Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news-peer.in.tum.de!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Message-ID: <1576612.xcnPMkRsSc@PointedEars.de> From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 14:50:23 +0200 User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&. <4fcb6c56$0$6573$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <1597054.oMNUckLgyt@PointedEars.de> <3239548.HtbMt2HAaS@PointedEars.de> Followup-To: comp.lang.javascript MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 58 NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Jun 2012 14:50:24 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 22cd3094.newsspool3.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=d:aE;cZgZR>_A0jCfgHO6>McF=Q^Z^V384Fo<]lROoR18kF1DZm8W4\YJNK0fQ>EOE\[m`;;G?_Dl_F1P; X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:14430 Evertjan. wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote on 09 jun 2012 in comp.lang.javascript: >> Evertjan. wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote on 09 jun 2012 in >>> comp.lang.javascript: >>>>> All js-variables are valuable, even with "undefined". >>>> You misunderstand. >> >> This sentence refers to a lot more than just the sentence above it. Did you even get my meaning here? >>> That is a typical projection of your lack of understanding. >>> >>> The valuability of a variable is the essense of a variable. >>> >>> An invaluable variable would better be called a constant. >> >> Either your understanding of English leaves a lot to be desired, or >> you are trolling. (The different way of forging of your From header >> value which caused your postings to be be visible here again would >> indicate the latter.) >> >> Variables were _not_ subject here, but the information given from one >> poster (Jeremy) to one reader (Scott). > > No, there is no private channel on usenet NGs. Nobody said there was. > So anything that is posted commenting on what is said, > and not on subject in your eyes is worth a "You misunderstand"? You have *evidentially* misunderstood, and you are still *evidentially* misunderstanding what was posted by Scott in his reply to Jeremy's posting. > Why should it be important what you desire of my understanding of English? Because if you had at least a fair grasp of English, a discussion with you in English could turn out to be so much more useful to everyone. > I usually back you up on your impressive knowledge of Javascript, > however that does not imply you are an expert on English, > the latter being off-topic here, by the way. At least *I* can understand English when I read it. You either evidentially cannot, or you are trolling. Take your pick. EOD PointedEars -- Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site. (This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one will want to steal it.) -- from (404-comp.)