Subject: Re: type safety in LISP From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 09 Dec 2002 12:26:29 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Pascal Costanza | This doesn't make it right. What is wrong with you? | Some people actually benefit from reading. You are not one of them. Please cut the unwarranted arrogance. | I am looking forward to an alternative suggestion of yours. What is wrong with you? Please cut the unwarranted arrogance. | BTW, I am still interested in the foundation (papers, links, etc.) | that you base the following claim of yours on. What the hell makes you think that I will do anything to satisfy you apart from causing you to shut the fuck up? You malfunction when you do not get things exactly the way you want them, and you are perfectly happy to derail discussions so you can point out what is "right", as if anyone needs to hear this from you. You need to learn to deal with disagreement and rejection, Pascal, and you /really/ learn to deal with the fact that people do not accept what you think is the only right thing, and be satisfied to explain your views a limited number of times and let other people discuss things even though they do not use every term /exactly/ right by your standards. If you make it your life's mission to correct everyone who misuses a term for which you have the right meaning, you are no better than any other deranged fanatic who cannot change his mind and refuse to change the subject (to use Churchill's definition of a fanatic). | ...or have you also chosen to take on a liberal meaning of the term | "empirical"? What is wrong with you? Please cut the unwarranted arrogance. Why do you have to be such a snotty asshole when you are faced with rejection of your pet peeves? You seem so utterly unable to deal with rejection that there is no telling what /would/ cater to the underlying psychological needs you obviously have. You turn into an extremely annoying, combative little neurotic when you are told that you annoy people, instead of trying to get the point and stick to the topic at hand. Where is that friendly style of yours when it could be put to the test? It works only when you feel superior to other people, does it not? And when you do not, indeed /are/ inferior, you turn into a hostile dipshit instead of doing as you preach. Be /nice/ when it counts, or shut the fuck about your holier-than-thou attitude about "style". You are worse than most people when it comes to turning hostile, but you do not realize that, do you? Other people of your ilk have staged /wars/ on newsgroups when their sensibilities have been offended, like the mad muslems who rioted in Nigeria and killed hundreds of people because some journalist said something these deranged lunatics were unable to cope with rationally. You remind me of such people. There is something seriously broken in you, Pascal Costanza. Unless you start to behave courteously and nicely even when your arguments are rejected, I have to conclude that you function only under very specific conditions and turn into a lunatic when those conditions are not met, just like religious fanatics. Long ago, I concluded that the only reason you want all this "niceness" is that you cannot handle real objections to your misguided notions and therefore turn hostile in the face of failure. Many "nice" people are nice only because they are downright evil when they do not strictly control themselves. I think you are one of those, and you do not exactly help to refute this conclusion. Now, be specific, and tell me exactly what would make you happy and would make you shut up /forever/ about this neurotic non-issue of yours. What do you want to call statically typed languages except those with type inference that you need to bring up to destroy a line of argument? You answer this now, once, and I will call them "statically typed languages (or foo according to Pascal Costanza)", for the value you provide of "foo". You can choose anything you want, as everyone will know who to ask what it means. I want you to shut up about this so bad that I am willing to accept absolutely anything you call it, but I will also make sure that the terminology points back to you, because I do not want to be associated with the bogus psychological needs you have that you refuse to keep personal. I also think you should go repair yourself, and above all, /think/, even though it obviously hurts so much you much prefer to act on your emotions. Once you start to /think/ even in when it hurts, you will take on a very different appearance, one that I will most likely accept and treat with respect. Emotionally disturbed people with an axe to grind and a fanatic outlook on what is "right" do not, in general, encourage me to treat them nicely. I cannot fathom why you do not grasp this and adjust your behavior to something that at least could have /some/ hope of achieving what you want. You see (or, of course you do not), when you insist that something is /right/ when it is also out of place, people will object to it regardless of the truth of your claim, and the more you insist, the /more/ they will object simply because you are out of place and do not grasp that it is not about how "right" you think you are. So, let us have the "Pascal Costanza terminology" for the statically typed languages that enables discussion of relevant aspects of them, so that we will never, ever, hear any complaints from you again! -- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.