Subject: Re: Design Patterns vs. better languages From: Xah Lee Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 04:24:57 GMT Kent Pitman is the world's number one mother fucking hypocrite. (in comp.lang.lisp for sure.) Let me prove it to ya. i wrote: >> Kent Pitman is a piss. Pitman replied: > I doubt you can support this mathematically. Readers, the first thing to notice is that this is not the way a serious letter would start. If Pitman seriously believed that i have stepped beyond any reason, stepped beyond civilization, stepped beyond tolerance, he would not and should not start a letter with such semi-funny pun, joking on an outright name-calling. The semi-serious tone can be seen in other parts of his message. Then Pitman continued: >> ... He then lies. ... > > I'm sure you can't support this. Notice that he cut out my sentences before and after, so that the only part is "He then lies". He does this so that any reader reading his post will immediately get the impression that I accused Kent Pitman of plainly lying. Only a reader who have participated in this thread, and have paid attention to my posts will have a better idea what the before and after sentences' significance, and in what context. Kent Pitman continues: > I think > > lie(x) implies tell_falsehood(x) and intends(x,tell_falsehood(x)) One can see that Pitman indeed charge that _Xah Lee accused Kent Pitman of plainly lying about something_. One also should notice that instead using plain English, Pitman is a bit playful and use a programing notation to indicate what he meant. (readers should not doubt that Pitman is quite capable of saying the exact same thing in a clear and absolute way using plain English.) > You're going to have a lot of trouble with intends. This is a clear case of Kent's ambiguity weapon. By that he may be saying "Xah, how do you explain your behavior as i described?" with a stern face. Or, it can carry the tone "Or dear Xah, you little playful devil. Explain yourself!". The sentence "You're going to have a lot of trouble with intends." can also have other interpretations. It can mean "Xah, do you know exactly what you wanted to say?" Or, it can be a joke as a teacher telling his student's weakness in a particular function of a programing language. Notice that these different interpretations are vastly different from each other. A skillful writer write what he means. A master writer writes the intended sentence. > I thought perhaps it was worth engaging you in discussion, since rpg > chose to indulge you. This is where Kent Pitman drags in Richard Gabriel. Pitman wanted to get reader's attention, that Richard Gabriel and me has exchange some messages, because Richard Gabriel is a well-known and well-respected figure in Lisp community. Pitman wanted to sound like as if Mr. Gabriel tried to pity Xah and let Xah have something to say. Note that Pitman said "I thought perhaps it was worth engaging you in discussion". This is to give the impression, that Pitman argued with Xah because he is pitying Xah, and wanted to let Xah have a chance to speak among those who have recognized credentials. > I think I'll just stop here. This sentence is to give the impression that the very noble and loving and well-known and well-respected Kent Pitman cannot really help the nameless Xah Lee and have to let it go. > I don't really mind you being abrasive and calling me names. This is again to emphasize, the degree of tolerance Pitman has shown. Pitman ended his message thus: > I do, however, mind you telling falsehoods, regardless of your intent. > Especially in the name of furthering mathematics. This sentence further emphasized to the readers, how utterly important is TRUTH and KNOWLEDGE and MATHEMATICS, but Xah Lee is truly a lost kid. ---------------------------- Dear Readers of comp.lang.lisp, Notice that in my long message criticizing Kent Pitman, he did not even face one point squarely. Instead, he equivocates and drag in Richard Gabriel and bow out. This is not the first time Pitman behaved this way. Since the year 2000, i have criticized Kent Pitman in this newsgroup about around 4 times, each separated by few months. Kent Pitman did respond to my messages or in the thread mentioning my criticisms a few times, but never faced my criticism head on. (once he did and got shot down by me.) He always dodge and quibble and equivocate and ramify. For those inclined, you can go to deja.com and search for the string "xahlee pitman" and you'll get a some picture of our crossings. I already gave up on Kent. Thus in message > From: Xah Lee > Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp > Message-ID: > Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 14:07:41 GMT > Subject: Re: I'm outta here... i simply attacked Kent in a personal way for the first time. Kent Pitman did not respond. Now, in this thread, i see that Kent Pitman replied my message on emphasizing math, thus i decided to compose a detailed message in response. In particular, i detailed Kent Pitman's sophistry. His reply as you have all seen in my analysis above. The reason Kent Pitman's letter is of serious content but semi-serious style, is because Pitman is a coward. A coward is ambiguous, because he do not stand by his words. In one hand he wants the world to know that Xah has done wrong, but on the other hand he fears of saying such in a clear, unambiguous manner. He do not wish to reason. He fear the truth. Dear Pitman, your reputation in this group just went down a few serious notches. Cheer up. I'll invite you to dinner if you deign to ring my bell when you pass by. Xah xah@xahlee.org http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html > From: Kent M Pitman > Organization: My ISP can pay me if they want an ad here. > Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:55:27 GMT > Subject: Re: Design Patterns vs. better languages