Re: simulating local lexical variables with symbol macros

On Nov 16, 6:38 pm, Madhu <enom...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
[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"]

There's plenty of material already for you to respond to, and yet you
choose not to. The irony of course exists more in your continuing to
respond to my posts in such a way that affirms my observations. If you
wish to avoid irony, you have no choice but to concede or shut up.

* mdj <cff1231c-a277-4ca9-8abd-65deb224f...@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.

Yes, ignore it now before somebody notices how flawed it is. A simple
restatement of Plato's cave in fact, that you're using as a form of
obscurantism. The irony of this is that as you point at the sheet and
accuse the shapes on it of lacking dimensions you believe yourself to
have, you've failed to notice that you're the one in the cave.

|> 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.

And yet without anything other than 'No Matt, you're wrong' to go on
there's no reason whatsoever to reconsider by characterization.

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.

Poppycock. Are you seriously suggesting I take it on faith that you're
far more knowledgeable than you appear? That because of my own
ignorance I would not understand your response even if you gave one?

This is charlatanism, pure and simple. Like the snake oil salesman you
want your audience to 'believe' in your product. Well guess what. Your
bluff has been called and you've been left holding squat.

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

No

No? Why no? Have you anything to back up your assertion "No?" No? I
thought not.

|> 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

Not OK. You owe me an apology.

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

So prejudiced means useless in your brain?

In the above sentence I said "Prejudiced but NOT useless". Do you have
a reading comprehension problem?

|> 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.

You have disclaimed nothing. Stop lying.

|> 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].

So you like Lisp-1's with hygienic macros? Hey look, down there, there
goes your credibility.

(And no I'm not attacking Clojure. I like Clojure. I'm pointing out
the inconsistency of your position)

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.

In a previous post I challenged your accepted usage and showed it to
be plainly wrong. But go on then, sit in denial land and pretend I
didn't do that.

| 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.

Nonsense. If you thought this was a waste of your time you'd do
something else. I'd recommend that, BTW

|> 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.

It's more than obvious that the quality of your responses are limited
by your own ignorance and denial.

You can keep stating over and over again that you're operating on a
higher level of understanding, but saying that won't make that true
any more than sticking feathers up your behind would make you a
chicken.

Demonstrate, or capitulate.

Matt
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Microsoft Censorship PROVES it is a Corporate Scumbag!
    ... responses or the immature posts that seek to troll/inflame. ... post, don't read my posts, no one is forcing you to read them. ... But I'm not trolling here. ... purposefully trying to con people, then they would have fixed that ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: OT: Steve Carrolls still a Douche Bag (in case you missed it)
    ... compare this to Steve Carroll, whose new threads also could be ... Steve's trolling threads are responses... ... than the posts done in reply to his. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Well well well
    ... trolling, but you're just using words without knowing what they mean. ... responses in one case, and he thinks OTHER folks are fanatical? ... record "straight" than the most fanatical fan that posts here is about ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: Microsoft Censorship PROVES it is a Corporate Scumbag!
    ... responses or the immature posts that seek to troll/inflame. ... post, don't read my posts, no one is forcing you to read them. ... But I'm not trolling here. ... to con people, then they would have fixed that message long before XP ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: A Few Ways To Listen To Your Horse
    ... He asked for responses... ... Knowing what is going on in your horses head puts you that much closer ... Thought I would just share this with you, and look for more posts in ... disagree with some of your comments, ...
    (rec.equestrian)