Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus"

[Jonathan Yavner <jyavner@member.fsf.org>]

> I think to anyone reasonably fluent in english, it's pretty clear that
> "archaic" was used quite deliberately in this case to mean "it
> sux0rz!1!" while avoiding explicitly confrontational language.  

Response was to change "archaic" to "older", which was still wrong but 
further discussions of the precise meaning of "archaic" are now 
obsolete.  The current problem (which has been solved but it's not 
clear yet whether the solution will stick) lies with the word 
"misunderstanding" and the mind-set it implies that "Scheme is what 
Lisp always should have been" (and more generally with the mind-set 
that it is acceptable to rewrite history so it points to your desired 
outcome).  Anyway, this isn't helping to get v22.1 out the door.