Subject: Re: Lisp vs ML From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 07:42:23 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Todd Gillespie <email@example.com> | My own working theory is 'Eric types very fast'. Another theory might be | 'Eric states the obvious after laying out a detailed metaphor containing | several factors and scene depictions, thus detailing the obvious', but you | could always rebut with a 3kb forward and a 3 line rebuttal. | Either way, it's good Usenet. My theory is that people need to look less at who writes and more at what they read. Perhaps if you had been able to read something without a truckload of prejudice and expectation, you, too, would find it humorous at the cost of silly and meaningless requests that betray an utter lack of understanding of the process of choice. Lots of academics have so little contact with the real world that they actually believe that there could be such a thing as (universally applicable) "clear criteria" for any choice. I mean, you can only laugh at that ridiculous break with reality -- it is too goddamn sad to take any more seriously. It is a tragedy of over-education that any "educated" person can even ask such a stupid question. Any child knows that he does not choose between equally good alternatives rationally. There _is_ such a thing as "good taste", and if you have it, you make some choices, and if you lack it, you make other choices. Alex Braun clearly lacks good taste and needs _help_ in making a choice between which car to purchase. This is laughable! Yes, I also type very fast. Look at all the typos in that article, and you also see that I did not care enough about it to proof-read it. -- 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. 70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process.