> I didn't say this.
Again, I was asking how what you did say was different from it. Your answer seems to just be that your definition of Lisp means the subset described in the 1960 paper, and doesn't include the original implementation or McCarthy's earlier writing on the subject.
> You said black and white and it is not true from the paper I have shown.
The paper you quoted said that Lisp was originally conceived as an impure language (the part I quoted) and that that was unfortunate, but true (the part you quoted).
> I have already explained about the difference between the first LISP implementation and the core language written in the 1960 paper. [...] I am not talking about the 1958 paper.
So you meant to say that the 1960 paper was the first description of a pure language. Calling the 1960 paper's subset of Lisp "the original LISP" and disregarding the already-existing implemented Lisp system which the paper acknowledges, as well as McCarthy's previous writing on the subject, is misleading at best.
> I am not also talking about which idea is first or not.
Then we have different definitions of "original," too.