Could you please stop lying about what I think?

| Rather, you insist (loudly, rudely, continuously) that yours is the
| only reasonable opinion, and that anyone who disagrees not only should
| shut up, but should certainly not dare to broach their disagreement on
| your personal stomping ground.

  Could you please engage your brain long enough to understand that just
  because I reject _one_ opinion, I make no such idiotic implication for
  any other opinion?  Yours is a classical case of "you can extrapolate in
  any direction from a single data point".  Dishonest, disrespectful, even
  hateful, this is.  Fuck you for being so unable to distinguish your own
  feelings from what others think.

  Your personal need to portray me as some kind of monster is a clear
  indication of a psychotic break when you are under stress.  Consult a
  physician about this problem and get a grip on yourself and start dealing
  with reality, not your twisted, deluded mental imagery.

  Just because I loudly, rudely, continuously refute a claim that astrology
  is just a dialect of astronomy or that behaviorism is "scientific" does
  not mean that I have allowed only one opinion of what astronomy is or
  what should be considered scientific.  Why do you have a problem with
  such a fanstastically simple and logical argument?  Why do you have to
  portray others like utter fools because _you_ lack the clear thinking
  that keeps you out of trouble?  I find this extremely provocative and
  annoying.  Nobody can be so mind-numbingly ignorant of the laws of logic
  as to _believe_ that opposing one opinion means that one does not
  tolerate "disagreement" or that one has the only answer.  It is possible
  to argue, strongly, that the moon is not made of cheese without any clue
  as to the specific makeup of the moon.  Likewise, the earth is not the
  center of the universe, regardless of what is the center of the universe.
  The detection of simple falsehoods does not require omniscience, except
  in people lacking in education and thinking skills and who want the false
  to be "allowed" on an equal footing with the true.

  Once again, you show me that you lack the wherewithal to distinguish
  between the negation of a negative (it does _not_ yield a positive!) and
  the negation of a positive.  What kind of philosophical background do you
  _have_, when you have no clue about either negation or the distinction
  between observation and conclusion?  You sound immensely illiterate to me
  when you make these fantastically stupid mistakes.

| The existing newsgroup for comp.lang.lisp is for all dialects of Lisp,
| and I have never seen (in print) anyone claim that Scheme is not a
| dialect of Lisp.  You are the *only* person I've ever heard say such a
| thing, actually.

  Paul Foley said it very recently in this newsgroup, you unobservant
  mental slob.  There have been discussions here about this in the past.
  I was far from the only one to argue against "Scheme is a Lisp", for the
  simple reason that Scheme freaks mean something different by it than the
  more general Lisp community.  "Scheme is not a Lisp" is true for a large
  number of reasonable meanings of "Lisp".  Scheme freaks have a real
  problem with this, and, unsurprisingly, do not tolerate disagreement with
  their stupid, stupid, stupid notion that Scheme and Lisp overlap in any
  interesting way.  They overlap in origin and history, and that's _it_.

  I find it downright ridiculous that people who refuse to tolerate that I
  express my opinion, conclude that I am wired the way they are, and only
  have room for "One True Dialect" and have no room for disagreement, like
  they do.  I have no room for _falsehood_.  People do not "disagree" with
  something like "George W. Bush is a brilliant mind" -- it is simply false.
  Now, as logic would have it, there is a lot more falsehood out there than
  there is truth, and it is also a lot easier to determine that something
  is false than to determine that something is true.  Because every single
  person wants to know what is true (or as true as possible), we need to
  excise that which is known to be false, even though many people may want
  to believe it.  The earth is not flat.  Microsoft is not a law-abiding
  company who does more good than harm and is well-intentioned.  In more
  narrow contexts, other obvious falsehoods exist, too:  E.g., here, it is
  _false_ that a single namespace is better than many, it is _false_ that
  Common Lisp would be better without special variables, etc.  There is no
  point at all in repeating these stupid claims.

  Disagreement and agreement are completely worthless attributes of a
  position in any group of thinking people.  People have opinions of many
  kinds, formed on a variety of bases, and some of them are nuts and some
  of them are brilliant.  Some of them turn out to be false when they are
  examined closely, and when that happens, people are gently asked not to
  repeat them, because repeating known falsehoods wastes everybody's time
  and detracts from the purpose of finding whatever may be true.  Thus, a
  rejection of a falsehood means only that it is cannot be true and should
  not be attempted to be argued to be true, because it is _false_.  If this
  is wrong, at _least_ try a novel and different angle on it.

  I want people to work at proposing possible truths, and argue for them,
  which is what "tolerate disagreement" means in a thinking population, but
  I do not want to rehash proofs that something is false over and over
  again, which is what "tolerate disagreement" means in an unthinking
  population of idiots.  Astrology is _bunk_.  End of discussion.  If you
  have another opinion, the loony bin is in that direction --->.  This is
  not intolerance of disagreement, it is using your head to get rid of the
  obviously insane and deluded monstrosities in stupid people's dreams.

  The more time we spend refuting known falsehoods, the less time we have
  to discover some possible truths.  Scheme has made a large number of
  design tradeoffs that Common Lisp considers to be _wrong_, and which
  there is no point at all in revisiting.  Common Lisp has taken a course
  that precludes these design tradeoffs from being revisited and changed to
  accomodate the anal-retentive Scheme freaks.  They may change, but not to
  become those of Scheme, simply because far too many people think Scheme
  should be Scheme and Lisp should be Lisp, and never the twain shall meet
  (again).

  Improve your thinking skills, Thomas!  The lack of coherence in your
  extremely flawed "arguments" should be humiliating and embarrassing to
  you, but that is not my fault, and it does not become less hurtful if you
  keep making worse mistakes.  Sometimes, I am simply right, and it does
  not help to accuse me of being intolerant or anything else stupid people
  tend to do.  People must be allowed to say that Scheme sucks in vacuum in
  this newsgroup without some hypersensitive Scheme freak going postal.  We
  must tolerate disagreement in the value system of people who agree that
  Common Lisp is a great language and _therefore_ congregate here, but who
  are likely to have all sorts of other, non-overlapping values and
  interests.  Just as those who all think Scheme is a great language
  congregate in comp.lang.scheme.  And just like they would have a right ot
  throw someone out for saying "Scheme sucks" in their community, I demand
  a right to tell people who spend their time talking about how much Common
  Lisp sucks in this forum to go to hell.  If people want others to be very
  _friendly_ towards something as backward as Scheme, and do not want to
  listen to other people's contrary opinions, comp.lang.scheme is the
  place.  Here, we tolerate disagreement, and therefore do not tolerate
  those who want only _their_ One Truth about Scheme to be portrayed.

  Grow a clue, Thomas Bushnell.  You react to monsters of your own creation
  and have long since stopped thinking or reading what I write.  Take a
  break, cuddle a cat (highly recommended), get laid, take an ocean-side
  walk, whatever, just get back on track and start _thinking_ again!

  And _please_ stop playing the moronic and childish game of "I'm not the
  bad guy, the other guy is".  Just accept responsibility for your _own_
  actions and stop blaming me for them.