From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: LISP and AI Date: 2000/05/10 Message-ID: <3166934166478995@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 621471306 References: <390D17B9.34FE6F7F@san.rr.com> <390E4BA4.2AEA53C6@san.rr.com> <390F7BA0.D7E18812@san.rr.com> <390F8F7C.123F4F69@san.rr.com> <3166413990955610@naggum.no> <39116F89.8218A495@san.rr.com> <3166442542698892@naggum.no> <3911B618.11B2@esatclear.ie> <3166452687168662@naggum.no> <3166469115019645@naggum.no> <3166690977154116@naggum.no> <3166846601825928@naggum.no> <3166886782223851@naggum.no> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 957945394 24224 195.0.192.66 (10 May 2000 07:56:34 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 May 2000 07:56:34 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Erann Gat | From this admonition I infered that you thought that I was asking | this question of programmers and not librarians (else why the | admonition?). But this is not the case. There are librarians here. It may come as a shock to you, but this is not a newsgroup for librarians even if there be librarians here. You would get answers from the _intersection_ between those interested in Lisp and those with a librarian past (or present) at _best_. So I repeat: If you want to understand bibliographic references, talk to (a forum for) _librarians_, not (a forum for) programmers. I regret it every time I express myself in such a way that you can pull an Erann Gat out of the proverbial hat and quibble over some pretty clear phrasing just to pick fights, but it is unfortunately impossible for either man or machine to predict how you will read normal English prose to find "flaws". I have long ago concluded that there is nothing in what I say or do that triggers your insane quibbling, and consequently nothing I can change to make you less irrational. The reason I'm pointing you to librarians is that it is obvious to me that you don't want to understand bibliographic references, you only want me to be wrong. "There is no third document involved" is not a signal from a person who wants to understand anything, it's the metallic sound of a mind closing like a steel trap. | For all I knew *you* could have been a librarian. For all I know, you _could_ be smart enough to realize why you are counter-prouctive. The evidence is wanting, however. | Actually, that's an interesting point. Erik, are you a librarian? | If you are, why didn't you just answer my question? And if you | aren't, why should anyone listen to what you have to say on the | subject of bibliographic references? Excuse me? _You're_ the idiot who wants to make librarians and programmers into mutually exclusive groups. I merely suggested you ask "librarians" and not "programmers", but your limited mental abilities didn't quite grasp that the mere existence of a librarian in a group of programmers doesn't constitute asking librarians if you ask these programmers. How can I help you understand this? I _have_ tried by inserting the rather obvious "(a forum for)" in the rephrasing above. I hope, but do not believe, this will help. | I am not trying to pick a fight. I am trying to ask a question ... Yeah, I'm sure. Consider your previous paragraph. "Why should anyone listen to you" is _just_ a question. Sure. Not picking a fight at all. Geez, do you even believe your own silliness? | My question: why is it obviously false? If you could open your mind enough to let the thought in that a bibliographic reference may be located in a different document than the document that made the reference (commentaries on the works of philosophers often supply "latent" references, to take another example), you see that it is completely unreasonable to deny that a third document may be involved in the general case, hence obviously false that "there is no third document involved". Bibliographic references have historically never been _restricted_ to simple one-way pointers, either (although that is the most common version) -- insisting that they are is just plain stupid. #:Erik