Re: DEFSTRUCT and lexical environment

In article <m3ljjevaj1.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Madhu <enometh@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

* Ron Garret Wrote on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:33:30 -0700:

|
| How fortunate for you that when defending an indefensible position one
| can always fall back on ad hominem attacks. Otherwise you'd have
| nothing left to say.
|
|> I also see Daniel Weinreb as a highly vested member of the community
|> (not necessarily for the good of Commom Lisp) and would advice people
|> take his recommendations with a modicum of salt.
|
| He wasn't making a recommendation, he was stating a historical fact.
| You really do seem to have a lot of trouble with basic rhetorical
| concepts.

My interest in this thread is primarily in response to your despicable
style of dishonest rhetoric.

I have not said he made a recommendation

Not explicitly, no. But you wrote that you "would advice [sic] people
to take [Dan Weinreb's] recommendations with a modicum of salt." Either
you meant to imply that Dan had made a recommendation or this is a
deliberate non-sequitur. Which is it?

in this case, because I have
not seen what he has said in this case. I said exactly what I meant,
not what you twisted it to mean.

I did not twist it. I drew a reasonable inference based on what you
wrote and the assumption that you would not deliberately introduce a
non-sequitur in the conversation. But perhaps I was being too generous.

This is the example of how you twist the spec so it meets your own
twisted expectations

No, this is yet another example of your apparent lack of understanding
of English and the rules of logic and valid inference, to say nothing of
being yet another ad hominem.

There is ONLY ONE valid argument you can make to support your position,
and that is to show that my preferred interpretation of the spec is
invalid. If you can't do that (and you can't because it isn't) then the
situation is in fact, as I claim, ambiguous. Everything else, including
your own personal opinion and any recommendations Dan Weinreb may or may
not have made, is irrelevant. (Note that my introduction of what Dan
said was merely *additional evidence* in support of my position. So
even if you could completely discredit Dan that would not matter in the
least because my argument does not depend on Dan's views in any way.)

rg
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: BOC Lifeline
    ... I'm pretty sure they get their oxygen recommendations from DAN - certainly their EANx course is based on DAN's recommendations. ... To the best of my knowledge, DAN isn't a dive training agency. ... NOAA set most of the standards for nitrox and each of the agencies modified them to suit their particular purpose. ...
    (uk.rec.scuba)
  • Re: cant change homepage
    ... I'm having the same issue as Dan. ... mentioned, Kelly, but the page doesn't load. ... suggestions or other recommendations? ... >> search and destroy as well as adware 6.0 nut they have ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser)
  • Re: Hart Prodigy - which module to use?
    ... The clear choice is DDRUM & use real hihats & symbowls ... The Roland is a gizmo whirly -do gadget that does everything but make ... > recommendations from you apes). ... > Dan Hertlein ...
    (rec.music.makers.percussion)
  • Anyone Cruise on the Sapphire Princess?
    ... a couple of weeks....Any recommendations? ... Restaurants, activities, ... Thanks for your responses, ... Dan ...
    (rec.travel.cruises)
  • Re: alo co konco
    ... Sak-jane, diskusi dengan bung Darion bisa menarik juga kalau blionya fokus pada penyusunan argumentasi, dan bukannya mempersoalkan orang-nya. ... An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. ...
    (soc.culture.indonesia)