Re: How to remove verbosity from the data passing mechanism using alist or plist ?

[Fren Zeee <frenzeee@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:45 PM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Fren Zeee <frenzeee@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Fren Zeee <frenzeee@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > Troll is a hate terminology. Dont ever use it ...
> >>
> >> How about "netkook"?
> >
> > Regardless, of your prejudice, its a hate term and you are MALICIOUS
> > because you wasted bandwidth on useless destructive flaming than
> > constructive reply to the issue of the thread.
> >
> > It has no relevance to the thread.
> >
> > Turnbull is a victim of bad tutoring from the internet at the hands of
> > netkooks themselves who have ingrained this prejudice in him.
>
> Calling somebody only by his last name (without either title or given
> name) when he is participating in the conversation, is considered quite
> rude in the English-speaking world.

well thats not a universal convention and quite a contrived argument.
I would not stoop to his level and call him a troll which is a hate
terminology.

I think your assessment is based more on his utility to contribute and
the small network where richard stallman has shared summarized
knowledge.

we know that the original model was to give code but keep the
documentation emaciated. Its written in a machiavellian style, where
you have to already know it to understand it. Thats why it takes a
long learning curve.

You are a prime writer on comp.text.tex where donald knuth has also
given a certain tex manual as a tex file which has to be understood to
be able to latex it ... i am just trying to explain what certain
"fathers" have propagated a disease in the community by example and
others imitating it.

> > I was trying to analytically correct him and you too.
>
> Now you are insulting Freud as well.

lol

> I consider both Miles Bader as well as Stephen Turnbull perfectly
> capable of forming their own opinion when somebody spouts nonsense.  One
> does not need any "netkooks" or other outside agents to form a qualified
> opinion about the things you consider fit for writing.
>
> They speak for themselves.  And are the only things speaking for you in
> a written medium.
>

Your refusal to turn this into constructive and focus on the subject
of the thread says more. Besides, your past record of giving cynical
replies on various groups is long and people know it.

Again, i challenge you to revert to the original topic of the thread.