Subject: Re: Negation
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:14:25 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Thomas Bushnell, BSG
| Erik fulminates massively against the notion that Scheme is *is any
| way* relevant to comp.lang.lisp.  He wants a *rigid* boundary, on
| which all the Scheme is NOT HERE.

  They have their own forum.  Dude, USENET works just this way.  The fact
  that you Scheme freaks do nothing but raise hell here, anyway, and manage
  perfectly without my help, provides clear evidence of the existence of an
  underlying conflict.  Newsgroups are _created_ in order to have people be
  nice to eachother in a setting where they are not constantly under attack
  from some anal-retentive assholes like yourself and other Scheme freaks.

| That is a fine example of "one-bit thinking".

  No, dear one-bit person.  You just see it that way.  Q.E.D.

| He insists that this newsgroup is for Common Lisp ONLY

  I do?  Because I want Scheme, which has a Scheme-only newsgroup, actually
  to use it to discuss Scheme?  You see, dear one-bit person, just because
  you have this magical inference engine that is churning out all sorts of
  things that nobody argues, does not mean that you arrive at conclusions
  that apply in this universe.  This is _not_ a one-bit universe

| and that this is so blindingly obvious that the people who disagree must
| be either malicious or idiotic.

  Scheme freaks who come here to answer Common Lisp questions with Scheme
  answers certainly appear lacking in _several_ mental departments.

| I'm *perfectly* happy with fuzzy boundaries; but fuzziness means that
| there is going to be flexibility, giving and taking, and an openness to
| learning from other ways of doing things.

  Would you be happy with my posting Common Lisp answers to every Scheme
  question I care to answer in comp.lang.scheme, too?  If not, why not?
  Have you seen how the mentally unstable Scheme freaks respond to _any_
  Common Lisp articles in their forum at all?

| Erik does not demonstrate that.

  Really?  Just because I disagree with you, and you refuse to budge a bit,
  _I_ suddenly demonstrate lack of flexibility?  Are you for real?

| Indeed, he pretends to be a "two bit" person in the very article in which
| he seems to articulate an iron wall between the one bit people and the
| two bit people.

  Cute, but I actually said n-bit.

  Thomas, grow up.  Get over your inability to deal with disagreement and
  my harsh responses to your stupidity.  Just do _better_, act _smarter_.
  Regressing to a whining child who tells lies about people who have not
  hurt you just because you feel hurt leads to all sorts of conclusions
  about your mental stability and capacity that do you no good in the long
  run.  Probably not the short run, either, but you would never see that.

  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.