Subject: Re: source access vs dynamism From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1999/09/14 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Raffael Cavallaro | So you see Erik, you explicitly deny that people submit to unacceptable | conditions because they would become destitute (or worse) otherwise. You | blame them for their own opression. can you stick to Lisp in comp.lang.lisp, Raffael Cavallaro? you been unable to see any point but your own in this discussion, and it has proved to be entirely useless to try to make you see others, but let me say that your inference from what I say is yours only. the "blame" part is your invention and has nothing to do with what I say or mean. I have _questioned_ why people accept these conditions, I have not _blamed_ them for it. when I say that "becoming destitute" is not the answer, it's because accepting unacceptable working conditions isn't the only option people have, even in your third world contries. but, a question is just as good as blaming them in your mind, and it will never be any different, because you're nuts and fail to understand that some issues need to be opened because the answers people think they have today are wrong. the proof that they are wrong is that people react with extreme emotion against re-opening the question: whatever they think they know is under severe threat merely by asking. this means that there are other answers that are not politically acceptable to some people to even seek. so, can you stick to Lisp in comp.lang.lisp, Raffael Cavallaro? #:Erik -- it's election time in Norway. explains everything, doesn't it?