>>20
>>11 failed to define the variables that define Lisp, so you're battling against a straw man argument. (where the original argument is the presentation of the aforementioned variables).
The reason these are variables is because Lisp is a family of languages; depending on the values of each variable (if present at all), the name of the Lisp language is given. Even then, you're wrong about many things, for instance, #2. I'd like you to design a MAPCAR function, like the one common lisp provides, in C.
A Lisp has to be homoiconic for meta-programming. C doesn't do that at all.
In general, it's C retards that think their language is the most powerful language of all, it's newbies that, once they've done just a bit of reading on something better (ie lisp), start advocating without having any actual experience/knowledge to back up their statements (except citations to citations - meh), and actual experts who waste their time to write posts similar to mine, because they know if they don't do that, nobody will, and that is attractive enough for them to do it.