I have read it and find some of it useful to programming in AutoLisp, a varient of LISP. The style shown in my poem is more common in AutoLisp than the style shown in the link. AutoLisp is the only LISP I know well enough to comment on.

I understand what you are saying and disagree for reasons I have stated. We have reached an impass.

In particular, the bits that directly contradicted your claims that: a) Redundant comments e.g. "end hunger" are "good practice". b) Vertically lining up brackets is "good practice". I suppose you didn't actually read the guide, or if you did, that it just fell out of your ear.

Also, I'm still waiting for your reply to my posting the link to the lisp.org style guide.

Besides, your past failures are absolutely real. You've proven over and over again that you're exceptionally ignorant about anything to do with maths, logic, science and philosophy. Of course you don't think you're ignorant. If you did, you'd probably shut up. It's just that everyone else knows you're ignorant, and that your head is full of cotton-wool. Trying to explain something to you is like trying to feed a worm tablet to a cat.

My response is right there. You know, in my reply. Here it is again: "For every possible open valve, there is a possible closed valve that permits as much water." That is the premiss. "Any valve lets through as much water closed as it does open." That is your thicky misunderstanding of the premiss. There it is. Have you spotted it now? Do you understand the response? Do you understand how it relates to what you said? Do you understand how it relates to the discussion as a whole? Do you understand how it is a defense of my original theorem? Do you even have any idea what this thread is about? Every time I think I've finally understood how thick you are, you absolutely blow my estimate out of the water. You have an unbounded capacity for failure.

You did not imagine her at all? Did you write this poem? -0-

Yes, but we know that particles exist in truth which Newton could noit have known about. Unless you want to argue that particles are not truth, but representations of something unknown. In that case we have more truth to learn. The difference is that I believe truth exists and you aparently do not.

No, the cross is a symbol of the same death as the crucifix is. I was not trying to be vague.

There must have been a reason you refused to write the word crucifix in your poem. I think it is because you believe if your symbol is sufficiently vague it becomes transcendental and represents lots of thing.

Nope. With every new degree of magnification the object you are seeking to represent becomes more complicated.

Coy? I thought it was a straightforward look at the cross as a symbol.

you do not recognise truth, you are open minded.

Do not be silly. Explain to me how 1+1=2 it true without reference to its context.

I believe in truth and that it can exist unrecognized. That microscope has been increasing its magnificatioin since Newton and more truth is being discovered.

Truth can exist in the brain without context - another thing we aparently disagree on. 1+1=2 exists in my brain and is true whether I know any context regarding it.

What is truth if you do not with any conviction believe it to be right. By the way, I never said I believed in truth. The problem with truth is that the further you advance the more fuzzy the picture becomes. Imagine a microscope with ever increasing magnification.

At least we agree on a sentence to disagree on. Truth does exist, I believe, and have some reasons for believing. Closed minded people receive some truth, I believe that too. But they limit the amount. To hold truth and believe it to be wrong makes the "truth" non-truth in that person's mind. That's only a word twiddle.

At least we agree on a sentence to disagree on. Truth does exist, I believe, and have some reasons for believing. Closed minded people receive some truth, I believe that too. But they limit the amount. To hold truth and believe it to be wrong makes the "truth" non-truth.

That is to say. The question is what is the symbol of cruelty. The answer I presume a crucifix. The question that begs, why so coy?