The comment was well within the guidelines and is a viable point. When people make broad statements on Lisp like the original great-grandparent comment, they really need to clarify whether they're talking about Common Lisp or Lisp-likes. The original LISP doesn't have the features that Common Lisp has, so it'd be weird indeed to say that LISP wasn't an actual Lisp.

In retrospect, the comment was talking about Common Lisp and not just Lisp-likes and tried to make the distinction but did a poor job of it with comments like:

> Clojure and Racket are in that category. They lack the full power of CL; so they're just Lisp-syntax languages, not an actual Lisp.