From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: Allegro compilation warnings Date: 2000/10/24 Message-ID: <3181385831231975@naggum.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 685247903 References: <3180342535878529@naggum.net> <3180961031624311@naggum.net> <3181055063423160@naggum.net> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 972397327 2405 195.0.192.66 (24 Oct 2000 14:22:07 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 800 35477; gsm: +47 93 256 360; fax: +47 93 270 868; http://naggum.no; http://naggum.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Oct 2000 14:22:07 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Mario Frasca | Followup-To: misc.misc When you engage in Followup-To wars like this, you show everybody that you are a useless pest in _any_ forum. How could you think you could possibly benefit from such moronic behavior? Did you intend to show me that you really had a working brain? Well, _that_ failed. | a few days ago I wrote you something like 'now I know how to read your | posts'. maybe it is interesting for you to know what I meant by that. No, it is not. People who decide that they have _found_ the answers they need are braindead and not worth spending any effort on at all. If your (stupid and even silly) conclusion about "how to read [my] posts" is now decided and no longer open to evidence, it has itself become prima facie evidence that you are no longer worth talking to, because you prove with that methodology and approach that you cease to listen when what people tell you goes against some property of your personality. This is what I want people to show me and a small number of people do not understand that they can do something other than prove that they are prejudiced, braindead wastes of space despite very clear signals that the simple act of making up their mind to discard future evidence is what shows that my commentary on their lack of thinking skills is _precisely_ to the point. If they were _not_ complete morons, they would figure out that the way to change somebody else's mind is to provide them with some evidence contrary to their current beliefs, but since they do not themselves change their mind in the face of contrary evidence, this fantastically simple idea never enters their dysfunctional brain, thus proving me right. One would have thought that the slightest bit of intelligence at work would be able to predict the result, but for some bizarre reason, the idiots who feel the urge to go postal never acquire the ability to predict behavior that even _dogs_ have. Let's make a wild guess and assume that you thought something along these lines: "If I post this phenomenally uninteresting drivel and direct followups to misc.misc, _then_ I will surely avoid being attacked for behaving like a moron, because that's the smartest thing I can possibly do." Am I getting close? Do you think computer programs can predict what is likely to happen in that scenario? Just how un-advanced artificial intelligence does it take to out-predict Mario Frasca? Not a helluva lot, buddy. | unfortunately, the isTechnical still needs some work at, so I do | need to perform it by hand. Amazingly, you managed to post something _intentionally_ devoid of technical contents while complaining about others. That is pretty darn funny when you want to prove that you have _nothing_ worthwhile to say to a forum. Congratulations are in order. | I think the rest of the newsgroup will appreciate if we switch to | private e-mail for our off topic rants. I think everyone would appreciate if you could just try and stop your off-topic bullshit and get back on track, whatever the hell that might have been. #:Erik -- I agree with everything you say, but I would attack to death your right to say it. -- Tom Stoppard