Newsgroups: comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.lisp
From: cyber_surfer@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Cyber Surfer)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!demon!wildcard.demon.co.uk!cyber_surfer
Subject: Re: Comparison: Beta - Lisp
References: <MAFM.94Sep16133030@wambenger.cs.uwa.edu.au> <CwFqwr.IK2@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <780156066snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk> <CwwoF3.IGv@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: The Wildcard Killer Butterfly Breeding Ground
Reply-To: cyber_surfer@wildcard.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 24
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 09:36:40 +0000
Message-ID: <780917800snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.beta:116 comp.lang.lisp:14910

In article <CwwoF3.IGv@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk "Jeff Dalton" writes:

> I thought my article was reasonably clear in context.  Maybe not.
> Anyway, I was responding to an article that said such things as "the
> usual lisp advocate response".

I'm still not sure what that means. Was it a reference to the advocacy
thread or not? It's a question that asks for a yes or no.

> Why not assume I'm talking about something in *this* thread,
> namely: Comparison: Beta - Lisp?

I am assuming that, but it doesn't make the "advocacy" reference
unambigous. Perhaps that's coz I see so many ways of interpreting
people's comments. I don't see _this_ thread as one about advocacy.
It appears to me to be about Lisp and Beta, but I don't recall seeing
anyone trying to "advocate" the use of one language or another.

That could be coz I don't see all comparison threads as advocacy
threads. It's possible that I missed that aspect, or I just didn't
consider it stong enough in this thread.

-- 
http://cyber.sfgate.com/examiner/people/surfer.html
