you think you were abused you are wrong.
> And I have been on the recieeving end of Erik's colorful use of language. > The short story was he was right, I appoligized for my mistake, no problems > since.
Whether he is right or wrong is no excuse for his behaviour. I never came here pretending to know *anything* about lisp. I started with saying what I *thought* I knew, and that's when the flood of insults appeared. It has been stated that I came here with all these misconceptions. This is incorrect, because I don't even have enough knowledge of the language to *have* misconceptions. I'm NOT going to apologise for my lack of knowledge. That's what I came here for, and I expected someone to help me - without blowing me away with highly technical advice (that I don't understand), and get abused for mentioning a few little things that I *thought* was true about lisp.
> >> > After the unnecessary attack from Mr Nagger here, I responded in > >> > the only was that was left for me. It's quite a bit more pleasing > >> > for me now, since I can't see his posts.
> >> Now here you go again behaving like a spoiled chiled, Nagger bs. If > >> you want to be treated with respect be respectful of others. Even if > >> you do not like Erik you should not take it out on everyone else. > >> This is an improper public display of being screwed up and childish. > >> You do not like someone fine, do not make it everyone elses problem.
> > The behaviour of this group is improper public display. To abuse and > > flame a newbie is NOT right. > > I am not impressed at all with the behaviour of many in this group, so > > I'm not trying to treat the likes of Nagger with respect. Unless I get > > treated more like a newbie should be treated, then the likes of Nagger > > don't get any of my respect. I will not apologise for that.
> You were not treated the way you were because you are new. You were > treated the way you were because you actions were that of a spoiled self > centered child.
See! Insults again. My actions were of someone who was upset about being insulted. Perhaps in your next reply you can stop insulting me, so that this conversation won't be so one sided. Just because I didn't tolerate the insults very well, DOES NOT make me a child.
> >> > And for those of you that say "We are professionals here, don't > >> > come here whinging"..........well all I can say that is a totally > >> > stuck up attitude. It is totally unprofessional to behave in this > >> > manner, so it's about time you guys get your hands out of your > >> > butts, and start learning how to communicate.
> >> You are expected to behave like an adult, tough.
> > Likewise.
> But I do. Among the things I do that mark me as an adult is sign my work, > when are you going to start?
And yet again, another insult. When Mr. Nagger started insulting me and abusing me, I had done nothing wrong. Now, you seem to perceive that I'm some little spoilt kid - and yet Mr. Nagger is considered right for his actions.
No. What I see here in this group is a bunch of stuck up *professionals* who don't know how to use the English language very well. In this group they also take part in verbal bashing of other languages. This is also certainly not professional, since it is this itself which many members here are sensitive about (when it comes to lisp). This is very contradictory, and as I have already said, it is unprofessional.
So if you guys want to throw around the *professional* and *adult* theme. Try practising what you preach. Being *adult* includes being tolerant of newbies, and allow them to make mistakes. Just because a newbie says "I heard that lisp is an interpreted language", doesn't mean they are a troll!
So before you go around stating that you are an *adult*, then try and reflect on your actions, and whether they are truly *adult* actions. Remember, you are *not* a newbie, so you must be much more responsible in your actions, and much more tolerant of ignorant posts.
> marc
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
> >> > By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object > >> > oriented before, so I don't understand how a procedural language > >> > works.
> >> You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you. Visit > >> http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?", then click on > >> "object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
> > Sometimes I am just looking for a simple answer. Much of what is on > > lisp.org goes straight over the top of my head. Remember, I have only > > *just* started learning lisp, and I simly don't understand the indepth > > analysis that is on lisp.org.
> > In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could have > > answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it in one > > word - "yes" or "no".
> You seem to have the very odd notion firmly wedged in your mind that people > owe you something. You are wrong. This is a discussion group not your > personal lisp tech support hotline. Someone posts something we talk about > it or not. Helping the orignal poster in the way they are willing to > accept has absolutly not one dam thing to do with this system.
> marc
You see to have the very odd problem of making assumptions about people that are not true. This is usenet, and I believe I am free to ask whatever lisp question I like.
You chose not to answer it, but yet someone else chose to. If you didn't like the question, and you found it too trivial, then why didn't you simply ignore it instead of your harsh reply?
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:24:33 -0700, Lovecraftesque > <Lovecraftes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Since many have already given you comprehensive answers, I will > >just present my personal opinion: Lisp is a magnificent language, with a > >wide applicability range. C++ is a piece of crap, combining the > >shortcomings of a that high level assembler that is C, together with many > >of the delusions of an object oriented approach.
> C++ is the language that everybody is using, Lisp is the language > that nobody is using. You can find a job to program in C++, you > cannot find a job to program in Lisp. You can write a long program > in C++ that is human readable, you an write short program in Lisp > that is not human readable. You can access many third party > libraries from C++ (such as ILOG CPLEX), you cannot access these > libraries from Lisp. You can freely post to comp.lang.c++ not being > afraid that they will tell you that you are dumb, you cannot post > to comp.lang.list without triggering nasty responses.
> A.L.
That is interesting :) Says something about the people here, doesn't it.
I have always believed, that if someone has to defend themselves, then they mustn't be particularly confident about themselves or their position....
So why is it that the people here have to defend lisp so vehemently? It sounds to me like Lisp is in a precarious position if lispers must attack anyone who so much as accidently suggests that there is something wrong as lisp.
Some of my posts should even have been taken light-heartedly, but yet lispers can't seem to do that.
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
Erik Naggum wrote: > Pascal Costanza, why do you give us the clear and unequivocal message > that you prefer this newsgroup to be filled with this kind of misbehaving > slut who tell people they need to learn to communicate with it instead of > thinking people who want to learn Common Lisp and manage to focus on that > task?
Look, you *stupid idiot*: Mel is not a misbehaving slut. She is just a newbie who has a hard time finding her way around. Most of her actions are very natural reactions. For example, making jokes about something she doesn't understand is a very natural thing to do. Of course, this is a clear sign of uncertainty, and may even not be a very intelligent thing to do in that situation. But it is natural. If you can't deal with this, then just leave it to other people who are more capable!
Furthermore, there are many people out there for whom Common Lisp is _not_ the most important thing in the world. Especially not when they are new to Common Lisp. There are many misconceptions about programming languages in general, but these misconceptions are taught almost everywhere. These misconceptions are backed by seemingly convincing arguments, they are actually very deceptive. For most people, programming languages are just tools among a range of other tools. They have a very neutral relationship to programming languages. This is one of the most successful misconceptions about programming languages out there.
So when someone enters "the world" of Common Lisp we have to face the fact that they don't share the same enthusiasm as most of us do. When they see people who praise Common Lisp beyond everything else, who are extremely defensive of "their baby", and who attack everyone who is not "enlightened" yet (and who therefore ridicule what they don't understand), they will almost inevitably think that we're just a bunch of idiots and will probably back out. Now, is this what /you/ want?
> What do /you/ gain from a newsgroup full of people who behave the
> way you so strongly encourage?
You still haven't understood what I want to encourage. I don't think that you even have any clue.
> You, the master of feel-good egoism,
Fuck you.
> bear
> direct responsibility for the continued behavior of this cretin and the > JPL lunatic by encouraging people to vent their feelings instead of trying > to stick to technical matters.
> > This is evidently the kind of people you
> prefer to hang around with.
Yes, I rather prefer to hang around with "this kind of people" than to hang around with you.
Pascal
-- Given any rule, however ‘fundamental’ or ‘necessary’ for science, there are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
>> > no, my questions here fit the profile of someone who is a newbie >> > and doesn't know a lot about lisp. If you think this is a crime, >> > well then that's bad luck. I'm not going to apologise for being a >> > newbie.
>> I was not talking about your questions but your actions. Your >> actions fit the profile of someone who is remarably childish.
> here goes the insults again. You expect me not to get upset when you > insult me? Mr Nagger insulted me by suggesting I was dumb. I got upset > about that, and I won't apologise for that.
I said that your actions fit a profile, ie you act like a dumb/childish person. If I wanted to say you were a dumb/childish person I would have said "you immature stupid twit". And you continue with the Nagger crap like a spoiled sullen child. You do not like him fine *SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT ALREADY*.
>> >> I would say yes. If you want to change peoples perceptions of you >> >> act differently.
>> > My behaviour would have been very different if I wasn't abused. >> > This is the first time it has ever happened to me (I have seen >> > others abused in other groups though, and I have always frowned >> > upon it). I'm not sorry for not taking the abuse particularly well. >> > I'm sure you wouldn't have either if it was you in my position.
>> You were not abused. If you think you were abused you are wrong.
>> And I have been on the recieeving end of Erik's colorful use of >> language. The short story was he was right, I appoligized for my >> mistake, no problems since.
> Whether he is right or wrong is no excuse for his behaviour. I never > came here pretending to know *anything* about lisp. I started with > saying what I *thought* I knew, and that's when the flood of insults > appeared. It has been stated that I came here with all these > misconceptions. This is incorrect, because I don't even have enough > knowledge of the language to *have* misconceptions. I'm NOT going to > apologise for my lack of knowledge. That's what I came here for, and I > expected someone to help me - without blowing me away with highly > technical advice (that I don't understand), and get abused for > mentioning a few little things that I *thought* was true about lisp.
But you use the I ma right justafacation to continue your poor behavior. Are the rules different for you then the rest of us? Clearly in your oppinion they are.
>> >> > After the unnecessary attack from Mr Nagger here, I responded in >> >> > the only was that was left for me. It's quite a bit more >> >> > pleasing for me now, since I can't see his posts.
>> >> Now here you go again behaving like a spoiled chiled, Nagger bs. >> >> If you want to be treated with respect be respectful of others. >> >> Even if you do not like Erik you should not take it out on >> >> everyone else. This is an improper public display of being screwed >> >> up and childish. You do not like someone fine, do not make it >> >> everyone elses problem.
>> > The behaviour of this group is improper public display. To abuse >> > and flame a newbie is NOT right. >> > I am not impressed at all with the behaviour of many in this group, >> > so I'm not trying to treat the likes of Nagger with respect. Unless >> > I get treated more like a newbie should be treated, then the likes >> > of Nagger don't get any of my respect. I will not apologise for >> > that.
>> You were not treated the way you were because you are new. You were >> treated the way you were because you actions were that of a spoiled >> self centered child.
> See! Insults again. My actions were of someone who was upset about > being insulted. Perhaps in your next reply you can stop insulting me, > so that this conversation won't be so one sided. > Just because I didn't tolerate the insults very well, DOES NOT make me > a child.
I never said you were a child, I said that you were behaving like one. If you cannot see the difference you need to get someone to explain it to you, this is called therapy. AU has national health care( I think), go use some.
>> >> > And for those of you that say "We are professionals here, don't >> >> > come here whinging"..........well all I can say that is a >> >> > totally stuck up attitude. It is totally unprofessional to >> >> > behave in this manner, so it's about time you guys get your >> >> > hands out of your butts, and start learning how to communicate.
>> >> You are expected to behave like an adult, tough.
>> > Likewise.
>> But I do. Among the things I do that mark me as an adult is sign my >> work, when are you going to start?
> And yet again, another insult. When Mr. Nagger started insulting me > and abusing me, I had done nothing wrong. Now, you seem to perceive > that I'm some little spoilt kid - and yet Mr. Nagger is considered > right for his actions.
see above
> No. What I see here in this group is a bunch of stuck up > *professionals* who don't know how to use the English language very > well. In this group they also take part in verbal bashing of other > languages. This is also certainly not professional, since it is this > itself which many members here are sensitive about (when it comes to > lisp). This is very contradictory, and as I have already said, it is > unprofessional.
then go away. stop wasting your time that could be spend doing your work.
> So if you guys want to throw around the *professional* and *adult* > theme. Try practising what you preach. Being *adult* includes being > tolerant of newbies, and allow them to make mistakes. Just because a > newbie says "I heard that lisp is an interpreted language", doesn't > mean they are a troll!
newbie != childish idiot
> So before you go around stating that you are an *adult*, then try and > reflect on your actions, and whether they are truly *adult* actions. > Remember, you are *not* a newbie, so you must be much more responsible > in your actions, and much more tolerant of ignorant posts.
ignorance is tolerated(as long as you make an honest effort to correct it), lazyness and deliberite stupidity are what cause you problems here.
* arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> | You expect me not to get upset when you insult me? Mr Nagger insulted me | by suggesting I was dumb. I got upset about that, and I won't apologise | for that.
But insluting other people is perfectly acceptable for you? I must admit to some fascination with the kinds of people that make up this world, but one of the saddest things is that I begin to understand how the American people could have "elected" George W. Bush.
| Whether he is right or wrong is no excuse for his behaviour.
But that you are wrong is apparently an excuse for yours.
| I'm NOT going to apologise for my lack of knowledge.
It is by now clear that you do not intend to do anything about it.
| My actions were of someone who was upset about being insulted.
Yet insluting other people and playing the victim is par for the course?
| Just because I didn't tolerate the insults very well, DOES NOT make me a | child.
Well, you can basically choose between a child and a retarded adult.
| When Mr. Nagger started insulting me and abusing me, I had done nothing | wrong.
You have more than made up for it by now, dear.
| Now, you seem to perceive that I'm some little spoilt kid - and yet | Mr. Nagger is considered right for his actions.
Yet this does not make you think?
| Being *adult* includes being tolerant of newbies, and allow them to make | mistakes.
No, being adult means helping people get /out/ of newbiehood.
| Just because a newbie says "I heard that lisp is an interpreted | language", doesn't mean they are a troll!
Yes, unfortunately, it does. You do not get to make these rules.
| Remember, you are *not* a newbie, so you must be much more responsible | in your actions, and much more tolerant of ignorant posts.
Wonderful! As if lack of knowledge and experience was not sufficiently repetitively used as an excuse for your immature behavior, you now make it clear that if you should ever learn something, /you/ would have to act more responsibly, as well, which, for you, is a massive /disincentive/ to stop being a newbie.
Where are the snipers when you really need them?
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
> You see to have the very odd problem of making assumptions about > people that are not true. This is usenet, and I believe I am free to > ask whatever lisp question I like.
You are free to ask it, my comment was that noone was requied to answer it. That does not mean that noone will answere it. It just means that you have no right to expect help not that you will not get some.
> You chose not to answer it, but yet someone else chose to. If you > didn't like the question, and you found it too trivial, then why > didn't you simply ignore it instead of your harsh reply?
Again I was not commenting on the question but explaining the process.
The answer is www.alu.org, www.cons.org, the handy dandy hyperspec and you doing some of your own work.
> In article <6gnrru4uckc81lh3fgpv70t6phs217r...@4ax.com>, > lewandoREM...@attglobal.net says... >> On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:24:33 -0700, Lovecraftesque >> <Lovecraftes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Since many have already given you comprehensive answers, I will >> >just present my personal opinion: Lisp is a magnificent language, >> >with a wide applicability range. C++ is a piece of crap, combining >> >the shortcomings of a that high level assembler that is C, together >> >with many of the delusions of an object oriented approach.
>> C++ is the language that everybody is using, Lisp is the language >> that nobody is using. You can find a job to program in C++, you >> cannot find a job to program in Lisp. You can write a long program >> in C++ that is human readable, you an write short program in Lisp >> that is not human readable. You can access many third party >> libraries from C++ (such as ILOG CPLEX), you cannot access these >> libraries from Lisp. You can freely post to comp.lang.c++ not being >> afraid that they will tell you that you are dumb, you cannot post >> to comp.lang.list without triggering nasty responses.
>> A.L.
> That is interesting :) > Says something about the people here, doesn't it.
> I have always believed, that if someone has to defend themselves, then > they mustn't be particularly confident about themselves or their > position....
So why do you defend your position so doggedly?????
> Look, your post isn't particularly helpful. It's quite a waste of > bandwidth.
Curious how you felt the need to quote my post in its entirety and only add a few useless sentences. Waste of bandwidth indeed.
> There are others here who *have* chosen to write helpful > things, and there was one post in particular that helped me grasp the > overall picture (with how the languages are different).
You seem to be quite bent on absolving yourself of any responsibility in the nature of the posts in reply to yours. My post was helpful in that it attempted (though obviously in futility) to draw to attention the reason for this. It is clear to me that intelligent discussion of any nature is above your mental abilities.
> Your attitude is very stuck up, and there is no way I'm going to > apologise for just being newbie.
Nobody expects you to apologize for being a newbie. However, you can apologize for asking banale questions and treating everybody here like your very own personal-lisp-coach-on-demand.
> > > By the way, is Lisp Object oriented? I have only learnt object oriented > > > before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
> > You shouldn't expect others to do your research for you. Visit > > http://www.lisp.org, then click on "What Is Lisp?", then click on > > "object-oriented / procedural". Learn.
> Sometimes I am just looking for a simple answer. Much of what is on > lisp.org goes straight over the top of my head. Remember, I have only > *just* started learning lisp, and I simly don't understand the indepth > analysis that is on lisp.org.
In-depth analysis? Maybe I'll recap what you would find had you followed my advice:
Common lisp provides integrated support for all these methodologies
If that's above your head, then you really shouldn't be in university.
> In the three lines it took you to say go to lisp.org, you could have > answered my question. In fact you could even have answered it in one > word - "yes" or "no".
Or I could have told you to fuck off. Do you think everybody here is your personal slave to help you the way you want to be helped? Do you tell your professors, "Look, instead of describing the theory so that I'll understand the principles behind it, how about just giving me the answer? It took you an entire semester just to write out e=mc^2! What a colossal waste of bandwidth!!!"
> I have always believed, that if someone has to defend themselves, then > they mustn't be particularly confident about themselves or their > position....
Funny, that's exactly what you do: "... but I'm just a NEWBIE!" "... I have only *just* started learning lisp..." "... I simply don't understand..." You try and defend yourself quite a lot in this newsgroup. Why is that?
arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> writes: > In article <slrnarffeb.990.davep.n...@hagbard.davep.org>,
> > Odd, I hardly ever enter functions in a "Listener". When I write Common Lisp > > code I type it in my editor, just like I would Java code or C++ code. > > Moreover, should I wish, I can create my CL's equivalent of a ".class" file > > or even a ".exe" file (although such a file doesn't have ".exe" in the name, > > but that's a property of my choice of OS).
> Oh yeah, I understand the "load" function. You save your text into a > .lsp file. It still seems like the same thing to me. You "load" the .lsp > file, but then you have to "load" it again next time you start it. > Or is there something else I am missing here?
You don''t have to re-load your source file unless you want to. While you're in Lisp, all your code (and data) persists. When you change the source, it is often easier to just reload it- but you can work from the Lisp prompt to manipulate or change whats loaded- redefine functions, call functions to test them, etc.. This is one of the huge benefits of Lisp; you can intelligently interact with your code as well as change it at runtime- all without exiting, recompiling & reloading. Its very easy to incrementally test your work in Lisp- whereas in a language like C you need to have something approximating a minimal implementation of your whole program before you can even compile much less test.
There is no requirement that you compile your code either- though some implementation's debuggers work better with compiled code.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:00:13AM +0000, Ray Blaak wrote: > Matthew Danish <mdan...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: > > if (((Integer)t.get(i)).compareTo(a) == 0 || (((new Integer (b.intValue() + > > c.intValue())).compareTo(d) > 0) && (e instanceof Float) && > > (t.put (new Integer (new Float (e.floatValue() + > > 2.0)).intValue(), new Integer (g.intValue() + h.intValue())).intValue() > > == k.intValue()))) ... > [...] > > Most languages seriously miss out on decent syntactic abstraction, and > > Java is definitely one of the worst offenders.
> Java might be worse than Lisp, but there is no reason to write such shitty > code as the above example.
> Split that crap up into specific and useful named methods, and that expression > could be readily understandable and maintainable.
It's meant neither to be readable nor maintainable, but to illustrate a point (in a somewhat amusing fashion): namely that Java's syntax for working with Objects is extremely clumsy. Having to write code such as (new Integer (((Integer) t.get (i)) + foo.intValue ())) is somewhat similar to dragging one's fingernails down a chalkboard (at least, that's how I feel when I'm forced to write it). And you really can't get around it that much, in Java.
-- ; Matthew Danish <mdan...@andrew.cmu.edu> ; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org ; Signed or encrypted mail welcome. ; "There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all dark."
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> writes: > * arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> > | You expect me not to get upset when you insult me? Mr Nagger insulted me > | by suggesting I was dumb. I got upset about that, and I won't apologise > | for that.
> But insluting other people is perfectly acceptable for you? I must admit > to some fascination with the kinds of people that make up this world, but > one of the saddest things is that I begin to understand how the American > people could have "elected" George W. Bush.
Generalizing from a small sample to an entire population, the majority of whom didn't vote for the asshole in question? I expected better from you.
> | Just because a newbie says "I heard that lisp is an interpreted > | language", doesn't mean they are a troll!
> Yes, unfortunately, it does. You do not get to make these rules.
Last I heard, 'troll' implied a calculated attempt on the part of the troll to invoke flames. But to do that Mel would have had to read the FAQ, maybe done a bit of googling for similar questions to hers and generally have got a feel for the group before posting.
Maybe she has, maybe this is all a calculated ploy from someone with too much time on their hands, but since I never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained with stupidity, I'm going with stupidity. For the same reason I'm inclined to think that her continuation is because she has the bit between her teeth, but can think of nothing better than puerile misspelling as a way of 'hitting back'...
-- Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite." -- Jane Austen?
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> writes: > * arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> > | EXPLAIN IT TO ME FOR FUCKS SAKE! JUST STOP ABUSING ME!
> Simply amazing. And still people help this person.
Well, you know, there's nothing else doing, explaining stuff often helps clarify your own thinking, and there might be other potential ariens who can learn from this without having to go down the whole 'pissing Erik off' route.
Not that I'm actually making with the helping, there are others who are more qualified than me (I'm still working through _On Lisp_), it's just a theory.
-- Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite." -- Jane Austen?
arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> writes: > In article <847kg8qi7w....@despairon.bofh.org.uk>, pdcaw...@bofh.org.uk > says... >> Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> writes: >> > * arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> >> > | Nope. Erik Nagger wasn't helping much.
>> > You continue to show the entire world the depth of your depravity >> > and how easily you have sunk into it. The kind of hatred that >> > someone has to be filled with in order to produce the kind of >> > posts you have produced is good cause for professional medical >> > concern about your mental health.
>> Oh come on Erik. The woman can't spell,
> I actually spell quite well thankyou. I choose to ignore some typos.
You do realise that that just makes it worse don't you? You are saying, in essence that you don't respect the people in this group enough to bother to correct your typos. Or you're saying that you don't respect yourself enough to bother about the impression you create.
> Why do some in this group insist on insulting me.
Hang on, I was defending you. Your spelling in this thread has been atrocious, I placed the most favourable spin on that that I could, whilst also acknowledging that it could be annoying.
>> obviously doesn't share your sense of humour,
> I'm sorry, insulting people is never funny except to the person who > delivers the insults.
Possibly not, but sense of humour is a personal thing. What I am beginning to find funny (though leaning more towards funny peculiar than funny ha ha) is that you took Erik's first, robustly worded but not actually all that insulting response so personally. Or, indeed, that you took my defence of you as insulting.
>> is labouring under some debilitating preconceptions
> This is hardly being fair. I have admitted from the beginning that I > don't understand the nature of Lisp. I came here trying to understand > and now you say I have preconceptions?
Of course you do. If nothing else, you have preconceptions about what a programming language looks like based on your experience of Java and C++.
>> and has an enormous chip on her shoulder ,
> er, no sorry. I admit that I can get flighty when > insulted.........but sorry, there's no chip there.
I'm calling it like I see it, and trust me, from where I'm sitting, I see a chip the size of a small country.
>> but depraved? 'mentally unhealthy'? I think you may be overstating >> your case a bit.
> I'm glad that I kill filed Erik. This is just nonsense.
But you took the time to respond to my defence, point by point. Ah well.
>> Or are you doing the hyperbole for humourous effect thing?
> If so, it's not particularly funny.
As I said, you don't share Erik's sense of humour, so, of course, you're not going to find it funny.
-- Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite." -- Jane Austen?
