>>21
We always have an option to ignore each other, but we didn't and here we are.
I don't think your comment addressed the substance of what I said, in fact it doesn't address anything in what I said: "Here's some legitimate reasons to keep the definition narrow" vs "some people on the internet are mean".
I'm saying that there are legitimate reasons for keeping the definition narrow, which has to do with communication. You have, let's call them, shallow lispers, people who are interested in lisp as a broad concept, and then you have specific lispers, that is the ones who are mostly working with LISP 1.5 derived languages. There's less and less of the second kind, so eventually your objection will be resolved on its own, but as of right now the second kind of lisper still happens to manage long established communities.
Your objection is that the second kind of lisper is a gatekeeper for wanting to keep the meaning of lisp narrow inside their long established communities. I'm saying that they are not necessarily doing it just because they are assholes, but because they are not interested in various subjects, that might fall under a broader "lisp" umbrella.
I think some particular phrases that you use indicate that you don't actually believe in personal ownership of space, and I've seen that argument before. "#lisp belongs to the general lisper community, all communities must adopt inclusive policies" etc. This might be our fundamental disagreement, which we're not going to resolve here. I'll continue to defend my spaces, and you'll continue trying to invade them through underhanded strategies of calling people like me fascists or gatekeepers :)