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

["B. T. Raven" <nihil@nihilo.net>]

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 <e...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> From:XahLee<xah...@gmail.com>
>>> 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
>>> supporters.

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
>   http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/disrespectfulness.html
> 
> 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
> knowledge). 

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.