[Editor's note:  This is the complete text of yet another message
by Bill Richter.  Like the tenth response, this one was in the original
thread.  I have added two editor's notes, since Bill's message contains
an apparent plea for more such notes.]

From: Bill Richter (richter@math.northwestern.edu)
Subject: Re: interpreters & semantics
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Date: 2004-08-28 21:42:56 PST

cesuraSPAM@verizon.net (William D Clinger) wrote in message news:<fb74251e.0408280351.573c5b0@posting.google.com>...
> All of the mathematics we need for programming languages can be
> done within a constructive framework.  

Will, I find this very hard to believe, but I'm not going to respond to
you until you fix the error you made 3 times in a row.  That's a stalemate
I guess, in Chess.  Or for instance, my hardest hitting post is called 
# third response 
on your RichterFAQ, and you didn't give it a single Editor's note.

[Editor's note:  Bill has asserted that I made an error 3 times in a
row, but he is wrong about that being an error.  As for Bill's third
response to my FAQ, none of Bill's squawking denials refuted any of
my statements, and only a few of Bill's denials even contradicted my
statements, so I saw no reason to respond to them.]

To me what this shows is you were only interested in teaching me (as 
opposed to learning, or studying compositionality with me) and you
succeeded: you taught me a lot.  So thanks again.

[Editor's note:  I have absolutely no interest in learning from
Dr Bill Richter.  He has given a lengthy proof that he knows next
to nothing about programming language semantics, and he has given
an even more convincing proof that he would rather blather on about
things he knows not than present a coherent mathematical argument.]