Subject: Re: EVAL Implementations
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1996/08/28
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

Robert Munyer, if I ever doubted that you were unreasonable, your last note
has certainly removed any shred of it.  it is abundantly clear that your
purpose now is revenge, rather than any purported "technical" issues.

if you should return to technical discussions, please, try to respect that
those with whom you try to discuss anything technical might want to refer
you to authoritative documents and standards instead of including them in
their replies or paraphrasing them with an added chance of introducing more
confusion.  you strongly suggest that you have higher regard and respect
for USENET contributions than for standards documents, and this is an
attitude so mind-bogglingly irrational that if I come across as saying "you
are stupid, Robert Munyer", it is because that is exactly what I think.

BTW, anonymous references to private communication, ostensibly to avoid
being the one to slander somebody else, is the best evidence yet to be
found on USENET of how low a person can get.  such behavior reveals an
amazingly cavalier attitude to reproducibility of observations and
credibility of conclusions, and points to a fundamental misunderstanding of
how legitimate observations and conclusions are made.  it is no wonder at
all that such a person is incapable of reading a standards document to
learn of the facts of a specification, when he obviously believes that it
furthers his cause to make such pathetic attacks solely on his opponent.
and to have the gall to make the unfounded claim that he wants to discuss
technical issues at the same time is...

you are in fact wrong on your technical points, Robert Munyer.  there is
nothing more than "read the fine manual" to tell you.  since you refuse to
do that, and instead continue to pose irrelevant questions about what
people think or believe, based on your own misunderstood assumptions, what
exactly did you expect to receive?  what would you do with the answers you
got?  would you use them in anonymous references in discussions with your
colleagues that you are somehow correct in your assumptions?  would you at
any one point go and consult the specification to learn how things _should_
have been done, instead doing a Gallup poll on what a representative sample
of the population might think?  standards are written by the best people we
can find.  anybody at all can have opinions.  this is why we have standards
written by experts instead of Gallup polls on USENET every time we wish to
know what Common Lisp, the language, specifies.

and it is true, I find unbridled display of arrogant ignorance to be the
worst aspect of USENET.  and it is true, I do treat people who refuse to
listen to authoritative sources and instead go on to ask _people_ what they
think, as fundamentally misguided and extremely unlikely to produce
anything of reasonable value in a discussion, because they discuss not what
is, but what people believe.

finally, Robert Munyer, you do most emphatically not _have_ to waste your
time in flame wars.  if you _want_ to waste your time in flame wars, that
is your very own choice.  sometimes, it is more effective to shut up than
to continue to make the crux of your argument that somebody else is a

you said you had a technical argument.  I'll believe it when I see it.  I
don't think it is possible to have technical discussion with people whose
mission it is to convince the world of their own personal misconceptions,
including, but not limited to meaningless and pathetic slandering of
others.  I think a technical discussion must refer to something that is
impersonal, such as a standard specification for a programming language.

my other car is a cdr