Subject: Re: source access vs dynamism
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1999/09/19
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Raffael Cavallaro
| I didn't read anything into your post. This is what the expression means
| in english; every native speaker understood your use of this expression
| the same way. That's why I was not the only one to point out that people
| have no real choice but to accept the "horrible working conditions."

  so all I need to prove you wrong, now, is to find _one_ native speaker
  who is able to read something and understand that not every "idiom" has
  to be used idiomatically every time.  since that proof has already been
  posted here, what the hell do you think you're going to accomplish with
  this insistence that there is only way to read something, regardless of

  the rational way to do what you're trying to do extremely uintelligently,
  would be to (1) be aware of your assumptions, and (2) express them as
  just that: your assumptions.  this would mean that you understood
  something in a particular way, instead of stupidly blaming others for a
  number of _secondary_ consequences of your misunderstanding, even in the
  presence of evidence to the contrary, and it would shatter the impression
  that you lack the ability to examine your assumptions.  it would also
  make it possible to deal with you.  as is, you react extremely
  uintelligently, and dealing with your accusations is meaningless -- you
  are obviously so devoid of ability to examine your assumptions that even
  when you accuse someone of not writing your preferred style of English,
  you _continue_ to carp on what they wrote as if you are never going to
  admit to being in the wrong, no matter what.  because of your
  unintelligent response, there is never going to be any way to make you
  understand, either: even when you know it was not meant idiomatically,
  you refuse to read it literally.  such insistence is that of a fanatic,
  and you have given me reason to think that you are indeed fanatical.
  accusations of being _racist_ because your third world is not the default
  context reinforces it.

| If you _really_ thought otherwise, it might explain your confusion as to
| the reactions of others in this forum.

  which others are you talking about?  as far as I see, you're the only
  nutcase you didn't understand when not to read something idiomatically
  and insisted on accusing instead of examining your assumptions.  I find
  this quite amazing -- I have yet to meet any actually native speakers who
  fail to understand any "idiomatic" expression literally when it is called
  for, if this is indeed your argument.  however, it has been common for
  those who have English as their second language to be "single-mode" with
  respect to such things, especially with languages which are "single-mode"
  as their first language, or even their predominant language.

| But it is _certainly_ not the case that any native speaker understood you
| to be asking a real question.

  this self-serving generalization is obviously false, and the evidence is
  right here, in this newsgroup.  that you insist on your single-mode view
  of understanding "idioms" suggests to me that talking to you means
  finding out which single meaning every expression has in your view, and
  I'm not going to continue this process.  I apologize for not seeing your
  lack of insight into your own assumptions sooner, so much of this could
  have been avoided.

  and, please, take your insistence that "it's idiomatic" elsewhere.  thanks.