Subject: Re: hashtable w/o keys stored...
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1999/01/16
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Barry Margolin <>
| OOP vocabulary is the terminology that someone who is familiar with a
| multitude of OO languages would be expected to understand.

  precisely, and _understand_ is the operative word here.  someone who
  believes that other languages has to have "virtual functions" just
  because he's used to C++, does not understand what they are in the C++
  context, _either_.  you help nobody by defending their pretense to know
  something they don't.  since you continue to pretend that you have every
  right to post your stupid drivel about _me_, as opposed to what I do and
  which you _can_ observe, I can only assume that you defend your _own_
  pretenses to know something you don't, not actually those of anybody else.

| Just because we happen to be in a CLOS context doesn't mean we can't make
| references to features of other languages like C++.

  "references"?  the introduction was "I'm trying to figure out how to make
  a virtual function", and the conclusion, _long_ before there had been
  time to answer him, was "actually, I'm not even sure that this is
  possible in CL (and if it isn't, then that's a bit dissappointing)".
  what the hell kind of "reference to features of other languages" is that?

  why _is_ it necessary for you to start talking about something else that
  _isn't_ wrong every time you're trying to argue against my pointing out
  something that _is_ wrong?  what do you _gain_ from twisting things
  around so much?  I can't see _any_ constructive element to anything
  you're doing in your moronic defenses of specific failures to understand
  something.  again, I think you're defending yourself, not anybody else.

  if we _were_ talking about references to features of other languages,
  there wouldn't be any issue.  if you would be happy in your pretense that
  this is a "reference to features of other languages" and not the request
  for help on doing C++ particulars in CLOS that it is, there might be
  grounds for a discussion, but I don't think you want that.  all I see
  from you is an immense desire to attack _me_, no matter what I do, and
  every time I point to a serious lack of understanding and a willingness
  to make unwarranted, unfounded conclusions, you rise to the defense and
  you prove beyond any doubt that you are the champion of the unwarranted
  and the unfounded conclusions in the way you attack me.

  would you please have somebody you listen to tell you that if you keep
  making false accusations against somebody, they _will_ continue to be
  pissed at you, because _you_ do something wrong towards _them_, no matter
  how morally outraged you are and no matter what you really defend.  you
  just _don't_ get people to treat you well if you ignore their objections
  and continue to attack them for stuff they have already denied or which
  has already been disproven.  only braindamaged fanatics do that.

| If we can't borrow the term "virtual function", we have to say "method
| that dispatches on the dynamic type", which is unnecessarily verbose.

  why do you pretend we "have" to say that?  there's already the prefectly
  usable term "generic function", and there's no lack of precision to what
  it means.  it is no more verbose than "virtual function", and it doesn't
  talk about CLOS in terms unique to C++.  now, _why_ did you discard the
  term "generic function"?  you _did_ know about it, didn't you?

| If someone were doing a survey of programming languages, and there were a
| question like "Does your language include virtual functions?", I would
| answer "yes" for Common Lisp.

  so would I, because every person has a moral obligation to lie to stupid
  people who are about to do damage in order to limit that damage: "no"
  would be true because CLOS isn't C++, but it would be more damaging than
  "yes" because any idiot asking that question has no clue what he's asking
  about or what either "yes" or "no" would mean.  all that he _could_ be
  after is proving that C++ is the best language, just like Bill Gates
  ordering _surveys_ that "prove" his point.

| However, I've discovered from past conversations that you believe it's
| totally wrong to make any references or analogies between programming
| paradigms (it's come up in threads comparing Lisp and Perl, for instance).

  holy shit.  you can't even _read_ something you don't agree with!  why am
  I not surprised by your willingness to make up even _more_ moronic
  bullshit from what you have _not_ observed?  I wouldn't trust you to be
  able to discover your own navel, much less any protruding body parts.

| In comp.lang.lisp we must act as if no other languages exist, and woe be
| unto one who lapses and mentions a term they've learned in another
| environment -- the wrath of Erik will be upon them.

  do you learn the wrong things from everything you experience?  if you
  break the law and get caught, you'll study how not to get caught, not how
  to obey the law, right?  when arguing with me, you "learn" that you must
  press harder, be even more moronic, make even more unfounded accusations
  and post even more insane drivel, because I might start to _accept_ it
  once it gets beyond a certain acceptance threshold, is that it?  (but
  what _am_ I doing using rhetorical devices to a guy so illiterate that he
  doesn't even recognize when his own position is ridiculed?)  just because
  _you_ are incapable of dealing with what I have said about suspending
  one's knowledge of something else until there is a _reason_ to compare it
  to other knowledge on their _respective_ premises, you will wind up with
  meaningless comparisons (or surveys) of apples and oranges, which I have
  to ask you if you believe is wrong: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT COMPARING APPLES
  perhaps hope that the view might one day penetrate your thick skull that
  I'm arguing against the concept of using appleness as a means of judging
  oranges, I'm _not_ arguing against either apples or oranges, which you
  have stupidly concluded over and over and over.

  I wish you would some day grow smart enough to realize that the reason my
  wrath is upon you in particular is that you make so many fucking annoying
  accusations that do nothing but help maintain your _own_ mental image of
  something despite a continued flow of information that would have negated
  it in a _living_ brain.  I have to ask: what _do_ you gain from this?  if
  you find the wrath uncomfortable, stop accusing me of stuff you have no
  way of knowing and which couldn't be any more false.  if you have to make
  stuff up, be my guest, but be _honest_ enough to know that you make it up
  and don't pretend that you have knowledge you don't have, and _don't_
  pretend that your amazing ability to reinforce your own prejudices is any
  smarter than poking people in the eye to see if they will get mad at you.

  to conclude, I think your defense of the doofuses here is something you
  do only because your own amazing inability to separate conjecture from
  fact is under implicit attack, and I guess that if I were allowed to
  successfully attack the phenomenon of baseless conjectures masquerading
  as fact or knowledge, something _you_ do would be in serious jeopardy.
  in order for this not to take place, my guess is that you have to make up
  a demonic image of me and do your best to portray me as something I'm not
  and as attacking something perfectly benign that I'm _not_ attacking in
  order that nobody turn around and ask _you_ why you keep your projection
  nonsense going at full speed.  people _do_ notice that you argue against
  something other than that which people actually say, you know.  the more
  you keep doing it, the easier it is to expose it as a pattern of yours.

  I wonder what nonsense you'll get out of this and which pathetic lies you
  will serve the next time you feel fear of exposure or whatever it is that
  keeps you going.  when I argued that in order to learn something that is
  very close to something one already knows, one must effectively suspend
  what one knows from the prior, similar experiences and listen to the new
  as if it was _all_ new, your moronic "conclusion" is "I've discovered
  from past conversations that you believe it's totally wrong to make any
  references or analogies between programming paradigms".  what the fuck
  possessed your pathetic excuse for a brain to arrive at such an amazingly
  unintelligent conclusion?  you used to be quite able at what you were
  doing, but you've become incapable of dealing even with the simplest
  summaries of somebody else's position!  what _is_ it that gives you the
  right to pretend you know better than somebody else what they think?  my
  guess is some seriously misguided piece of fundamentalist religion, but
  please feel free to tell me you're not a religious nut -- such have been
  the only kind of people to make the kind of mistake I see you do, but it
  would be interesting to learn if there is a more basic error than that
  producing fundamentalist religious beliefs at work with you.

  now, I can't make you stop producing insane drivel about me, and I can't
  stop you from lying about what I say or from arguing against something I
  have _not_ said in order to defend whatever it is you are afraid of
  having exposed or from producing summaries of my position or arguments
  that would have got a failing grade from anybody who can read reasonably
  long sentences, but I _will_ continue to show how you defend something
  people _don't_ do in order to detract from my legitimate criticism of
  something they _do_ do, and I _will_ continue to object to every single
  piece of insane drivel you post about me, and I _will_ continue to
  correct your false statements of fact when you impute words or positions
  to me that are in fact _contradicted_ by the easily available evidence, a
  modus operandi you have stuck to for quite a while.  if you can't stop
  posting insane drivel and impute all sorts of bullshit to me, talk to
  somebody about it, and just get _over_ your obsession, OK?  I'm getting
  sick of it.