[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: elisp's cl package. Don't understand the notice about eval-when-comp

From: B. T. Raven
Subject: Re: elisp's cl package. Don't understand the notice about eval-when-compile
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:03:45 -0600
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

Xah Lee wrote:
dear Eli Zaretskii idiot,

It will be infra dig for Eli to respond, so ....

On Mar 29, 11:20 am, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
I just want to note here that wild non-fact and philosophical elements
are starting to flying in.
Richard Stallman, his use of “free” in his concept of Free Software
and Free Software Foundation, is a abuse of English. I do not know he
did this with the intent to ride the ambiguity for the marketing
benefit of the catcher word “free”, or innocently due to the fuzziness
of English. In any case, from the numerous talks and lectures he gave,
it is apparent he is abusing the concept of freedom to gain

Are the authors of the American State papers fuzzy on the notion of freedom too?

You write: "the intent to ride the ambiguity for the marketing..." What marketing?

Please do not use the word “free” like he want you to. When referring
to his philosophical stance of software and his foundation, please say
perhaps put a quote such as: “Free Software” and “Free Software
Foundation”, or FSF Software.
Don't say “non-free” to refer to commercial software that are disliked
by FSF. Simply just say software, or commercial software if so, or non-
FSF ideal software.

I don't think RMS would have problem with calling it "commercial" (that's accurate); he is just interested in calling attention to another dimension of the phenomenon.

Don't listen to this ignorant hogwash.  FSF does not dislike
commercial software (in fact, FSF sells GNU software and books about
GNU software itself).  FSF dislikes _proprietary_ software, which is
entirely different.

Thanks for reminding me Eli. I think I'll order a book now.

commercial software, in this context, refers to proprietary software.
If you have read the article, you should know.

it is not wrong, to pointing out my sloppiness in terminology.
However, you had to add sweeping remarks with insult.

Eli is condemning the sin and not the sinner. In other words it wasn't ad personam but ad rem.

perhaps you wonder why i called you a idiot.

That's ad personam.

For the reason, please > see:

• (Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness

excerpt follows:
(Knowledge + Love) / Disrespectfulness

Xah Lee, 2008-07

The respect in my response to people's writings is based on this
ratio: (knowledge+love)/disrespectfulness exhibited in their posts.
For example, if disrespectfulness is constant, then the greater their
knowledge and love, the greater will be my respect for them. Suppose
the knowledge+love is constant, then the greater their outward
disrespect, will gain greater of my disrepsect. If their knowledge
+love is greater than their outward disrespect, then overall they
still gain my respect. However, if their knowledge+love is less than
their show of disrespectfulness, then i dispise them.

This is a silly mathematization of matters far too involved to be modeled in this way.

We all have different levels of IQs, environment we grew up, areas of
expertise, weaknesses. No human animal, knows all (in fact in modern
word hardly any human animal knew 1/10^googolplex percent of

This is an exaggeration since certainly all men (corporately) know ALL of [human] knowledge and there are far fewer than 10^(10 ^ 100) humans. Why didn't you use a power series of googleplex googleplex levels high? Or Graham's number?

This is when discussion, comes in. When you know
something, and you sincerely believe you know it, don't be shy. When
you don't know something, don't be a ass. The problem with most
sophomorons, is not knowing the extent of their ignorance. Coupled
with the male nature, they become aggressive in pissing fights.

When i encounter tech geekers, usually they don't know shit of the
subject relative to me, yet they are outright insulting to point of
views outside their community (may it be unix ways; perl, lisp...). If
you don't take the extra mile to kiss their ass when presenting
unorthodox views, they either call you stupid outright, or become
aggressive and hateful, to the point to kick/ban you or whatnot (e.g.
eliminating any possible discussion or explanation i could contribute
or defend of their accusations). That is when, you begin to see
fuckheads and motherfucks sprinkled in my writings.

This is a good example why you shouldn't respond in anger (or when tonguing your meds).


2008-08-24 Addendum

[addendum snipped. Vide supra]

By the way, I agree that Sowell's book is top-notch but his views should be tempered by reading something by Naomi Klein. Remember Economics is not all. There is also Political Economy.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]