Subject: Re: 3 Lisps, 3 Ways of Specifying OS From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:25:21 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> This message was obviously mis-sent to me by mail, so I post it on behalf of the poster: Return-Path: <email@example.com> Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [126.96.36.199]) by naggum.no with ESMTP id <f9MKCoDh024580> for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:12:52 GMT Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [188.8.131.52]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736BC48766 for <email@example.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:12:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rsi@localhost) by panix2.panix.com (8.11.3nb1/8.8.8/PanixN1.0) id f9MKCi826485; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:12:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110222012.f9MKCi826485@panix2.panix.com> X-Authentication-Warning: panix2.panix.com: rsi set sender to firstname.lastname@example.org using -f Sender: email@example.com To: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: 3 Lisps, 3 Ways of Specifying OS References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <MPG.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <%0nz7.7335$W61.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <U%5A7.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> From: Rajappa Iyer <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 22 Oct 2001 16:12:44 -0400 Reply-To: email@example.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > * Rajappa Iyer > | On the contrary, Erik, you are the one that doesn't have a clue. > > You admit to being vague because all this is two years old (what have I > been saying about your "experiences" and the dishonesty of using stale > painful experiences to _continue_ to post negative comments about > something?) and that you have no specific examples to back up your claim. > I already knew that, but it is good to see that you admit to this. > > This leaves us with a very simple, straightforward conclusion: There is > absolutely no reason to believe anything you say. You are simply too > much of a dishonest person to have any credibility at all. Until and > unless you can show us exactly what you did and exactly what happened, > your whole set of experiences falls in the category of "idiot operator > error". Blame whoever you want, every honest person has to conclude that > it was your own goddamn fault. _No_ system can be so fool-proof that a > self-destructive, lying, angry fool cannot find something to blame it for. > > Only good thing is it was a Linux and not a Common Lisp system that you > mistreated so badly that your hatred was misdirected towards Common Lisp. > There have been enough dishonest lunatics just like you who have been so > angry about their failure to understand what they are doing in Common > Lisp that they publish books about it. It is fortunate for Debian that > you are unlikely to be capable of such demanding intellectual endeavors. Do you do this to embarass your parents? rsi -- <email@example.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer. They also surf who stand in the waves.