back from the island.
wrote my first LISP.
of course language-modification.
it works, quite simple.
e.g.:
you find
(< 3 4) => T
ugly?
simply use this
(defmacro ? (a op b) `(,op ,a ,b))
now write
(? 3 < 4) => T
Easy.
now, i found something interesting about macros here:
http://www.paulgraham.com/lib/paulgraham/onlisp.pdf
Page 213
(defmacro abbrev (short long)
`(dfmacro ,short (&rest args)
`(,',long ,@args)))
with this, you can give unconsistent naming an end.
eg defun & defmacro
(abbrev df defun)
(abbrev dm defmacro)
now my problem.
i don't like the syntax. And now i try to change it. People say, its
possible with LISP, its easy with LISP.
try it, change the syntax to:
(defmacro abbrev (short long)
=>(defmacro [short] (&rest args)
=>( ['[long]] [@args] )))
i fail.
placing syntax of the , to e.g. [ is easy
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_set_sy.htm#set-syntax-from-char
but what about the closing ]
i tried then with this
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_set_ma.htm#set-macro-character
but no way. recursion, streams, read.
what is the right way???
please don't start the discussions about the *why* !
see it as an demonstration of the LISP *possibilities* !
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3u1lckpj4.fsf@cley.com>
As usual I can't parse your English, but from what I can make out you
want to do things with making [...] do something. You might want to
take a look at the code at http://www.tfeb.org/toys.html#SLIP which
does this kind of thing.
(now you're going to say this is hostile aren't you?)
--tim
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3ptw0koe0.fsf@cley.com>
* I wrote:
> http://www.tfeb.org/toys.html#SLIP
http://www.tfeb.org/lisp/toys.html#SLIP
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> As usual I can't parse your English, but from what I can make out you
> want to do things with making [...] do something. You might want to
> take a look at the code at http://www.tfeb.org/toys.html#SLIP which
> does this kind of thing.
Probably <http://www.tfeb.org/lisp/toys.html#SLIP>.
Edi.
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> As usual I can't parse your English, but from what I can make out you
> want to do things with making [...] do something. You might want to
> take a look at the code at http://www.tfeb.org/toys.html#SLIP which
> does this kind of thing.
yes, there is a similarity.
but if you try to solve the problem i've stated, you'll see that it is
not so easy.
>
> (now you're going to say this is hostile aren't you?)
i cannot say this.
i don't know what 'hostile' is.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3znv3qu3s.fsf@cley.com>
* at news wrote:
> but if you try to solve the problem i've stated, you'll see that it is
> not so easy.
Well, it's your problem, perhaps you should solve it.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> * at news wrote:
>
>
>>but if you try to solve the problem i've stated, you'll see that it is
>>not so easy.
>
> Well, it's your problem, perhaps you should solve it.
it's not my 'problem'.
it's a 'problem' of LISP.
* ilias <·······@pontos.net>
| it's not my 'problem'.
|
| it's a 'problem' of LISP.
This whole attitude is a problemwith only with you. As long as you believe
you can blame something or someone else, you have a vested interest in /not/
solving the problem because you do not want to solve somebody else's
problem. This, incidentally, is also why nobody wants to help you.
Go away.
--
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.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * ilias <·······@pontos.net>
> | it's not my 'problem'.
> |
> | it's a 'problem' of LISP.
>
> This whole attitude is a problemwith only with you. As long as you believe
> you can blame something or someone else, you have a vested interest in /not/
> solving the problem because you do not want to solve somebody else's
> problem. This, incidentally, is also why nobody wants to help you.
paranoia.
> Go away.
no.
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <3D70B126.5112A793@dls.net>
ilias wrote:
> > Go away.
>
> no.
But your mission is accomplished, ilias. We've all concluded
you're an idiot. That *was* your mission, right?
Paul
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> ilias wrote:
>
>>> Go away.
>>no.
> But your mission is accomplished, ilias.
> We've all concluded
*all* - please define.
> you're an idiot.
of course i am not (related to the chicken i ate yesterday).
of course i am (related to genious minds on planet).
> That *was* your mission, right?
not exactly.
i try to assimilate the best of LISP.
and to throw away the garbage of LISP.
and to find some people with gentleness and/or analytical strength
during this 'mission', see it as a 'garbage-product', some people that
are not able to estimate their limits, do uncover themselves as complete
'idiots'.
i do my best to assist them.
do you belong to this group?
did *all* you that have concluded, that i'm an idiot belong to this group?
I don't know.
What I know: i prefere to discuss with a chicken (in its native
language) than with those 'idiots'.
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <3D70C1A3.6A20500C@dls.net>
ilias wrote:
> What I know: i prefere to discuss with a chicken (in its native
> language) than with those 'idiots'.
ilias, you're clearly a rather defective person. You are socially
inept, incoherent, and come across as ignorant and lacking any
qualities that would make us value your opinions or your presence.
Paul
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> ilias wrote:
>
>
>>What I know: i prefere to discuss with a chicken (in its native
>>language) than with those 'idiots'.
>
>
> ilias, you're clearly a rather defective person. You are socially
> inept, incoherent, and come across as ignorant and lacking any
> qualities that would make us value your opinions or your presence.
>
> Paul
thank you, doctor!
"ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·····················@pontos.net..
> i try to assimilate the best of LISP.
>
> and to throw away the garbage of LISP.
>
> and to find some people with gentleness and/or analytical strength
>
> during this 'mission', see it as a 'garbage-product', some people that
> are not able to estimate their limits, do uncover themselves as complete
> 'idiots'.
>
> i do my best to assist them.
>
> do you belong to this group?
>
> did *all* you that have concluded, that i'm an idiot belong to this group?
>
> I don't know.
>
> What I know: i prefere to discuss with a chicken (in its native
> language) than with those 'idiots'.
Well you have made it clear that you think that innovation happens when naive/young minds
"see" better ways of doing things. But from my perspective is that you do not have enough
knowledge and experience of computer programming (not just of Lisp). The examples you
have brought up of changing the surface syntax and formatting of CL code, thinking that
you are using "programmable programming language" capabilities, are fruitless endeavors.
There is no point to your examples and your challenges. This is disappointing to me that
people like yourself are missing the whole point of Lisp.
One has to go to primary school to learn basic skills such as spelling, writing and
arithmetic. Advanced education institutions teach more complex subjects such as the
scientific method. This should set off some bells in your head that maybe, just maybe,
one has to receive an education in a subject like Lisp before one can make informed
comments about it. Knowledge is passed down, and you do not live in a vacuum. Your
analytical mind is shaped by the thoughts of those before, you cannot escape that. But a
way out of the conundrum is to pick more carefully who or what you will learn from. This
involves clear thinking, facing reality, humility and most of all commitment (making a
choice and sticking with it). When is the last time you learned something? What are you
committed to? How much responsibility do you assume for your choices and actions?
Wade
Hoping that you still think you have something to learn.
Wade Humeniuk wrote:
> "ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·····················@pontos.net..
>
>>i try to assimilate the best of LISP.
>>
>>and to throw away the garbage of LISP.
>>
>>and to find some people with gentleness and/or analytical strength
>>
>>during this 'mission', see it as a 'garbage-product', some people that
>>are not able to estimate their limits, do uncover themselves as complete
>>'idiots'.
>>
>>i do my best to assist them.
>>
>>do you belong to this group?
>>
>>did *all* you that have concluded, that i'm an idiot belong to this group?
>>
>>I don't know.
>>
>>What I know: i prefere to discuss with a chicken (in its native
>>language) than with those 'idiots'.
>
>
> Well you have made it clear that you think that innovation happens when naive/young minds
> "see" better ways of doing things. But from my perspective is that you do not have enough
> knowledge and experience of computer programming (not just of Lisp). The examples you
> have brought up of changing the surface syntax and formatting of CL code, thinking that
> you are using "programmable programming language" capabilities, are fruitless endeavors.
> There is no point to your examples and your challenges. This is disappointing to me that
> people like yourself are missing the whole point of Lisp.
>
> One has to go to primary school to learn basic skills such as spelling, writing and
> arithmetic. Advanced education institutions teach more complex subjects such as the
> scientific method. This should set off some bells in your head that maybe, just maybe,
> one has to receive an education in a subject like Lisp before one can make informed
> comments about it. Knowledge is passed down, and you do not live in a vacuum. Your
> analytical mind is shaped by the thoughts of those before, you cannot escape that. But a
> way out of the conundrum is to pick more carefully who or what you will learn from. This
> involves clear thinking, facing reality, humility and most of all commitment (making a
> choice and sticking with it).
> When is the last time you learned something?
just now.
> What are you committed to? How much responsibility do you assume for your choices and actions?
> Wade
>
> Hoping that you still think you have something to learn.
i have so many to learn, that i get crazy when i think about that my
life-time is not enouth.
ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message news:<················@pontos.net>...
> i try to assimilate the best of LISP.
>
> and to throw away the garbage of LISP.
A soldier killed Archimedes because he seemed like a stubborn old
uncooperative fool. From that soldier's point of view, Archimedes was
garbage. Ancient art treasures worth large sums of money are often
sold cheap as junk because their value is not recognized. The person
selling them is glad to get rid of them because they seem old, worn
out, and practically useless.
How does an uninformed person recognize what is garbage and what
isn't? The only thing you can be sure of, when trying to determine
what is worthwhile and what isn't, is that more education is worth the
time it takes. Learning everything you possibly can about Common Lisp
is worth the time it takes, even if you think you will eventually
discard most of it as garbage. It would just be very wise to wait
till you can discard it for some other reason than ignorance.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <3D74503D.70201@nyc.rr.com>
ok, this is good, we can now prove c.l.l is /not/ hostile to newbies,
given the manifold efforts (mine included) to save ilian from his iliocy.
did anyone else pick up on the wonderful irony of his follow-up "hard to
see" article in which he had to empahsize that *{* had been substituted
for (? in a subtle way this gets at the pointlessness of his efforts.
incredible coincidence: i just started playing with Curl and found
myself unconsciously typing parens where braces were demanded, and had a
hard time finding these gaffes because the Surge (Curl) IDE happened to
use a miniscule font size.
i think tim b. had it right. we should just encourage Ilias at every
turn. he seems pretty bright, he'll get there eventually in spite of his
iliocy.
that's how good is lisp.
kt
Software Scavenger wrote:
> ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message news:<················@pontos.net>...
>
>
>>i try to assimilate the best of LISP.
>>
>>and to throw away the garbage of LISP.
>
>
> A soldier killed Archimedes because he seemed like a stubborn old
> uncooperative fool. ....
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> i think tim b. had it right. we should just encourage Ilias at every
> turn. he seems pretty bright, he'll get there eventually in spite of
> his iliocy.
Oh please, no.
He has already proved that he is unable to make use of the
help and advice he gets here. As a result, instead of seeing a single
question and one or two illuminating responses, we're getting whole
threads where various cll'ers take turns in *persuading* him that he
is wrong (I could have said "pre-enlightened", but there seems to be
no chance that he's ever going to be enlightened.)
--
Raymond Wiker Mail: ·············@fast.no
Senior Software Engineer Web: http://www.fast.no/
Fast Search & Transfer ASA Phone: +47 23 01 11 60
P.O. Box 1677 Vika Fax: +47 35 54 87 99
NO-0120 Oslo, NORWAY Mob: +47 48 01 11 60
Try FAST Search: http://alltheweb.com/
Raymond Wiker <·············@fast.no> writes:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
> > i think tim b. had it right. we should just encourage Ilias at
> > every turn. he seems pretty bright, he'll get there eventually in
> > spite of his iliocy.
>
> Oh please, no.
>
> He has already proved that he is unable to make use of the
> help and advice he gets here. As a result, instead of seeing a
> single question and one or two illuminating responses, we're getting
> whole threads where various cll'ers take turns in *persuading* him
> that he is wrong (I could have said "pre-enlightened", but there
> seems to be no chance that he's ever going to be enlightened.)
Well, I really think this has gone far enough, and the best thing to
do is to let ilias in on the REAL SECRET of Lisp.
He wrote:
> i try to assimilate the best of LISP.
>
> and to throw away the garbage of LISP.
The REAL SECRET of Lisp is that Lisp is ALL garbage. Yes, it's true.
It all started like this.
Back in the early '60s a bunch of mathematicians were thinking,
"Mathematicians are like farmers: they never make any money. How can
we cash in on the computer revolution?"
So they decided to invent a computer language that they could use to
impress the government and get lots of grants. They found this
language that had some claims to a mathematical foundation and decided
that with a little massaging they could get it to be virtually
incomprehensible except to those who were in the know. They came up
with things like a natural language parser that could identify the
parts of speech, and promised that in a few years they'd be able to
understand Russian. And so on. They made a few mistakes, of course.
One famous failure was a robot-arm that was supposed to catch a tennis
ball. (The assumption was that more advanced versions might be able to
THROW a tennis ball, and perhaps even throw things like hand-grenades
and so on. The military applications were "obvious".) Anyway, when
they got the generals in for a demo, they threw the ball at the arm.
As it reached up to catch the ball, the Lisp control program paused to
"reclaim memory" (heh, heh, yes, I know what it was really doing),
causing the arm to miss he ball. The generals were not impressed,
coming perilously close to penetrating the deception when the panicked
researchers actually mentioned `garbage collection'.
Nevertheless, as plots go it had a pretty nice run. It went for about
thirty years before people in the government started to catch on.
Many of the early illuminati were able to parlay their association
with Lisp into reputations that allowed them to move on to other, more
respectable endeavors. Some, such as John McCarthy, even won prizes.
More recently, creative members of the illuminati have sometimes taken
advantage of Lisp's impenetrability to profit from the dot-com craze.
One such person, in a clever application of `recursion theory' (heh,
heh, yes, I know), went around describing Lisp as a "programmable
programming language" and was able to make quite a nice pile of cash.
The people who post in this newsgroup consist of two kinds of people:
1) Ex-illuminati who are nostalgic for the good old days, and
2) Want-to-be illuminati who are hoping to revive and cash in on the
plot.
That's why newcomers are treated with such disdain (we don't want
people horning in on our action), and why all attempts to make Lisp
more comprehensible to the mainstream are rejected.
At first I thought that perhaps ilias would be a worthy member of the
illuminati. After all, few even of the early illuminati have a
writing style that gives such a tantalizing appearance of content,
while involving the reader in such mazes of bewilderment when he
attempts to actually discover that content. (Guy Steele, for example,
actually verges on comprehensibility from time to time.)
Unfortunately, for some inexplicable reason ilias insisted upon trying
to make Lisp understandable by attempting to write reader macros that
would massage its syntax into something the average person might be
comfortable with. Of course that would be fatal, making it clear to
everyone that Lisp was, as I said, completely without redeeming social
value. He thus showed that he was not, in fact, worthy of being a
part of the illuminati. Sorry, but a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Sell all the snake oil you want, but don't queer the pitch for the
rest of us.
So, ilias, you are wasting your time and should probably go back to
C++ or Java, where you can get some real things accomplished. Or
something.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
``This is mere entertainment featuring fictional characters. No real
human relationships were shattered in the making of this TV series.''
Fred Gilham wrote:
> So they decided to invent a computer language that they could use to
> impress the government and get lots of grants.��They�found�this
> language that had some claims to a mathematical foundation and decided
> that with a little massaging they could get it to be virtually
> incomprehensible except to those who were in the know.��They�came�up
> with things like a natural language parser that could identify the
> parts of speech, and promised that in a few years they'd be able to
> understand Russian.��And�so�on.��They�made�a�few�mistakes,�of�course.
> One famous failure was a robot-arm that was supposed to catch a tennis
> ball. (The assumption was that more advanced versions might be able to
> THROW a tennis ball, and perhaps even throw things like hand-grenades
> and so on.��The�military�applications�were�"obvious".)��Anyway,�when
> they got the generals in for a demo, they threw the ball at the arm.
> As it reached up to catch the ball, the Lisp control program paused to
> "reclaim memory" (heh, heh, yes, I know what it was really doing),
> causing the arm to miss he ball.��The�generals�were�not�impressed,
> coming perilously close to penetrating the deception when the panicked
> researchers actually mentioned `garbage collection'.
I got it that your post as a whole was sarcastic, but the above story... is
it based on real events in any way?
Oleg
> >
> > <Stuff about robot arm omitted>
> >
> I got it that your post as a whole was sarcastic, but the above
> story... is it based on real events in any way?
I heard a story many years ago about a lisp-controlled robot arm that
garbage collected in the middle of a demo.
I don't know if the story is true or not. I don't even remember if it
was told as a true story.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
The TMI accident was unique: it was the only multi-billion dollar
accident in history in which nobody was harmed.
-Howard C. Hayden, Professor Emeritus, U of Conn.
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> wrote in message news:<··············@snapdragon.csl.sri.com>...
> > >
> > > <Stuff about robot arm omitted>
> > >
> > I got it that your post as a whole was sarcastic, but the above
> > story... is it based on real events in any way?
>
> I heard a story many years ago about a lisp-controlled robot arm that
> garbage collected in the middle of a demo.
>
> I don't know if the story is true or not. I don't even remember if it
> was told as a true story.
You can find the same story in Peter van der Linden's "Just Java", 3d ed., pg. 214.
-klaus
Software Scavenger wrote:
> ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message news:<················@pontos.net>...
>
>
>>i try to assimilate the best of LISP.
>>
>>and to throw away the garbage of LISP.
>
>
> A soldier killed Archimedes because he seemed like a stubborn old
> uncooperative fool. From that soldier's point of view, Archimedes was
> garbage.
Archimedes.
> Ancient art treasures worth large sums of money are often
> sold cheap as junk because their value is not recognized. The person
> selling them is glad to get rid of them because they seem old, worn
> out, and practically useless.
Ancient art treasures.
> How does an uninformed person recognize what is garbage and what
> isn't?
> The only thing you can be sure of, when trying to determine
> what is worthwhile and what isn't, is that more education is worth the
> time it takes.
> Learning everything you possibly can about Common Lisp
> is worth the time it takes, even if you think you will eventually
> discard most of it as garbage.
> It would just be very wise to wait
> till you can discard it for some other reason than ignorance.
wise.
be it.
"Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> wrote in message
······················@dls.net...
> ilias wrote:
>
> > > Go away.
> >
> > no.
>
> But your mission is accomplished, ilias. We've all concluded
> you're an idiot. That *was* your mission, right?
Speak for yourself. And even if it is your conclusion, what possible good
is served by stating it?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
* Coby Beck
| Speak for yourself. And even if it is your conclusion, what possible good
| is served by stating it?
Perhaps you would like to entertain ilias by personal mail? If you
appreciate his style and wit and his fresh look at Lisp and its manifold
possibilities, which it seems rather few others here do, those who do
appreciate it would do well to congregate where it bothers few others.
--
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.
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> * Coby Beck
> | Speak for yourself. And even if it is your conclusion, what
> | possible good is served by stating it?
>
> Perhaps you would like to entertain ilias by personal mail?
If I did I would. You or I may not like what he says but it is topical to
this forum.
> If you
> appreciate his style and wit and his fresh look at Lisp
> and its manifold possibilities, which it seems rather few
> others here do, those who do appreciate it would do well
> to congregate where it bothers few others.
If ilias came to a party at my house and bothered people, I would ask him to
leave. If he and I were at a party at your house, I would advise him to
leave. But if he is in a public place and bothering people I would advise
everyone around to move away and ignore him. If he is genuine and
moderately intelligent, he will learn and change. If he is stupid or a
trouble maker, he will get bored and leave. If he is insane then he is
unpredictable but will leave sooner than if you engage him.
Usenet is that public place without even the laws of civilized societies.
You cannot drive anyone away, nor do you have the right. But the good side
is, it is *so* easy to ignore people who annoy you and so easy to read
selectively so you can learn from others even when you detest a large
portion of what they do and say (as I do with you). I do not understand
people who are so eager to call others idiots and incompetents.
Actually, I do understand it, I just think it is an extremely negative part
of human nature rooted in weakness and cruelty. It is that part I detest so
much in the academic world, the glee people take in belittling and
humiliating others and the false comfort and pride they take in being
accepted and praised by their community. Putting other people down is never
about anything accept trying to elevate your own self image.
Well, that is off on a bit of a tangent, sorry (and kind of preachy, looking
back over it) but it is true, so I will leave it as is. I think dialogue
with ilias could have been salvaged with a few less people so eager to be
rude about it. And I stick with my advice that if one isn't interested in
his views and think he does not deserve/benefit from help, then just ignore
him or try once or twice and then ignore him. (much as you have done...)
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Coby Beck wrote:
> I do not understand
> people who are so eager to call others idiots and incompetents.
>
> Actually, I do understand it, I just think it is an extremely negative part
> of human nature rooted in weakness and cruelty. It is that part I detest so
> much in the academic world, the glee people take in belittling and
> humiliating others and the false comfort and pride they take in being
> accepted and praised by their community. Putting other people down is never
> about anything accept trying to elevate your own self image.
Does the academic world have a lock on this. Is this not true
in general, such as in professional and political world.
Or is it really more acute in the academic world, because
of the measures of success in that world. In non-academic
world, the measures are amount of money, or service rendered,
or economic or political power. In academic world, at least
for the masses of the practitioners, it is...amount of
peer recognition, in particular, of one's smartness? If so,
how can you blame the practitioners entirely; the system
practically dictates the individual behavior, does it not.
And it has been like this throughout the ages, has it not.
* "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
| If I did I would.
Then do you not voice your supprot for his current behavior by attacking
those who criticize it. Or do it by mail so you do not aggravate people by
criticizing the critics just because you feel holier than everybody else.
| I do not understand people who are so eager to call others idiots and
| incompetents.
Yes, you do, you only choose to do so on different occasions. You go out of
your way to accuse those who do something you do not like of ill will and
hostility when nonesuch exists and you exacerbate every conflict situation
by attacking those who defend something, making it impossible to establish
better relations and to send the proper signals to the troublemakers, on
whose side you have consistently placed yourself because you hate people who
call others idiots and incompetents so much that you just have to speak up
and make even more trouble.
| Actually, I do understand it, I just think it is an extremely negative part
| of human nature rooted in weakness and cruelty.
Yet you prefer to engage in exactly the same tactics against those you think
deserve it over doing something constructive. If you do not understand
this, you are an even less palatable hypocrite than I already think you are.
| It is that part I detest so much in the academic world, the glee people take
| in belittling and humiliating others and the false comfort and pride they
| take in being accepted and praised by their community.
Ah. You are the Revenger against ills that do not exist but which arise out
of your hypersensitivity towards past suffering. Your detesting something
does not make it come into being. People who are emotionally screwed-up
tend to see threats and dangers that are not there because they are reminded
of what happened to them in the past and react to their memories, not to the
reality in which they actually live. It seems that you are reminded of what
you detest so much every time someone speaks up against the /real/ idiots in
the world because some /non-idiots/ were unfairly harrassed in your past, and
my guess is that that person was yourself. So instead of just letting people
speak up against the obnoxious idiots, you sit on your hands until someone
speaks up and then you attack that person, instead, making the idiots more
welcome and destructive because they have a "supporter" of their cause.
Please realize that just because /you/ feel better after elevating yourself
above those who criticize others, you have not actually improved anything by
criticizing them in worse manners. Your desire to tell people how bad they
are reflect on your own personality more than anything else. Other people
criticize people for what they /do/ and /stop/ when the actions improve, but
you choose to impute ill will and evil intentions to people on a scale that
is truly evil because you harbor ill will against people long after you were
offended based on your /own/ moralistic view of /them/ beyond what you think
they have done. You make the evil mistake of thinking you can do any harm
you want to others because of your impression of them. Lynch mobs had that
same warped ethics that anything goes as long as you are insanely furious
enough about something. And you see your evil in others when they simply
criticize others for actions that are /actually/ bad. Your own reprehensible
character speaks up against an evil that you should seek to correct primarily
in yourself and keep out of public view.
| Putting other people down is never about anything accept trying to elevate
| your own self image.
Your rebellion against this entails putting other people down. You are very
obviously on a mission to elevate your self-image when you detest ills that
you impute to others and speak up to criticize what is not actually there.
| Well, that is off on a bit of a tangent, sorry (and kind of preachy, looking
| back over it) but it is true, so I will leave it as is.
Your lack of insight is alarming. You do not see the similiarity of yourself
to that which you detest. You have even become what you detest in others
when you work so hard to put others down for what you believe is putting
down, but which is far more honest and less sinister on the part of those
/you/ unfairly blame for evils they have not committed. A mere irritation
with the presistency of obnoxious lunatics you interpret as an academic
put-down intended to elevate the critic.
You clearly have issues, my hypercritical friend, but this is not the forum
to act on them, or even discuss them.
| I think dialogue with ilias could have been salvaged with a few less people
| so eager to be rude about it.
Then engage in that instead of your standard preaching against those who
speak up against the things /they/ do not like when you do that yourself for
thing /you/ do not like. Do what you think is right if you desire to speak
up against those who do something you think needs to be criticized. This
becomes more and more important the more you criticize criticism over
actions. You attempt, in effect, to curb people's ability to criticize what
they do not like while you reserve that right to yourself. This is a symptom
of a troubled soul. Please bother someone else someplace else. That same
advice goes to the target of the criticism you scolded. You two have more
in common than you like in that regard, too.
--
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.
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> * "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
> | If I did I would.
>
> Then do you not voice your supprot for his current behavior by attacking
> those who criticize it.
I didn't. If you read what I wrote a little more carefully I'm sure you
will see that. I did not voice support for his behaviour, I did not attack
anyone, I did not respond to a criticism of his behaviour.
> Or do it by mail so you do not aggravate people by
> criticizing the critics just because you feel holier than everybody
else.
If you were sincere about this advice, why did you not follow it yourself
and reply to me via email? (I don't say you should have, but it follows
from your argument to me)
>
> | I do not understand people who are so eager to call others idiots and
> | incompetents.
>
> Yes, you do, you only choose to do so on different occasions. You go
out of
> your way to accuse those who do something you do not like of ill will
and
> hostility when nonesuch exists and you exacerbate every conflict
situation
> by attacking those who defend something, making it impossible to
establish
> better relations and to send the proper signals to the troublemakers, on
> whose side you have consistently placed yourself because you hate people
who
> call others idiots and incompetents so much that you just have to speak
up
> and make even more trouble.
There is nothing in the above paragraph I can even begin to debate about.
My only answer is "No, you are wrong on every point" Again, you will have
to show me things I have written that have given you this impression so I
can correct your misunderstandings or apologise for what I have said. On a
strictly logical point, your assertions have no connection to the sentence
you have quoted.
> | Actually, I do understand it, I just think it is an extremely negative
part
> | of human nature rooted in weakness and cruelty.
>
> Yet you prefer to engage in exactly the same tactics against those you
think
> deserve it over doing something constructive.
You are completely incorrect in this assertion, it is however not likely to
be productive discussing it.
> | It is that part I detest so much in the academic world, the glee people
take
> | in belittling and humiliating others and the false comfort and pride
they
> | take in being accepted and praised by their community.
>
> Ah. You are the Revenger against ills that do not exist but which arise
out
> of your hypersensitivity towards past suffering. Your detesting
something
> does not make it come into being.
Nor does your denying it keep it from existing. Why don't you simply make a
point, such as "I do not believe this is a problem in the academic world"
instead of all this fabrication of what I am thinking and why? It would
make it possible to have a discussion with you.
> People who are emotionally screwed-up
> tend to see threats and dangers that are not there because they are
reminded
> of what happened to them in the past and react to their memories, not to
the
> reality in which they actually live. It seems that you are reminded of
what
> you detest so much every time someone speaks up against the /real/
idiots in
> the world because some /non-idiots/ were unfairly harrassed in your
past, and
> my guess is that that person was yourself.
[snip]
Sorry, incorrect. As the rest of your long speculations follow from this
premise, I will not bother to respond to it directly.
> | I think dialogue with ilias could have been salvaged with a few less
people
> | so eager to be rude about it.
>
> Then engage in that instead of your standard preaching against those who
> speak up against the things /they/ do not like when you do that yourself
for
> thing /you/ do not like.
Well, I think this little bit started because I was bothered by Paul's use
of "we" in saying "we have concluded you are an idiot" or something. I
doubt I would have replied except for that. Paul did not seem to feel
attacked by me, I don't know why you feel threatened.
> Do what you think is right if you desire to speak
> up against those who do something you think needs to be criticized.
I have been "practicing what I am preaching" wrt ilias, so your advice is
unnecessary.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
* Coby Beck
| I didn't. If you read what I wrote a little more carefully I'm sure you
| will see that. I did not voice support for his behaviour, I did not attack
| anyone, I did not respond to a criticism of his behaviour.
Coby, please quit being such a snotty arrogant shithead and start to think.
Of /course/ I read you carefully. It is /because/ I read you carefully that
I respond to you in the first place. Had I read you less carefully, I would
have kill-filed you for your immense lack of contributions to this forum and
you incessant whining about the behavior of critics and never of those who
misbehave in the first place.
But let me tell you something you must have missed in your life. When a
person is criticized for something, he will interpret any and all /public/
criticism of his critics as implicit support. If you do not intend this dual
function with your criticism, send it by mail. By making the criticism
public, you make it clear that you want to distance yourself from the
criticism, and there is no way you can escape the consequence that you
thereby support that which is being criticized. If you think you should be
able to escape such an obvious consequence, you need to say so up front.
For instance, you just /had/ to comment negatively on me. That shows that
you know how to do it, yet you chose only to criticize the critic. You have
done this very often. There is no way you can possibly hope to escape the
conclusion that you are on the "victim's" side of the criticism and scold
only those who want this to be a forum that is valuable to people who are
not idiots. That makes you strongly pro-idiot. If you are not, speak up
when you see something you do not like other than just criticism of those
who speak up.
| If you were sincere about this advice, why did you not follow it yourself
| and reply to me via email? (I don't say you should have, but it follows
| from your argument to me)
No, it does not. You would realize this if your main concern was to
understand and not to throw blame away from yourself.
| Again, you will have to show me things I have written that have given you
| this impression so I can correct your misunderstandings or apologise for
| what I have said.
How about everything you have ever written to me in this newsgroup?
You have attacked me most unfairly on so numerous occasions and are so
unapologetic about your lopsided ethics that I consider you an evil person.
Your apologies would not help. You are destructive towards this forum when
you always criticize those who want the noisy idiots to keep quiet. You are
part of the problem.
| Why don't you simply make a point, such as "I do not believe this is a
| problem in the academic world" instead of all this fabrication of what I am
| thinking and why? It would make it possible to have a discussion with you.
I am utterly amazed. It is a problem in the academic world. This is not
the academic world. That you are reminded of a problem in the academic
world when you see an idiot get criticized is your personal problem and you
should stop bothering other people with it. I suggest you seek professional
help to get over your problems with rejection in academia. It was immensely
educational to see you speak of what you actually detest. It has nothing to
do with this forum at all. That you should even bring up what you detest in
"academia" is very interesting. It shows that you never got over it and are
constantly bothered by memories of it. That you need to distance yourself
from all /perceived/ instances of inclusion in such criticism explains so
much about your personality as you have shown it to us here. Please think
about what I have written to you instead of dismissing it out of hand.
| Well, I think this little bit started because I was bothered by Paul's use
| of "we" in saying "we have concluded you are an idiot" or something.
That you think you would be included had you not spoken is pathological.
That you need to speak in order to distance yourself from others is likewise
not a sign of a healthy mind.
| I doubt I would have replied except for that. Paul did not seem to feel
| attacked by me, I don't know why you feel threatened.
You keep imputing intent to people where you should not. I wonder why. I
do not feel threatened. I consider you damaging to this forum because you
always rise to object when somebody makes a serious disturbance and he gets
criticized for it. You make things far worse with your incredulous desire
to speak up just to be excluded from a rhetorical "we". It looks demented.
Everybody knows that a rhetorical "we" is not all-inclusive. Lots of people
never feel included by rhetorical "wes" and never have to speak up about it.
I suggest that you become one of those people by getting a better grip on
what you really object to and get over whatever horrible thing happened to
you that made you need to make such distance.
| I have been "practicing what I am preaching" wrt ilias, so your advice is
| unnecessary.
Then you both practice and preach hypocrisy. I find that fascinating.
--
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.
Erik Naggum wrote:
...
> you incessant whining about the behavior of critics and never of those who
> misbehave in the first place.
...
> you always criticize those who want the noisy idiots to keep quiet. You are
> part of the problem.
...
> world when you see an idiot get criticized is your personal problem and you
...
> Then you both practice and preach hypocrisy. I find that fascinating.
...
now i understand the bahaviour of 'xah'.
you are a *very* *very* unfriendly person.
fascinating unfriendly !
From: ilias
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts? - control lost, someone helps please !
Date:
Message-ID: <3D72CC50.2030001@pontos.net>
may someone has detected, that 'Coby Beck' does not protect the 'idiot'
ilias (thats me).
may someone has detected, that the idiot ilias doesn't need 'protection'.
may someone has detected, that 'Coby Beck' tries to 'protect' some
people in the c.l.l.-community from outing themselves as *total*
socially incopetent 'idiots'.
i don't know this unfriendly person 'Erik Naggum', but i know that he
has lost control in what he's writing, as he's lost control over his egoism.
I ask friendly: may someone who knows him drops him an email so he wakes up.
I think that everyone has lost control sometimes somehow. Me too, of course.
P.S.: I write this way, cause i expect that he don't receive my messages.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Coby Beck
> | I didn't. If you read what I wrote a little more carefully I'm sure you
> | will see that. I did not voice support for his behaviour, I did not attack
> | anyone, I did not respond to a criticism of his behaviour.
>
> Coby, please quit being such a snotty arrogant shithead and start to think.
> Of /course/ I read you carefully. It is /because/ I read you carefully that
> I respond to you in the first place. Had I read you less carefully, I would
> have kill-filed you for your immense lack of contributions to this forum and
> you incessant whining about the behavior of critics and never of those who
> misbehave in the first place.
>
> But let me tell you something you must have missed in your life. When a
> person is criticized for something, he will interpret any and all /public/
> criticism of his critics as implicit support. If you do not intend this dual
> function with your criticism, send it by mail. By making the criticism
> public, you make it clear that you want to distance yourself from the
> criticism, and there is no way you can escape the consequence that you
> thereby support that which is being criticized. If you think you should be
> able to escape such an obvious consequence, you need to say so up front.
> For instance, you just /had/ to comment negatively on me. That shows that
> you know how to do it, yet you chose only to criticize the critic. You have
> done this very often. There is no way you can possibly hope to escape the
> conclusion that you are on the "victim's" side of the criticism and scold
> only those who want this to be a forum that is valuable to people who are
> not idiots. That makes you strongly pro-idiot. If you are not, speak up
> when you see something you do not like other than just criticism of those
> who speak up.
>
> | If you were sincere about this advice, why did you not follow it yourself
> | and reply to me via email? (I don't say you should have, but it follows
> | from your argument to me)
>
> No, it does not. You would realize this if your main concern was to
> understand and not to throw blame away from yourself.
>
> | Again, you will have to show me things I have written that have given you
> | this impression so I can correct your misunderstandings or apologise for
> | what I have said.
>
> How about everything you have ever written to me in this newsgroup?
> You have attacked me most unfairly on so numerous occasions and are so
> unapologetic about your lopsided ethics that I consider you an evil person.
> Your apologies would not help. You are destructive towards this forum when
> you always criticize those who want the noisy idiots to keep quiet. You are
> part of the problem.
>
> | Why don't you simply make a point, such as "I do not believe this is a
> | problem in the academic world" instead of all this fabrication of what I am
> | thinking and why? It would make it possible to have a discussion with you.
>
> I am utterly amazed. It is a problem in the academic world. This is not
> the academic world. That you are reminded of a problem in the academic
> world when you see an idiot get criticized is your personal problem and you
> should stop bothering other people with it. I suggest you seek professional
> help to get over your problems with rejection in academia. It was immensely
> educational to see you speak of what you actually detest. It has nothing to
> do with this forum at all. That you should even bring up what you detest in
> "academia" is very interesting. It shows that you never got over it and are
> constantly bothered by memories of it. That you need to distance yourself
> from all /perceived/ instances of inclusion in such criticism explains so
> much about your personality as you have shown it to us here. Please think
> about what I have written to you instead of dismissing it out of hand.
>
> | Well, I think this little bit started because I was bothered by Paul's use
> | of "we" in saying "we have concluded you are an idiot" or something.
>
> That you think you would be included had you not spoken is pathological.
> That you need to speak in order to distance yourself from others is likewise
> not a sign of a healthy mind.
>
> | I doubt I would have replied except for that. Paul did not seem to feel
> | attacked by me, I don't know why you feel threatened.
>
> You keep imputing intent to people where you should not. I wonder why. I
> do not feel threatened. I consider you damaging to this forum because you
> always rise to object when somebody makes a serious disturbance and he gets
> criticized for it. You make things far worse with your incredulous desire
> to speak up just to be excluded from a rhetorical "we". It looks demented.
>
> Everybody knows that a rhetorical "we" is not all-inclusive. Lots of people
> never feel included by rhetorical "wes" and never have to speak up about it.
> I suggest that you become one of those people by getting a better grip on
> what you really object to and get over whatever horrible thing happened to
> you that made you need to make such distance.
>
> | I have been "practicing what I am preaching" wrt ilias, so your advice is
> | unnecessary.
>
> Then you both practice and preach hypocrisy. I find that fascinating.
>
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> * Coby Beck
> | I didn't. If you read what I wrote a little more carefully I'm sure you
> | will see that. I did not voice support for his behaviour, I did not
attack
> | anyone, I did not respond to a criticism of his behaviour.
>
> Coby, please quit being such a snotty arrogant shithead and start to
think.
> Of /course/ I read you carefully.
If you do read me so carefully, why in the world do you never respond to the
content of what I write? Rather you insist on attacking false presumptions
about my motivations.
>
> But let me tell you something you must have missed in your life. When a
> person is criticized for something, he will interpret any and all
/public/
> criticism of his critics as implicit support.
Erik, let me teach you something. This only holds for people who have
discussions with the goal of "winning". I don't know if you yourself feel
this way when someone criticises a critic of yours, but i don't think it is
that common among relatively intelligent people (this is not an underhanded
attempt to say you are unintelligent, I know you are not, it is a
characterization of this forum). If winning is your goal, then I can
understand why you feel attacked when your "opponent" is supported. But
this is entirely your own problem, in your own mind.
> If you do not intend this dual
> function with your criticism, send it by mail. By making the criticism
> public, you make it clear that you want to distance yourself from the
> criticism, and there is no way you can escape the consequence that you
> thereby support that which is being criticized. If you think you should
be
> able to escape such an obvious consequence, you need to say so up front.
> For instance, you just /had/ to comment negatively on me.
I do not recall nor find any such comment made by me about you (in the
recent context). If I did "cast the first stone" you can be sure I regret
it. As for your points about criticism, I think they follow from your
premise above and my response is there.
> That shows that
> you know how to do it, yet you chose only to criticize the critic. You
have
> done this very often. There is no way you can possibly hope to escape
the
> conclusion that you are on the "victim's" side of the criticism and
scold
> only those who want this to be a forum that is valuable to people who
are
> not idiots. That makes you strongly pro-idiot.
I think we established quite a long time ago that you and I have very
different ideas about what it means to be an idiot. You have no choice but
to accept that.
> | If you were sincere about this advice, why did you not follow it
yourself
> | and reply to me via email? (I don't say you should have, but it follows
> | from your argument to me)
>
> No, it does not. You would realize this if your main concern was to
> understand and not to throw blame away from yourself.
Yes, it does. Interesting that you chose not to support you opinion but
rather just attack your incorrect interpretation of my motivations.
> | Again, you will have to show me things I have written
> | that have given you this impression so I can correct
> | your misunderstandings or apologise for what I have said.
>
> How about everything you have ever written to me in this newsgroup?
You should not snip relevant context, Erik, there is no way to know what
"this impression" refers to. I will find it....
So your impression about me is this:
"You go out of your way to accuse those who do something you do not like of
ill will and hostility when nonesuch exists and you exacerbate every
conflict situation by attacking those who defend something, making it
impossible to establish better relations and to send the proper signals to
the troublemakers, on whose side you have consistently placed yourself
because you hate people who call others idiots and incompetents so much that
you just have to speak up and make even more trouble."
And it comes from what I have written to you in the past. It seems that you
really meant to say "I" and "me" rather than "those who do" and "those who
defend" and "people" that I hate. I don't hate you, you really should
believe that.
I continue to insist you misunderstand both my point and my motives and must
suggest that you consider that your problem with me is about you and not the
newsgroup.
> You are destructive towards this forum when
> you always criticize those who want the noisy idiots to
> keep quiet. You are part of the problem.
You and I disagree on who the noisy idiots are. Sorry. (Though I am sure
there some overlap there...)
> should stop bothering other people with it. I suggest you
> seek professional help to get over your problems with rejection
> in academia. It was immensely educational to see you speak
> of what you actually detest. It has nothing to do with this
> forum at all. That you should even bring up what you detest in
> "academia" is very interesting. It shows that you never got
> over it and are constantly bothered by memories of it.
You already put forward your ridiculous theory about what I must have lived
and I told you it is not the case. Insisting on arguing from this false
premise is dishonest.
> That you need to distance yourself
> from all /perceived/ instances of inclusion in such
> criticism explains so much about your personality as
> you have shown it to us here.
It is a wild extrapolation indeed to go from one recent article I replied to
to "all" instances of criticism. It is either laziness or dishonesty for
you to imply I respond to "all" posts that contain what I have complained
about. I hold my tongue all the time out of respect for differing opinions
such as yours and out of the realization that it is better to let most of
these things slide.
> | Well, I think this little bit started because I was bothered
> | by Paul's use of "we" in saying "we have concluded you are an
> | idiot" or something.
>
> That you think you would be included had you not spoken is
> pathological. That you need to speak in order to distance
> yourself from others is likewise not a sign of a healthy mind.
I am 37 years old, intelligent, intuitive and interested in language and
social constructs. I am a native speaker of English. I do believe that
when some one on a newsgroup says to another the word "we" absent of any
clearly implied or explicit context, it means "the people who post on this
group." This includes me. You have the right to a different opinion on
this, it is not something one can check up in a reference, but it takes a
lot of gall to suggest my mind is unhealthy because of this. These kinds of
things are a matter of consensus, the existence of which must be inferred
and my understanding of that "we" is at least just as valid as yours. How
can you be so sure that most people don't think that also? That you think I
must be "pathological" and posess an "unhealthy mind" because it disagrees
with what you think is...well, pathological and the sign of an unhealthy
mind. Maybe you were being rhetorical...
> I consider you damaging to this forum
> because you always rise to object when somebody makes a serious
> disturbance and he gets criticized for it.
The premise for your conclusion is incorrect.
> Then you both practice and preach hypocrisy. I find that fascinating.
I enjoy your postings as well, thanks.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
* Coby Beck
| If you do read me so carefully, why in the world do you never respond to the
| content of what I write? Rather you insist on attacking false presumptions
| about my motivations.
What /possible/ objections can you have against this? You base your entire
line of attack on me and on others who criticize people on false presumptions!
If you find it annoying, learn something from it and quit doing it yourself.
However, I maintain that what information you have given me have indeed
given me grounds for what I say. I do not think they are false presumptions,
I think you are unresponsive, arrogant, deflective, evasive and non-thinking.
| Erik, let me teach you something. This only holds for people who have
| discussions with the goal of "winning".
Clearly you understand nothing of what is going on when some idiot like
ilias keeps posting. Winning is /ilias'/ goal. I see his position and methods
for what it is. You na�vely think he has noble goals. He could not possibly
have had a noble goal if his life depended on it, or he would simply have
behaved much, much better long ago. The problem is, you see good in people
who are bad, and bad in people who are good. This warped view has reasons,
and one of them you gave away -- you detest something you overinterpret from
academia, and the most likely reason is that you were hurt, the next most
likely reason is that somebody you felt a need to protect was hurt, and now
you feel a need to protect others who are hurt by what you think is the same
process and attitude, but which it actually is not.
| If winning is your goal, then I can understand why you feel attacked when
| your "opponent" is supported. But this is entirely your own problem, in
| your own mind.
Somehow you managed to confuse my desire to see you not feed ilias support
with a desire to win on my part. I consider this evidence of your willfull
evasion and purposeful lack of understanding on your part. You could not
possibly be so stupid as to miss the point, so it must be intentional.
| As for your points about criticism, I think they follow from your premise
| above and my response is there.
You did not understand my premise. That you manage to invent such a premise
and impute it to me is part of your on-going problem of perceiving your own
role in the conflicts you create by being holier-than-thou about criticism.
That you think I should magically adjust my thinking just because you
self-servingly say it is false goes a long way to understand your severe lack
of empathy with those who do get exhausted from trying to deal with idiots.
| I think we established quite a long time ago that you and I have very
| different ideas about what it means to be an idiot. You have no choice but
| to accept that.
I hope to convince you to keep from pouring gasoline on every conflict just
because you have to speak your mind. That you keep posting instead of just
getting the fucking idea this time, is not helping, however.
| Yes, it does. Interesting that you chose not to support you opinion but
| rather just attack your incorrect interpretation of my motivations.
Ah, so it is OK for you to impute an idiotic desire to "win" to me, but not
OK for me to understand your habit of evading and deflecting as a desire to
throw all blame on those you attack? How interesting that you chose to find
faults with me, again, instead of trying to THINK!
| I don't hate you, you really should believe that.
After what you find yourself capable of posting about other people's
intentions, you have lost all credibility when it comes to presenting your
own intentions. They have, rather, to be inferred from your actions as
judged by someone not on your side. Just as you infer intentions from the
postings of others, including, but not limited to, "winning" and "putting
down" people in order to feel better. Both are indicative of your severe
lack of empathy with those who respond harshly and a pathological empathy
with the "victims", who are really the perpetrators. Some people will always
defend the criminal against the police no matter what they have done. I
consider you that kind of personality, with a totally warped idea of good
and bad people.
| I continue to insist you misunderstand both my point and my motives and must
| suggest that you consider that your problem with me is about you and not the
| newsgroup.
You keep insisting that everything is somebody else's problem like a good
old criminal who just cannot accept that his actions is part of the problem.
Your point is that criticizing idiots is wrong and being an idiot should be
perfectly acceptable. Your motive is to keep the idiots of the world alive
and well at the cost of punishing what you still think are representatives
of the academia you so detest. It has been clear for years that you will
attack anyone (not just me) who dares get irritated at the idiots of the
world and see it as your mission in life to stop criticism of idiots who
destroy the usability of public fora. In short, you are the idiots' /enabler/
and seek to cause fora that were once usable /because/ they were elitist to
become less usable because you want the idiots to feel at home with their
insane drivel, too. Instead of being just an idiot, you are the person that
the idiots can look to for defense and support. This makes you much, much
worse than the idiots you defend from criticism.
| You and I disagree on who the noisy idiots are. Sorry. (Though I am sure
| there some overlap there...)
Yes, we do. You are one of the noisy idiots, for instance.
| You already put forward your ridiculous theory about what I must have lived
| and I told you it is not the case. Insisting on arguing from this false
| premise is dishonest.
No, it is not. You brought up how you detest academia in this discussion,
and it is wholly irrelevant to our current noisy idiot, but it must have
been relevant to you, and that relevance can be inferred from painful
experiences and suffering that you mis-remember when something close to it
crops up. You have repeatedly declined to offer any alternative theories
for the relevance of your personal attitude problem towards academia.
| It is a wild extrapolation indeed to go from one recent article I replied to
| to "all" instances of criticism.
Not when one has read them all and have had to deal with you over a long
period of time. You yourself seem to revel in memories and character flaws
that you attack with a vengeance, so now that you offer me evidence of your
own screwed-up attitude towards academia which explains how you can think of
yourself as some sort of Revenging Angel for the hapless idiots of the world,
I found reason to speak up against your flawed vilification of your victims.
| It is either laziness or dishonesty for you to imply I respond to "all"
| posts that contain what I have complained about.
All critical posts, not all posts. Please, some honesty here if you ask for
it from others. However, I am quite certain that you know you would "lose"
immediately if you were truly honest and therefore try to evade and deflect
criticism as much as possible. Like you do not give people the benefit of
the doubt, you shall have none. If you do not like this, stop being such a
moralistic arrogant asshole and realize your own role and function.
| I hold my tongue all the time out of respect for differing opinions such as
| yours and out of the realization that it is better to let most of these
| things slide.
Geez, you have kept posting so many hateful comments about me and others who
have complained about noisy idiots that I would /really/ hate to see you not
hold your tongue. Thank you so very much for your recalcitrant tongue!
| I am 37 years old, intelligent, intuitive and interested in language and
| social constructs. I am a native speaker of English. I do believe that
| when some one on a newsgroup says to another the word "we" absent of any
| clearly implied or explicit context, it means "the people who post on this
| group." This includes me.
This does not lead to the urge to respond publicly that you must exclude
yourself from the group you feel included in. That urge has deeper roots.
You may not be fully aware of them. I intended to change that by showing
you how what you present to me have given me reason to judge you the way I
have. You could take that to heart or you could scream "unfair" and not get
the point. Guess which option I /expected/ you to choose.
| You have the right to a different opinion on this, it is not something one
| can check up in a reference, but it takes a lot of gall to suggest my mind
| is unhealthy because of this.
Much less gall than it takes to impute the kinds of evil intentions that you
impute to those who "offend" you with an inclusion that you must "correct".
| That you think I must be "pathological" and posess an "unhealthy mind"
| because it disagrees with what you think is...well, pathological and the
| sign of an unhealthy mind. Maybe you were being rhetorical...
It is not because I disagree. Get past this stupid disagreement issue and
understand that there are obvious underlying reasons for your need to voice
your concern about not being included in a group that nobody would have
thought you were included in had you not said a word. The fact that you
need to raise your voice and proclaim this distance from that rhetorical
"we" strongly suggests a fear of being included on the "wrong" side of an
issue that you mis-remember as detestible from your experience with
academia, but which has nothing whatsoever to do with the current issue. It
is not your opinion that matters here, it is that you need to publicly post
it and implicitly brand the person who used "we" in an offensive way to you
was in the wrong for doing so. Something is clearly wrong with you when you
have to voice this opinion publicly. It is not good for you to feel this
need to distance yourself from groups you were not /actually/ included in to
begin with. Learn to deal with it. Someone will say something somewhere
all the time that implicitly includes you if you feel like it, and you would
go nuts (if it has not already happened) if you need to "correct" these
statements that you overinterpret to include yourself.
| The premise for your conclusion is incorrect.
The evidence for it is amply supplied by yourself.
--
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.
From: ilias
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts? - has this guy no friends here???
Date:
Message-ID: <3D731944.50108@pontos.net>
i mean real friends, who are able to say to him:
"shut up, your paranoia gets out of control"
what kind of people are you?
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Coby Beck
> | If you do read me so carefully, why in the world do you never respond to the
> | content of what I write? Rather you insist on attacking false presumptions
> | about my motivations.
>
> What /possible/ objections can you have against this? You base your entire
> line of attack on me and on others who criticize people on false presumptions!
> If you find it annoying, learn something from it and quit doing it yourself.
> However, I maintain that what information you have given me have indeed
> given me grounds for what I say. I do not think they are false presumptions,
> I think you are unresponsive, arrogant, deflective, evasive and non-thinking.
>
> | Erik, let me teach you something. This only holds for people who have
> | discussions with the goal of "winning".
>
> Clearly you understand nothing of what is going on when some idiot like
> ilias keeps posting. Winning is /ilias'/ goal. I see his position and methods
> for what it is. You na�vely think he has noble goals. He could not possibly
> have had a noble goal if his life depended on it, or he would simply have
> behaved much, much better long ago. The problem is, you see good in people
> who are bad, and bad in people who are good. This warped view has reasons,
> and one of them you gave away -- you detest something you overinterpret from
> academia, and the most likely reason is that you were hurt, the next most
> likely reason is that somebody you felt a need to protect was hurt, and now
> you feel a need to protect others who are hurt by what you think is the same
> process and attitude, but which it actually is not.
>
> | If winning is your goal, then I can understand why you feel attacked when
> | your "opponent" is supported. But this is entirely your own problem, in
> | your own mind.
>
> Somehow you managed to confuse my desire to see you not feed ilias support
> with a desire to win on my part. I consider this evidence of your willfull
> evasion and purposeful lack of understanding on your part. You could not
> possibly be so stupid as to miss the point, so it must be intentional.
>
> | As for your points about criticism, I think they follow from your premise
> | above and my response is there.
>
> You did not understand my premise. That you manage to invent such a premise
> and impute it to me is part of your on-going problem of perceiving your own
> role in the conflicts you create by being holier-than-thou about criticism.
> That you think I should magically adjust my thinking just because you
> self-servingly say it is false goes a long way to understand your severe lack
> of empathy with those who do get exhausted from trying to deal with idiots.
>
> | I think we established quite a long time ago that you and I have very
> | different ideas about what it means to be an idiot. You have no choice but
> | to accept that.
>
> I hope to convince you to keep from pouring gasoline on every conflict just
> because you have to speak your mind. That you keep posting instead of just
> getting the fucking idea this time, is not helping, however.
>
> | Yes, it does. Interesting that you chose not to support you opinion but
> | rather just attack your incorrect interpretation of my motivations.
>
> Ah, so it is OK for you to impute an idiotic desire to "win" to me, but not
> OK for me to understand your habit of evading and deflecting as a desire to
> throw all blame on those you attack? How interesting that you chose to find
> faults with me, again, instead of trying to THINK!
>
> | I don't hate you, you really should believe that.
>
> After what you find yourself capable of posting about other people's
> intentions, you have lost all credibility when it comes to presenting your
> own intentions. They have, rather, to be inferred from your actions as
> judged by someone not on your side. Just as you infer intentions from the
> postings of others, including, but not limited to, "winning" and "putting
> down" people in order to feel better. Both are indicative of your severe
> lack of empathy with those who respond harshly and a pathological empathy
> with the "victims", who are really the perpetrators. Some people will always
> defend the criminal against the police no matter what they have done. I
> consider you that kind of personality, with a totally warped idea of good
> and bad people.
>
> | I continue to insist you misunderstand both my point and my motives and must
> | suggest that you consider that your problem with me is about you and not the
> | newsgroup.
>
> You keep insisting that everything is somebody else's problem like a good
> old criminal who just cannot accept that his actions is part of the problem.
> Your point is that criticizing idiots is wrong and being an idiot should be
> perfectly acceptable. Your motive is to keep the idiots of the world alive
> and well at the cost of punishing what you still think are representatives
> of the academia you so detest. It has been clear for years that you will
> attack anyone (not just me) who dares get irritated at the idiots of the
> world and see it as your mission in life to stop criticism of idiots who
> destroy the usability of public fora. In short, you are the idiots' /enabler/
> and seek to cause fora that were once usable /because/ they were elitist to
> become less usable because you want the idiots to feel at home with their
> insane drivel, too. Instead of being just an idiot, you are the person that
> the idiots can look to for defense and support. This makes you much, much
> worse than the idiots you defend from criticism.
>
> | You and I disagree on who the noisy idiots are. Sorry. (Though I am sure
> | there some overlap there...)
>
> Yes, we do. You are one of the noisy idiots, for instance.
>
> | You already put forward your ridiculous theory about what I must have lived
> | and I told you it is not the case. Insisting on arguing from this false
> | premise is dishonest.
>
> No, it is not. You brought up how you detest academia in this discussion,
> and it is wholly irrelevant to our current noisy idiot, but it must have
> been relevant to you, and that relevance can be inferred from painful
> experiences and suffering that you mis-remember when something close to it
> crops up. You have repeatedly declined to offer any alternative theories
> for the relevance of your personal attitude problem towards academia.
>
> | It is a wild extrapolation indeed to go from one recent article I replied to
> | to "all" instances of criticism.
>
> Not when one has read them all and have had to deal with you over a long
> period of time. You yourself seem to revel in memories and character flaws
> that you attack with a vengeance, so now that you offer me evidence of your
> own screwed-up attitude towards academia which explains how you can think of
> yourself as some sort of Revenging Angel for the hapless idiots of the world,
> I found reason to speak up against your flawed vilification of your victims.
>
> | It is either laziness or dishonesty for you to imply I respond to "all"
> | posts that contain what I have complained about.
>
> All critical posts, not all posts. Please, some honesty here if you ask for
> it from others. However, I am quite certain that you know you would "lose"
> immediately if you were truly honest and therefore try to evade and deflect
> criticism as much as possible. Like you do not give people the benefit of
> the doubt, you shall have none. If you do not like this, stop being such a
> moralistic arrogant asshole and realize your own role and function.
>
> | I hold my tongue all the time out of respect for differing opinions such as
> | yours and out of the realization that it is better to let most of these
> | things slide.
>
> Geez, you have kept posting so many hateful comments about me and others who
> have complained about noisy idiots that I would /really/ hate to see you not
> hold your tongue. Thank you so very much for your recalcitrant tongue!
>
> | I am 37 years old, intelligent, intuitive and interested in language and
> | social constructs. I am a native speaker of English. I do believe that
> | when some one on a newsgroup says to another the word "we" absent of any
> | clearly implied or explicit context, it means "the people who post on this
> | group." This includes me.
>
> This does not lead to the urge to respond publicly that you must exclude
> yourself from the group you feel included in. That urge has deeper roots.
> You may not be fully aware of them. I intended to change that by showing
> you how what you present to me have given me reason to judge you the way I
> have. You could take that to heart or you could scream "unfair" and not get
> the point. Guess which option I /expected/ you to choose.
>
> | You have the right to a different opinion on this, it is not something one
> | can check up in a reference, but it takes a lot of gall to suggest my mind
> | is unhealthy because of this.
>
> Much less gall than it takes to impute the kinds of evil intentions that you
> impute to those who "offend" you with an inclusion that you must "correct".
>
> | That you think I must be "pathological" and posess an "unhealthy mind"
> | because it disagrees with what you think is...well, pathological and the
> | sign of an unhealthy mind. Maybe you were being rhetorical...
>
> It is not because I disagree. Get past this stupid disagreement issue and
> understand that there are obvious underlying reasons for your need to voice
> your concern about not being included in a group that nobody would have
> thought you were included in had you not said a word. The fact that you
> need to raise your voice and proclaim this distance from that rhetorical
> "we" strongly suggests a fear of being included on the "wrong" side of an
> issue that you mis-remember as detestible from your experience with
> academia, but which has nothing whatsoever to do with the current issue. It
> is not your opinion that matters here, it is that you need to publicly post
> it and implicitly brand the person who used "we" in an offensive way to you
> was in the wrong for doing so. Something is clearly wrong with you when you
> have to voice this opinion publicly. It is not good for you to feel this
> need to distance yourself from groups you were not /actually/ included in to
> begin with. Learn to deal with it. Someone will say something somewhere
> all the time that implicitly includes you if you feel like it, and you would
> go nuts (if it has not already happened) if you need to "correct" these
> statements that you overinterpret to include yourself.
>
> | The premise for your conclusion is incorrect.
>
> The evidence for it is amply supplied by yourself.
>
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <3D71754D.B255C3F7@dls.net>
Coby Beck wrote:
> Speak for yourself. And even if it is your conclusion, what possible good
> is served by stating it?
He is clearly laboring under serious delusions of competence.
If he's not entirely insane then pointing this out may encourage
him to go elsewhere.
Paul
"Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> wrote in message
······················@dls.net...
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
> > Speak for yourself. And even if it is your conclusion, what possible
good
> > is served by stating it?
>
> He is clearly laboring under serious delusions of competence.
> If he's not entirely insane then pointing this out may encourage
> him to go elsewhere.
You may well be right (but obviously, I tend to disagree.) I believe that
more often than not, our enemies are the creation of our own actions.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
In article <·············@otis.netspace.net.au>, Coby Beck wrote:
>
> "Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> wrote in message
> ······················@dls.net...
>> Coby Beck wrote:
>>
>> > Speak for yourself. And even if it is your conclusion, what possible
> good
>> > is served by stating it?
>>
>> He is clearly laboring under serious delusions of competence.
>> If he's not entirely insane then pointing this out may encourage
>> him to go elsewhere.
>
> You may well be right (but obviously, I tend to disagree.) I believe that
> more often than not, our enemies are the creation of our own actions.
but if you belive you are doing the right thing should you modify your
actions just because other people will become your enemies?
It is impossable to go through life with out making enemies. You may
make them for the best or worst reasons, but you will make them.
And I think that most of the people who are my enemies have never met
me, they hate me because of the groups I belong to(american for example).
marc
>
> --
> Coby Beck
> (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
>
>
In article <···················@oscar.eng.cv.net>,
····@oscar.eng.cv.net (Marc Spitzer) wrote:
> And I think that most of the people who are my enemies have never met
> me, they hate me because of the groups I belong to(american for example).
How do you know somebody is hating you if you do not know him?
Not because the person happens to live in Baghdad I hope.
--
This message was not sent to you unsolicited.
In article <·····················@solg4.keke.org>, Takehiko Abe wrote:
> In article <···················@oscar.eng.cv.net>,
> ····@oscar.eng.cv.net (Marc Spitzer) wrote:
>
>> And I think that most of the people who are my enemies have never met
>> me, they hate me because of the groups I belong to(american for example).
>
> How do you know somebody is hating you if you do not know him?
> Not because the person happens to live in Baghdad I hope.
Well I was in the army durring durring desert storm, my unit did not
get deployed though. And there might be some people who hate the
American military in Baghdad.
And I am Jewish, so lots of people hate me for that.
marc
>
> --
> This message was not sent to you unsolicited.
In article <···················@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote:
> >> And I think that most of the people who are my enemies have never met
> >> me, they hate me because of the groups I belong to(american for example).
> >
> > How do you know somebody is hating you if you do not know him?
> > Not because the person happens to live in Baghdad I hope.
>
> Well I was in the army durring durring desert storm, my unit did not
> get deployed though. And there might be some people who hate the
> American military in Baghdad.
There must be some people in Baghdad who hate US military.
But I think it is wrong to assume that they hate _you_
because the fact that you were in the Army does not mean
you are eq to the American miritary.
>
> And I am Jewish, so lots of people hate me for that.
They hate you and see you as their enemy without knowing you.
--
This message was not sent to you unsolicited.
In article <·····················@solg4.keke.org>, Takehiko Abe wrote:
> In article <···················@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote:
>
>> >> And I think that most of the people who are my enemies have never met
>> >> me, they hate me because of the groups I belong to(american for example).
>> >
>> > How do you know somebody is hating you if you do not know him?
>> > Not because the person happens to live in Baghdad I hope.
>>
>> Well I was in the army durring durring desert storm, my unit did not
>> get deployed though. And there might be some people who hate the
>> American military in Baghdad.
>
> There must be some people in Baghdad who hate US military.
> But I think it is wrong to assume that they hate _you_
> because the fact that you were in the Army does not mean
> you are eq to the American miritary.
I was mearly giving an example here.
>
>>
>> And I am Jewish, so lots of people hate me for that.
>
> They hate you and see you as their enemy without knowing you.
Yes they do. That is my point, most of my enemies do not know me
and will never meet me.
marc
>
> --
> This message was not sent to you unsolicited.
* Takehiko Abe
| How do you know somebody is hating you if you do not know him?
To know somebody has two different meanings. If you said you hated me in
this newsgroup, would I thereby know you? Hardly. The people who have come
out of nowhere to express hatred and anger think they know me, however, in
the sense that they spout an enormous amount of drivel that they /invented/
about me based on what they think they saw. Clearly, these people are quite
insane, but what does it mean to /know/ somebody except that you think that
what you have concluded about them is true?
--
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.
In article <················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum wrote:
> but what does it mean to /know/ somebody except that you think that
> what you have concluded about them is true?
That whatever I have concluded about somebody might not be true makes
it dangerous to assume somebody is my enemy. This is more so, the less
I know about them.
--
This message was not sent to you unsolicited.
Eric,
This is your good twin talking. Take your Prozac. You have obviously forgotten
it again.
Eric
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Takehiko Abe
> | How do you know somebody is hating you if you do not know him?
>
> To know somebody has two different meanings. If you said you hated me in
> this newsgroup, would I thereby know you? Hardly. The people who have come
> out of nowhere to express hatred and anger think they know me, however, in
> the sense that they spout an enormous amount of drivel that they /invented/
> about me based on what they think they saw. Clearly, these people are quite
> insane, but what does it mean to /know/ somebody except that you think that
> what you have concluded about them is true?
>
> --
> 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.
"Marc Spitzer" <····@oscar.eng.cv.net> wrote in message
························@oscar.eng.cv.net...
> In article <·············@otis.netspace.net.au>, Coby Beck wrote:
> >
> > "Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> wrote in message
> > ······················@dls.net...
> >> Coby Beck wrote:
> >>
> >> > Speak for yourself. And even if it is your conclusion,
> >> > what possible good is served by stating it?
> >>
> >> He is clearly laboring under serious delusions of competence.
> >> If he's not entirely insane then pointing this out may encourage
> >> him to go elsewhere.
> >
> > You may well be right (but obviously, I tend to disagree.)
> > I believe that more often than not, our enemies are the
> > creation of our own actions.
> but if you belive you are doing the right thing should you modify
> your actions just because other people will become your enemies?
Though they do exist, situations where doing "The Right Thing" unavoidably
creates enemies are uncommon. But the short answer to your question is no.
> It is impossable to go through life with out making enemies. You may
> make them for the best or worst reasons, but you will make them.
This is true. But is it always necessary to engage them? This gets a
little away from the issue of stubborn newbies and insulted, angry experts.
I would hope few people elevate ilias to the stature "Enemy of lisp"
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
* "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
| This is true. But is it always necessary to engage them?
You seem to have a knack for engaging the critics. Why is that? Would they
not, according to your own standards, be likely to be /less/ hostile if they
did not always have someone like you come up and brand them as immoral and
evil and whatnot when they lose their patience after spending a lot of time
trying to help someone? Have you no empathy for those who find that their
goodwill is abused by these morons, only for the morons who so abuse it when
they are criticized for it? Perhaps you create more morons by defending 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.
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> * "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
> | This is true. But is it always necessary to engage them?
>
> You seem to have a knack for engaging the critics. Why is that? Would
they
> not, according to your own standards, be likely to be /less/ hostile if
they
> did not always have someone like you come up and brand them as immoral
and
> evil and whatnot when they lose their patience after spending a lot of
time
> trying to help someone?
Do you consider all criticism of personal behaviour to be a branding of
evil? Is my saying, "I do not think it is right to do that" equivalent to
"you are immoral and evil" in your eyes?
If so, why do you not accept that I take "you are an idiot" as a hostile
statement?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
* "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
| Do you consider all criticism of personal behaviour to be a branding of
| evil?
No. I consider your criticism of those who criticize bad behavior to be
branding of evil since you make broad, sweeping claims about those you
criticize. I fail to see how this could not have been communicated clearly,
so I take your response to be intentionally deflective.
--
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.
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> * "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
> | Do you consider all criticism of personal behaviour to be a
> | branding of evil?
>
> No. I consider your criticism of those who criticize bad
> behavior to be branding of evil since you make broad, sweeping
> claims about those you criticize. I fail to see how this
> could not have been communicated clearly, so I take your response
> to be intentionally deflective.
It was not. You have yet to show me anything I have written that supports
your characterization of it. Out of respect for your own brand of integrity
that you profess and exhibit, I have reviewed what I wrote recently and do
not find any broad sweeping claims about any individuals. I have made
claims about social phenomena and its relation to individual behaviours and
I stand by them. Is it the fact that I said (loose-quote "rudeness and
hostility in this intellectual forum is rooted in weakness and cruelty
similar to what is often found in academia") what makes you leap to your
conclusions? If so, we will probably just have to agree to disagree unless
you can present some points not based on false presumptions about who I am
and what I think.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
* Coby Beck
| You have yet to show me anything I have written that supports your
| characterization of it.
Look, you idiot. The evidence is right there in front of you -- it is your
own articles. You should know what you write and what you do. Demanding
that you be shown what you have yourself written so that you can be relieved
of the pain of revisiting your own writings is just being equally obnoxious
as the idiots you defend from criticism.
| Out of respect for your own brand of integrity that you profess and exhibit,
| I have reviewed what I wrote recently and do not find any broad sweeping
| claims about any individuals.
Why am I not surprised. You have already shown us that you do not
understand that publicly criticizing a critic is tantamount to defending
that which is criticized and that everybody else see your actions this way.
| If so, we will probably just have to agree to disagree unless you can present
| some points not based on false presumptions about who I am and what I think.
Are you finally beginning to learn? That would be welcome. Your own need
to criticize others is based on your false presumptions about them. That
you now seem to indicate that you do not like this when it happens to
yourself could be a good sign -- that you may yet understand /why/ your
incessant whining about the behavior of critics or your stupid need to
distance yourself from rhetorical "wes" is unwelcome because of the many
layers of implicit accusations that are based on /your/ false presumptions.
From what you write about what you "detest" from academia, which is utterly
irrelevant here, I finally begin to understand your need to harrass those
who /you/ see as transgressors without realizing your own role and function
as an harrassing contributor to the hostile environment that you seem to
"detest". Less hostility on /your/ part against the critics would go a long
way to decrease the /expectation/ that any exhaustion of patience will be
met with similarly stupid distancing on your part.
Go through your own "contributions" to this forum, and you, too, will find
that you spend more time complaining about other people than you do anything
useful. Those /you/ criticize have at the very least tried to help those /they/
criticize before they criticize anyone. That is not true for you, so you do
not actually have the same right to criticize anyone. Losing your patience
with someone after you have made an effort to understand and to explain is
tolerable -- it is only human. Mounting holier-than-thou wars against those
who lose their patience because you had a bad experience in academia is not
tolerable -- you should seek help to get over your bad experiences when you
notice that they influence your actions and your perception negatively.
But the fact that you refuse to consider anything I tell you is sufficient
evidence that you are so convinced that you are better than those you
criticize that there is no hope for you, and that you are a waste of time.
--
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.
may someone has detected, that 'Coby Beck' does not protect the 'idiot'
ilias (thats me).
may someone has detected, that the idiot ilias doesn't need 'protection'.
may someone has detected, that 'Coby Beck' tries to 'protect' some
people in the c.l.l.-community from outing themselves as *total*
socially incopetent 'idiots'.
i don't know this unfriendly person 'Erik Naggum', but i know that he
has lost control in what he's writing, as he's lost control over his egoism.
I ask friendly: may someone who knows him drops him an email so he wakes up.
I think that everyone has lost control sometimes somehow. Me too, of course.
P.S.: I write this way, cause i expect that he don't receive my messages.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Coby Beck
> | You have yet to show me anything I have written that supports your
> | characterization of it.
>
> Look, you idiot. The evidence is right there in front of you -- it is your
> own articles. You should know what you write and what you do. Demanding
> that you be shown what you have yourself written so that you can be relieved
> of the pain of revisiting your own writings is just being equally obnoxious
> as the idiots you defend from criticism.
>
> | Out of respect for your own brand of integrity that you profess and exhibit,
> | I have reviewed what I wrote recently and do not find any broad sweeping
> | claims about any individuals.
>
> Why am I not surprised. You have already shown us that you do not
> understand that publicly criticizing a critic is tantamount to defending
> that which is criticized and that everybody else see your actions this way.
>
> | If so, we will probably just have to agree to disagree unless you can present
> | some points not based on false presumptions about who I am and what I think.
>
> Are you finally beginning to learn? That would be welcome. Your own need
> to criticize others is based on your false presumptions about them. That
> you now seem to indicate that you do not like this when it happens to
> yourself could be a good sign -- that you may yet understand /why/ your
> incessant whining about the behavior of critics or your stupid need to
> distance yourself from rhetorical "wes" is unwelcome because of the many
> layers of implicit accusations that are based on /your/ false presumptions.
>
> From what you write about what you "detest" from academia, which is utterly
> irrelevant here, I finally begin to understand your need to harrass those
> who /you/ see as transgressors without realizing your own role and function
> as an harrassing contributor to the hostile environment that you seem to
> "detest". Less hostility on /your/ part against the critics would go a long
> way to decrease the /expectation/ that any exhaustion of patience will be
> met with similarly stupid distancing on your part.
>
> Go through your own "contributions" to this forum, and you, too, will find
> that you spend more time complaining about other people than you do anything
> useful. Those /you/ criticize have at the very least tried to help those /they/
> criticize before they criticize anyone. That is not true for you, so you do
> not actually have the same right to criticize anyone. Losing your patience
> with someone after you have made an effort to understand and to explain is
> tolerable -- it is only human. Mounting holier-than-thou wars against those
> who lose their patience because you had a bad experience in academia is not
> tolerable -- you should seek help to get over your bad experiences when you
> notice that they influence your actions and your perception negatively.
>
> But the fact that you refuse to consider anything I tell you is sufficient
> evidence that you are so convinced that you are better than those you
> criticize that there is no hope for you, and that you are a waste of time.
>
ilias wrote:
>[...]
> may someone has detected, that the idiot ilias doesn't
> need 'protection'.
>[...]
English as she is spoken.
--
JB
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> * Coby Beck
> | You have yet to show me anything I have written that supports your
> | characterization of it.
>
> Look, you idiot. The evidence is right there in front of you --
> it is your own articles. You should know what you write and
> what you do. Demanding that you be shown what you have yourself
> written so that you can be relieved of the pain of revisiting
> your own writings is just being equally obnoxious as the idiots
> you defend from criticism.
This really is the best of cheap debating tactics, Erik, make broad and
subjective characterizations about what I write and attack me for wanting
specific examples. How else can I seriously address your criticism? You
would be much better served and more honest to merely post "Coby I despise
you" and just leave it at that.
>
> | Out of respect for your own brand of integrity that you profess
> | and exhibit, I have reviewed what I wrote recently and do not
> | find any broad sweeping claims about any individuals.
>
> Why am I not surprised. You have already shown us that you do not
> understand that publicly criticizing a critic is tantamount to
> defending that which is criticized and that everybody else see
> your actions this way.
There is much more information revealed about you in what you choose to cut
from the article you respond to than the regurgitated fabrications you have
posted. Why do you not answer direct questions?
> Go through your own "contributions" to this forum, and you, too, will
find
> that you spend more time complaining about other people than you do
anything
> useful.
If that is your perception, plonk me, shut up and leave me alone.
> Mounting holier-than-thou wars against those who lose their
> patience because you had a bad experience in academia is not
> tolerable -- you should seek help to get over your bad experiences
> when you notice that they influence your actions and your
> perception negatively.
You already put forward your ridiculous theory about what I must have lived
and I told you it is not the case. Insisting on arguing from this false
premise is dishonest.
> But the fact that you refuse to consider anything I tell you
Disagreeing with you does not equal not considering what you say. Though
you may *know* that, you do not seem to be capable of *living* it.
> is sufficient
> evidence that you are so convinced that you are better than those you
> criticize that there is no hope for you, and that you are a waste of
time.
So stop wasting it. I never posted a word to or about you in this thread
until *you* addressed *me*.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
* "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
| How else can I seriously address your criticism?
You can think about it.
| You would be much better served and more honest to merely post "Coby I
| despise you" and just leave it at that.
You want me to lie in order to be more honest? Are you really that insane?
I despise what you do, not you. Learn the difference and get the hell over
your personal problems that so cloud your thinking that you both hate people
and lie about it and impute similar hatred to other people despite evidence
to the contrary.
| There is much more information revealed about you in what you choose to cut
| from the article you respond to than the regurgitated fabrications you have
| posted. Why do you not answer direct questions?
Again, your only tactic is to deflect. I criticized your incessant attacks
on people who criticize idiots, and all you do is turn it around to be about
your criticizer. It is fucking amazing to behold such dishonesty on such a
grand scale. I do not answer direct questions because you always "answer"
with a question back to those who ask you direct questions. You should not
have a problem with other people rejecting your direct questions unless you
really think there is one law for Coby Beck and one law for everybody else.
There is ample evidence that you do, indeed, think that you are held to
quite different sets of laws than other people and that your hypocrisy is a
virtue but the hypocrisy you impute to others is a serious flaw.
| If that is your perception, plonk me, shut up and leave me alone.
Would that it be that simple. You poison the forum by disallowing criticism
of obnoxious idiots and your long-term defense of idiots has made it harder
to get rid of them than if those who noticed that even though they were in
the minority on some issue, they would yield to the greater good of getting
rid of the idiots. As you so plainly state, however, we differ in who we
regard as the noisy idiots, and you clearly defend the annoying morons
against those who have tried to help them and have been met with disrespect
in return -- a disrespect you thereby condone and encourage.
| Disagreeing with you does not equal not considering what you say. Though
| you may *know* that, you do not seem to be capable of *living* it.
You already put forward your ridiculous theory about what I must have lived
and I told you it is not the case. Insisting on arguing from this false
premise is dishonest.
| So stop wasting it. I never posted a word to or about you in this thread
| until *you* addressed *me*.
True. However, you feel obliged to object when other people do something
that does not involve you (except insofar as you believe you are included in
every possible group-related statement that could include you), so you could
hardly blame anyone for applying the same principle to criticize you.
I would very much appreciate if you could get over whatever pain you have
suffered and leave people alone even when they say something that annoys
you. Your warped ethics cause you to inflict more harm than good and on the
wrong people. You should realize that strong objections to your own behavior
have a reason that you may not like any more than you like the criticism.
One of them could be that you do, in fact, do things that people find really
objectionable and even reprehensible and that you lead people you criticize
with your holier-than-thou attitude to become very sensitive to your
continued vilification and harrassment of people whose goal is merely to
have a better and more useful forum.
You want a forum more inclusive for idiots and trolls. Others want a forum
exclusive of idiots and trolls. Since your goals is at odds with those of a
large number of people, you /could/ learn that you will not get a forum that
is conducive to trolling and idiots, but also realize that since you favor
this form of forum, you have contributed in large part to the problems that
other people perceive. If you are completely antisocial, you will continue
to fight for the right of trolls and idiots to post their inflammatory
drivel while you criticize those who try to dissuade them and others from
responding to them. So far, you have given me no reason whatsoever to
change my belief that you are a great fan of trolls and idiots and will
fight for their "right" to destroy a useful forum. Since you keep deflecting
criticism back to your critics, I must have found something that you find so
painful to you that you refuse to consider it intelligently, and then I have
no other option but to make it even more painful to you /not/ to consider
that option.
--
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.
is this real?
out of samples that i read in this text, i cannot believe it.
if it is real, why don't somebody interupts this self-distortion?
i mean, even if you don't like 'Erik Naggum', this goes to far.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
> | How else can I seriously address your criticism?
>
> You can think about it.
>
> | You would be much better served and more honest to merely post "Coby I
> | despise you" and just leave it at that.
>
> You want me to lie in order to be more honest? Are you really that insane?
> I despise what you do, not you. Learn the difference and get the hell over
> your personal problems that so cloud your thinking that you both hate people
> and lie about it and impute similar hatred to other people despite evidence
> to the contrary.
>
> | There is much more information revealed about you in what you choose to cut
> | from the article you respond to than the regurgitated fabrications you have
> | posted. Why do you not answer direct questions?
>
> Again, your only tactic is to deflect. I criticized your incessant attacks
> on people who criticize idiots, and all you do is turn it around to be about
> your criticizer. It is fucking amazing to behold such dishonesty on such a
> grand scale. I do not answer direct questions because you always "answer"
> with a question back to those who ask you direct questions. You should not
> have a problem with other people rejecting your direct questions unless you
> really think there is one law for Coby Beck and one law for everybody else.
> There is ample evidence that you do, indeed, think that you are held to
> quite different sets of laws than other people and that your hypocrisy is a
> virtue but the hypocrisy you impute to others is a serious flaw.
>
> | If that is your perception, plonk me, shut up and leave me alone.
>
> Would that it be that simple. You poison the forum by disallowing criticism
> of obnoxious idiots and your long-term defense of idiots has made it harder
> to get rid of them than if those who noticed that even though they were in
> the minority on some issue, they would yield to the greater good of getting
> rid of the idiots. As you so plainly state, however, we differ in who we
> regard as the noisy idiots, and you clearly defend the annoying morons
> against those who have tried to help them and have been met with disrespect
> in return -- a disrespect you thereby condone and encourage.
>
> | Disagreeing with you does not equal not considering what you say. Though
> | you may *know* that, you do not seem to be capable of *living* it.
>
> You already put forward your ridiculous theory about what I must have lived
> and I told you it is not the case. Insisting on arguing from this false
> premise is dishonest.
>
> | So stop wasting it. I never posted a word to or about you in this thread
> | until *you* addressed *me*.
>
> True. However, you feel obliged to object when other people do something
> that does not involve you (except insofar as you believe you are included in
> every possible group-related statement that could include you), so you could
> hardly blame anyone for applying the same principle to criticize you.
>
> I would very much appreciate if you could get over whatever pain you have
> suffered and leave people alone even when they say something that annoys
> you. Your warped ethics cause you to inflict more harm than good and on the
> wrong people. You should realize that strong objections to your own behavior
> have a reason that you may not like any more than you like the criticism.
> One of them could be that you do, in fact, do things that people find really
> objectionable and even reprehensible and that you lead people you criticize
> with your holier-than-thou attitude to become very sensitive to your
> continued vilification and harrassment of people whose goal is merely to
> have a better and more useful forum.
>
> You want a forum more inclusive for idiots and trolls. Others want a forum
> exclusive of idiots and trolls. Since your goals is at odds with those of a
> large number of people, you /could/ learn that you will not get a forum that
> is conducive to trolling and idiots, but also realize that since you favor
> this form of forum, you have contributed in large part to the problems that
> other people perceive. If you are completely antisocial, you will continue
> to fight for the right of trolls and idiots to post their inflammatory
> drivel while you criticize those who try to dissuade them and others from
> responding to them. So far, you have given me no reason whatsoever to
> change my belief that you are a great fan of trolls and idiots and will
> fight for their "right" to destroy a useful forum. Since you keep deflecting
> criticism back to your critics, I must have found something that you find so
> painful to you that you refuse to consider it intelligently, and then I have
> no other option but to make it even more painful to you /not/ to consider
> that option.
>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> and "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
are engaged in a totally mind-boggling exchange of ever increasing
vituperation.
But finally we have have the question needed to put this to bed:
Erik> You want a forum more inclusive for idiots and trolls.
This is the heart of the issue. Many of us feel that ilias
has not posted a _single_ post which lends credence to him _not_ being
a troll (note how all his posts now are going unanswered; probably
because every reasonable poster has killfiled him long ago).
I'm sure Coby will not actually come and admit that he wants "more
idiots and trolls"; he'd probably phrase it as a group "more tolerant
and reserving in judgment". But in the absence of allowing people to
make value judgments (e.g. X is a troll), it comes to the same thing.
I'm wondering just how obnoxious does a poster have to be before
he gets what he deserves? If there is infinite leeway, then we indeed
_will_ have a forum "more inclusive for idiots and trolls".
It is not wrong, nor uncharitable, to tell idiots to shut up and go away.
With luck, they might even grow up.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <ey38z2ip0nz.fsf@cley.com>
* Alain Picard wrote:
> I'm wondering just how obnoxious does a poster have to be before
> he gets what he deserves? If there is infinite leeway, then we indeed
> _will_ have a forum "more inclusive for idiots and trolls".
Well, I am not sure what they deserve.
> It is not wrong, nor uncharitable, to tell idiots to shut up and go
> away. With luck, they might even grow up.
In particular I think that *responding* to them is something on which
they thrive: many are seeking attention of some kind. I've been quite
rude to one of them recently, mostly to see if he would go away, and
it seems only to have encouraged him. This is a somewhat cruel
experiment, and one I've not tried before, but it seems also to simply
not work. So I think the best answer is to respond to whatever
technical point there may be at the start (if there is one), and then
if it becomes clear that the person is just a troll to simply ignore
them. I guess this is standard usenet practice and I've just being
dumb to have tried anything else (and I apologise for the pain I've
caused others if I have indeed encouraged him). If you keep
responding to them they just end up feeling like a victim and
harbouring all sorts of resentments against the imagined `cll elite'.
I think that a problem with cll at the moment is that there are a fair
number of people who have these resentments for whatever reason (and I
suggest that the reason is largely that they have not been simply
ignored) and that these people are likely to band together against the
fictitious `elite' even if they are ignored by the majority. I don't
think this alters the correct response though.
--tim (Not a member of the elite. There is no elite. Ignore the man
behind the curtain.)
Tim wrote:
> I think that a problem with cll at the moment is that there are a fair
> number of people who have these resentments for whatever reason ...
> and that these people are likely to band together against the
> fictitious `elite' even if they are ignored by the majority. I don't
> think this alters the correct response though.
I completely agree. I too am guilty of feeding the trolls and in
retrospect regret this[1].
> ... Ignore the man behind the curtain.
Surely that is the Man...
;)w
[1] ... and laughing at my own jokes which is probably worse...
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3ofbeni1e.fsf@cley.com>
* Will Deakin wrote:
> Surely that is the Man...
Van Morrison is behind the curtain? Surely not.
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> * Alain Picard wrote:
> > I'm wondering just how obnoxious does a poster have to be before
> > he gets what he deserves? If there is infinite leeway, then we indeed
> > _will_ have a forum "more inclusive for idiots and trolls".
>
> Well, I am not sure what they deserve.
Well, on USENET, the death penalty is the killfile. Close second
is to completely lose all respect from the community with which you
were hoping to converse. Both of these are far worse than just
being told to grow up and think before posting drivel, but it shows
how maladjusted certain individuals are that they think the latter
is the most terrible fate, when, before it happens, 1 and 2 have
probably already taken place.
> So I think the best answer is to respond to whatever
> technical point there may be at the start (if there is one), and then
> if it becomes clear that the person is just a troll to simply ignore
> them.
Wise words, which should be heeded. And of course, all newbies
deserve a healthy benefit of doubt, but, sadly, many place themselves in
the troll/loser category by their amazing and obstinate lack of social
skills and maturity.
> --tim (Not a member of the elite. There is no elite. Ignore the man
> behind the curtain.)
Hey! Where do I cast my vote? I'll vote you in as member of the
�lite! :-)
On 04 Sep 2002 10:24:48 +0100, Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> wrote:
> not work. So I think the best answer is to respond to whatever
> technical point there may be at the start (if there is one), and then
> if it becomes clear that the person is just a troll to simply ignore
> them. I guess this is standard usenet practice and I've just being
Is this your solution to the troll's dilemma? :)
> --tim (Not a member of the elite. There is no elite. Ignore the man
> behind the curtain.)
Hmmm... do you really mean that there are no MIL (Men In Lisp)?
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
From: Hartmann Schaffer
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <3d73d1d7@news.sentex.net>
In article <················@naggum.no>,
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> ...
> Why am I not surprised. You have already shown us that you do not
> understand that publicly criticizing a critic is tantamount to defending
> that which is criticized and that everybody else see your actions this way.
(note: i haven't seen this thread until now, so what follows has
nothing to do with this flame exchange)
this would assume that there is only one reason to criticize something
or someone, which is patently untrue. as an example, both nazis and
communists criticize liberals, and when they criticize each other they
aren't suddenly supporting liberalism
hs
--
don't use malice as an explanation when stupidity suffices
··@heaven.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) writes:
> In article <················@naggum.no>,
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> > ...
> > Why am I not surprised. You have already shown us that you do not
> > understand that publicly criticizing a critic is tantamount to defending
> > that which is criticized and that everybody else see your actions this way.
[...]
> this would assume that there is only one reason to criticize something
> or someone, which is patently untrue. as an example, both nazis and
> communists criticize liberals, and when they criticize each other they
> aren't suddenly supporting liberalism
Hear, hear.
--
If you want divine justice, die.
-- Nick Seldon
* Hartmann Schaffer
| (note: i haven't seen this thread until now, so what follows has
| nothing to do with this flame exchange)
You are right. It had nothing to do with the thread.
--
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.
From: Hartmann Schaffer
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <3d756358@news.sentex.net>
In article <················@naggum.no>,
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * Hartmann Schaffer
>| (note: i haven't seen this thread until now, so what follows has
>| nothing to do with this flame exchange)
>
> You are right. ...
i know
hs
--
don't use malice as an explanation when stupidity suffices
In article <·············@otis.netspace.net.au>, Coby Beck wrote:
>
> "Marc Spitzer" <····@oscar.eng.cv.net> wrote in message
> ························@oscar.eng.cv.net...
>
>> It is impossable to go through life with out making enemies. You may
>> make them for the best or worst reasons, but you will make them.
>
> This is true. But is it always necessary to engage them? This gets a
> little away from the issue of stubborn newbies and insulted, angry experts.
> I would hope few people elevate ilias to the stature "Enemy of lisp"
Are you claiming that I always, with out exception, engage them? This
sounds like you are saying I have a mental problem and I take exception
to this.
Now on to ilias, I do not think of him as an "Enemy of Lisp". I
personally think of him as a very deliberately annoying twit. The
apparently deliberate use of truly screwy english, in this context,
is extremely offensive to me. He is asking people for help in a way
that makes it harder to help him then need be. And when he gets an
answer explaining where he went wrong he tells the people who helped
him how wrong they are for disagreeing with him. So ilias is a twit.
marc
>
> --
> Coby Beck
> (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
>
>
>
"Marc Spitzer" <····@oscar.eng.cv.net> wrote in message
························@oscar.eng.cv.net...
> In article <·············@otis.netspace.net.au>, Coby Beck wrote:
> >
> > "Marc Spitzer" <····@oscar.eng.cv.net> wrote in message
> > ························@oscar.eng.cv.net...
> >
> >> It is impossable to go through life with out making enemies. You may
> >> make them for the best or worst reasons, but you will make them.
> >
> > This is true. But is it always necessary to engage them? This gets a
> > little away from the issue of stubborn newbies and insulted, angry
experts.
> > I would hope few people elevate ilias to the stature "Enemy of lisp"
>
> Are you claiming that I always, with out exception, engage them? This
> sounds like you are saying I have a mental problem and I take exception
> to this.
Of course not. That is an unreasonable and agressive interpretation. I
claim what I wrote and it is a general, philisophical and off-topic comment
with no such hidden agenda.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
In article <·············@otis.netspace.net.au>, Coby Beck wrote:
>
> "Marc Spitzer" <····@oscar.eng.cv.net> wrote in message
> ························@oscar.eng.cv.net...
>> In article <·············@otis.netspace.net.au>, Coby Beck wrote:
>>>
>>> "Marc Spitzer" <····@oscar.eng.cv.net> wrote in message
>>> ························@oscar.eng.cv.net...
>>>
>>>> It is impossable to go through life with out making enemies. You may
>>>> make them for the best or worst reasons, but you will make them.
>>>
>>> This is true. But is it always necessary to engage them? This
>>> gets a little away from the issue of stubborn newbies and
>>> insulted, angry experts. I would hope few people elevate ilias to
>>> the stature "Enemy of lisp"
>>
>> Are you claiming that I always, with out exception, engage them? This
>> sounds like you are saying I have a mental problem and I take exception
>> to this.
>
> Of course not. That is an unreasonable and agressive interpretation. I
> claim what I wrote and it is a general, philisophical and off-topic comment
> with no such hidden agenda.
Well always means "every time". You did use the argument that these
things should be taken literaly in article
·············@otis.netspace.net.au you post the following:
"Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> wrote in message
······················@dls.net...
> But your mission is accomplished, ilias. We've all concluded
> you're an idiot. That *was* your mission, right?
Speak for yourself. And even if it is your conclusion,
what possible good is served by stating it?
So it appears to me that you think that 'we' meaning 'all of us' should
be taken literally. And because of that you felt the need to explicitly
exclude your self from said 'we'. Now 'always' is a temporal grouping
rather then a spatial grouping as in 'we', but I applied the rules
that you used for grouping to your responce. Now I ask you how is
that agressive or unreasonable in light of you previous post setting
up these rules of interptation?
marc
>
> --
> Coby Beck
> (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
>
>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> In article <·············@otis.netspace.net.au>, Coby Beck wrote:
>
>>"Marc Spitzer" <····@oscar.eng.cv.net> wrote in message
>>························@oscar.eng.cv.net...
>>
>>>In article <·············@otis.netspace.net.au>, Coby Beck wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Marc Spitzer" <····@oscar.eng.cv.net> wrote in message
>>>>························@oscar.eng.cv.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It is impossable to go through life with out making enemies. You may
>>>>>make them for the best or worst reasons, but you will make them.
>>>>
>>>>This is true. But is it always necessary to engage them? This
>>>>gets a little away from the issue of stubborn newbies and
>>>>insulted, angry experts. I would hope few people elevate ilias to
>>>>the stature "Enemy of lisp"
>>>
>>>Are you claiming that I always, with out exception, engage them? This
>>>sounds like you are saying I have a mental problem and I take exception
>>>to this.
>>
>>Of course not. That is an unreasonable and agressive interpretation. I
>>claim what I wrote and it is a general, philisophical and off-topic comment
>>with no such hidden agenda.
>
> Well always means "every time". You did use the argument that these
> things should be taken literaly in article
> ·············@otis.netspace.net.au you post the following:
>
> "Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> wrote in message
> ······················@dls.net...
> > But your mission is accomplished, ilias. We've all concluded
> > you're an idiot. That *was* your mission, right?
>
> Speak for yourself. And even if it is your conclusion,
> what possible good is served by stating it?
>
> So it appears to me that you think that 'we' meaning 'all of us' should
> be taken literally. And because of that you felt the need to explicitly
> exclude your self from said 'we'. Now 'always' is a temporal grouping
> rather then a spatial grouping as in 'we', but I applied the rules
> that you used for grouping to your responce. Now I ask you how is
> that agressive or unreasonable in light of you previous post setting
> up these rules of interptation?
aaa. now i understand.
finally it *was* an unreasonable and agressive interpretation.
cause you did it to speak out the about stuff.
have a open mind now, Scary Readtable is out.
so i came back to see whats happen here.
The main difference (temporal grouping and spatial i don't understand,
but i don't have too):
- context.
*i* a stranger. in a foreign group. the weight of the word 'we' is greater.
you need a minimum set of gentleness to understand this.
do you understand?
In article <············@usenet.otenet.gr>, ilias wrote:
>
> aaa. now i understand.
>
> finally it *was* an unreasonable and agressive interpretation.
>
> cause you did it to speak out the about stuff.
>
> have a open mind now, Scary Readtable is out.
>
> so i came back to see whats happen here.
>
> The main difference (temporal grouping and spatial i don't understand,
> but i don't have too):
>
> - context.
>
> *i* a stranger. in a foreign group. the weight of the word 'we' is greater.
>
> you need a minimum set of gentleness to understand this.
>
> do you understand?
>
yes, you are a twit who likes to stir up shot after it has
setteled down.
go away
marc
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> In article <············@usenet.otenet.gr>, ilias wrote:
>
>>aaa. now i understand.
>>
>>finally it *was* an unreasonable and agressive interpretation.
>>
>>cause you did it to speak out the about stuff.
>>
>>have a open mind now, Scary Readtable is out.
>>
>>so i came back to see whats happen here.
>>
>>The main difference (temporal grouping and spatial i don't understand,
>>but i don't have too):
>>
>>- context.
>>
>>*i* a stranger. in a foreign group. the weight of the word 'we' is greater.
>>
>>you need a minimum set of gentleness to understand this.
>>
>>do you understand?
>>
>
> yes, you are a twit who likes to stir up shot after it has
> setteled down.
i don't have settled down.
now i have.
>
> go away
no
>
> marc
* "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
| You may well be right (but obviously, I tend to disagree.) I believe that
| more often than not, our enemies are the creation of our own actions.
Then take this wisdom and use it to create fewer enemies.
--
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.
From: ilias
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts? - Eric Naggum section ---
Date:
Message-ID: <3D731D9B.2090800@pontos.net>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * ilias <·······@pontos.net>
> | it's not my 'problem'.
> |
> | it's a 'problem' of LISP.
>
> This whole attitude is a problemwith only with you. As long as you believe
> you can blame something or someone else, you have a vested interest in /not/
> solving the problem because you do not want to solve somebody else's
> problem. This, incidentally, is also why nobody wants to help you.
>
> Go away.
to the readers: sorry. message is simply for "tracking"
ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message news:<················@pontos.net>...
<snip>
Don't worry too much about Eric Naggum, he seems to be a kind of
extrem negative individual who likes to critisize. The fact that you
have been critisized by him(like myself) doesn't mean anything because
he probably critisizes everyone...
Best regards...
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts? - Eric Naggum section ---
Date:
Message-ID: <3239989429162891@naggum.no>
* ·········@gmx.net (thelifter)
| Don't worry too much about Eric Naggum, he seems to be a kind of
| extrem negative individual who likes to critisize.
Wrong. That you are one of the people I criticize is related to your
inability to listen when people try to help you. Your abject failure to use
your brain productively causes just the kind of moronic conclusions you
arrive at in order to feel better about being a lazy idiot.
| The fact that you have been critisized by him(like myself) doesn't mean
| anything because he probably critisizes everyone...
Wrong. It is human refuse like yourself who deserve criticizing. ilias is
too goddamn retarded to even be worth criticizing. There is no hope for
him. You, on the other hand, could perhaps start to use your brain and
become a reasonable contributor some years from now. ilias is hopeless.
--
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.
From: ilias
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts? - Eric Naggum section ---
Date:
Message-ID: <3D73DAFD.2030806@pontos.net>
thelifter wrote:
> ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message news:<················@pontos.net>...
>
> <snip>
>
> Don't worry too much about Eric Naggum, he seems to be a kind of
> extrem negative individual who likes to critisize. The fact that you
> have been critisized by him(like myself) doesn't mean anything because
> he probably critisizes everyone...
>
> Best regards...
I don't worry about the fact that he critisizes me an others.
I just care about him, as about nearly every person which looses menthal
control in e-message-conversation.
I know how it is, as i loose it sometimes, too. And then i sound somehow
like him.
As i wish that someone stops me, when i loose control, so i wished that
someone had stopped him.
I think many of us know this: while menthally captured by a problem, the
sensivity against the environment is raised. And
public-news-conversation is not the friendliest environment.
AFAICS, he is a LISP-expert and has a strong menthal binding to this
language. LISP is his 'baby'.
Maybe he interpretes my beeing in this forum as an attack to his 'baby'
and maybe (direct or indirect) to his expertise.
But this is not my intention.
I've forgiven him at the time i read his words.
P.S.: Never forget: genius people are often 'nuts' !
P.S.2: I wrote 'nuts', not nuts. This i do often, i mean writing '. This
gives the word another meaning, somehow.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts? - Eric Naggum section ---
Date:
Message-ID: <3239997624415583@naggum.no>
* ilias <·······@pontos.net>
| I don't worry about the fact that he critisizes me an others.
There are two kinds of people. Those who realize that actions are
criticized and those who think that only people can be criticized.
--
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.
From: ilias
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts? - Eric Naggum section ---
Date:
Message-ID: <ao4b0v$f2m$21@usenet.otenet.gr>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * ilias <·······@pontos.net>
> | I don't worry about the fact that he critisizes me an others.
>
> There are two kinds of people. Those who realize that actions are
> criticized and those who think that only people can be criticized.
>
follow-up here:
···················································@pontos.net
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * ilias <·······@pontos.net>
> | it's not my 'problem'.
> |
> | it's a 'problem' of LISP.
>
> This whole attitude is a problemwith only with you. As long as you believe
> you can blame something or someone else, you have a vested interest in /not/
> solving the problem because you do not want to solve somebody else's
> problem. This, incidentally, is also why nobody wants to help you.
>
> Go away.
>
follow-up here:
·····················································@pontos.net
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3bs7hrb7z.fsf@cley.com>
* at news wrote:
> it's not my 'problem'.
> it's a 'problem' of LISP.
yes, of course.
"ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·····················@pontos.net...
>
> i don't like the syntax. And now i try to change it. People say, its
> possible with LISP, its easy with LISP.
>
> try it, change the syntax to:
>
> (defmacro abbrev (short long)
> =>(defmacro [short] (&rest args)
> =>( ['[long]] [@args] )))
>
> i fail.
>
> placing syntax of the , to e.g. [ is easy
> http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_set_sy.htm#set-syntax-from-char
> but what about the closing ]
From the hyperspec:
``The definition of ( can not be meaningfully copied to {, on the other hand.
The result is that lists are of the form {a b c), not {a b c}, because the
definition always looks for a closing parenthesis, not a closing brace.''
True, you are using square brackets instead of curly ones, but the statement
still holds.
Take a look at the function READ-DELIMITED-LIST for an example of how to do it.
Joe Marshall wrote:
> "ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·····················@pontos.net...
>
>>i don't like the syntax. And now i try to change it. People say, its
>>possible with LISP, its easy with LISP.
>>
>>try it, change the syntax to:
>>
>>(defmacro abbrev (short long)
>> =>(defmacro [short] (&rest args)
>> =>( ['[long]] [@args] )))
>>
>>i fail.
>>
>>placing syntax of the , to e.g. [ is easy
>>http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_set_sy.htm#set-syntax-from-char
>>but what about the closing ]
>
>
> From the hyperspec:
> ``The definition of ( can not be meaningfully copied to {, on the other hand.
> The result is that lists are of the form {a b c), not {a b c}, because the
> definition always looks for a closing parenthesis, not a closing brace.''
>
> True, you are using square brackets instead of curly ones, but the statement
> still holds.
the statement does not hold even in the context it is written.
it is false.
> ...the definition always looks...
false
see this code (using Xanalys LispWorks):
CL-USER 1 > (set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\()
T
CL-USER 2 > (set-syntax-from-char #\} #\))
T
CL-USER 3 > ( + 3 4 )
7
CL-USER 4 > { + 4 5 )
9
CL-USER 5 > { + 6 7 }
13
CL-USER 6 > ( + 7 8 }
15
CL-USER 7 >
> Take a look at the function READ-DELIMITED-LIST for an example of how to do it.
i think this is not the right way.
"ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·····················@pontos.net...
> Joe Marshall wrote:
> >
> > From the hyperspec:
> > ``The definition of ( can not be meaningfully copied to {, on the other hand.
> > The result is that lists are of the form {a b c), not {a b c}, because the
> > definition always looks for a closing parenthesis, not a closing brace.''
> >
> > True, you are using square brackets instead of curly ones, but the statement
> > still holds.
> the statement does not hold even in the context it is written.
> it is false.
The statement is a statement about conforming Common Lisp programs. If you write
code such that it depends upon the definition of ( (open-paren) being able to be
meaningfully copied to { (open-curly-brace), then that code is not conforming
to the specification and is not guaranteed to be portable amongst Common Lisp
implementations. Conforming Common Lisp implementations are not required to
interpret strings of the form "{a b c}" as lists.
>
> see this code (using Xanalys LispWorks):
> [sample output elided]
One could make the argument that LispWorks is in error accepting the form
"{a b c}" as a list. Section 2.4.1 of the hyperspec states:
`The left-parenthesis initiates reading of a list. read is called
recursively to read successive objects until a right parenthesis
is found in the input stream.'
But regardless of whether or not you think this explicitly forbids the
left-parenthesis reader macro from recognizing anything but a right parenthesis,
it is clear that it does not *require* conforming Common Lisp
implementations to implement the left-parenthesis reader macro such
that it can be copied around to other characters.
If you try your examples on Allegro, Corman Lisp, or CLisp, you will
see that they differ in what they do.
> > Take a look at the function READ-DELIMITED-LIST for an example of how to do it.
> i think this is not the right way.
Nevertheless, it is the right way.
Joe Marshall wrote:
...
> Conforming Common Lisp implementations are not required to
> interpret strings of the form "{a b c}" as lists.
correct.
until you make those 2 conformant function-calls:
(set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( ) => T
(set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) ) => T
then they *have to*.
> One could make the argument that LispWorks is in error accepting the form
> "{a b c}" as a list. Section 2.4.1 of the hyperspec states:
>
> `The left-parenthesis initiates reading of a list. read is called
> recursively to read successive objects until a right parenthesis
> is found in the input stream.'
the paragraph is misleading.
should be correct: "...until a right parenthesis (or a char which has
been setted to the syntax from the right-parenthesis) is found in the
input stream."
"right parenthesis" stands for "the function right parenthesis".
this function can be 'carried' by nearly any char.
this is LISP.
this is *beautyfull*
> But regardless of whether or not you think this explicitly forbids the
> left-parenthesis reader macro from recognizing anything but a right parenthesis,
> it is clear that it does not *require* conforming Common Lisp
> implementations to implement the left-parenthesis reader macro such
> that it can be copied around to other characters.
this is your faulty interpretation of a faulty paragraph.
and this is false.
> If you try your examples on Allegro, Corman Lisp, or CLisp, you will
> see that they differ in what they do.
if so, they are not conforming to Common Lisp Standard.
> conforming program n. a program, used to emphasize the fact that the program depends for its correctness only upon documented aspects of Common Lisp, and can therefore be expected to run correctly in any conforming implementation.
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_set_sy.htm#set-syntax-from-char
is a documented function.
>>>Take a look at the function READ-DELIMITED-LIST for an example of how to do it.
>>i think this is not the right way.
> Nevertheless, it is the right way.
loop
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:22:52PM +0300, ilias wrote:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
> ...
> > Conforming Common Lisp implementations are not required to
> > interpret strings of the form "{a b c}" as lists.
>
> correct.
> until you make those 2 conformant function-calls:
>
> (set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( ) => T
> (set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) ) => T
>
> then they *have to*.
>
> > One could make the argument that LispWorks is in error accepting the form
> > "{a b c}" as a list. Section 2.4.1 of the hyperspec states:
> >
> > `The left-parenthesis initiates reading of a list. read is called
> > recursively to read successive objects until a right parenthesis
> > is found in the input stream.'
>
> the paragraph is misleading.
>
> should be correct: "...until a right parenthesis (or a char which has
> been setted to the syntax from the right-parenthesis) is found in the
> input stream."
When reading the Hyperspec (or any standard, for that matter), you must
first assume that it is correct, and secondly assume that what it
describes is the minimum needed for correctness in an implementation.
(There are chapters describing what is an extension to CL, and I won't
get into that). My rationale for this assumption is that it is a
*standard*, and that while decisions in it may seem arbitrary, _IF_ an
implementation/program wishes to conform to ANSI CL _THEN_ it must
implement/use what is described in the standard. (That the standard
also documents conformance (chapter 1.5) is subsidary to this).
The consequence of this assumption (by contraposition) is that _IF_ an
implementation/program implements/uses what is _NOT_ described in the
standard _THEN_ that implementation/usage of what is not described in
the standard is not ANSI CL.
So if you are not interested in the behavior ANSI CL describes, and are
not interested in correcting your mistakes, then you may as well stop
reading here, since that is what I'm going to discuss.
As you can see, ANSI CL states that "READ is called recursively to read
successive objects until a right parenthesis is found in the input
stream." It does not say that READ should be called recursively to read
successive objects until a character with the same reader-macro function
as #\) is found. That an implementation might use this to obtain the
same behavior is orthogonal. That you can exploit this behavior on said
implementation for other purposes is not stated by the standard, and
hence is not conformant. No other implementations are required to
exhibit this behavior in order to be ANSI CL compatible. If they wish
to be "LispWorks-compatible" that is another matter.
>
> "right parenthesis" stands for "the function right parenthesis".
>
> this function can be 'carried' by nearly any char.
>
> this is LISP.
>
> this is *beautyfull*
>
While it may seem "right" to you, it is not according to the standard.
If you want to discuss what is and what is not the case in ANSI CL, the
standard is your ultimate reference. If you want to discuss what you
feel is better, then make sure to distinguish that fact so that people
do not inadvertantly confuse your statements with statements about ANSI
CL.
If you want to clarify your thinking about the behavior of the reader in
ANSI CL, I recommend implementing a parser according to the algorithm
specified in Hyperspec chapter 2.2. It is a good way to get a feel for
the problems faced by the designers of ANSI CL, given what they were
trying to accomplish. It is also a good exercise in coding, if you were
looking for one.
>
> > But regardless of whether or not you think this explicitly forbids the
> > left-parenthesis reader macro from recognizing anything but a right parenthesis,
> > it is clear that it does not *require* conforming Common Lisp
> > implementations to implement the left-parenthesis reader macro such
> > that it can be copied around to other characters.
>
> this is your faulty interpretation of a faulty paragraph.
> and this is false.
>
> > If you try your examples on Allegro, Corman Lisp, or CLisp, you will
> > see that they differ in what they do.
>
> if so, they are not conforming to Common Lisp Standard.
> > conforming program n. a program, used to emphasize the fact that the program depends for its correctness only upon documented aspects of Common Lisp, and can therefore be expected to run correctly in any conforming implementation.
>
> http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_set_sy.htm#set-syntax-from-char
>
> is a documented function.
>
> >>>Take a look at the function READ-DELIMITED-LIST for an example of how to do it.
> >>i think this is not the right way.
> > Nevertheless, it is the right way.
> loop
>
--
; Matthew Danish <·······@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."
Matthew Danish wrote:
...many things. sorry for not answering in detail.
can you (or anyone else) please answer me this question:
must a conforming CommonLisp implementation provide this function?:
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_set_sy.htm#set-syntax-from-char
if yes, why?
if no, why?
"ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·····················@pontos.net...
>
> must a conforming CommonLisp implementation provide this function?:
>
> http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_set_sy.htm#set-syntax-from-char
>
Of course it must. I don't think anyone denies that.
What we deny is your assertion that copying the syntax of open-paren
and close-paren to another pair of characters will make the target
pair behave as if they were list delimiters.
Joe Marshall wrote:
> "ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·····················@pontos.net...
>
>>must a conforming CommonLisp implementation provide this function?:
>>
>>http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_set_sy.htm#set-syntax-from-char
>>
>
> Of course it must. I don't think anyone denies that.
ok. we are a step further:
(set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( )
(set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) )
is conforming CommonLisp code.
the function *accepts* #\( and #\) as source parameter
> What we deny is your assertion that copying the syntax of open-paren
> and close-paren to another pair of characters will make the target
> pair behave as if they were list delimiters.
you cannot deny this.
It is a fact:
After the above conforming CommonLisp code, the character {} behave like
list delimiters (at least they should, as Lispworks & Allegro do).
Until here we should agree.
Now its your turn.
The function *and* of course the results the functions produces are
conformant.
What *exactly* 'overrides' the conformancy of the function
set-syntax-from-char?
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 07:39:20AM +0300, ilias wrote:
> you cannot deny this.
>
> It is a fact:
> After the above conforming CommonLisp code, the character {} behave like
> list delimiters (at least they should, as Lispworks & Allegro do).
>
> Until here we should agree.
>
> Now its your turn.
>
> The function *and* of course the results the functions produces are
> conformant.
>
> What *exactly* 'overrides' the conformancy of the function
> set-syntax-from-char?
The crucial piece you are missing is that the reader-macro function for
#\( is allowed to only look for a delimiting #\) character. (What it
does in Allegro or LispWorks is irrelevant. Even if all Common Lisp
implementations demonstrated this behavior, it would still be an
extension of the standard. As it is, I know that CMUCL and CLISP do not
demonstrate this behavior.)
Let me provide a pseudo-code implementation that exemplifies what Joe
Marshall and I are trying to say:
(get-macro-character #\()
==> #<Function READ-LIST>
(set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\()
==> T
(get-macro-character #\{)
==> #<Function READ-LIST>
Now, let us suppose READ-LIST is defined like this:
(defun read-list (char stream)
... Call READ on stream and collect the results into a list
until a #\) token is reached, then return the list ... )
Obviously this works fine for lists of the form ( ... ), but even if you
defined the macro function for #\} in such a way:
(set-syntax-from-char #\} #\))
It does not change the fact that the READ-LIST function looks for a #\)
character. And this behavior is allowed by the standard. The
standard's authors foresaw the need for a function that accomplishes
what READ-LIST does so that it would not have to be reimplemented every
time someone wanted to change the delimiting characters. That function
is called READ-DELIMITED-LIST:
Function arguments:
(endchar &optional (input-stream *standard-input*) recursive-p)
Function documentation:
Reads objects from input-stream until the next character after an
object's representation is endchar. A list of those objects read
is returned.
Hopefully you can see now that nothing "overrides" the conformancy of
set-syntax-from-character, but that there is more to the issue than just
that.
--
; Matthew Danish <·······@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."
Matthew Danish wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 07:39:20AM +0300, ilias wrote:
>
>>you cannot deny this.
>>
>>It is a fact:
>>After the above conforming CommonLisp code, the character {} behave like
>>list delimiters (at least they should, as Lispworks & Allegro do).
>>
>>Until here we should agree.
>>
>>Now its your turn.
>>
>>The function *and* of course the results the functions produces are
>>conformant.
>>
>>What *exactly* 'overrides' the conformancy of the function
>>set-syntax-from-char?
>
>
> The crucial piece you are missing is that the reader-macro function for
> #\( is allowed to only look for a delimiting #\) character.
where do you get this information?
i'll disproof your statement:
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_rd_del.htm#read-delimited-list
the example validates the closing_brace as a terminal for the
read-delimited-list.
#{ p q z a}
is conformant.
until here ok.
> Giving } the same definition as the standard definition of the character ) has the twin benefit of making it terminate tokens for use with read-delimited-list and also making it invalid for use in any other context. Attempting to read a stray } will signal an error.
"giving } the *same* *definition* as the standard definition of the
character )"
this is very clear. If the closing_brace gets the same definition of the
closing_paren, then the closing_brace must behave like a closing_paren.
Conclusion: the reader *must* recognize the closing_brace
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 10:40:02AM +0300, ilias wrote:
> > Giving } the same definition as the standard definition of the
> > character ) has the twin benefit of making it terminate tokens for
> > use with read-delimited-list and also making it invalid for use in
> > any other context. Attempting to read a stray } will signal an
> > error.
>
> "giving } the *same* *definition* as the standard definition of the
> character )"
>
> this is very clear. If the closing_brace gets the same definition of
> the closing_paren, then the closing_brace must behave like a
> closing_paren.
>
> Conclusion: the reader *must* recognize the closing_brace
This would be true except for one fact: the #\( reader-macro is allowed
to look only for a #\) character. It does not need to look for a
character with the same reader-macro definition of #\).
In fact, the text you cite says exactly this; the crucial word is
'token'. Giving #\} the same definition as #\) means it won't terminate
_tokens_ (for example, you will not be able to construct tokens such as
'ABC}' without escaping the #\}). It also means that invalid contexts
for #\} will now be detected by a function originally meant for #\); so
it will behave like a #\) in invalid contexts. But the detection of the
end of a list is _not_ encompassed by the #\) reader-macro. That is why
it is not the whole picture.
I have constructed an example that will demonstrate this additional
fact:
;;; This READ-LIST function is a perfectly valid example of a #\(
;;; reader-macro. As you can see, it looks specifically for the #\)
;;; character. If you want, you can investigate the SBCL READ-LIST
;;; function and you will see that its terminating condition is
;;; (char= firstchar #\)), though it doesn't use read-delimited-list.
CL-USER(1): (defun read-list (stream char) (read-delimited-list #\) stream))
READ-LIST
CL-USER(2): (compile *)
READ-LIST
T
NIL
CL-USER(3): (set-macro-character #\{ #'read-list)
T
CL-USER(4): '{1 2 3) ; notice I end with a #\)
(1 2 3)
CL-USER(5): '{1 2 3}) ; here I end with a #\}, then a #\)
(1 2 3}) ; #\} has become part of the last _token_ in the list
CL-USER(6): (set-syntax-from-char #\} #\))
T
CL-USER(7): '{1 2 3}
Warning: ignoring extra right parenthesis on
#<TERMINAL-SIMPLE-STREAM [initial terminal io] fd 0/1>
) ; I had to type this #\) in order for the REPL to return
(1 2 3) ; Now that #\} is a terminating character, it no longer is
; part of the token. But that is it!
CL-USER(8): '{1 2 3})
Warning: ignoring extra right parenthesis on
#<TERMINAL-SIMPLE-STREAM [initial terminal io] fd 0/1>
(1 2 3)
CL-USER(9):
As you can see, and feel free to test it out yourself, there are two
parts that are necessary for #\} to be used as a list-terminator.
A. It must be the delimiter argument to READ-DELIMITED-LIST, or equivalent,
in the #\{ (or whatever character) reader-macro.
B. It must have the reader-macro of #\), or equivalent, in order to:
- Not become part of another token
- Be noticed when it is in an invalid context
Neither A nor B alone is sufficient. Because the Lisp reader has the
concept of terminating and non-terminating macro characters, this is
necessary. Please see the Note at the end of the entry for
READ-DELIMITED-LIST, also consult the definition of `terminating
macro character', and see chapter 2.2 ``Reader Algorithm.''
--
; Matthew Danish <·······@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."
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 10:40:02AM +0300, ilias wrote:
> > The crucial piece you are missing is that the reader-macro function for
> > #\( is allowed to only look for a delimiting #\) character.
>
> where do you get this information?
I forgot to address this in my previous post.
CLHS Chapter 2.4.1 ``Left-Parenthesis'':
``The left-parenthesis initiates reading of a list. read is called
recursively to read successive objects until a right parenthesis is
found in the input stream. A list of the objects read is returned.''
As you can see, it explicitly says in the standard that the reader-macro
for #\( is allowed to only look for a #\) character in the stream. It
does not need to look for anything more abstract than that.
--
; Matthew Danish <·······@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."
Matthew Danish wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 10:40:02AM +0300, ilias wrote:
>
>>>The crucial piece you are missing is that the reader-macro function for
>>>#\( is allowed to only look for a delimiting #\) character.
>>
>>where do you get this information?
>
> I forgot to address this in my previous post.
>
> CLHS Chapter 2.4.1 ``Left-Parenthesis'':
>
> ``The left-parenthesis initiates reading of a list. read is called
> recursively to read successive objects until a right parenthesis is
> found in the input stream. A list of the objects read is returned.''
>
> As you can see, it explicitly says in the standard that the reader-macro
> for #\( is allowed to only look for a #\) character in the stream. It
> does not need to look for anything more abstract than that.
The paragraph "CLHS Chapter 2.4.1 ``Left-Parenthesis'':" is misleading.
So you've derived a wrong conclusion.
#\} (closing_brace) is a legal terminator for the
Proof:
not enouth margin.
i'll be back in an hour!
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 02:47:02AM +0300, ilias wrote:
> Matthew Danish wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 10:40:02AM +0300, ilias wrote:
> >
> >>>The crucial piece you are missing is that the reader-macro function for
> >>>#\( is allowed to only look for a delimiting #\) character.
> >>
> >>where do you get this information?
> >
> > I forgot to address this in my previous post.
> >
> > CLHS Chapter 2.4.1 ``Left-Parenthesis'':
> >
> > ``The left-parenthesis initiates reading of a list. read is called
> > recursively to read successive objects until a right parenthesis is
> > found in the input stream. A list of the objects read is returned.''
> >
> > As you can see, it explicitly says in the standard that the reader-macro
> > for #\( is allowed to only look for a #\) character in the stream. It
> > does not need to look for anything more abstract than that.
>
> The paragraph "CLHS Chapter 2.4.1 ``Left-Parenthesis'':" is misleading.
>
> So you've derived a wrong conclusion.
What is misleading about this paragraph? Please consider the sentence
``read is called recursively to read successive objects until a right
parenthesis is found in the input stream'' and explain to me how I am
being misled by the standard on matters that it is authoritative on.
--
; Matthew Danish <·······@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."
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <ey365xncuod.fsf@cley.com>
* Matthew Danish wrote:
> What is misleading about this paragraph? Please consider the sentence
> ``read is called recursively to read successive objects until a right
> parenthesis is found in the input stream'' and explain to me how I am
> being misled by the standard on matters that it is authoritative on.
No, you misunderstand. *Ilias* is authoritative - the spec is only
some scraps of paper that mere humans worked for years to produce.
His giant brain can see through what is merely written to the essence
of the language in seconds. I'm afraid that now Ilias is here we
should just give up: the spec has been obsoleted at as stroke. We can
only pray (and I use this word advisedly) that one day he will bless
us mortals with a distillation of his wisdom concerning Lisp in a form
we can understand - the `words of ilias' perhaps.
In fact I'm personally terribly embarrassed by this parenthesis thing.
Just recently I *filed a bug report* with a Lisp vendor suggesting
that they `improve' their paren matching, since the read macro for #\(
would accept anything with the same syntax as #\), and not only #\)
itself. I now realise the terrible error of my ways. In penance I am
collecting all Ilias's articles and I will at some point be binding
them as a book. I hope to distribute this to unbelievers, and thus
convert them to the faith. If I can't convert them I will burn them.
--tim (I will shortly be changing my name to `timoil')
Tim wrote:
> In penance I am collecting all Ilias's articles and I will at some
> point be binding them as a book. I hope to distribute this to
> unbelievers, and thus convert them to the faith.
Can I do this too? Set up the Yorkshire sect perhaps?
> If I can't convert them I will burn them.
This begs the question: the unbelivers or the books[1].
> --tim (I will shortly be changing my name to `timoil')
In line with this excellent suggestion, I will be changing my name to
wiliass.
:)w
[1] Oh goody, we can have a schism already. I'll leave the choice of
burnee up to you {people,books} but will dedicate my selfto doing the
other[2].
[2] As this sounds a bit like {scheme,cl} namespaces, perhaps I need
to crosspost to c.l.scheme and include in my apocropha some kind of
belief system involving hygenic macros and call/cc...
In the last exciting episode, ···········@hotmail.com (Will Deakin) wrote::
> [2] As this sounds a bit like {scheme,cl} namespaces, perhaps I need
> to crosspost to c.l.scheme and include in my apocropha some kind of
> belief system involving hygenic macros and call/cc...
I think you misspelled (scheme,cl}. Or did you misspell {scheme,cl)?
--
(concatenate 'string "chris" ·@cbbrowne.com")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linux.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #83. "If I'm eating dinner with the hero,
put poison in his goblet, then have to leave the table for any reason,
I will order new drinks for both of us instead of trying to decide
whether or not to switch with him." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3d6rup195.fsf@cley.com>
* Will Deakin wrote:
> Can I do this too? Set up the Yorkshire sect perhaps?
I am afraid we will have to burn you
>> If I can't convert them I will burn them.
> This begs the question: the unbelivers or the books[1].
The people, of course.
--tim
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3u1l6nkjf.fsf@cley.com>
* I wrote:
> The people, of course.
And of course, quite often we burn believers too.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> No, you misunderstand. *Ilias* is authoritative - the spec is only
> some scraps of paper that mere humans worked for years to produce.
> His giant brain can see through what is merely written to the essence
> of the language in seconds. I'm afraid that now Ilias is here we
> should just give up: the spec has been obsoleted at as stroke. We can
> only pray (and I use this word advisedly) that one day he will bless
> us mortals with a distillation of his wisdom concerning Lisp in a form
> we can understand - the `words of ilias' perhaps.
With apologies to Frederich Engles...
We have not an ordinary philosopher and engineer before us, who simply
expresses his thoughts and leaves it to subsequent development to
decide their value, but a quite extraordinary being, who asserts an
infallibility not less than that of the pope, and whose soul-saving
teachings one simply must accept, if he does not wish to lapse into
the most reprehensible heresy. We have by no means to deal with one
of those works of which there is a profusion in all technical
literature; works in which people of varying calibers seek in the most
genuine way to become clear on world-wide questions, and for an answer
to which the material is more or less lacking ; works in which,
whatever may be their scientific and literary defects, the good-will
towards science is always manifest. Herr Ilias, on the contrary,
offers us statements which he declares to be final truths of the last
instance, exclusive truths, alongside of which every other opinion is
accordingly from the outset false; similarly, he also has the only
strict scientific method of investigation, alongside of which all
others are unscientific. Either he is right, and we then stand before
the greatest genius of all time, the first superhuman, because
infallible, man. Or he is wrong, and even then, since our judgment
may always be at fault, benevolent regard for his possible good-will
would be the deadliest insult to Herr Ilias.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
ilias wrote:
> Matthew Danish wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 10:40:02AM +0300, ilias wrote:
>>
>>>> The crucial piece you are missing is that the reader-macro function for
>>>> #\( is allowed to only look for a delimiting #\) character.
>>> where do you get this information?
>> I forgot to address this in my previous post.
>>
>> CLHS Chapter 2.4.1 ``Left-Parenthesis'':
>>
>> ``The left-parenthesis initiates reading of a list. read is called
>> recursively to read successive objects until a right parenthesis is
>> found in the input stream. A list of the objects read is returned.''
>>
>> As you can see, it explicitly says in the standard that the reader-macro
>> for #\( is allowed to only look for a #\) character in the stream. It
>> does not need to look for anything more abstract than that.
> The paragraph "CLHS Chapter 2.4.1 ``Left-Parenthesis'':" is misleading.
>
> So you've derived a wrong conclusion.
>
> #\} (closing_brace) is a legal terminator for the
>
> Proof:
>
> not enouth margin.
>
> i'll be back in an hour!
see in the new topic
LISP - The Scary Readtable - () +> {}
·····················@pontos.net
"ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·····················@pontos.net...
> Joe Marshall wrote:
> ...
> > Conforming Common Lisp implementations are not required to
> > interpret strings of the form "{a b c}" as lists.
>
> correct.
> until you make those 2 conformant function-calls:
>
> (set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( ) => T
> (set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) ) => T
>
> then they *have to*.
Why do you think this? The standard specifically says:
``The definition of ( can not be meaningfully copied to {, on
the other hand. The result is that lists are of the form {a b c),
not {a b c}, because the definition always looks for a closing
parenthesis, not a closing brace. ''
>
> > One could make the argument that LispWorks is in error accepting the form
> > "{a b c}" as a list. Section 2.4.1 of the hyperspec states:
> >
> > `The left-parenthesis initiates reading of a list. read is called
> > recursively to read successive objects until a right parenthesis
> > is found in the input stream.'
>
> the paragraph is misleading.
>
> should be correct: "...until a right parenthesis (or a char which has
> been setted to the syntax from the right-parenthesis) is found in the
> input stream."
Why do you think that the paragraph does not say exactly what it means?
Note section 2.4.2 which states:
`The right-parenthesis is invalid except when used in conjunction
with the left parenthesis character.'
This pretty explicitly deals with characters, not character syntax.
>
> > But regardless of whether or not you think this explicitly forbids the
> > left-parenthesis reader macro from recognizing anything but a right parenthesis,
> > it is clear that it does not *require* conforming Common Lisp
> > implementations to implement the left-parenthesis reader macro such
> > that it can be copied around to other characters.
>
> this is your faulty interpretation of a faulty paragraph.
> and this is false.
No need to argue about this. If Kent or Barry (or any other X3J13 participants)
care to weigh in on this.
>
> > If you try your examples on Allegro, Corman Lisp, or CLisp, you will
> > see that they differ in what they do.
>
> if so, they are not conforming to Common Lisp Standard.
Well, either the standard is misleading and the major Lisp vendors have
been mislead to producing non-conforming implementations despite having
years to correct the situation, or the standard is correct, the Lisp vendors
are following it, and you are incorrect.
>
> >>>Take a look at the function READ-DELIMITED-LIST for an example of how to do it.
> >>i think this is not the right way.
> > Nevertheless, it is the right way.
> loop
LOOP is very powerful macro, but I don't think it is applicable.
Joe Marshall wrote:
> "ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·····················@pontos.net...
>
>>Joe Marshall wrote:
>>...
>>
>>>Conforming Common Lisp implementations are not required to
>>>interpret strings of the form "{a b c}" as lists.
>>
>>correct.
>>until you make those 2 conformant function-calls:
>>
>>(set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( ) => T
>>(set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) ) => T
>>
>>then they *have to*.
> Why do you think this?
i'm talking about _{_ and _}_, which is conformant.
you are talking about _{_ and *)*, which is irrelevant to me.
>>>>i think this is not the right way.
>>>Nevertheless, it is the right way.
>>loop
> LOOP is very powerful macro, but I don't think it is applicable.
i meant: loop, we will got a loop:
right way.
not the right way.
right way.
and so on.
so
loop
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <3D727441.761DC4B4@dls.net>
ilias wrote:
> i'm talking about _{_ and _}_, which is conformant.
>
> you are talking about _{_ and *)*, which is irrelevant to me.
Coby, have you changed your opinion on this person yet?
'Ilias', read the standard again, this time with your
head removed from your anus. And learn how to capitalize
sentences properly, you illiterate buffoon.
Paul
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> ilias wrote:
>
>
>>i'm talking about _{_ and _}_, which is conformant.
>>
>>you are talking about _{_ and *)*, which is irrelevant to me.
>
>
>
> Coby, have you changed your opinion on this person yet?
>
> 'Ilias', read the standard again, this time with your
> head removed from your anus. And learn how to capitalize
> sentences properly, you illiterate buffoon.
>
> Paul
Yes, teacher, i will.
In article <················@pontos.net>, ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote:
>Paul F. Dietz wrote:
>> And learn how to capitalize
>> sentences properly, you illiterate buffoon.
>
>Yes, teacher, i will.
^
???
ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote:
> Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> > Coby, have you changed your opinion on this person yet?
> > 'Ilias', read the standard again, this time with your
> > head removed from your anus. And learn how to capitalize
> > sentences properly, you illiterate buffoon.
> > Paul
> Yes, teacher, i will.
No. It's only now that he's *not* teaching that he can say stuff like
that.
Michael, though maybe with tenure?
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> ilias wrote:
>
>
>>i'm talking about _{_ and _}_, which is conformant.
>>
>>you are talking about _{_ and *)*, which is irrelevant to me.
>
>
>
> Coby, have you changed your opinion on this person yet?
>
> 'Ilias', read the standard again, this time with your
> head removed from your anus. And learn how to capitalize
> sentences properly, you illiterate buffoon.
>
> Paul
teacher, i've learned something.
"tschernobyll" refers to a town in Russia.
this is wrong !
Chernobyl is a town in Ukraine.
"Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> wrote in message
······················@dls.net...
> ilias wrote:
>
> > i'm talking about _{_ and _}_, which is conformant.
> >
> > you are talking about _{_ and *)*, which is irrelevant to me.
>
>
> Coby, have you changed your opinion on this person yet?
No, but that probably does not mean quite what you think it means ;)
I marvel at Joe's patience, though... (and Tim's too, even if he finally
lost it)
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <3D72A047.E31A33CA@dls.net>
Coby Beck wrote:
> No, but that probably does not mean quite what you think it means ;)
Ah, ok. :)
Paul
From: Dorai Sitaram
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <al2of9$i47$1@news.gte.com>
In article <·············@otis.netspace.net.au>,
Coby Beck <·····@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
>
>"Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> wrote in message
>······················@dls.net...
>> ilias wrote:
>>
>> > i'm talking about _{_ and _}_, which is conformant.
>> >
>> > you are talking about _{_ and *)*, which is irrelevant to me.
>>
>>
>> Coby, have you changed your opinion on this person yet?
>
>No, but that probably does not mean quite what you think it means ;)
>
>I marvel at Joe's patience, though... (and Tim's too, even if he finally
>lost it)
I'd give a point or two to ilias too for being such a
dynamite combination of ingenue and teflon. :-)
····@goldshoe.gte.com (Dorai Sitaram) writes:
> In article <·············@otis.netspace.net.au>,
> Coby Beck <·····@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
> >
> >"Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> wrote in message
> >······················@dls.net...
> >> ilias wrote:
> >>
> >> > i'm talking about _{_ and _}_, which is conformant.
> >> >
> >> > you are talking about _{_ and *)*, which is irrelevant to me.
> >>
> >>
> >> Coby, have you changed your opinion on this person yet?
> >
> >No, but that probably does not mean quite what you think it means ;)
> >
> >I marvel at Joe's patience, though... (and Tim's too, even if he finally
> >lost it)
>
> I'd give a point or two to ilias too for being such a
> dynamite combination of ingenue and teflon. :-)
He is not a troll; I think we are in presence of a new specie: the
"ilias" :)
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
715 Broadway 10th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3u1l9pmrr.fsf@cley.com>
* at news wrote:
> correct.
> until you make those 2 conformant function-calls:
> (set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( ) => T
> (set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) ) => T
> then they *have to*.
No, they don't, you fool. try *READING WHAT HE SAID* In particular,
he wrote:
If you write code such that it depends upon the definition of (
(open-paren) being able to be meaningfully copied to {
(open-curly-brace), then that code is not conforming to the
specification and is not guaranteed to be portable amongst Common
Lisp implementations. Conforming Common Lisp implementations are
not required to interpret strings of the form "{a b c}" as lists.
And, just perhaps, he meant what he said.
> the paragraph is misleading.
Wrong, it is precisely correct. Indeed, it is part of the definition
of what is correct.
> should be correct: "...until a right parenthesis (or a char which has
> been setted to the syntax from the right-parenthesis) is found in the
> input stream."
Wrong.
> "right parenthesis" stands for "the function right parenthesis".
> this function can be 'carried' by nearly any char.
Wrong.
> this is your faulty interpretation of a faulty paragraph.
> and this is false.
Wrong.
> if so, they are not conforming to Common Lisp Standard.
Wrong.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> * at news wrote:
>
>>correct.
>>until you make those 2 conformant function-calls:
>
>>(set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( ) => T
>>(set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) ) => T
>
>>then they *have to*.
>
> No, they don't, you fool. try *READING WHAT HE SAID* In particular,
> he wrote:
what he said is irrelevant.
> If you write code such that it depends upon the definition of (
> (open-paren) being able to be meaningfully copied to {
> (open-curly-brace), then that code is not conforming to the
> specification and is not guaranteed to be portable amongst Common
> Lisp implementations. Conforming Common Lisp implementations are
> not required to interpret strings of the form "{a b c}" as lists.
>
> And, just perhaps, he meant what he said.
out of context-placement of a faulty interpretation of a faulty (or at
minimum misleading) remark in a specification.
>>the paragraph is misleading.
>
> Wrong, it is precisely correct. Indeed, it is part of the definition
> of what is correct.
its misleading. i've placed arguments. you simply talk.
>>should be correct: "...until a right parenthesis (or a char which has
>>been setted to the syntax from the right-parenthesis) is found in the
>>input stream."
>
> Wrong.
its right. its proofable. just try it.
>>"right parenthesis" stands for "the function right parenthesis".
>>this function can be 'carried' by nearly any char.
> Wrong.
maybe.
but in essence right.
>>this is your faulty interpretation of a faulty paragraph.
>>and this is false.
> Wrong.
right
>>if so, they are not conforming to Common Lisp Standard.
> Wrong.
right
>
> --tim
nice game.
have to play that long time.
essence:
(set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( ) => T
(set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) ) => T
this functions are definitely conformant.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3elcdpiui.fsf@cley.com>
* at news wrote:
> its misleading. i've placed arguments. you simply talk.
> essence:
> (set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( ) => T
> (set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) ) => T
> this functions are definitely conformant.
Good. Well, I'm glad you know best. We all bow to your superior
knowledge of course. Silly of me to have somehow missed this in all
these years of working with the language.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> * at news wrote:
>
>>its misleading. i've placed arguments. you simply talk.
>>essence:
>>(set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( ) => T
>>(set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) ) => T
>
>>this functions are definitely conformant.
>
> Good. Well, I'm glad you know best. We all bow to your superior
> knowledge of course. Silly of me to have somehow missed this in all
> these years of working with the language.
i interprete this as:
"no, they are not"
try to concentrate only at this question, please.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <ey34rd9phuv.fsf@cley.com>
* at news wrote:
> try to concentrate only at this question, please.
I'm afraid I really can't be bothered. You win, enjoy your life.
--tim
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <ey37ki5r91t.fsf@cley.com>
* at news wrote:
>> Take a look at the function READ-DELIMITED-LIST for an example of how to do it.
> i think this is not the right way.
But you'd be wrong, because it is.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> * at news wrote:
>
>
>>>Take a look at the function READ-DELIMITED-LIST for an example of how to do it.
>>
>>i think this is not the right way.
>
>
> But you'd be wrong, because it is.
i'm not wrong.
because it is *not* the only way.
if it *is* a way.
as i'm not sure if READ-DELIMITED-LIST works correct in the given context.
but *why* should i try.
i *feel* its the 'wrong' way.
"ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·····················@pontos.net...
>
> as i'm not sure if READ-DELIMITED-LIST works correct in the given context.
Are you sure it doesn't?
>
> but *why* should i try.
1. Because you haven't suggested a better alternative.
2. Because Tim Bradshaw and I have years of Common Lisp experience.
3. Because asking questions but refusing to consider answers is stupid.
>
> i *feel* its the 'wrong' way.
>
Perhaps you should discuss this with your therapist.
Joe Marshall wrote:
> "ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·····················@pontos.net...
>
>>as i'm not sure if READ-DELIMITED-LIST works correct in the given context.
>
> Are you sure it doesn't?
no
>>but *why* should i try.
>
> 1. Because you haven't suggested a better alternative.
ok, i'll try
> 2. Because Tim Bradshaw and I have years of Common Lisp experience.
so, why don't you code it on the fly?
be friedly.
> 3. Because asking questions but refusing to consider answers is stupid.
they seem to me to complicated to implement.
>>i *feel* its the 'wrong' way.
>
> Perhaps you should discuss this with your therapist.
No need.
I've listened to the falling rain.
When did you do that last time?
"ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·····················@pontos.net...
> so, why don't you code it on the fly?
- You won't learn anything if I write it.
- It takes time to do this and time to test it.
(defun |[-reader| (stream char)
(declare (ignore char))
(prog1 (funcall (get-macro-character #\,) stream #\,)
(unless (char= (read-char stream t nil t) #\])
(error 'reader-error))))
(set-macro-character #\[ #'|[-reader| nil)
(set-macro-character #\] (get-macro-character #\) nil))
>
> I've listened to the falling rain.
>
> When did you do that last time?
It rained yesterday.
Joe Marshall wrote:
> "ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·····················@pontos.net...
>
>
>>so, why don't you code it on the fly?
>
> - You won't learn anything if I write it.
of course i'll learn from your writing.
> - It takes time to do this and time to test it.
thank you for your time.
>
> (defun |[-reader| (stream char)
> (declare (ignore char))
> (prog1 (funcall (get-macro-character #\,) stream #\,)
> (unless (char= (read-char stream t nil t) #\])
> (error 'reader-error))))
>
> (set-macro-character #\[ #'|[-reader| nil)
> (set-macro-character #\] (get-macro-character #\) nil))
seems to work.
i'll make a break, drink a cup of coffee.
i think i've found a 2-line-solution for this problem, which works
clearer than the above code.
i'm just so curious if someone knows the solution.
In article <················@pontos.net>, ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote:
>i think i've found a 2-line-solution for this problem, which works
>clearer than the above code.
Let me guess -- your email message was too small to contain it?
sv0f wrote:
> In article <················@pontos.net>, ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote:
>
>
>>i think i've found a 2-line-solution for this problem, which works
>>clearer than the above code.
>
>
> Let me guess -- your email message was too small to contain it?
i don't understand.
please clarify.
"ilias" <·······@pontos.net> skrev i en meddelelse ·····················@pontos.net...
> sv0f wrote:
> > Let me guess -- your email message was too small to contain it?
>
> i don't understand.
> please clarify.
He is talking about your margin. It is too small.
--
Jens Axel S�gaard
Jens Axel S�gaard wrote:
> "ilias" <·······@pontos.net> skrev i en meddelelse ·····················@pontos.net...
>
>>sv0f wrote:
>
>
>>>Let me guess -- your email message was too small to contain it?
>>
>>i don't understand.
>>please clarify.
>
>
> He is talking about your margin. It is too small.
still don't get it.
In article <················@pontos.net>, ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote:
>Jens Axel S�gaard wrote:
>> "ilias" <·······@pontos.net> skrev i en meddelelse
·····················@pontos.net...
>>
>>>sv0f wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Let me guess -- your email message was too small to contain it?
>>>
>>>i don't understand.
>>>please clarify.
>>
>>
>> He is talking about your margin. It is too small.
>
>still don't get it.
Don't worry, I'm working on a 100 page program that will clear
up this READ-DELIMITED-LIST once and for all. It'll be ready
in about ten years.
sv0f wrote:
> In article <················@pontos.net>, ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Jens Axel S�gaard wrote:
>>
>>>"ilias" <·······@pontos.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>>
> ·····················@pontos.net...
>
>>>>sv0f wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Let me guess -- your email message was too small to contain it?
>>>>i don't understand.
>>>>please clarify.
>>>He is talking about your margin. It is too small.
>>still don't get it.
>
> Don't worry, I'm working on a 100 page program that will clear
> up this READ-DELIMITED-LIST once and for all. It'll be ready
> in about ten years.
i'm not a good target for your 'knowledge-games'.
i simply don't have many knowledge.
you have to find another target for playing your intelectual 'trivial
pursuit'.
except you enjoy to play with the 'weak'.
if so, i'm happy to be your private 'show-your-knowledge-clown'.
"ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message
·····················@pontos.net...
> Jens Axel S�gaard wrote:
> > "ilias" <·······@pontos.net> skrev i en meddelelse
·····················@pontos.net...
> >
> >>sv0f wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Let me guess -- your email message was too small to contain it?
> >>
> >>i don't understand.
> >>please clarify.
> >
> >
> > He is talking about your margin. It is too small.
>
> still don't get it.
>
"The Seventeenth-Century French mathematician Pierre de Fermat wrote in the
margin of his copy of Arithmetica by Diophantus, near the section on the
Pythagorean Theorem (a squared plus b squared equals c squared), 'x ^ n + y
^ n = z ^ n - it cannot be solved with non-zero integers x, y, z for any
exponent n greater than 2. I have found a truly marvelous proof, which this
margin is too small to contain.'
This was left as an enigmatic riddle after Fermat's death and it became a
famous, unsolved problem of number theory for over 350 years."
(quote from http://emsh.calarts.edu/~mathart/sw/Color_3D_Prints.html but is
very common)
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
From: ilias
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts? - Part II
Date:
Message-ID: <3D72B2FF.90009@pontos.net>
Coby Beck wrote:
> "ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message
> ·····················@pontos.net...
>
>>Jens Axel S�gaard wrote:
>>
>>>"ilias" <·······@pontos.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>>
> ·····················@pontos.net...
>
>>>>sv0f wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Let me guess -- your email message was too small to contain it?
>>>>
>>>>i don't understand.
>>>>please clarify.
>>>
>>>
>>>He is talking about your margin. It is too small.
>>
>>still don't get it.
>>
>
>
> "The Seventeenth-Century French mathematician Pierre de Fermat wrote in the
> margin of his copy of Arithmetica by Diophantus, near the section on the
> Pythagorean Theorem (a squared plus b squared equals c squared), 'x ^ n + y
> ^ n = z ^ n - it cannot be solved with non-zero integers x, y, z for any
> exponent n greater than 2. I have found a truly marvelous proof, which this
> margin is too small to contain.'
> This was left as an enigmatic riddle after Fermat's death and it became a
> famous, unsolved problem of number theory for over 350 years."
aha. i understand now.
is the problem still unsolved?
what do you believe. did he found the proof?
"ilias" <·······@pontos.net> skrev i en meddelelse ···················@pontos.net...
> > "The Seventeenth-Century French mathematician Pierre de Fermat wrote in the
> > margin of his copy of Arithmetica by Diophantus, near the section on the
> > Pythagorean Theorem (a squared plus b squared equals c squared), 'x ^ n + y
> > ^ n = z ^ n - it cannot be solved with non-zero integers x, y, z for any
> > exponent n greater than 2. I have found a truly marvelous proof, which this
> > margin is too small to contain.'
> > This was left as an enigmatic riddle after Fermat's death and it became a
> > famous, unsolved problem of number theory for over 350 years."
>
> aha. i understand now.
>
> is the problem still unsolved?
No.
> what do you believe. did he found the proof?
No.
See
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/proof/wiles.html
--
Jens Axel S�gaard
"ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·····················@pontos.net...
>
> seems to work.
I tested it under Lispworks, Allegro, CLisp, and Corman.
I believe it to be portable.
>
> i think i've found a 2-line-solution for this problem, which works
> clearer than the above code.
Please post it.
Joe Marshall wrote:
> "ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·····················@pontos.net...
>>i think i've found a 2-line-solution for this problem, which works
>>clearer than the above code.
>
> Please post it.
;;; ------------------------------------------------------------
;;; The Challenge of Nested Macros
;;; ------------------------------------------------------------
(set-syntax-from-char #\[ #\,)
(set-syntax-from-char #\] #\Space)
;;; ------------------------------------------------------------
;;; this enables the following writing-style, which clarifies
;;; optically the level of the macro-variables.
;;; [s1] = ,symbol = evaluate in first pass
;;; [[s2-1] [s2-2] = ,,symbol = evaluate in second pass
(defmacro alias (short long)
`(defmacro [short] (&rest args)
`( [ '[long] [@args] ] )))
;;; simple test code:
(alias df defun)
(df alias-test (x y z) (* x y z ) )
(alias-test 2 3 5)
;;; As ] is only whitespace, u can move them around as you like.
;;; this is a little bit dangerous. Keep in mind that:
;;; `( ['[long]] [@args] ) ==
;;; `( ['[long] [@args] ]) ==
;;; `( ,',long ,@args )
;;;
;;; I imagine the backquote '`' as a gun, which shots over lines
;;; and the 'ball' destroys one level of [].
;;; what happens in the above test-code:
;;; 1st shot:
;;; (defmacro df (&rest args)
;;; `( '[long] [@args] )))
;;; 2nd shot:
;;; (defmacro df (&rest args)
;;; ( defun (x y z) (* x y z) )))
;;;
;;; ------------------------------------------------------------
;;; Tested with Allegro.
;;; Should run on any conformant CL.
;;; ------------------------------------------------------------
;;; ilias - 2002-09-02 - #V0.1
;;; ------------------------------------------------------------
any questions / corrections?
lets discuss!
On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 23:21:46 +0300, ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote:
>Joe Marshall wrote:
>> "ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·····················@pontos.net...
>>[snip]
>> (set-macro-character #\] (get-macro-character #\) nil))
>
>seems to work.
>
>i'll make a break, drink a cup of coffee.
>
>i think i've found a 2-line-solution for this problem, which works
>clearer than the above code.
>
>i'm just so curious if someone knows the solution.
The english definitely seems to have undergone some improvement. I
think he is just pulling you people's legs.
quasi
quasi wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 23:21:46 +0300, ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Joe Marshall wrote:
>>
>>>"ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·····················@pontos.net...
>>>[snip]
>>>(set-macro-character #\] (get-macro-character #\) nil))
>>
>>seems to work.
>>
>>i'll make a break, drink a cup of coffee.
>>
>>i think i've found a 2-line-solution for this problem, which works
>>clearer than the above code.
>>
>>i'm just so curious if someone knows the solution.
>
>
> The english definitely seems to have undergone some improvement. I
> think he is just pulling you people's legs.
>
> quasi
this is only as i'm relaxed.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <ey33cstr5rn.fsf@cley.com>
* at news wrote:
> i'm not wrong.
no, of course not. I doubt you are ever wrong, are you?
> because it is *not* the only way.
No, of course not. Personally, if I have to change the syntax of the
language in any way, I always write a complete new reader in C. It's
easier, I find. I'd suggest that you take this approach, too. We
just suggested READ-DELIMITED-LIST as a sort of test to see whether
you'd see how clever you were. You passed, with flying colours.
> but *why* should i try.
I can't imagine. With your vast intelligence and experience, it must
be so much easier to just intuit the answer.
> i *feel* its the 'wrong' way.
Gosh, yes, I bet you do. With a mind like yours it must be such a
waste of time to have to deal with all these people who merely work
from hundreds of years of collective experience, and/or having
designed the language, mustn't it?
--tim
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> * at news wrote:
>
>
>>i'm not wrong.
>
> no, of course not. I doubt you are ever wrong, are you?
i'm often wrong.
here i'm not wrong.
>>because it is *not* the only way.
>
> No, of course not. Personally, if I have to change the syntax of the
> language in any way, I always write a complete new reader in C. It's
> easier, I find.
i meant, there are other ways in LISP.
> I'd suggest that you take this approach, too.
no, i'll write one in C++. but not now. and not for this 'problem'.
> We
*we* ?
> just suggested READ-DELIMITED-LIST as a sort of test to see whether
> you'd see how clever you were. You passed, with flying colours.
instead of testing me, you should better test yourself.
have seen no concrete solution.
>>but *why* should i try.
> I can't imagine. With your vast intelligence and experience, it must
> be so much easier to just intuit the answer.
>>i *feel* its the 'wrong' way.
> Gosh, yes, I bet you do. With a mind like yours it must be such a
> waste of time to have to deal with all these people who merely work
> from hundreds of years of collective experience, and/or having
> designed the language, mustn't it?
you interprete to much into my words.
i'm a LISP novice. i cannot deal with to much complexity.
Solution with READ-DELIMITED-LIST will run me possibly in an
egoistic-coding-trap.
And tomorrow i have to continue on my C++ project.
So, you help me out of that disaster and provide me the solution?
As an experienced LISP-coder you should write it in about 5".
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3ofbhpmcv.fsf@cley.com>
* at news wrote:
> As an experienced LISP-coder you should write it in about 5".
Indeed, and I pointed you at some sample code which uses
READ-DELIMITED-LIST, which you should easily be able to generalise.
If you want us to solve your specific problems for you then you can
probably work out the address to contact to discuss consultancy rates.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> * at news wrote:
>
>
>>As an experienced LISP-coder you should write it in about 5".
>
>
> Indeed, and I pointed you at some sample code which uses
> READ-DELIMITED-LIST, which you should easily be able to generalise.
i think i'm not able. As i think that you are not able, too.
> If you want us to solve your specific problems for you then you can
> probably work out the address to contact to discuss consultancy rates.
thats why you start with this nonsens here.
ilias wrote:
> back from the island.
>
> wrote my first LISP.
>
> of course language-modification.
uh-oh. i found this also from you:
> is a 'programable programming language'.
>
> and thats my main interest.
maybe not. "programmable programming language" means one can build a new
language on top of Lisp. One that also mixes nicely /with/ Lisp, ie,
one's new language elements appear in otherwise pure Lisp forms.
it does not mean /change/ Lisp, as in (defmacro i-refer-c ....) or your
attempt to get back to infix.
in fact, one gets a lot further with the p-p-l thing if one does /not/
fight the syntax.
it is said one should not make changes to the tai chi form until one has
practiced it for thirty years. something like that.
kenny
Kenny Tilton wrote:
> ilias wrote:
>> back from the island.
>>
>> wrote my first LISP.
>>
>> of course language-modification.
>
> uh-oh. i found this also from you:
>
>> is a 'programable programming language'.
>>
>> and thats my main interest.
>
> maybe not. "programmable programming language" means one can build a new
> language on top of Lisp.
yes.
> One that also mixes nicely /with/ Lisp, ie,
> one's new language elements appear in otherwise pure Lisp forms.
as far as i have read in into the language-modification-cores, i think i
can mutate a Common-LISP to nearly whatever i like.
To something like "tschernobyll-LISP", that causes the hair of LISPers
to fall out when they see the code.
> it does not mean /change/ Lisp, as in (defmacro i-refer-c ....) or your
> attempt to get back to infix.
i don't try to get back to infix.
i simply play with possibilities.
> in fact, one gets a lot further with the p-p-l thing if one does /not/
> fight the syntax.
i don't fight the *syntax*.
i fight *everything* what annoys my thinking-flow.
and i try to use ANSI conformant LISP for this.
> it is said one should not make changes to the tai chi form until one has
> practiced it for thirty years. something like that.
i understand your comparision.
but this is not true for language-design.
> kenny
ilias wrote:
> i fight *everything* what annoys my thinking-flow.
the spirit of tai chi is to win without fighting. sometimes by conceding
the opponent is right.
btw, are you exploring Lisp absent any application? That would distort
things.
kenny
Kenny Tilton wrote:
> ilias wrote:
>
>> i fight *everything* what annoys my thinking-flow.
>
> the spirit of tai chi is to win without fighting. sometimes by conceding
> the opponent is right.
my 'opponent' is the complexity / simplicity of universe - i cannot win.
my 'opponent' here is the complexity / simplicity of LISP - peanuts!
you all here in c.l.l. are not my 'opponents'.
*most* of you are simply irrelevant for me.
*fight* - i use this word, why?
>>> in fact, one gets a lot further with the p-p-l thing if one does /not/ fight the syntax.
>
>> i don't fight the *syntax*.
>> i fight *everything* what annoys my thinking-flow.
correction:
i don't 'fight' the *syntax*.
i 'fight' *everything* what annoys my thinking-flow.
> btw, are you exploring Lisp absent any application?
no.
the 'application' is *modifying <language> by using <language>*
where <language> is CommonLisp here.
> That would distort things.
maybe for you.
>
> kenny
>
ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
> Kenny Tilton wrote:
> > ilias wrote:
>
> > btw, are you exploring Lisp absent any application?
>
> no.
> the 'application' is *modifying <language> by using <language>*
> where <language> is CommonLisp here.
>
> > That would distort things.
>
> maybe for you.
>
I don't think you'll find Lisp very pleasant to use in this way. I
urge you to consider thinking up a real application- maybe some kind
of puzzle solver and start learning Lisp by implementing it.
Gregm
Greg Menke wrote:
Kenny Tilton wrote:
>>>btw, are you exploring Lisp absent any application?
>>no.
>>the 'application' is *modifying <language> by using <language>*
>>where <language> is CommonLisp here.
>>
>>> That would distort things.
>>maybe for you.
>
>
> I don't think you'll find Lisp very pleasant to use in this way. I
it's your right to *think*...
it's my right to.. *know*...
...what i'll find pleasant.
> urge you to consider thinking up a real application- maybe some kind
> of puzzle solver and start learning Lisp by implementing it.
"some kind of puzzle solver"
this i'll do.
>
> Gregm
>
"ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message
·····················@pontos.net...
> Kenny Tilton wrote:
> > ilias wrote:
> > maybe not. "programmable programming language" means one can build a new
> > language on top of Lisp.
> > One that also mixes nicely /with/ Lisp, ie,
> > one's new language elements appear in otherwise pure Lisp forms.
>
> as far as i have read in into the language-modification-cores, i think i
> can mutate a Common-LISP to nearly whatever i like.
Just because you *can* do something, does not mean you *should* do
something. You don't have to answer this really, I'm sure you know that.
> To something like "tschernobyll-LISP", that causes the hair of LISPers
> to fall out when they see the code.
If that is your goal, you have chosen a good path.
But seriously, programming languages are social constructions as well as
technical constructions. Unless you live in a bubble you should write code
with its readability by others in mind as well as its readability by a
compiler. It is very difficult to take it well when someone new to a
language comes in wanting to change fundamental things immediately or openly
dismissing widely accepted norms and conventions. In fact, you should
*expect* that people will think you are arrogant and you should *expect*
that people will feel that your implication is you think they are all idiots
for living with and even embracing things that you have seen to be so wrong.
I am not convinced that this is your intention. I also believe that some of
the hostility you have received has contributed to your stubborness.
Nevertheless, you are the one coming into a forum and a language community
that has existed for a long time. This implies some obligations on your
part to reserve your negative judgements until such time as you can support
them with more than "I don't like it."
Usenet is "free as in speech" so you will do as you please but if you don't
consider the circumstances above you must take some responsibility for the
flaming that follows (however justified it may really be in content or
passion)
> > in fact, one gets a lot further with the p-p-l thing if one does /not/
> > fight the syntax.
>
> i don't fight the *syntax*.
> i fight *everything* what annoys my thinking-flow.
This is pretty much the definition of "close-minded." Do you really mean
that?
> > it is said one should not make changes to the tai chi form until one has
> > practiced it for thirty years. something like that.
>
> i understand your comparision.
> but this is not true for language-design.
It is true for everything that has earned any respect (with amount of time
as a variable proportional to the respect something deserves). I will grant
you that merit of respect is subjective but I would hope that your desire to
learn lisp indicates that you do respect it at least a bit so I don't need
to debate that point. How long do you think you need to study a language as
mature as lisp before you are ready to change it?
There is a saying in English that you must walk a mile in someone else's
shoes before you can judge them. If people are getting hostile towards you
it is because you have not even tied the laces yet and you are ready to
reject all kinds of things about lisp.
Be open.
Be free.
Drink the water and breath the air.
Peace.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
P.S. I mimicked your writing style above because I enjoy it not to make fun
of you ;)
Coby Beck wrote:
...many things.
sorry, for not answering in detail.
people felt this.
people think that.
i'm friendly.
what some others interprete into my words and my bahaviour, is their
problem.
as i said, i 'do my best' to 'assist' the people to out theirselves as
'idiots' without sense for their limits.
so many complexity.
so little time.
'digital' politics?
not for me.
i'll continue to assimilate LISP.
i'll continue to have no 'respect'.
i'll detect and spy out all the garbage.
?
shit, i forgot to eat!
ilias wrote:
> i'll detect and spy out all the garbage.
>
> ?
>
> shit, i forgot to eat!
clarification:
i don't meant "i forgot to eat shit", as "Beaves & Butthead" try to imply.
ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
> as i said, i 'do my best' to 'assist' the people to out theirselves as
> 'idiots' without sense for their limits.
Some would call this the definition of a troll.
Be wary that in the process of assisting others to out themselves as
idiots you don't assist yourself in the same.
<plonk>
--
Sincerely,
Craig Brozefsky <·····@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message news:<················@pontos.net>...
[...]
> people felt this.
> people think that.
>
> i'm friendly.
>
[...]
>
> so many complexity.
>
> so little time.
>
> 'digital' politics?
>
> not for me.
[...]
Great poem! In the style of 21st century Mayakovsky translated into
Greek, and then machine-translated into English.
Oleg
ilias wrote:
> To something like "tschernobyll-LISP", that causes the hair of LISPers
> to fall out when they see the code.
"tschernobyll" refers to a town in Russia.
There was an nuclear-reactor-accident.
Many people died at this accident.
I think many people loose their hair due to the radiactive emissions of
the accident.
Maybe some people today still loose their hair. I don't know.
What I know is, that my comparision/analogy ("tschernobyll-LISP" / hair
fallout LISPers) was of a *very* bad taste.
I am deeply sorry for the choice of my words.
I want to apologize honestly to the victims, their relatives and
additionally to everyone who felt annoyed by the style of my writing.
ilias
> "tschernobyll" refers to a town in Russia.
That is 'Chernobyl' in English. The word means 'wormwood'
according to Tarkovsky.
--
This message was not sent to you unsolicited.
····@ma.ccom (Takehiko Abe) writes:
> > "tschernobyll" refers to a town in Russia.
>
> That is 'Chernobyl' in English. The word means 'wormwood'
> according to Tarkovsky.
>
I don't see how that can be, it has nothing in common with either 'worm'
or 'wood', it's more like 'black-town'. Don't quote me on that, however,
since I am not an expert of etymology at all. My reasoning is that
'cherno' is derived from Ukrainian word (BTW, Chernobyl is really in
Ukraine, not Russia) 'chorno', which means 'black' and 'byl' is some kind
of a suffix, I guess, since I don't know any similar words.
Regards,
Richard
P.S. Sorry for an off-topic article.
--
Richard Krushelnitskiy "I know not with what weapons World War III will
rkrush (at) gmx.net be fought, but World War IV will be fought with
http://rkrush.cjb.net sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein
Richard Krush <······@gmx.net> writes:
> ····@ma.ccom (Takehiko Abe) writes:
>
> > > "tschernobyll" refers to a town in Russia.
> >
> > That is 'Chernobyl' in English. The word means 'wormwood'
> > according to Tarkovsky.
> >
>
> I don't see how that can be, it has nothing in common with either 'worm'
> or 'wood', it's more like 'black-town'. Don't quote me on that, however,
> since I am not an expert of etymology at all. My reasoning is that
> 'cherno' is derived from Ukrainian word (BTW, Chernobyl is really in
> Ukraine, not Russia) 'chorno', which means 'black' and 'byl' is some kind
> of a suffix, I guess, since I don't know any similar words.
Wormwood is an herb, and a fairly nasty drug at that -- it's what was
originally in vermouth, and is the banned ingredient in absinthe. I
suppose that's the kind of natural-science knowledge that probably
can't be taken for granted in a comp.* newsgroup :)
> P.S. Sorry for an off-topic article.
Eh, it's about 1000x more interesting than the thread it forked from
(and probably has more to do with ANSI CL, but only by comparison to
the vacuum it's next to...)
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: OT: Chernobyl (was Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?)
Date:
Message-ID: <3D7347F9.5ED54A82@dls.net>
"Thomas F. Burdick" wrote:
> Wormwood is an herb, and a fairly nasty drug at that -- it's what was
> originally in vermouth, and is the banned ingredient in absinthe.
Say, wasn't it used in love potions?
Paul
···@hurricane.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) wrote in message news:<···············@hurricane.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>...
> Wormwood is an herb, and a fairly nasty drug at that -- it's what was
> originally in vermouth, and is the banned ingredient in absinthe. I
> suppose that's the kind of natural-science knowledge that probably
> can't be taken for granted in a comp.* newsgroup :)
>
Ok, since this is already off-topic I will take it a step further and
also more interesting:
Book of Revelation chapter 8:
10The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like
a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs
of water-- 11the name of the star is Wormwood.[1] A third of the
waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had
become bitter.
Footnotes:
[1] 8:11 That is, Bitterness
Was Chernobyl the fulfilling of this biblical prophecy?
best regards...
·········@gmx.net (thelifter) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
> Was Chernobyl the fulfilling of this biblical prophecy?
I still remember the newspaper headline. "Soviet nuclear accident
sends radioactive cloud over Europe."
It was a very scary headline.
Chernobyl should change its name to something more positive, to help
its long term recovery from this disaster. What is the Russian word
for "Town of Radiant Beauty"?
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: OT: Chernobyl (was Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?)
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3wuq3bfsd.fsf@cley.com>
* Software Scavenger wrote:
> Chernobyl should change its name to something more positive, to help
> its long term recovery from this disaster. What is the Russian word
> for "Town of Radiant Beauty"?
That would be the Soviet way, wouldn't it? In the UK, for the same
reasons, we changed the name of Windscale to <something I forget -
Sallafield, but was it something else first?> following our little
nuclear embarrassment there.
--tim
From: Espen Vestre
Subject: Re: OT: Chernobyl (was Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?)
Date:
Message-ID: <kwheh74ekf.fsf@merced.netfonds.no>
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> That would be the Soviet way, wouldn't it? In the UK, for the same
> reasons, we changed the name of Windscale to <something I forget -
> Sallafield, but was it something else first?> following our little
> nuclear embarrassment there.
They could change it back again by now, "Sellafield" is almost synomous
with "Nuclear Disaster" here in Norway.
--
(espen)
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: OT: Chernobyl (was Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?)
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3ofbfbf4p.fsf@cley.com>
* Espen Vestre wrote:
> They could change it back again by now, "Sellafield" is almost synomous
> with "Nuclear Disaster" here in Norway.
Oh it's synonymous with it here too. I didn't mean to imply that
changing names *works*, just that it's something soviet-era
governments do.
--tim
In article <·················@valhalla.localnet>, Richard Krush wrote:
> I don't see how that can be, it has nothing in common with either 'worm'
> or 'wood', it's more like 'black-town'.
Sorry, I guess my use of english was wrong. Tarkovsky did not say
'Chernobyl' means 'worm' + 'wood'. According to him, 'Chernobyl'
refers to a wormwood.
--
This message was not sent to you unsolicited.
From: Richard Krush
Subject: Re: OT: Chernobyl (was Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?)
Date:
Message-ID: <8765xo7rm4.fsf@valhalla.localnet>
····@ma.ccom (Takehiko Abe) writes:
> In article <·················@valhalla.localnet>, Richard Krush wrote:
>
> > I don't see how that can be, it has nothing in common with either 'worm'
> > or 'wood', it's more like 'black-town'.
>
> Sorry, I guess my use of english was wrong. Tarkovsky did not say
> 'Chernobyl' means 'worm' + 'wood'. According to him, 'Chernobyl'
> refers to a wormwood.
>
No, it's my fault, since I was ignorant that wormwood is a name of the
plant, which is very likely to be named Chernobyl in Russian or
Ukrainian. Sorry for spreading false information, next time I will do
some research before contributing.
Regards,
Richard
--
Richard Krushelnitskiy "I know not with what weapons World War III will
rkrush (at) gmx.net be fought, but World War IV will be fought with
http://rkrush.cjb.net sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein
Richard Krush wrote:
> I don't see how that can be, it has nothing in common with either 'worm'
> or 'wood', it's more like 'black-town'. Don't quote me on that, however,
> since I am not an expert of etymology at all. My reasoning is that
> 'cherno' is derived from Ukrainian word (BTW, Chernobyl is really in
> Ukraine, not Russia) 'chorno', which means 'black' and 'byl' is some kind
> of a suffix, I guess, since I don't know any similar words.
byl' (there's a soft L in the name of the town) means a "fable" (usually
referring to Slavic mythology). byl (but with a firm L) means "was". Either
way, I hear apartments are really cheap there now.
Oleg
--
"It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why
everybody does everything." -- Homer Simpson.
From: Richard Krush
Subject: Re: OT: Chernobyl (was Re: LISP - an excercise for experts?)
Date:
Message-ID: <87r8gbtzgd.fsf@valhalla.localnet>
Oleg <············@myrealbox.com> writes:
> Richard Krush wrote:
>
> > I don't see how that can be, it has nothing in common with either 'worm'
> > or 'wood', it's more like 'black-town'. Don't quote me on that, however,
> > since I am not an expert of etymology at all. My reasoning is that
> > 'cherno' is derived from Ukrainian word (BTW, Chernobyl is really in
> > Ukraine, not Russia) 'chorno', which means 'black' and 'byl' is some kind
> > of a suffix, I guess, since I don't know any similar words.
>
> byl' (there's a soft L in the name of the town) means a "fable" (usually
> referring to Slavic mythology). byl (but with a firm L) means "was". Either
> way, I hear apartments are really cheap there now.
>
Both of these words are Russian, and besides the name was simplified for
the English tongues :-) As you probably know, in Ukrainian or Russian it
would be closer to Chernobl' (Russian) or Chornobl' (Ukrainian).
I have also checked some resources and dictionaries and discovered that
Chornobl' is a kind of wormwood (polyn' in Russian, polyn in Ukrainian),
as was already said.
Again, sorry for contributing false information (regarding my original
post), won't happen again.
--
Richard Krushelnitskiy "I know not with what weapons World War III will
rkrush (at) gmx.net be fought, but World War IV will be fought with
http://rkrush.cjb.net sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein
ilias wrote:
> you find
>
> (< 3 4) => T
>
> ugly?
>
> simply use this
>
> (defmacro ? (a op b) `(,op ,a ,b))
>
> now write
>
> (? 3 < 4) => T
I have not (and will not) read all the tedious subthreads, personal attacks,
and trolls that have branched off this simple query, but I would like to
respond to the original issue. Pardon to everyone if some or all of the
following remarks have already appeared elsewhere.
What you apparently you want is to be able to write Lisp in "infix" syntax
rather then standard "prefix" syntax. This isn't unreasonable (but see
my further comments below) and has been implemented several times. Lisp
Machines readtables had a dispatch that shifted to an alternate infix
readtable -- IIRC the shift was defined on sharp-diamond. Your simple macro
above handles only a single level of expression (unless you repeat the `?'
at lower expression levels) and doesn't address operator precedence and
associativity, which are standard issues when parsing infix notation,
but there is no reason if you want full infix syntax you shouldn't have
full infix syntax.
Mark Kantrowitz assembled a nice portable infiox reader package, contained
(I think) in the original CMU repository. I've had a copy for years and I
just stored it at http://www.franz.com/~smh/infix.lisp from which anyone
is welcome to download it. Please observe MK's licensing requirements,
which are IMO reasonable. I don't remember whether I have made any minor
changes to this file, but I just verified it still compiles and seems to
work properly in Allegro. Probably it will also work in other conformant
CL implementations. Here is a small snippet from the inline documentation:
;;; Begin the reader macro with #$ and end it with $. For example,
;;; #$ x^^2 + y^^2 $
;;; is equivalent to the Lisp form
;;; (+ (expt x 2) (expt y 2))
;;; but much easier to read according to some folks.
This package is sufficient to let you write entire CL source files that look
syntactically just like Java or Dylan programs. The module is a quality piece
of work, and the way it solves this classic computer science problem is worth
study. Enjoy!
Now, why might you _not_ want to use this module for all your code?
If one compes to Lisp from smoe other language, or simply from understanding
typical mathematical syntax, it might seem obvious that Lisp would be easier
to write and read if it used familiar infix notation. Undoubtedly it would
be easier for beginners if Lisp used infix notation, like C or Java.
But this learning-curve advantage disappears very quickly. Dylan and Java
made a fatal mistake in using infix notation. Infix notation obstructs
development of powerful macrology. So much of the expressive power of Lisp
derives from macros -- the language syntax can be sugared to facilitate the
kind of contructs needed by a particular programming paradigm. Java not only
standardly lacks macros, the langauge prohibits them. C and C++ only have a
silly text-based macro processor that is completely unrelated to the actual
language. And I forget where Dylan landed on this particular issue.
Now, the main reason Lisp macros work is because Lisp uses prefix notation
without operator precedence. The succession of character in a Lisp source
file is very different from the cons tree that results from reading that
source, but the mapping from one to the other is straightforward and
transparent to the practiced eye of an experienced Lisp coder. Precedence
is explicit. This means that it is possible to write macros, and to see
instantly how a macro form is destructured by a macro lambda list.
These benefits, so important to both the writability and readability of
macros, are not available using infix notation. So writing general Lisp
code in infix notation, however attractive it might be to a beginner,
takes too much away from the language. If you look at typical Java code --
say, a succession of action listener adapters in a Swing UI -- one often
finds many repetitions of code blocks, each several lines long but differing
from one another by only a single identifier. This makes code overly
verbose. A good IDE can often write this kind of code automatically for the
programmer, but the IDE cannot _read_ that code for the programmer (or his
successor) a couple years later. The human still needs read through all the
lines of code to make sure that there are no hidden deviations from the
general pattern.
Lisp solves this sort of thing with macros, where the macro wraps all the
repetitive boilerplate code. Once the programmer reads through the macro
itself, the repetitive invocations of the maro can be expressed in one or
two lines per repetition, and all the repetitive code is invisible. The
programmer's eye can immediately see only what is different about each
block of code.
Lisp infix might be useful in heavy mathematical code where lengthy
equations may be lifted from other sources. Macsyma/Maxima, for instance,
implement infix and use it quite appropriately. But IMO one needs to be
coding a lot of mathematics before in dependence on infix syntax is
worhwhile.
"Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> Mark Kantrowitz assembled a nice portable infiox reader package, contained
> (I think) in the original CMU repository. I've had a copy for years and I
> just stored it at http://www.franz.com/~smh/infix.lisp from which anyone
> is welcome to download it. Please observe MK's licensing requirements,
> which are IMO reasonable. I don't remember whether I have made any minor
> changes to this file, but I just verified it still compiles and seems to
> work properly in Allegro.
The original source should be
ftp://ftp.cs.cmu.edu/user/ai/lang/lisp/code/syntax/infix/infix.cl
> Lisp infix might be useful in heavy mathematical code where lengthy
> equations may be lifted from other sources. Macsyma/Maxima, for instance,
> implement infix and use it quite appropriately. But IMO one needs to be
> coding a lot of mathematics before in dependence on infix syntax is
> worhwhile.
I agree. I like it, too, but I use it only very rarely.
Nicolas.
"Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu> writes:
...
> Mark Kantrowitz assembled a nice portable infiox reader package, contained
> (I think) in the original CMU repository. I've had a copy for years and I
> just stored it at http://www.franz.com/~smh/infix.lisp from which anyone
> is welcome to download it. Please observe MK's licensing requirements,
> which are IMO reasonable. I don't remember whether I have made any minor
> changes to this file, but I just verified it still compiles and seems to
> work properly in Allegro. Probably it will also work in other conformant
> CL implementations. Here is a small snippet from the inline documentation:
>
> ;;; Begin the reader macro with #$ and end it with $. For example,
> ;;; #$ x^^2 + y^^2 $
> ;;; is equivalent to the Lisp form
> ;;; (+ (expt x 2) (expt y 2))
> ;;; but much easier to read according to some folks.
You should upgrade your copy. The INFIX package now uses
#I(...)
to signal the readtable shift. The change happened because MCL had
already claimed the nicer TeX #$.
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
715 Broadway 10th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
Steven M. Haflich wrote:
> ilias wrote:
>
>> you find
>>
>> (< 3 4) => T
>>
>> ugly?
>>
>> simply use this
>>
>> (defmacro ? (a op b) `(,op ,a ,b))
>>
>> now write
>>
>> (? 3 < 4) => T
> readtable -- IIRC the shift was defined on sharp-diamond. Your simple
> macro
> above handles only a single level of expression (unless you repeat the `?'
> at lower expression levels) and doesn't address operator precedence and
> associativity, which are standard issues when parsing infix notation,
> but there is no reason if you want full infix syntax you shouldn't have
> full infix syntax.
this was the first line of lisp-code i've wrote.
> Mark Kantrowitz assembled a nice portable infiox reader package, contained
> (I think) in the original CMU repository. I've had a copy for years and I
> just stored it at http://www.franz.com/~smh/infix.lisp from which anyone
> is welcome to download it. Please observe MK's licensing requirements,
> which are IMO reasonable. I don't remember whether I have made any minor
...
> syntactically just like Java or Dylan programs. The module is a quality
> piece
> of work, and the way it solves this classic computer science problem is
> worth
> study. Enjoy!
very interesting! will look at it.
I've read all you post and i think i've understood.
For now, i wanted to run quickly into problems with the LISP reader.
And i've found something
See topic "LISP - The Scary Readtable ()=>[] #V0.4"
Oleg wrote:
> ilias wrote:
>
>
>>For now, i wanted to run quickly into problems with the LISP reader.
>
>
> That is a pretty masochistic wish...
>
> Oleg
aha.
our off-topic-specialist.
you've forgotten the [ot].
as i'm *not* a masochist, i try to run into problems with the LISP reader.
i logoff!