Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
Subject: Re: Where can I find a summary table of various reqular expressions options?
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 11:23:06 +0200
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <gqd4vrFs4e2U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <562cba23.0404060528.4d36d9c9@posting.google.com> <876a8475-9646-4284-a93a-3b24e752372f@googlegroups.com> <3019391.44csPzL39Z@PointedEars.de> <7mc8jetiace45ukm7f74c9ot0n45rqdiop@4ax.com> <gq5mmrF9l3qU1@mid.individual.net> <3cvtjedfi4iam79uhspdrubepggnu62n1l@4ax.com> <gqahviFavetU1@mid.individual.net> <lm21kel8rc8g26m2lcla1p9gj3o6i320da@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net aAvYadx7tR97z2htUwwwYQLtwOEbJ6/WkB838zaHb3ICK1v00u
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9JqGn39+tWgTNVGJcq3lctZT1Ko=
In-Reply-To: <lm21kel8rc8g26m2lcla1p9gj3o6i320da@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:37008

On 30.07.19 20:22, John G Harris wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 11:46:25 +0200, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>   <snip>
>> "[full quote]" is a placeholder for the full quote which was found
>> there. Maybe he could use "[full quote removed]" to make it more clear,
>> that there was a full quote which he removed.
> 
> Two points for you to ponder :
> 
> One, "full quote" is a remark. Why can't it be written on its own as
>   [full quote]
> without any > symbols indicating that it is what someone else wrote?

Because it was someone else doing the full quote.

> Two, if you see
>> [text]
> how do you know who wrote the phrase in brackets? Was it the person
> doing the quoting (me), or was it the person being quoted (you)? 

Is this important at all? There was a full quote and it got removed. I
didn't have any problem understanding this.

>> But I wouldn't call this "lie" because a lie is to pretend something
>> which isn't true. Do you really think, the intention was to make us
>> believe, that Anonieko Ramos wrote "[full quote]" in exactly this way?
> 
> If you write "This is what he wrote" followed by something he didn't
> write then it's an untruth. You may call it a terminological
> inexactitude, but the simple name is lie. As to intentions, my guess
> it's more a case of not thinking straight.

Ok, you are right and everybody else not. Enough of this
off-topic-babbling...



-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de