Re: part 21 asserts forth best for small memory systems, would lisp be better in non small mem?

John Doty wrote:
>
>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>> John Doty wrote:
>> 
>>> But instead, you present the strange argument that [snip]
>> 
>> Straw man.  That's the argument you are trying to put 
>> in my mouth, not anything I actually wrote.
>
>It's an unavoidable consequence of your assertions.

It is an invalid argument to call something an assertion when 
it is something that you have concluded is an unavoidable 
consequence of that assertion.  This shows once again, the basic
error that you keep repeating; you simply assume without evidence
that A leads to B, never ever examining whether that assumption
is waranted.  You then apply this invalid logic to claim that
A (something quite reasonable that someone writes) is actually B
(something that you invented, and which you find easy to refute).
Instead of attacking the actual argument presented, you set up 
a man of straw, knock down the staw man, and then act as if you
knocked down the original argument which stands untouched.


>My argument is:
>
>1. There is [snip]
>
>2. You and others assert [snip]
>
>This requires that somehow [snip]

There!  Right there, you repeat your basic logical error.  
You have not established any "this requires that..." or 
"an unavoidable consequence" link.  You haven't even tried 
to establish the link.  You just assume it to be true, and 
appear to be unable or unwilling to understand why others 
fail to assume it to be true without evidence.

If you wish to dispute something that I actually wrote, 
feel free.  If you wish to dispute something that you 
believe is implied in what I wrote, you need to put forth 
an argument sup****ting the aleged implication. I won't 
simply accept the link because you assert that it exists.