Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #31915

Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP)

Newsgroups	comp.lang.javascript
Subject	Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP)
From	"Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
References	(7 earlier) <35b55chbl8b6h6ns3r0e4ecrn4fm58q8sv@4ax.com> <XnsA6DFA5882E690eejj99@194.109.6.166> <SmY9891aLaVYFwy0@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid> <XnsA6E26D806DA37eejj99@194.109.6.166> <PWN6g4QAHDWYFw6A@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>
Date	2016-12-20 11:37 +0100
Message-ID	<XnsA6E4764ED85CFeejj99@194.109.6.166> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote on 19 Dec
2016 in comp.lang.javascript: 

> In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA6E26D806DA37eejj99@194.109.6.166>,
> Sun, 18 Dec 2016 10:45:51, Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
> posted:
> 
>>Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote on 17 Dec
>>2016 in comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>>> In comp.lang.javascript message
>>> <XnsA6DFA5882E690eejj99@194.109.6.166>, Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:16:20,
>>> Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> posted:
>>>
>>>>A [good, imho] definition of "ad hominem" is:
>>>>
>>>>Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt
>>>>to undermine their argument.
>>>
>>> Does that agree with
>>>         <https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem> ?
>>
>>Does it?
>>
>>Should it [need to be]?
> 
> Certainly it should agree, and modern usage should agree with the
> original.  The expression should not be misused in the way that
> "decimated" now is by /hoi polloi/. 

That would be an extreme [polluted/pollinated?] example. 

> But ISTR that your Latin is better than mine.

Thank you, John, for your trust, I like such a positive ad-hominem remark.

However, I did not read the la.wikipedia.org article, just because
methinks such agreement is just surmised autority and would not add to the
subject, if it agrees, because then I would think probable the Latin
version to be just a translation of a modern [en,fr,nl,du,etc] one. 

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Thread

Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2016-12-11 09:48 -0800
  Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Tim Slattery <tim@risingdove.com> - 2016-12-11 13:48 -0500
    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-11 21:47 +0100
      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-12 10:40 +0000
      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-12 20:31 +0000
        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-12-12 21:46 +0000
        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-13 13:51 +0100
          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-13 14:58 +0000
            Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-13 20:23 +0100
              Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-14 16:42 +0000
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-14 19:26 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-15 14:36 +0000
              Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-14 16:52 +0000
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-14 19:27 +0100
              Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-15 14:48 +0000
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-15 16:16 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-15 09:28 -0800
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-16 09:07 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-16 09:06 -0800
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-17 00:33 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-16 10:47 +0000
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-16 17:12 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-17 20:40 +0000
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-18 10:45 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-19 19:15 +0000
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-20 13:13 +1100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-20 11:39 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-21 07:03 +1100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-21 00:07 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-02 03:55 +0000
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-02 12:26 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-02 22:39 +1100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-02 12:48 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-02 11:42 +0000
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-02 12:53 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-03 12:02 +1100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-03 11:36 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-20 11:37 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-19 09:43 -0800
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-19 19:55 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-19 16:05 -0800
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-20 11:28 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-20 09:44 -0800
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-21 00:03 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-12-20 23:08 +0000
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-21 10:03 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-20 15:24 -0800
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-21 10:01 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-21 10:20 -0800
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-22 10:59 +0100
        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Tim Slattery <tim@risingdove.com> - 2016-12-13 11:04 -0500
          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2016-12-13 16:16 +0000
            Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-13 17:26 +0100
            Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-02 03:58 +0000
  Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-12-12 12:29 +0700
    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-12 16:12 +0100
  Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2016-12-13 02:06 +0000
  Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2016-12-14 09:33 -0800
    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2016-12-14 18:47 +0100
      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-14 22:07 +0100
    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-14 22:17 +0100

csiph-web