From: Shriram Krishnamurthi (sk@cs.brown.edu)
Subject: Re: endless onanism about semantics 
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Date: 2004-09-01 07:40:00 PST 


Bill Richter has explicitly said (privately, but given me permission
to quote him) he has no stake in the Scheme community.  He is using
the newsgroup as a medium to advance his career.  He doesn't care how
many people he drives away.

The Schemers who "should know better" are trying to preserve the honor
of the regimen.  If Bill posts drivel and it goes unanswered, there is
a danger a person subsequently reading the discussion record will
conclude that Bill was right.  They might even believe Richter's
original presumption that there are no semanticists on c.l.s, and we
really do need a "real" mathematician to save us.  Hence, for
instance, Clinger's FAQ.

To give credit, people other than Richter have asked perfectly
reasonable questions about semantics, and been given perfectly good
responses.  These sub-threads represent the best of what c.l.s is
about.  Sadly, these have been lost in the noise.  It would be nice to
return to Eden.

I have long since decided that nobody could possibly be confused by
Richter any longer, and have sworn off the thread.  Anyone who still
is would have to be someone who will not be swayed by any number of
follow-ups -- ie, a Usenet crank high on the Richter scale.

Different people, however, have different thresholds.

Most recently, wise folks tried to move a thread entirely, totally
unrelated to c.l.s to sci.logic.  Richter cleverly avoided taking the
bait, presumably because he knew he'd get his ass handed to him on a
platter over there -- and worse, a "real" mathematician might see him
there.  Better to treat c.l.s as his personal soapbox.

If you are disgusted, speak up.  If Richter posts off-topic, tell him
to go to a more appropriate forum.  To paraphrase the inimitable Henry
Baker, avoid the Silence of the Lambdas.

Shriram

PS: Semantics *is* endless onanism.  So your subject line is redundant.