Is LISP dying? 
Author Message
 Is LISP dying?


| You're confusing Christians with people who pick (an arbitrary) religion
| to justify their evil ways.

  I'm interested in a simple, straight-forward way to keep the two apart,
  for it seems to me that religions are the best vehicles to further evil:
  those who act out of a belief without doubt will also not stop acting
  when people who had retained the capacity to doubt would have stopped.

  to remain a good person while being Christian is a lot harder than to
  remain a good person without religious beliefs -- there's no one you can
  ask forgiveness or to take responsiblity for your actions, there's no
  illusion of a greater purpose that defends acts of evil and destruction
  (like bombing {*filter*} clinics or killing believers in other religions)
  or to fill the void of a meaningless, wasted life, and there's no way you
  can avoid being responsible for your own actions.  without a forgiving
  "God", your only reference is HUMAN RIGHTS, and they cannot be forfeited
  or reneged because some "God" told you to.  there's no hope at all of
  somehow making up for your evil deeds by a prayer or a silly conversion
  to a religious belief: you have to be aware of what you do and why.  a
  Christian can do evil, stupid things and just cry and ask forgiveness
  over and over again.  non-believers can't do that: they have to _think_.
  this is hard, too, but it's much harder to be good when you _don't_ think.

  still, I have the highest admiration for those who remain good people
  despite being Christian: it shows real character to put yourself in the
  midst of a deeply evil temptation that doesn't exist at all without the
  unconditional forgiveness and _not_ abuse the ability to be forgiven for
  everything you do or the ability to point to "God's will" to explain your
  evil actions -- whether it's true or not does is irrelevant to victims
  and perpetrator alike.  for a non-believer, the temptation doesn't exist:
  you can't even blame "society" for your actions, anymore, although some
  socialists tried to put society in God's place just that way.  it failed,
  for good reason: there's a limit to other people's power to cause people
  to act irrationally, quite contrary to the power of an omnipotent "God".

  on the other hand, people who think they are good _because_ they are
  Christians are likely to commit unspeakable evils in the name of their
  religion because they are no longer fully responsible for their actions:
  they are somehow _exempt_ from normal ethical considerations.  _this_ is
  why Christianity is bad per se -- no person should ever even have the
  _opportunity_ to find an excuse for not being responsible for his own
  actions.  the only thing that keeps Christians from being bad is that
  they were good people to start with; since most people are good to begin
  with, it seems there are more good Christians than bad: the interesting
  measure is that there is a far higher ratio of bad people to good within
  Christianity than without, not the least because our society accepts any
  {*filter*}er or {*filter*} criminal who "repents" -- a fat lot of good _that_
  does for the victim and his family!  good people don't need religions,
  but it also doesn't harm them, it just makes it a little harder to remain
  good.  bad people need religions in order to pretend to be good, as most
  people have a very deep psychological need to feel they are good people.
  Christianity is bad because it gives bad people the ability to believe
  they are good even when that is not the case at all.

  moreover, Christianity is bad because it _requires_ good people to cover
  for the bad people among them.  this is shared with all of the {*filter*}
  religions, including Islam.  it is also shared with Communism, which
  keeps the belief that the ideology is clean and good, practitioners not.
  if you are always willing to remove a factor when something goes wrong,
  you will never understand what the real causes are, and nothing helps
  prevent such understanding better than an undoubtable belief that the
  ideology or theology is above reproach by definition: it leads to a hunt
  for scapegoats, too.  (the very concept of a scapegoat is evil, and it is
  no surprise at all that it was invented by a religion: if _you_ aren't
  good, at least you can sacrifice someone else to make up for it.)

  the incredibly destructive belief that the spirit is somehow good when
  the flesh is evil can also be created only in athmosphere of religion.
  if you don't have a religious belief, the force of imagination necessary
  to sever the two from eachother cannot arise.  what none of these belief
  systems understand is that some people are bad only when they can find an
  excuse, and they find it in the "spirit".  however, when they can't find
  any, they just won't do the bad things.  to some people, jealousy, rage,
  {*filter*}, etc, provide temporary excuses, but no excuse is as permanent as
  the imaginary forgiveness of an omnipotent God, and no force is stronger
  than that which keeps people believing in that which keeps them from
  realizing they are truly bad people.  in this sense, Christianity _needs_
  for people to sin in order to forgive them and thus keep them hostage,
  and what better way to ensure that they cannot leave Christianity and the
  forgiveness of their "loving" God by reminding every child and every
  believer that they are _all_ sinners?

  let me summarize by saying that I think most people are good people, even
  though a lot fewer Christians are good people than non-believers in
  religions originating in the Near East, and that any Christian who is
  also a good person deserves _praise_ for having remained unaffected by
  his religion, but if it's hard to be good within Christianity, people
  should realize that without the temptation of unconditional forgiveness,
  it's a lot easier not ever to do bad things in the first place, the love
  is true and devoid of blackmail and it can be _deserved_ for a change,
  there's no prospect of spending an eternity either in Hell or in Heaven:
  your life just ends, and it's up to you to fill it with meaning in the
  meantime.  and above all: you have no duties you don't accept yourself
  and no power to instill duties upon others in the name of any "power".
  there is no innate guilt for any original sin: you are _not_ a sinner if
  you do not actually commit evil deeds.  if you commit destructive deeds
  by mistake or are the victim of one, neither revenge nor punishment does
  any _good_; you don't forgive or expect forgiveness: you rectify and
  expect restitution and you judge people not according to what they have
  done, but according to what they have learned from their mistakes and
  what they are likely to do in future -- that's all you could possibly
  care about, anyway: the past is a fact and you cannot change it or act
  as?if it is any different than it is without peril to your sanity or
  integrity.  the only _sin_ is not to do your very best at all times to
  learn from the past, the only _evil_ to be inconsiderate about other
  people, whether by purpose or carelessness.  do _not_ follow you heart:
  it's a measure of how well you have done so far, not a navigational tool
  for the future: don't _feel_ bad, think it over and just _do_ better.
  and remember this: only fundamentally evil people will deny anyone the
  opportunity to improve, rectify their mistakes, and move on.  your life
  is _not_ your past: the only life you have is your future.  the worst
  crime you can commit towards anyone is to rob them of their future, and
  the only thing you can do to one bereft of his future is to restore it,
  for real, not through the trickery and illusion that religions provide.

  people who think in terms of vengeance, punishment, revenge, and who hate
  other people enough to bereave them of their future out of m{*filter*}anger
  will never understand what any of this means until they understand that
  it is the belief in their own unconditional forgiveness for anything they
  do that causes them to believe that anyone who acts contrary to what they
  want should not have a future.  why is the belief in the death penalty so
  much stronger among Christians?  why is the same belief in the same death
  penalty for other crimes not as acceptable to these Christians?  why is
  it OK to kill criminals in revenge, but not OK to kill Salman Rushdie in
  revenge for his opinions?  the sorry fact is that forgiveness is a GOOD
  way to deal with a fundamentally SAVAGE view of man where punishment is a
  proper response to evil deeds, but the solution is never to engage in
  forgiveness, to stop being savages, to stop believing in and blaming and
  appealing to supernatural forces and just start to think.  if you can't
  become evil if you are Christian (as Christians claim when they refuse to
  consider the Christian beliefs of evil people), neither can you _become_
  good, so your Christian beliefs is NOT what will save you; being a good
  person is.  all the many gods mankind has invented over the years agree.
  trust me on this.  it doesn't matter what you believe, so you might as
  well stop wasting your time on it and especially on defending whatever
  religion you believe in, just prove that you are a good person despite it
  -- that's all anybody else should worry about, too.

  (someone accused me of posting "the world according to me" articles some
  time ago.  since I am already accused of it, at least I deserve it now.)

#:Erik
--
  (defun pringles (chips)
    (loop (pop chips)))



Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?

Quote:

>   people who think in terms of vengeance, punishment, revenge, and who hate
>   other people enough to bereave them of their future out of m{*filter*}anger
>   will never understand what any of this means until they understand that
>   it is the belief in their own unconditional forgiveness for anything they
>   do that causes them to believe that anyone who acts contrary to what they
>   want should not have a future.  why is the belief in the death penalty so
>   much stronger among Christians?  why is the same belief in the same death
>   penalty for other crimes not as acceptable to these Christians?  why is
>   it OK to kill criminals in revenge, but not OK to kill Salman Rushdie in
>   revenge for his opinions?

I agree with most of your article; religion in general and Chrisianity
in particular is the worst thing that has ever happened to mankind.  I
have to point out, though, that even though I am not a Christian or
any other type of religionist, I do firmly believe in the death
penalty for incorrigible criminals.  This is not due to any desire for
vengeance, punishment, or revenge, but simply because it is the only
reliable, effective way to keep them from doing it again.  In other
words, it is societal self-defense.  Some people will never get
better, and it is a disservice to society, to the taxpayers, to the
families of those they have hurt, and to the criminals themselves to
keep them locked up for life.  Better to just kill them and get it
over with.

Another example of how Chrisitanity has twisted things around: the
Christians consider assassination to be evil; they prefer to kill
thousands of patriotic young men and innocent civilians on both sides
just to somehow send The Bad Guy a message, rather than just sending
in an elite team of hatchetmen to take him out.  I personally find
warfare to be much more distasteful than assassination (though in some
cases war is a necessity; sometimes you can't easily solve a problem
just by taking out one or a few key Bad Guys).  Obvious sociopaths
such as Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovich, Pope John Paul, Pat
Robertson, Bill Gates and Larry Wall should not be tolerated; we
should expunge them as soon as they make themselves noticed by their
egregious disregard for humanity.



Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?

Quote:




> > > Yeah, shocking. These people come and take the
> > > Indians' land, and the Indians have the *temerity*
> > > to object and even to *gasp* fight the people who
> > > invaded their country. Disgraceful!

> > Well what do you expect from savages?  Good thing god-fearing
> > Christians came in to show them the way!  We all know that anything
> > drenched in Christianity automatically is blessed with love and
> > compassion.

> > (whoops-- off topic-- better recover...)

>  You're confusing Christians with people who pick (an arbitrary) religion
> to
> justify their evil ways. It is true that historically some "Christians"
> have used
> their "religion" to justify acts which are contrary to the teachings of
> the Bible,
> just as some "Muslims" use their religion to justify acts which are
> contrary
> to the teachings of the Koran. To imply that Christianity (or any faith)
> is
> bad just because some people who claim to follow it are bad is stupid. Or

> haven't you heard that it is wrong to stereotype? I bet you'd be pissed
> off
> if someone stereotyped you...

> With best wishes,
> Ken

Just as there are those who assume that Christianity implies goodness,
there are some who assume that goodness implies Christianity. I once
stopped to help a stranded car that turned out to be driven by a nun.
The passengers were three other nuns and a priest. When I got them
going, the driver thanked me and said I was a good Christian. I assured
her that I acceped that as a complement, but that her criteria needed
revising: I am Jewish. (I didn't have the heart to tell her also that
I'm an atheist.) I had to tell her again that I wasn't insulted, and
appologized for having flustered her. She curtsied and fled. As I put my
tools away, the priest came to me and thanked me again, saying that I
had given them all much more than roadside help. These weren't stupid
people; I can only assume that sanctimony creates blindness which the
blind don't always like.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------



Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
Even though this is off topicm this subject is too interesting:



Quote:
> ...
> any other type of religionist, I do firmly believe in the death
> penalty for incorrigible criminals.  This is not due to any desire for
> vengeance, punishment, or revenge, but simply because it is the only
> reliable, effective way to keep them from doing it again.  In other
> words, it is societal self-defense.  Some people will never get
> better, and it is a disservice to society, to the taxpayers, to the
> families of those they have hurt, and to the criminals themselves to
> keep them locked up for life.  Better to just kill them and get it
> over with.

I must admit that there are a few cases where I wouldn't exactly mind if
a criminal got executed, but:

1. the societal "self-defense" is nonsense.  If the perpetrator gets
   locked up, society is as safe as if he were killed.  If whatever
   reason that made him do it gets removed, society will be even safer

2. I live in a country that has no death penalty (furtunately).  There
   are two cases in recent history were I wouldn't have minded it being
   applied.  OTOH, without even trying to strain my memory, there have
   been at least 7 cases in the last 10 years where people were found
   guilty of crimes that no doubt would have carried the death penalty
   who (often significantly) later were proven to be innocent.  Given
   the effort and dedication it took to prove their innocence, I have no
   doubt that the actual number of  wrongfully convicted is
   significantly higher.  

Quote:
> ...

--

Hartmann Schaffer

It is better to fill your days with life than your life with days



Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?

Quote:

> Even though this is off topicm this subject is too interesting:



> > ...
> > any other type of religionist, I do firmly believe in the death
> > penalty for incorrigible criminals.  This is not due to any desire for
> > vengeance, punishment, or revenge, but simply because it is the only
> > reliable, effective way to keep them from doing it again.  In other
> > words, it is societal self-defense.  Some people will never get
> > better, and it is a disservice to society, to the taxpayers, to the
> > families of those they have hurt, and to the criminals themselves to
> > keep them locked up for life.  Better to just kill them and get it
> > over with.

> I must admit that there are a few cases where I wouldn't exactly mind if
> a criminal got executed, but:

> 1. the societal "self-defense" is nonsense.  If the perpetrator gets
>    locked up, society is as safe as if he were killed.  If whatever
>    reason that made him do it gets removed, society will be even safer

Locking someone up for life is a waste of taxpayer money, and is more
cruel than just killing them, IMO (would you rather die quickly, or
spend the rest of your life in a smelly prison getting{*filter*}d and
beaten regularly by the guards and other inmates?).  Also, if you are
merely locking them up, there is always a chance that they might get
out and wreak more havoc.  So as I said above, killing them is the
only 100% reliable way to keep them from ever doing it again.

Quote:

> 2. I live in a country that has no death penalty (furtunately).  There
>    are two cases in recent history were I wouldn't have minded it being
>    applied.  OTOH, without even trying to strain my memory, there have
>    been at least 7 cases in the last 10 years where people were found
>    guilty of crimes that no doubt would have carried the death penalty
>    who (often significantly) later were proven to be innocent.  Given
>    the effort and dedication it took to prove their innocence, I have no
>    doubt that the actual number of  wrongfully convicted is
>    significantly higher.

Whoever said life is fair?  People get wrongly convicted of all sorts
of things all the time.  With current judicial technology, there is
nothing that can be done about it.  We just have to do the best we
can; otherwise we might as well just give up and completely eliminate
courts, laws, and jails.  Since this would be extremely unpleasant for
most people, I think we are better off, overall, with having laws and
enforcing them the best we can, knowing that we aren't perfect and
there will always be people that are wrongly convicted.  This way,
only some people lose some of the time, as opposed to anarchy, where
most everyone loses almost all the time.


Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
|> >
|> > 2. I live in a country that has no death penalty (furtunately).  There
|> >    are two cases in recent history were I wouldn't have minded it being
|> >    applied.  OTOH, without even trying to strain my memory, there have
|> >    been at least 7 cases in the last 10 years where people were found
|> >    guilty of crimes that no doubt would have carried the death penalty
|> >    who (often significantly) later were proven to be innocent.  Given
|> >    the effort and dedication it took to prove their innocence, I have no
|> >    doubt that the actual number of  wrongfully convicted is
|> >    significantly higher.
|>
|> Whoever said life is fair?  People get wrongly convicted of all sorts
|> of things all the time.  With current judicial technology, there is
|> nothing that can be done about it.  We just have to do the best we
|> can; otherwise we might as well just give up and completely eliminate
|> courts, laws, and jails.  Since this would be extremely unpleasant for
|> most people, I think we are better off, overall, with having laws and
|> enforcing them the best we can, knowing that we aren't perfect and
|> there will always be people that are wrongly convicted.  This way,
|> only some people lose some of the time, as opposed to anarchy, where
|> most everyone loses almost all the time.

I think the point, in this context, is that a system without the
death penalty has the ability to correct, in some sense, an error
that was made, and which you clearly agree can and will be made
by our judicial system.

When the death penalty is used there is no going back. The knowledge
that innocent people *will* be put to death if such a penalty exists
means that I could never support it.

Gary.
--



Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
Hello Erik,

I hope I'm not butting in here where I shouldn't, but I have some responses
to your posting.

Quote:


> | You're confusing Christians with people who pick (an arbitrary) religion
> | to justify their evil ways.

>   I'm interested in a simple, straight-forward way to keep the two apart,
>   for it seems to me that religions are the best vehicles to further evil:

I don't disagree here.  Many people have done bad things in the name of
religion.

Quote:

>   those who act out of a belief without doubt will also not stop acting
>   when people who had retained the capacity to doubt would have stopped.

Well, as a Christian, I have learned that God gave me a brain, and He
expects me to use it.  I have the Bible, which tells me how to use it, and
it doesn't justify evil.  I don't think Being a Christian has effected my
ability
to doubt, I just don't doubt God. And even if I did, or do doubt God
from time to time, that doesn't effect my salvation, since it doesn't hinge
on my ability to not doubt God without fail.  Salvation is a gift, that once
it has been (genuinely) received, cannot be lost.

Quote:

>   to remain a good person while being Christian is a lot harder than to
>   remain a good person without religious beliefs

I agree here too.  Since the Bible tells me to compare myself to God,
in determining my perfection, it is in fact impossible to be good in
God's eyes.  Except for the fact that Christ's {*filter*} covers my sin,
and as such God doesn't see it.  A simple analogy, is, its like when a child
does bad things, the parent corrects the child for the bad things, but still
loves
the child, no matter how bad the child has been.  Of course a person without
a religion, is like a child with no parent.  There really is no reason to be
good.  The child him or her self in effect becomes god.  I kind of wonder
where you get the idea that a person with no religious beliefs should want
to be good.  As far as I know, all concept of trying to be good, comes
from one religion or another.

Quote:
> -- there's no one you can
>   ask forgiveness or to take responsiblity for your actions, there's no
>   illusion of a greater purpose that defends acts of evil and destruction
>   (like bombing {*filter*} clinics or killing believers in other religions)
>   or to fill the void of a meaningless, wasted life, and there's no way you
>   can avoid being responsible for your own actions.  without a forgiving
>   "God", your only reference is HUMAN RIGHTS, and they cannot be forfeited
>   or reneged because some "God" told you to.

Yes, it is certainly true that many people have done bad things in the name of
religion, and Christianity.  That doesn't excuse them, and they are still
subject
to mans law and punishment for such acts, even if they happen to be
Christians.  You see, while it is possible for God to forgive you for committing

sin, there are still consequences for sin.  When Christ died for my sin, he
paid the penalty for my sin with God, that is I am forgiven by God.  In the
world however, I must still pay for my sin under man's law.  If the
penalty for my sin is death, then I must still pay it, even if I am forgiven
by God.

Quote:
> there's no hope at all of
>   somehow making up for your evil deeds by a prayer or a silly conversion
>   to a religious belief: you have to be aware of what you do and why.  a
>   Christian can do evil, stupid things and just cry and ask forgiveness
>   over and over again.  non-believers can't do that: they have to _think_.
>   this is hard, too, but it's much harder to be good when you _don't_ think.

Well, it is true that Christians continue to sin while they are in this life,
since
we are born sinners, we can do nothing else, no matter how hard we try.
The advantage a Christian has, is that as you say, they can ask for
forgiveness, and have confidence that in the next life, their sin will have
already been paid for.  The non Christian can't do that, since they have
no God to pray to.  Also as you say, the non-believer has to think, and
try to do good, If they believe they need to.  The problem is, That as
a CHristian, I believe there is a god, and if I wasn't forgiven for my sins,
then I would go to hell, since a person who is or isn't a believer cannot
really do good all the time.  Being born with a sin nature, pretty much
guarantees we will each sin.

Quote:

>   still, I have the highest admiration for those who remain good people
>   despite being Christian: it shows real character to put yourself in the
>   midst of a deeply evil temptation that doesn't exist at all without the
>   unconditional forgiveness and _not_ abuse the ability to be forgiven for
>   everything you do or the ability to point to "God's will" to explain your
>   evil actions

It is certainly true that as a Christian, I am under much greater temptation to
sin
than non Christians, since Satan will spend all of his time trying to get me
to sin.  He has no reason to waste excess time on non-believers, since they
are already largely under his control.

Quote:
> -- whether it's true or not does is irrelevant to victims
>   and perpetrator alike.  for a non-believer, the temptation doesn't exist:
>   you can't even blame "society" for your actions, anymore, although some
>   socialists tried to put society in God's place just that way.  it failed,
>   for good reason: there's a limit to other people's power to cause people
>   to act irrationally, quite contrary to the power of an omnipotent "God".

God certainly is omnipotent.  He can "do" anything that is consistent with
His character as revealed in the Bible.  And you are right, that government
cannot exert enough force on all the people all the time, to make any
country heaven on earth.  I find it interesting that you keep trying to say
that God makes people do irrational things.  I don't believe that.  People
certainly do irrational things, perhaps in the name of God, but that
doesn't mean God is making them do those things.  You see God's will
is revealed to us in the Bible, and it does not include any verses that
tell us to do irrational things.

Quote:

>   on the other hand, people who think they are good _because_ they are
>   Christians are likely to commit unspeakable evils in the name of their
>   religion because they are no longer fully responsible for their actions:

I am a Christian, and I don't think I am good.  I know I am not, because I
compare myself with Jesus, who is God incarnate, and in that comparison,
I fall far short of being good.  In fact, it is not possible for me to be good
on my own at all.  All I can hope to do, is listen for God's prompting, and
hope to be sensitive enough to hear and obey when God speaks to me.
To you this probably sounds irrational, but when I get a feeling that I should
do something, I evaluate that feeling against what God teaches in His word
the Bible, and If it is in agreement with the Bible, then I can have confidence
that it is from God.  If it isn't, then I need to ignore it, because it is a
feeling
or thought that is coming from either my own willful, selfish, sinful mind,
or it is coming from somewhere even worse.

I already said above that I believe I am fully responsible for my actions.

Quote:

>   they are somehow _exempt_ from normal ethical considerations.

I am not exempt form ethical considerations, God is ethical. It may not
always be possible to understand why God allows things to happen on
this earth, but God is completely consistent.

Quote:
> _this_ is
>   why Christianity is bad per se -- no person should ever even have the
>   _opportunity_ to find an excuse for not being responsible for his own
>   actions.  the only thing that keeps Christians from being bad is that
>   they were good people to start with; since most people are good to begin
>   with, it seems there are more good Christians than bad: the interesting
>   measure is that there is a far higher ratio of bad people to good within
>   Christianity than without, not the least because our society accepts any
>   {*filter*}er or {*filter*} criminal who "repents" -- a fat lot of good _that_
>   does for the victim and his family!  good people don't need religions,
>   but it also doesn't harm them, it just makes it a little harder to remain
>   good.  bad people need religions in order to pretend to be good, as most
>   people have a very deep psychological need to feel they are good people.
>   Christianity is bad because it gives bad people the ability to believe
>   they are good even when that is not the case at all.

Interesting perspective.  Since I already said I don't think I am good, I guess
I already answered that part.  As for bad people needing religion to pretend to
be good, well, there are I am sure bad people pretending to be good, but you
can't fool God, since He knows "what is in a man's heart".  If I pretend to
be good, then I am wasting my time.

Quote:

>   moreover, Christianity is bad because it _requires_ good people to cover
>   for the bad people among them.  this is shared with all of the {*filter*}
>   religions, including Islam.  it is also shared with Communism, which
>   keeps the belief that the ideology is clean and good, practitioners not.
>   if you are always willing to remove a factor when something goes wrong,
>   you will never understand what the real causes are, and nothing helps
>   prevent such understanding better than an undoubtable belief that the
>   ideology or theology is above reproach by definition: it leads to a hunt
>   for scapegoats, too.  (the very concept of a scapegoat is evil, and it is
>   no surprise at all that it was invented by a religion: if _you_ aren't
>   good, at least you can sacrifice someone else to make up for it.)

I confess I am having trouble following you here.  As a Christian, I don't
believe I am required to cover-up for bad people.  In fact, the Bible
teaches that Christians are to correct fellow Christians when they see
they are in error.

I don't know ...

read more »



Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
Well said!!

I have been 'lurking' for several weeks, following all the various
threads.  Employed as a senior C++ programmer and relatively new to
Forth, I never felt a need to add my comments to this newsgroup.  Your
last comment on this thread, although off subject, changed that.

BTW..I have been using PC-Forth and Win32Forth, wonderful products!
Thanks.

Quote:

> Hello Erik,

 [ remaing message truncated ]


Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 07:25:41 -0600, "Larry Elmore"

Quote:

>I've never heard anyone claim that they weren't Scandinavian. Their language
>is certainly Scandinavian (it's my understanding that if you know any one of
>Norwegian, Swedish or Danish, you can get along in the other two with only
>minor difficulty), and their history is closely intertwined with that of
>Norway and Sweden.

        Is Scandanavian a language or a peninsula?  Anyway, some of
Denmark is a peninsula which borders on a bigger country to the south,
but some are islands, and if you wanted to say that some of the
islands are islands of the Scandinavian peninsula, then by himminy, it
would be Scandinavian in the geographic sense.  Also non-Scandinavion,
but anytime you put political borders on top of a geography you get
`in and out' cases like that.
        There's an analogy somewhere in there for Forth, but I'll be
darned if I can express it right now.  I am a native English speaker,
and therefore don't speak any language fluently.

(
----------
Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle,

)



Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?

Quote:

>Even though this is off topicm this subject is too interesting:
>2. I live in a country that has no death penalty (furtunately).  There
>   are two cases in recent history were I wouldn't have minded it being
>   applied.  OTOH, without even trying to strain my memory, there have
>   been at least 7 cases in the last 10 years where people were found
>   guilty of crimes that no doubt would have carried the death penalty
>   who (often significantly) later were proven to be innocent.  Given
>   the effort and dedication it took to prove their innocence, I have no
>   doubt that the actual number of  wrongfully convicted is
>   significantly higher.  

        The connection to forth being RAD: program twice and throw the
first away (which you can't do if you burn the first in the chai...
uhmm EPROM)?

(
----------
Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle,

)



Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?

Quote:

>I can only assume that sanctimony creates blindness which the
>blind don't always like.

        No, it's just social reference groups.  People who have Bible
drummed into them still keep forgetting that the Good Samaritan was
someone of the `wrong' religious persuasion.

(
----------
Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle,

)



Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 433 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

 Relevant Pages 
 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software