* Xah wrote:
> this message is for doctor Naggum.
Why didn't you mail it to him then, rather than starting yet another
futile meta-thread on c.l.l? He doesn't conceal his address.
> why Haskell or Dylan hasn't replaced CL yet?
> i mean, surely they are both superior than CL.
Of course they are. In fact, I strongly encourage you to go away and
program in these superior languages and allow us poor losers to carry
on using our 50s language in our sad little world in peace. We only
get all upset when people point out what idiots we all are.
Actually I hear rumours that Java is far superior to any of these
so-called `high-level' languages, should you consider that instead?
--tim
> ... In fact, I strongly encourage you to go away and
> program in these superior languages and allow us poor losers to carry
> on using our 50s language in our sad little world in peace. We only
> get all upset when people point out what idiots we all are.
why so hash on a virgin lamb? i was only asking a question.
have you considered upgrading your brain to use the new emotion chip?
the new chip has better humor sensory. you can also activate the
laugh-to-death switch.
>Actually I hear rumours that Java is far superior to any of these
>so-called `high-level' languages, should you consider that instead?
why don't you java yourself?
now if you still have opinions on Haskell or Dylan, i'd be happy to hear it.
(i'm supposing you do have a sizable expertise in CL?)
c'mon. if you are compassionate about the quality of this newsgroup as you
appears to be, refrain from riposte and hit me with real content. your
actions speak better than your words.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
* Xah wrote:
> now if you still have opinions on Haskell or Dylan, i'd be happy to hear it.
But surely, you were only after answers from Erik?
If instead you're after general opinions, I suggest you look in Deja
or somewhere and you'll find that these kind of discussions on c.l.l
(and I assume other groups) typically generate a whole bunch of bad
feeling and *no useful result at all*. If you want to have a useful
discussion it is a really good idea to start it with some useful input
rather than `i mean, surely they are both superior than CL'. Try
asking about some *technical issues*: `Dylan has sealing, could it be
added to CL and would this be a winning thing to do?' or something.
> (i'm supposing you do have a sizable expertise in CL?)
Yes, I know something about CL.
--tim
Xah <···@xahlee.org> wrote in message ······················@xahlee.org...
> your actions speak better than your words.
How do you distinguish actions and words on a newsgroup?
-- Harley
In article <··············@newsreader.alink.net>,
Harley Davis <·············@nospam.museprime.com> wrote:
>Xah <···@xahlee.org> wrote in message ······················@xahlee.org...
>> your actions speak better than your words.
>
>How do you distinguish actions and words on a newsgroup?
I am not Xah (at least I'm not admitting it yet) but
the quoted sentence is very acceptable shorthand for
"Your [usually poor] speech acts (= actions) speak
better than your [usually glowing] descriptions (=
words) of your speech acts."
I wouldn't at all agonize about the self-description
itself being a speech act. Heck, a speech act can
function as its own underminer, as happens often
here. That's language.
--d
Dorai wrote:
> I wouldn't at all agonize about the self-description itself being a speech
> act. Heck, a speech act can function as its own underminer, as happens often
> here. That's language.
He ho. Is this this art too? it doesn't mean anything otherwise.
Cheers,
:) will
ps: It would help if you could indicate art on the newsgroup, maybe through the
use of an art tag. Something like <art>some art here</art> would be
appreciated. Thanks in advance ;) will
will <·····@pindar.com> wrote:
> ps: It would help if you could indicate art on the newsgroup,
> maybe through the
> use of an art tag. Something like <art>some art here</art> would be
> appreciated. Thanks in advance ;) will
<art>will you shut your willful mouth?</art>
thank you.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
Xah wrote:
> <art>will you shut your willful mouth?</art>
At last a sentence that can be understood. Well, I think I have understood
this sentence. Thank you.
To the author of the Xah Turing machine, I must commend you on it's
sophistication. Is it written in Haskell or CL? (or the scripting language
that comes with Mathematica, perhaps?) I would be very grateful if you
would make the source code available to public consumption.
Best Regards,
:) will
William Deakin <·····@pindar.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
·················@pindar.com...
> Xah wrote:
>
> > <art>will you shut your willful mouth?</art>
>
> At last a sentence that can be understood. Well, I think I have understood
> this sentence. Thank you.
>
> To the author of the Xah Turing machine, I must commend you on it's
> sophistication. Is it written in Haskell or CL? (or the scripting language
> that comes with Mathematica, perhaps?) I would be very grateful if you
> would make the source code available to public consumption.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> :) will
>
Simply out of curiousity (English is not my native tongue): Is
"I would be very grateful if you would make ..."
(instead of "I would be very grateful if you made ...")
good English?
Janos Blazi
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Janos wrote:
> Will schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> > I would be very grateful if you would make the source code available to
> public consumption.
>
> Simply out of curiousity (English is not my native tongue): Is "I would be
> very grateful if you would make ..." (instead of "I would be very grateful if
> you made ...") good English?
For this I will make no reference to any form of higher power, but AFAIAA both
"I would be very grateful if you would make" and "I would be very grateful if
you made" are acceptable in common usage. I think they are kosher at a formal
level not just down to my `colloquial' (or is that plain sloppy?) use of
english.
I look forward to being corrected by a language lawyer.
:) will
From: Xah
Subject: Re: the so-called "English" languages (was: Re: why Haskell hasn'treplaced CL yet?)
Date:
Message-ID: <B4DA936D.6242%xah@xahlee.org>
William Deakin <·····@pindar.com> wrote:
> I look forward to being corrected by a language lawyer.
Language lawyer don't mean shit.
In scientific disciplines, there are usually strict yard sticks of value.
One cannot exalt her respectability simply by charisma or politics. "You are
what you publish, and what you publish are checked by equations and
experiments". Here the term scientific disciplines broadly and sloppily
includes any hard sciences or fields based on hard sciences such as
engineering or doctoring and nursing.
In non-scientific disciplines, the landscape changes. You can be a moron and
still lead a nation. Extreme examples are occupations of occultism. (e.g.
astrology, numerology, palmistry, tarot, i-ching, ... ad nauseam.) Take
astrology as an example for illustration. First i'll show you how to master
it. First, you can buy all the astrology books you may find in your local
book store of New Age section. It'll only take you a few months to read them
all. Then, you can go to big university libraries and search for books
related to astrology. This is now a more difficult task. There are a fairly
wide spectrum on the kind of books on astrology. For example, astrology
debunking, astrology history, history of astronomy, astronomy, cosmology,
biographies, research journals ... etc. (it's interesting to note that here
its very hard to find astrology how-to books.) Depending what kind of
mastery you want to obtain, it may take a year to a life time learning
experience. At this stage, it's not merely just reading books on astrology,
you also are learning or needs to learn quite a lot of other skills. Really
depending on how far you want to go, you may need basic skills such as
critical thinking and basic reading/writing to advanced collegiate skills in
history research, mathematics, statistics, or astronomy. All this could take
years. Now, if you are still interested, you need to visit practicing
astrologers. Get your future predicted by them, try to attend interviews,
psychic fairs & events, and even try to become a friend of an astrologer or
two. In short, you need to immerse yourself in the field to learn it's
culture and get experience. If you are a nut case about astrology, and have
the skills, brain, and stamina to go through these stages, then you have
what it takes to master astrology.
Now that you've mastered the non-scientific subject astrology, you may
become two things:
* a knowledgeable practicing astrologer.
* a pissing debunker hated by astrologers and ignored by everyone on earth.
(Note that neither of these professions will earn you a good living, so
don't fancy on that.)
Now that a astrology master can choose to occupy either of these extreme
opposing vocations is an instance of an illustration that the yard stick of
value in non-scientific "disciplines" is totally bendable.
Now back to English...
I was going to say, that writing or English writing falls towards the
humanitarian discipline, not hard-core scientific ones.
To be sure, in English there are also metrics called syntax (for the eye)
and one called grammar (for internal organs). However, they are far from
precise. With all advanced theory of types or lambda calculus or symbolic
logic or homological algebra or what not fear-imposing jargons, there is
to-date no formalism that completely specifies the English syntax/grammar
and never will be.
This does not mean that rubbish is indistinguishable from opus, only that
the distinction takes for a mastery itself.
What one can do in this sorry situation, is basically taking the same
approach in mastering astrology. One can start by going to a local bookstore
and pick up dictionaries and writing guides or one grammar books or two.
(assuming you already speak the language.) As you become comfortable, you
can move on to the university library and read and read and read and go to
newsgroups (like me) and write and write and write. (important: not post and
post and post.) There really is not anything magical like some of the
physics trick where one equation describes the universe. It all depends on
your interest. The more broad and open minded reading you do, the more
solidity in your spewing; the more writing you do, the more precision and
aiming you have at your spewing. (take me for example: when i open my mouth,
black shit of steel spew forthwith at the throats of ignoramuses and
hypocrites.) As i have said in other posts, that if you like to advance your
skill in non-trivial ways, then you might want to venture into the study of
linguistics and symbolic logic as well. Linguistics gives you a generic
overview of why English is so stupid, and symbolic logic just confirms that
in depth. One advise i must dealt out is that you should NOT spend too much
time on the so called English grammar. Use them to help you write acceptable
phrases. But once you can write naturally, screw them like you'd screw your
lover. Go into linguistics, logic, or even poetry mumble jumble instead.
(unless, of course, that you INTEND to become a grammar tutorial writer.)
Language lawyers don't mean shit. Those who insists on bantering split
infinities, tenseness, plurality agreements, or trifling articles can go to
hell. I kick their asses anytime.
Once you have obtained the mastery of writing, there are also two roads you
can hop onto just like astrology:
* a pissing debunker who has little interest in literary writing or its
advocation (sic).
* becoming a literary writer (e.g. poet)
Presumably and unfortunately that's the way went Kent Pitman, Richard P.
Gabriel, Larry Wall, doctor Naggum and undoubtfully other illuminati on
their way to crackpottery.
Again, neither pays.
Thank you.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: the so-called "English" languages (was: Re: why Haskell hasn'treplaced CL yet?)
Date:
Message-ID: <38B55C5D.45ECBF77@pindar.com>
Xah wrote:
> Will wrote:
> > I look forward to being corrected by a language lawyer.
>
> Language lawyer don't mean shit.
Yup. I agree. I'm amazed. But I agree.
> Thank you.
In the words of The King `Ah, thaankk u ver i much, ah' too,
:) will
i wrote:
> your actions speak better than your words.
"Harley Davis" <·············@nospam.museprime.com> wrote:
> How do you distinguish actions and words on a newsgroup?
let me spell it out for you:
words:
Don't add noise to our newsgroup.
You are probably a stupid troll.
Get out before I killfile you.
action: the learned:
Ok, you troll,
here's what i think about Dylan,
from a CL programer points of view...
action: the jester:
I know a monger named Wall
who always peddles his Perl
if he had any grasp
he would just lisp
Wall is nothing but just a troll
action: the wise:
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html