From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!skynet.be!skynet.be!ossa.telenet-ops.be!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!nreader3.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: is lisp a general purpose lang? References: <1ucgaus6noclncmr4ur6frb0m92pfkvlui@4ax.com> <3226651781574500@naggum.net> <874rivjqwf.fsf@becket.becket.net> <3226673556736316@naggum.net> <87k7rq6cuf.fsf@becket.becket.net> Mail-Copies-To: never From: Erik Naggum Message-ID: <3226720035885776@naggum.net> Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 49 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 07:07:00 GMT X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@KPNQwest.no X-Trace: nreader3.kpnqwest.net 1017731220 193.71.199.50 (Tue, 02 Apr 2002 09:07:00 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 09:07:00 MET DST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:30834 * Thomas Bushnell, BSG | Huh? So you mean that asking you to put your words in a context where | you might actually have to stand by them is somehow dishonest? Because they have no business in that context, and I have made this very clear from the start. You, however, make it their business, and that is the only transgression relevant to them. What you do on a newsgroup is not the business of unrelated business partners or colleagues. How you deal with them is not my concern. If you use your colleagues as a shield and claim that you can think clearly in comp.lang.lisp because you get into the graduate program at the Unversity of california at Irvine, Philosophy Department, I know that you are stark raving mad _here_, but if you manage to behave well in a different setting, who cares? The problem only starts when you point to a person outside of the forum and _make_ him responsible for your behavior or somehow use him to claim that criticism of your actions here are false. I really wonder what you will come up with after your advisors/department/whatever line has run out. Would you challenge me to write your mother? After all, it is far more likely that she is responsible for your immature behavior and genetic insufficiencies than your advisors/department/whatever, and even more likely that you will succeed in using her as a shield instead of just defending yourself and standing by what you say. | Why are you so scared? Huh? Why do you think I am scared? I actually know how harmful what you want me to do to you would be. I want you to repeat the request so many times that you cannot defend yourself by claiming that I "misunderstood" you, and I want you to be very clear in that _you_ implicate these people in your newsgroup behavior, because I do _not_ want to implicate them. And the only thing I would do is to write them to ask if they are indeed responsible for your behavior and have guaranteed that you can think clearly. What is becoming quite clear, however, is that you have some _serious_ coping problems and need professional help to get over your personality disorders and how they pan out in your daily life. No fully rational man continues to harp on this idiotic line for so long. I do not know what you think you gain by continuing, but that I am a coward for not going to people who have no business with your behavior here or that I am scared are both so ludicrous that I think people will know just how nuts you are from these stupid attempts at slander alone. But keep going. My intent is only to make bad people self-destruct. You are well on your way. You have an option to stop that you constantly refuse to exercise. /// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.