t and nil

[KIM.jkf@Berkeley (John Foderaro)]

  I see no reason to change the current meanings of t and nil.  I consider
the fact that nil is the empty list and represents false to be one of the
major features of the language and definitely not a bug.  I've read
over the many letters on the subject and I still don't understand
what the benefit of () and #t are?  I would like to see lots and lots
of concrete examples where using () and #t improve the code.  If the
proponents of the change can't provide such examples, then they are
attempting to solve a non-problem.
  Aesthetically, I much prefer 'nil' to () [just as I prefer (a b c)
to (a . (b . (c . nil))) ]

  I hope that the  common-lisp committee goes back to the task
of desribing a common subset of existing lisp dialects for the
purpose of improving lisp software portability.  The lisp language
works, there is lots of software to prove it.  Please
leave lisp alone.