Subject: Re: 3 Lisps, 3 Ways of Specifying OS From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.net> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:25:21 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3212771120829985@naggum.net> This message was obviously mis-sent to me by mail, so I post it on behalf of the poster: Return-Path: <rsi@panix.com> Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by naggum.no with ESMTP id <f9MKCoDh024580> for <erik@naggum.net>; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:12:52 GMT Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [166.84.1.2]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736BC48766 for <erik@naggum.net>; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:12:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rsi@localhost) by panix2.panix.com (8.11.3nb1/8.8.8/PanixN1.0) id f9MKCi826485; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:12:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110222012.f9MKCi826485@panix2.panix.com> X-Authentication-Warning: panix2.panix.com: rsi set sender to rsi@panix.com using -f Sender: rsi@panix.com To: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.net> Subject: Re: 3 Lisps, 3 Ways of Specifying OS References: <18e1cdb3.0110152113.1cb2e998@posting.google.com> <87pu7noko1.fsf@balder.seapine.com> <MPG.1635df64aafbe8d79896c5@news.dnai.com> <87hesznkj6.fsf@balder.seapine.com> <3212277220965737@naggum.net> <4n12qwxty.fsf@beta.franz.com> <3212342927708991@naggum.net> <%0nz7.7335$W61.626365@news20.bellglobal.com> <87k7xtm69r.fsf@balder.seapine.com> <U%5A7.10228$3v.1915821@news20.bellglobal.com> <873d4dtifz.fsf@photino.sid.rice.edu> <n7ylmi47orb.fsf@panix2.panix.com> <3212689347044644@naggum.net> <n7yitd87hjm.fsf@panix2.panix.com> <3212703023718136@naggum.net> <n7yhessb7g1.fsf@panix1.panix.com> <3212737311524746@naggum.net> <n7y3d4bveb4.fsf@panix2.panix.com> <3212769195955123@naggum.net> From: Rajappa Iyer <rsi@panix.com> Date: 22 Oct 2001 16:12:44 -0400 Reply-To: rsi@panix.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.net> writes: > * Rajappa Iyer > | On the contrary, Erik, you are the one that doesn't have a clue. > > You admit to being vague because all this is two years old (what have I > been saying about your "experiences" and the dishonesty of using stale > painful experiences to _continue_ to post negative comments about > something?) and that you have no specific examples to back up your claim. > I already knew that, but it is good to see that you admit to this. > > This leaves us with a very simple, straightforward conclusion: There is > absolutely no reason to believe anything you say. You are simply too > much of a dishonest person to have any credibility at all. Until and > unless you can show us exactly what you did and exactly what happened, > your whole set of experiences falls in the category of "idiot operator > error". Blame whoever you want, every honest person has to conclude that > it was your own goddamn fault. _No_ system can be so fool-proof that a > self-destructive, lying, angry fool cannot find something to blame it for. > > Only good thing is it was a Linux and not a Common Lisp system that you > mistreated so badly that your hatred was misdirected towards Common Lisp. > There have been enough dishonest lunatics just like you who have been so > angry about their failure to understand what they are doing in Common > Lisp that they publish books about it. It is fortunate for Debian that > you are unlikely to be capable of such demanding intellectual endeavors. Do you do this to embarass your parents? rsi -- <rsi@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer. They also surf who stand in the waves.