Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1999/07/25
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* (Christopher R. Barry)
| I expected as much from you.

  of course you did.  you _did_ realize that poking people in the eye
  generally has predictable results.  I'm sure that in your perverted
  ethics it is also the victim's fault when you poke them in the eye.

| Less than 24 hours ago you wrote in <>:
|   and quality suffers much more from competition from splinter groups than
|   mere quantity.  e.g., MULE would not have been as braindamaged had it not
|   been for XEmacs.
| So I'm not the one "inventing" anything here.

  yes, you are, and like the raving paranoid, of course you don't see that
  you're matching your hallucinations up with the scantiest piece of fact.

  the above is not blaming the MULEshit in Emacs on XEmacs per se, but on
  the _competition_ from XEmacs that led to the perceived need to have a
  feature that the competition did, and the quality thus suffered.  the
  problem isn't XEmacs, it is the perceived need to compete with it.  this
  need is not causally linked t XEmacs at all -- XEmacs just exposes it.
  _any_ similar competition would have caused Richard Stallman to jump too
  soon and add immature features for no other reason than to try to keep up
  with the competition -- MULE happened this way, and numerous other really
  bad decisions have been made in the name of competition.  but making this
  into _blaming_ them on XEmacs is so deranged only you could have thought
  it up.  now, do you want me to spell it out for you and spoonfeed you
  with the obvious context that your hallucinations made you "overlook", or
  are you able to understand what I'm saying without more hallucinations?
  suppose we blasted all politicians into space.
  would the SETI project find even one of them?