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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #32017 > unrolled thread

Re: What I learned today

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: What I learned today Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-29 04:32 +0100
    Re: What I learned today Maik Koenig <usenetspam@maikkoenig.de> - 2016-12-29 21:20 +0100
      Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-29 21:45 +0100
        Re: What I learned today Maik Koenig <usenetspam@maikkoenig.de> - 2017-01-04 03:52 +0100
          Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 10:48 +0100
            Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-04 09:45 -0800
              Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 19:10 +0100
      Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-30 19:12 +1100
        Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-30 09:30 -0800
          Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-31 00:39 +0100
            Re: What I learned today David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 07:35 -0800
            Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-02 09:34 -0800
              Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-02 23:41 +0100
                Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-02 23:24 +0000
                  Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-03 15:58 +1100
                  Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-03 11:44 +0100
                    Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-04 04:15 +0000
                      Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 10:59 +0100
                  Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-03 10:29 -0800
                    Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-03 19:50 +0100
                      Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-03 19:32 +0000
                        Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-03 21:52 +0100
                          Re: What I learned today Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2017-01-03 21:07 +0000
                            Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-03 23:42 +0100
                              Re: What I learned today Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-03 22:45 +0000
                                Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 00:06 +0100
                              Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-03 17:00 -0800
                                Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 10:41 +0100
                                  Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-04 09:51 -0800
                                    Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 19:13 +0100
                                      Re: What I learned today Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-04 18:17 +0000
                                        Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-05 00:30 +0100
                                      Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-05 01:13 +0000
                                        Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-05 13:20 +1100
                                          Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-05 17:57 +0000
                                          Multi-line string literals (was: What I learned today) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-01-05 23:29 +0100
                                            Re: Multi-line string literals (was: What I learned today) Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-05 23:14 +0000
                                            Re: Multi-line string literals Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-06 12:01 +1100
                                        Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-05 15:22 +1100
                                        Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-05 09:06 -0800
                                          Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-05 18:10 +0000
                              Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-05 20:38 +0000
                                Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-05 22:37 +0100
                                  Re: What I learned today Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-05 23:21 +0000
                                    Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-06 00:29 +0100
                                    Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-06 11:59 +1100
                                      Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-06 09:04 +0100
                                  Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-06 11:19 +0000
                                    Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-06 13:09 +0100
                                      Re: What I learned today Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-06 12:50 +0000
                                        Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-06 14:16 +0100
                                      Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-06 15:05 +0000
                                        Re: What I learned today "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2017-01-06 16:32 +0100
                                          Re: What I learned today Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-06 16:15 +0000
                                          Re: What I learned today Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 17:47 +0100
                                          Re: What I learned today Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-01-06 18:07 +0100
                                          Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-07 18:38 +0000
                                      Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-09 10:33 -0800
                                        Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-09 19:57 +0100
                          Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-03 16:53 -0800
                            Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 10:36 +0100
                              Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-04 09:53 -0800
                                Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 19:17 +0100
                                  Re: What I learned today Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2017-01-05 00:57 +0000
                                    Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-05 09:49 +0100
                          Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-04 16:49 +0000
                            Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 18:01 +0100
                              Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-05 20:19 +0000
                                Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-05 22:22 +0100
                      Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-03 16:48 -0800
                Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-02 23:24 +0000
                  Re: What I learned today David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 00:17 -0800
                    Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-03 10:33 +0000
                    Re: What I learned today Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-04 04:34 +0000
                      Re: What I learned today Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-04 16:15 +1100
                        Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 11:12 +0100
                      Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-04 11:07 +0100
                        Re: What I learned today Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-04 09:58 -0800
        Re: What I learned today John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-01 10:53 +0000
          Re: What I learned today "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-01 12:36 +0100

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#32108

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> Evertjan. wrote:
>>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>>>>      Given the choice between two sources of material, both
>>>> technically very good, but one is written in clear language and the
>>>> other is written very unclearly, I would select the clear one.
>>> 
>>> An argument is not [just] a source of material, as sources of material
>>> are not part of a discussion.
>>
>> Again, I have no idea if I need to make allowances for someone who is
>> not a native speaker, but the point Mr. Wirchenko is making is simple:
>> he has to decide, given his limited time, which of the myriad resources
>> available to him he finds worthwhile.  If he does not find Thomas 
>> Lahn's posts to be worth his time, I see no reason at all for you to 
>> complain.
> 
>      No, I am a native speaker of English.  Nonetheless, there are
> ways to present information so that it is clear, and there are ways to
> obfuscate it horribly (whether intentionally or not).

(The allowance would have been for Evertjan, who is clearly not a native 
speaker.  It's hard to know sometimes when a disagreement is simply a 
misunderstanding of idiom or is something deeper.)

Of course below is my demonstration of the fact that obfuscated material 
may not be worth anyone's time.


>>> [... earlier ...]
>>> Arguments should be valued on their content, being an evaluation of
>>> evidence and logic, not on skills of rethoric, of writing or of
>>> display.
> 
>      This totally misses that if the argument is sufficiently badly
> presented, it might never get seen.
> 
>>I believe the following argument should clear things up immensely:
>>
>>01010011 01000111 01000110 01110000 01100100 00110010 01010110 00110110
>>01011010 01010111 01110100 01101000 01100010 01101101 01101011 01100111
>>01011010 01101101 00111001 01110100 01100100 01010011 01000010 00110000
>>01100010 00110010 01011010 01101000 01100100 01011000 01010010 01110000
>>01001001 01000111 00110101 01101000 01001001 01000111 00110001 01101000
>>01100100 01010111 01010010 01101111 01100100 01010111 01101011 00111101
> 
>      This is unintelligible.  It requires another step in order to be
> able to follow it.  That time could be used otherwise.
> 
>      I decided to play along with the joke, but the above is not
> binary representation of ASCII.  I do not think that it is binary
> representation of EBCDIC.  At this point, I would skip.
> 
>      Decoded, it might have some very useful information, but I have
> no way of knowing, and I have other uses for my time.
> 
>      Evertjan, how much time will *you* spend on it?

I said simply that "It is impossible to separate form and content", used 
Google Translate to get a Swahili version, "Haiwezekani fomu tofauti na 
maudhui", base64 encoded that, and presented the result as bytes 
displayed in base 2.  

If only the content matters, the version I presented should be just as 
worthwhile as if I had simply said "It is impossible to separate form and 
content," in a single line of English.  That such is manifestly absurd 
was the point I was making.

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32111

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 23:42:41 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:


  <snip>
>I see the constant degrading of his postings by some of you as far more 
>irritating and undermining. Why not just plonk him and get over it?
  <snip>

Yes it's irritating when someone undermines his order that you must
use a real name. But remember this : there could still be newcomers to
this group. They should be told that it is Thomas's very minority
opinion, not a well-known rule.

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32113

John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 05 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 23:42:41 +0100, "Evertjan."
> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>   <snip>
>>I see the constant degrading of his postings by some of you as far more 
>>irritating and undermining. Why not just plonk him and get over it?
>   <snip>
> 
> Yes it's irritating when someone undermines his order that you must
> use a real name.

Thomas does. So it is not unreasonable for him to expect that of others.

> But remember this :

Remember?? Is that a call that I should adhere to authority?

> there could still be newcomers to
> this group. They should be told that it is Thomas's very minority
> opinion, not a well-known rule.

This is a discusson group, 
there is no reason why someone would think that.
[well yes, anyone can be fooled by ignorance]

But why not measure opinions on their individual merits,
instead of suggesting that a single opinion must be valueless
BECAUSE it comes frome somone you or your 'majority' dislikes.
I will call that ad-hominem falacy 2.0.

Moreover, reality is not measured by majority opinion.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, 
it is time to pause and reflect."
[Mark Twain]

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32117

In article <XnsA6F4E62FF8F76eejj99@194.109.6.166>, Evertjan.
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 05 Jan 2017 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 23:42:41 +0100, "Evertjan."
>> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>>   <snip>
>>>I see the constant degrading of his postings by some of you as far more 
>>>irritating and undermining. Why not just plonk him and get over it?
>>   <snip>
>> 
>> Yes it's irritating when someone undermines his order that you must
>> use a real name.
>
>Thomas does. So it is not unreasonable for him to expect that of others.

All his "rules" are unreasonable. Which is why I tell him to fuck off
from time to time.

Hint: there are no "rules" on usenet.

-- 
"Once you adopt the unix paradigm, the variants cease to be a problem - you
bitch, of course, but that's because bitching is fun, unlike M$ OS's, where 
bitching is required to keep your head from exploding." - S Stremler in afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32118

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote on 06 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>>Thomas does. So it is not unreasonable for him to expect that of others.
> 
> All his "rules" are unreasonable. Which is why I tell him to fuck off
> from time to time.

So you think, and maybe you are quite right you are not able to reason so.

> Hint: there are no "rules" on usenet.

What about Netiquette?

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32119

On 6/01/2017 10:21 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <XnsA6F4E62FF8F76eejj99@194.109.6.166>, Evertjan.

>> Thomas does. So it is not unreasonable for him to expect that of others.
>
> All his "rules" are unreasonable. Which is why I tell him to fuck off
> from time to time.
>
> Hint: there are no "rules" on usenet.

So if someone breaks "your" rule that there are no rules then it's ok to 
be boorish.

Andrew Poulos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32121

Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote on 06 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> So if someone breaks "your" rule that there are no rules then it's ok to 
> be boorish.
> 

Why wouldn't it be okay to be boorish?

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32122

On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 22:37:42 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 05 Jan 2017 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:

  <snip>
>> Yes it's irritating when someone undermines his order that you must
>> use a real name.
>
>Thomas does. So it is not unreasonable for him to expect that of others.

He can expect it as much as he likes, but he doesn't do that. He
*demands* it, with insults. It's very unreasonable.

Incidentally, he won't tell us what a "real name" is. Have you tried
looking it up in Wikipedia?


>> But remember this :
>
>Remember?? Is that a call that I should adhere to authority?

I don't know. What is the status of your memories?


>> there could still be newcomers to
>> this group. They should be told that it is Thomas's very minority
>> opinion, not a well-known rule.
>
>This is a discusson group, 
>there is no reason why someone would think that.
>[well yes, anyone can be fooled by ignorance]

Are you saying that teaching is Off Topic in this news group? If so,
you should be ashamed of yourself.


>But why not measure opinions on their individual merits,

Yes indeed. Some of Thomas's opinions are measured and seen to have no
merit.


>instead of suggesting that a single opinion must be valueless
>BECAUSE it comes frome somone you or your 'majority' dislikes.
>I will call that ad-hominem falacy 2.0.

Actually that would be an ordinary ad hominem fallacy. There's nothing
2.0 about it. But it isn't that kind of fallacy as that's not what I'm
saying. It's a different kind of fallacy : misquoting, then condemning
on what wasn't said.


>Moreover, reality is not measured by majority opinion.
>
>"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, 
>it is time to pause and reflect."
>[Mark Twain]

UFOs exist! The earth is flat!

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32123

John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 06 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 22:37:42 +0100, "Evertjan."
> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> 
>>John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 05 Jan 2017 in 
>>comp.lang.javascript:
> 
>   <snip>
>>> Yes it's irritating when someone undermines his order that you must
>>> use a real name.
>>
>>Thomas does. So it is not unreasonable for him to expect that of others.
> 
> He can expect it as much as he likes, but he doesn't do that. He
> *demands* it, with insults. It's very unreasonable.

Why is insulting someone unreasonable?

Why do you "demand" that others should not demand on usenet?

> Incidentally, he won't tell us what a "real name" is. Have you tried
> looking it up in Wikipedia?

Why would you want to know? 
Why would you think I need to try something like that?

>>> But remember this :
>>
>>Remember?? Is that a call that I should adhere to authority?
> 
> I don't know. 

Well, I suspect it is.

> What is the status of your memories?

Sorry, that has nothing to do with anything, are you dodging the subject?

>>> there could still be newcomers to
>>> this group. They should be told that it is Thomas's very minority
>>> opinion, not a well-known rule.
>>
>>This is a discusson group, 
>>there is no reason why someone would think that.
>>[well yes, anyone can be fooled by ignorance]
> 
> Are you saying that teaching is Off Topic in this news group?

Did I? No.

> If so, you should be ashamed of yourself.

What nonsense, why should one be ashamed of his/herself for any reason?

>>But why not measure opinions on their individual merits,
> 
> Yes indeed. Some of Thomas's opinions are measured and seen to have no
> merit.

Well, that is fine, Thomases opinions can and should be attacked on their 
own merits, but that does not mean one should attack someone's person 
because of that.

>>instead of suggesting that a single opinion must be valueless
>>BECAUSE it comes frome somone you or your 'majority' dislikes.
>>I will call that ad-hominem falacy 2.0.
> 
> Actually that would be an ordinary ad hominem fallacy. There's nothing
> 2.0 about it. But it isn't that kind of fallacy as that's not what I'm
> saying. It's a different kind of fallacy : misquoting, then condemning
> on what wasn't said.

Indeed there are more falacies of discussion, so what?

Water being wet is not important BECAUSE the sun seems to be round?

>>Moreover, reality is not measured by majority opinion.
>>
>>"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, 
>>it is time to pause and reflect."
>>[Mark Twain]
> 
> UFOs exist!

Indeed, 
there probably are a lot of flying objects that are unidentified,
there probably are many objects that fly unnoticed,
so they reasonably cannot be identified.

Most nutrinos are UFOs, objectively.

But please duck if you identify one in a marital row.

> The earth is flat!

Your logic here escapes me. 

Perhaps you think that because many people think the earth is flat,
that reality is defined by such number?


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32124

In article <XnsA6F585EC9313Deejj99@194.109.6.166>, Evertjan.
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 06 Jan 2017 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 22:37:42 +0100, "Evertjan."
>> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 05 Jan 2017 in 
>>>comp.lang.javascript:
>> 
>>   <snip>
>>>> Yes it's irritating when someone undermines his order that you must
>>>> use a real name.
>>>
>>>Thomas does. So it is not unreasonable for him to expect that of others.
>> 
>> He can expect it as much as he likes, but he doesn't do that. He
>> *demands* it, with insults. It's very unreasonable.
>
>Why is insulting someone unreasonable?
>
>Why do you "demand" that others should not demand on usenet?

By asking such a question you render this thread moot.

[snip]

>Well, that is fine, Thomases opinions can and should be attacked on their 
>own merits, but that does not mean one should attack someone's person 
>because of that.

So you are demanding that we not do that?

-- 
Lady Astor: "If you were my husband I'd give you poison." Churchill: "If
you were my wife, I'd drink it."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32125

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote on 06 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>>Why do you "demand" that others should not demand on usenet?
> 
> By asking such a question you render this thread moot.

Methinks it is a very apt Q on usenet.

>>Well, that is fine, Thomases opinions can and should be attacked on their 
>>own merits, but that does not mean one should attack someone's person 
>>because of that.
> 
> So you are demanding that we not do that?

I am not demanding anything.

"We", ah! The pluralis majestatis falacy!

Did your mother say "you should" to you 
and you felt she was demanding something of you?

Well, that being strange in itself, 
still Usenet is not your mother.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32126

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:09:54 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 06 Jan 2017 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 22:37:42 +0100, "Evertjan."
>> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:


  <snip>
>>>Moreover, reality is not measured by majority opinion.
  <snip>
>> The earth is flat!
>
>Your logic here escapes me. 
>
>Perhaps you think that because many people think the earth is flat,
>that reality is defined by such number?

The logic is the opposite of that :

a) Reality is not measured by majority opinion;
b) Few people think the earth is flat;
c) Therefore, by (a) and (b), the earth is flat.

Finally, congratulations! You've written the longest criticism of
Thomas ever published, while all the time appearing to be defending
him. A masterly achievement.

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32127

On 06.01.2017 at 16:05, John Harris wrote:

> The logic is the opposite of that :
> 
> a) Reality is not measured by majority opinion;
> b) Few people think the earth is flat;
> c) Therefore, by (a) and (b), the earth is flat.

You're logic is flawed!  From (a) does not follow, that reality is
measured by minority opinion.

Coming back to the topic of this thread: what I have learned in the past
days is that c.l.js isn't worth reading anymore, due to an extremely bad
SNR.

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32128

In article <o4od87$8r2$1@solani.org>, Christoph M. Becker
<cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:

>On 06.01.2017 at 16:05, John Harris wrote:
>
>> The logic is the opposite of that :
>> 
>> a) Reality is not measured by majority opinion;
>> b) Few people think the earth is flat;
>> c) Therefore, by (a) and (b), the earth is flat.
>
>You're logic is flawed!  From (a) does not follow, that reality is
>measured by minority opinion.
>
>Coming back to the topic of this thread: what I have learned in the past
>days is that c.l.js isn't worth reading anymore, due to an extremely bad
>SNR.

Agreed on the SNR. What can you deduce from that?

-- 
Lady Astor: "If you were my husband I'd give you poison." Churchill: "If
you were my wife, I'd drink it."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32129

On 06/01/2017 16:32, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
[...]
> Coming back to the topic of this thread: what I have learned in the past
> days is that c.l.js isn't worth reading anymore, due to an extremely bad
> SNR.

It is still worth reading. Just try to ignore some threads/people.

-- 
Cezary Tomczyk
https://www.aslint.org/ - Accessibility validator

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32130

Christoph M. Becker wrote:

> Coming back to the topic of this thread: what I have learned in the past
> days is that c.l.js isn't worth reading anymore, due to an extremely bad
> SNR.

Please do not let a few trolls deceive and discourage you.

Observe how *very few*, if any, of the people displaying a “holier than 
thou” attitude in this thread, or in any thread here so far, have actually 
contributed something on-topic in the past; may it be in the past years,
the past month, or the past week.

You should simply ignore the rest.  In Thunderbird, adding a “Message 
Filter” (“Tools” menu) with which you “Mark As Read” or “Delete” the 
articles that you do not want to read goes a long way to increase the SNR in 
any newsgroup considerably.  Other newsreaders have an explicit killfile 
feature, or a scorefile for finer control.

HTH

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32132

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 16:32:17 +0100, "Christoph M. Becker"
<cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:

  <snip>
>Coming back to the topic of this thread: what I have learned in the past
>days is that c.l.js isn't worth reading anymore, due to an extremely bad
>SNR.

Yes, the continuous repetition of 'Use a real name' is quite
irritating.

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32154

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:09:54 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

[snip]

>Perhaps you think that because many people think the earth is flat,
>that reality is defined by such number?

     Perhaps you like putting words in people's mouths to win
arguments.  It does seem about the likeliest way to work for you.

     No.  It is that you have been quoting this:

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, 
it is time to pause and reflect."
[Mark Twain]

     Just because a lot of people think something does not make them
wrong (or right).

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32155

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 09 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:09:54 +0100, "Evertjan."
> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>Perhaps you think that because many people think the earth is flat,
>>that reality is defined by such number?
> 
>      Perhaps you like putting words in people's mouths to win
> arguments. 

Not so, because I do not want to win arguments.

For me "argument" as a stand in a discussion, and I like to discuss, but do 
not have an argument with you.

>>Perhaps you think that because many people think the earth is flat,
>>that reality is defined by such number?

Where did I put words into your mouth? I gave a theoretical example for that 
PERHAPS you would think something, and that is NOT the same as putting words 
into your mouth. 

> It does seem about the likeliest way to work for you.

What does? You do not make sense, imho.

 
>      No.  It is that you have been quoting this:
> 
> "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, 
> it is time to pause and reflect."
> [Mark Twain]
> 
>      Just because a lot of people think something does not make them
> wrong (or right).

You seem[!!! not putting words into your mouth] to misunderstand Mark 
Twain's excellent observation by applying the illicit negative falacy.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_conclusion_from_a_negative_premis
e>

He observed, and trightly so, that is is so easy to think that the majority 
is right, meaning that they know best what reality is.


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32076

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 21:52:45 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 03 Jan 2017 in
>comp.lang.javascript: 
>
>> On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 19:50:01 +0100, "Evertjan."
>> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>> 
>>   <snip>
>>>Thanking for agreeing with an ad-hominem attack is something else, and 
>> that 
>>>is because such ad-hominem attacks are part of the recognized logical 
>>>fallacies.
>> 
>> Evertjan, please stop using ad hominem to mean a statement of the form
>>   Person X is bad
>> then claiming that it's a logical fallacy. It isn't. To be a fallacy
>> there has to be a deduction, e.g 
>>   Person X is bad; *therefore* X is wrong.
>
>No, I will not.
>
>Thomasses behavour, his style, his person, is attacked as though his 
>knowledge, arguments, and ideas are lacking.

     His arguments are lacking.  They have curves in them.  That makes
them rather difficult to learn from.

>THAT is the at-hominem falacy in it utmost glory.
             ^^^^^^^^^^
     The correct spelling is "ad hominem fallacy".

     I attack that his arguments are lacking.  I am not attacking the
person.  It is the antithesis of ad hominem.

>THAT is the conversion of attacking someone's argument to attacking 
>someone's person, 
>
>and THAT is what is falacious.
                     ^^^^^^^^^
     The correct spelling is "fallacious".

     But since I keep mentioning his arguments having curves, I am not
engaging in ad hominem.

     It is a pity that you have glommed onto the term "ad hominem" so
tightly.  It does not mean quite what you think it does.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web