Re: simulating local lexical variables with symbol macros


[I notice you have not followed my suggestion of posting something
substantial, so I have something I can usefully respond to. I am just
responding to the continued trolling on your part, and this is
necessarily not interesting since I have no wish to respond in "irony"]


* mdj <cff1231c-a277-4ca9-8abd-65deb224fa7d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :
Wrote on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:54:21 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 16, 3:42 pm, Madhu <enom...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
|
|> This thread has no contribution except your insults.
|
| On the contrary. I've made several challenges that have gone
| unanswered (sans your amateurish attempt at philosophy). The 'silence'
| in terms of answering the question I had is as they say, deafening.


No, your basic accusation is false. The assumptions underlying your
accusation are wrong. I not need to resort to philosophy or rely on any
capacity for philosophical thought on your part to prove it. You can
ignore my earlier attempt, as I do not believe you will benefit from
that.


|> No I am doing no such thing. I explained my position you continue to
|> misunderstand and state your incorrect position. If you disagree you
|> should say.
|
| So I misunderstand and am stating my disagreement incorrectly but if I
| disagree I should say so?


I asked you to respond to the post and state what it is in my
explanation and exactly WHAT you were disagreeing with. Instead you
have only been stating a characterization of what I've done, and have
been disagreeing with that.

AFAICT Your accusation is based on a misunderstanding and the error is
in your own head. I am powerless to correct any misperception on your
part. If I tell you that neither am I conformibng to your
characterization, nor is it my intent to do what you are alleging, given
your lack of understanding, its best you accept what I say.


| I'll be polite and just call this a non sequitur.

No

|> I am responding to your baseless pointless posts.  Stop trolling me if
|> you have nothing to add.
|
|> Are you Ron Garret posting anonymously as mdj ?
|
| No. It should be obvious from the way I use language that I'm not from
| the same part of the world.

OK

|> Like `hygienic macros' are prejudiced. yes.
|
| Yes, they are, but not inherently useless as a result.

So prejudiced means useless in your brain?


|> Yes, I believe youre just Ron trolling under a different name.
|
| Please explain why my posts are trolling.

Your only intent appears to be to mock (you stated as much). and harp
on a viewpoint which has been disclaimed from the start.


|> If you agree with my position, why are you bothering to post?
|
| I was interested to find out if your position was based on a deeper
| understanding of the issues, or simply based on rhetorical pooh-
| poohing of anything you consider 'not common lispy enough'.

[This is again a mischaracterization. BTW I made more useful posts to
CLL before Clojure was invented].

Besides, there is nothing great about my `position'. I was making a
trivial claim and about a contrary claim --- expressed from a certain
viewpoint. I called it `trivial' and `non-interesting' even in that
sense, in a way that's accepted usage. AND I've explained that this was
all there was to it. Where is your problem? There is nothing deep in
it except how you can choose to misunderstand it, and restate it to
"mock me". AND you are not upto coming to any deeper understanding of
how _you_ can make the misunderstanding.


| I suppose I could've read the archives to determine this, but I
| thought this might be more fun and/or enlightening.

And get your kicks from "mocking me". That is trolling me and wasting
my time.

|> Better sign off as `Ron Garret'
|
| I can only assume that from your perspective this is an insult. I can
| also only assume from the quality of your responses here that it's
| actually in fact a compliment.

No, the meta-crap-responses in this thread is deja-vu from the earlier
Ron Garret threads. Make sure you are not in communication with him.
Remember that the quality of my responses is subject to your own limited
interpretation based on your own limited knowledge, and your necessarily
subjective opinion is yours alone.

--
Madhu
.

Quantcast