Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #36077

Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes

Show all headers | View raw

Evertjan,

> See you are doing it again, not engaging in my explanation,

Thats rich, coming from someone who ignores explanations / points of 
consideration of mine.

> that none of the monkeys can do this for their existential
> reasons, namely that "killing" of a process cannot prevent
> it being "created".

... as well as refusing to respond my mentioning of your failure to define 
what "created" (or alike) means to you.   Newsflash: It /most likely/ means 
something different to you, with your js background, as it does to me, with 
GreaseMonkey as the subject.

> And faliciously calling ad hominem attacks to hide your lack
> of argumentation.

Non-underbuild claims are like dust in the wind.  Most often used to try to 
obscure something else.  I wonder, what are you trying to hide ?   Your own 
failure perhaps ?   And no, I'm not going to underbuild that one here.  When 
in Rome and all that. :-p

As for that "lack of argumentation" ?   I've yet to see you respond, let 
alone counter my "why doesn't it work for iframes when it works for other 
elements ?" point of consideration.

Or respond to my "hoist on your own petard" remark

Or my "GreaseMonkey works on it /before/ its activated" one.

Funny that, people who accuse others of doing the things they are guilty of 
themselves ...

> And suggesting that I should go away from a discussion, because
> of your mood, which is delusional behavour on usenet.

Your own delusion is that you can butt into a question about GreaseMonkey 
while not knowing /anything/ about it, thinking that you can "wing it" on 
your knowledge of js alone.

'Cause that is what your "you can't kill it" comes from, doesn't ?   In your 
"it must be on a webpage" usage of js you cannot start embedded scripts 
without also having activated all other elements on the page.

Also, you're /again/ refusing to respond to my explanation to how that 
doesn't apply.

And no, only someone with an agenda would read that as a "go a way, period". 
Not when, on the same line, I followed it up with the "suggestion" you first 
brush-up on your /basic knowledge/ of the subject at hand.

And no, that subject isn't js.

> Bah, you do not own a usenet thread you started.

Correct.   But I still do "own" the right to point out to you that you 
sorely lack knowledge on the subject at hand and "suggest" you change 
something about that - before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Bottom line: You seem to have made a "its just js, how hard could it be ?" 
assumption mistake, while, for some reason or another, ignoring everything 
that you didn't match your knowledge about it.  You than fell into the pit 
you dug yourself, and thought it would be a good idea to just keep digging - 
by claiming its all the other persons fault.

The "joke" about that carpenter with only a hammer as his tool comes to mind 
...

Man up kiddo.   Making mistakes isn't what defines a person.  How he deals 
with it does.   You ? You seem to be dealing with it badly.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-21 12:39 +0100
  Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-02-22 00:05 +0100
    Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-22 08:59 +0100
      Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. Flng Fck <nothanks@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-22 09:05 +0100
        Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-22 10:50 +0100
  Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. Joao Rodrigues <jr.c.l.js@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 21:51 -0300
    Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-22 09:29 +0100
  Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2019-02-22 18:49 +0700
    Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-22 13:51 +0100
      Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. Update. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-22 14:34 +0100
        Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value.Solved. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-22 15:12 +0100
      Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2019-02-23 10:18 +0700
        Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-23 09:53 +0100
          Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2019-02-23 18:14 +0700
            Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 18:53 +0100
              Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-26 10:23 +0100
                Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-02-26 11:27 +0100
                Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-26 12:54 +0100
                Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-02-26 19:26 +0100
                Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-27 10:45 +0100
                Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-02-27 12:09 +0100
                Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-27 12:34 +0100
                Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-02-28 11:07 +0100
                Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-28 12:46 +0100
                Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-02-28 22:41 +0100
                Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-03-01 09:59 +0100
                Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-03-01 10:55 +0100
                Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-03-01 11:40 +0100
                Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-03-01 16:08 +0100
                Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2019-02-27 00:12 +0700
                Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-27 10:39 +0100

csiph-web