Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: Parsing javascript file off the main thread Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 06:46:33 +0200 Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Lines: 44 Message-ID: <1785722.oMNUckLgyt@PointedEars.de> References: <10696621.O9o76ZdvQC@PointedEars.de> <23a00dcf-edc4-4a6e-bf37-8143057b7fef@googlegroups.com> <5204472.lOV4Wx5bFT@PointedEars.de> <2533447.e9J7NaK4W3@PointedEars.de> <37d668a8-cf34-4c5f-9ca1-a463ac5e496d@googlegroups.com> <10043161.f3KcPn1T7V@PointedEars.de> <759d1fb3-42cb-4a68-b972-f489a42d025f@googlegroups.com> Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Trace: solani.org 1474519594 2657 eJwFwQkBwDAIA0BLDU/ATsuCfwm7Syc4FUxGbu6UztBQE2z4s2pvg2zeuRNSSfrAtasD1w8V+xFR (22 Sep 2016 04:46:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@news.solani.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 04:46:34 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/4.14.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:rB30TPkM75Hb6UZfOPzttiOxyyk= X-User-ID: eJwNy8cNwDAMBLCVFPiKPI6LtP8I8ZcAOfTpGKLAZk9fbWRlBmMrdDXmWOBzhKsSaFRULV435IM0ynh1Yf82xhUA X-NNTP-Posting-Host: eJwFwQkBwDAIA0BLLU8YcgIU/xJ254qLDoPDfH0tlhBRYX6YqpZiUPrhYRJkZPRYqVw7ffIHJu8RWg== Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:31424 Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote: > On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 2:26:47 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' > Lahn wrote: >> > The referenced link looks to me to be aligned with my reasoning. >> >> You have not presented your reasoning so far. Instead you have tried to >> shift the burden of proof by asking (me) a question in return. >> Therefore, whether the “referenced link” (you mean the referenced/linked >> _resource_ instead) is *actually* *objectively* aligned with your >> reasoning or only seems to be so *to you* (“looks to me”) remains >> unknown. >> >> Proper reasoning would go along the lines, “these are the $FACTS of the >> situation, and from $STATEMENT(S) in $RESOURCE (I think that) it follows, >> given these $FACTS, that …”. Only from that a constructive discussion >> could ensue. >> >> HTH > > That is now five posts in a row of no useful reply from you on the topic > at hand. If you wish to continue in such a manner, you can continue alone. > Such noise adds nothing. By now you could have expanded on what you > disagreed with specifically but have instead chosen to engage in shallow > meta-discussion; again. I have given you, again, an explanation as to why this discussion cannot be a constructive one (cannot lead anywhere) based on your arguments so far, and hints as to how you (and only you) can turn this discussion into a constructive one. (That was useful advice even though it was not on the topic.) I have offered to you to have such a discussion with you. If you are not willing to have it, and insist on your previous fallacies and on committing new fallacies instead, then that is *your* problem. -- PointedEars FAQ: | SVN: Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.