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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #20949 > unrolled thread

require.js in a phantomjs test fails for code that works fine in production

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

Contents

  require.js in a phantomjs test fails for code that works fine in production David Karr <davidmichaelkarr@gmail.com> - 2013-08-13 16:29 -0700
    Re: require.js in a phantomjs test fails for code that works fine in production "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2013-08-13 16:52 -0700
      Re: require.js in a phantomjs test fails for code that works fine in production David Karr <davidmichaelkarr@gmail.com> - 2013-08-13 17:27 -0700
    Re: require.js in a phantomjs test fails for code that works fine in production Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-08-14 11:24 +0200
      Re: require.js in a phantomjs test fails for code that works fine in production John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-08-14 14:48 +0100
        Re: require.js in a phantomjs test fails for code that works fine in production Jim T. <x@y.z> - 2013-08-14 14:32 -0400
          Re: require.js in a phantomjs test fails for code that works fine in production Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-08-14 19:43 +0100
        Re: require.js in a phantomjs test fails for code that works fine in production Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2013-08-15 18:51 -0300
        Re: require.js in a phantomjs test fails for code that works fine in production Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-08-16 02:28 +0200
          Re: require.js in a phantomjs test fails for code that works fine in production Martin Leese <please@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID> - 2013-08-15 20:12 -0600
          Re: require.js in a phantomjs test fails for code that works fine in production John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-08-16 11:29 +0100
            c.l.js (was: require.js in a phantomjs test fails for code that works fine in production) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-08-16 23:57 +0200
              Re: c.l.js Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-08-18 10:17 +0200
                Re: c.l.js John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-08-18 15:14 +0100
              Re: c.l.js (was: require.js in a phantomjs test fails for code that works fine in production) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-08-18 15:51 +0100
                Re: c.l.js Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-08-18 17:14 +0200
                  Re: c.l.js Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-08-18 16:44 +0100
                    Re: c.l.js Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-08-18 17:52 +0200
                      Re: c.l.js Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-08-18 19:28 +0200
                      Re: c.l.js John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-08-19 15:42 +0100
                        Re: c.l.js Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-20 06:58 +1000
                          Re: c.l.js John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-08-20 16:10 +0100
                            Re: c.l.js Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-21 07:55 +1000
                              [OT] How to find messages by ID (was: c.l.js) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-08-21 06:47 +0200
                                Re: [OT] How to find messages by ID (was: c.l.js) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-08-21 15:50 +0100
                                  Re: [OT] How to find messages by ID (was: c.l.js) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-08-21 23:13 +0200
                                    Re: [OT] How to find messages by ID (was: c.l.js) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-08-22 11:05 +0100
                                      Quoting in c.l.js (was: [OT] How to find messages by ID) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-08-22 15:06 +0200
                                        Re: Quoting in c.l.js (was: [OT] How to find messages by ID) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-08-24 10:05 +0100
                                          Re: Quoting in c.l.js Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-09-01 22:32 +0200
                                            Re: Quoting in c.l.js Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-09-02 00:08 +0200
                                              Re: Quoting in c.l.js John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-09-02 15:52 +0100
                        Re: c.l.js Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-08-20 01:06 +0200
                          Re: c.l.js John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-08-20 16:14 +0100
                  Re: c.l.js John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-08-19 16:07 +0100
                    Re: c.l.js Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-20 07:01 +1000
                      Re: c.l.js John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-08-20 16:20 +0100
                        Re: c.l.js Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-21 08:02 +1000
                          Re: c.l.js Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-08-20 23:29 +0100
                            Re: c.l.js Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-21 14:59 +1000
                              Re: c.l.js John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-08-21 16:05 +0100
                                Re: c.l.js Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-22 07:43 +1000
          [FAQ] “javascript” (was: require.js in a phantomjs test fails for code that works fine in production) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-08-18 11:36 +0200
    Re: require.js in a phantomjs test fails for code that works fine in production Carlos Pedro <carlospedr@gmail.com> - 2013-08-15 04:28 -0700
    Re: require.js in a phantomjs test fails for code that works fine in production richarduie@yahoo.com - 2013-08-18 08:21 -0700

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

#20996 — Re: c.l.js

On 20/08/2013 12:42 AM, John Harris wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:52:17 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
>
>    <snip>
>> Your newsreader should be able to tell you when the message was written
>> (if you need this information at all).  And it will tell you more
>> occasionally interesting information, when you inspect the source code
>> of the message (for instance, the message ID).
>
> Thomas wrote :
>> There is nothing pedantic or anti-social about
>> telling people the truth.
>
> Now tell me when he said it, and the message ID. How long did it take
> you to find out ?

Who/what you're asking about is unclear but it takes me 2 or 3 seconds 
to find message IDs.

Andrew Poulos

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

#21011 — Re: c.l.js

On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 06:58:49 +1000, Andrew Poulos
<ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 20/08/2013 12:42 AM, John Harris wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:52:17 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
>> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
>>
>>    <snip>
>>> Your newsreader should be able to tell you when the message was written
>>> (if you need this information at all).  And it will tell you more
>>> occasionally interesting information, when you inspect the source code
>>> of the message (for instance, the message ID).
>>
>> Thomas wrote :
>>> There is nothing pedantic or anti-social about
>>> telling people the truth.
>>
>> Now tell me when he said it, and the message ID. How long did it take
>> you to find out ?
>
>Who/what you're asking about is unclear but it takes me 2 or 3 seconds 
>to find message IDs.

Google doesn't find the article I quoted from. How did you find it?

  John

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

#21014 — Re: c.l.js

On 21/08/2013 1:10 AM, John Harris wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 06:58:49 +1000, Andrew Poulos
> <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20/08/2013 12:42 AM, John Harris wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:52:17 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
>>> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>     <snip>
>>>> Your newsreader should be able to tell you when the message was written
>>>> (if you need this information at all).  And it will tell you more
>>>> occasionally interesting information, when you inspect the source code
>>>> of the message (for instance, the message ID).
>>>
>>> Thomas wrote :
>>>> There is nothing pedantic or anti-social about
>>>> telling people the truth.
>>>
>>> Now tell me when he said it, and the message ID. How long did it take
>>> you to find out ?
>>
>> Who/what you're asking about is unclear but it takes me 2 or 3 seconds
>> to find message IDs.
>
> Google doesn't find the article I quoted from. How did you find it?

Hmm, I use Mozilla Thunderbird to read newsgroups and I just click
  Other Actions > View Source

Andrew Poulos

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

#21018 — [OT] How to find messages by ID (was: c.l.js)

Andrew Poulos wrote:

> On 21/08/2013 1:10 AM, John Harris wrote:
>> Andrew Poulos wrote:
>>> Who/what you're asking about is unclear but it takes me 2 or 3 seconds
>>> to find message IDs.
>>
>> Google doesn't find the article I quoted from. How did you find it?
> 
> Hmm, I use Mozilla Thunderbird to read newsgroups and I just click
>   Other Actions > View Source

Other people might find it under View → “Message Source”, or just press 
Ctrl+U.

However: <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/thunderbird/addon/mnenhy/>

HTH

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#21020 — Re: [OT] How to find messages by ID (was: c.l.js)

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 06:47:31 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>Andrew Poulos wrote:
>
>> On 21/08/2013 1:10 AM, John Harris wrote:
>>> Andrew Poulos wrote:
>>>> Who/what you're asking about is unclear but it takes me 2 or 3 seconds
>>>> to find message IDs.
>>>
>>> Google doesn't find the article I quoted from. How did you find it?
>> 
>> Hmm, I use Mozilla Thunderbird to read newsgroups and I just click
>>   Other Actions > View Source
>
>Other people might find it under View ? “Message Source”, or just press 
>Ctrl+U.
>
>However: <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/thunderbird/addon/mnenhy/>

Both you and Andrew are missing the point. Neither the date nor the ID
of the quotation

Thomas wrote 
>There is nothing pedantic or anti-social about 
>telling people the truth.

appear in this article, so doing View Source or equivalent is futile.

  John

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

#21022 — Re: [OT] How to find messages by ID (was: c.l.js)

John Harris wrote:

> Both you and Andrew are missing the point. Neither the date nor the ID
> of the quotation
> 
> Thomas wrote 
>> >There is nothing pedantic or anti-social about 
>> >telling people the truth.
> appear in this article, so doing View Source or equivalent is futile.

Indeed.  However, details about what is quoted by me here with a minimal
attribution line, can be looked up via the References header of the
message.  Therefore I wrote in
<5212a4ad$0$6567$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>:

| Well, isn't there a big difference between quoting (parts of) the
| replied message and quoting from somewhere else?

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

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

#21030 — Re: [OT] How to find messages by ID (was: c.l.js)

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 23:13:58 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
<cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:

>John Harris wrote:
>
>> Both you and Andrew are missing the point. Neither the date nor the ID
>> of the quotation
>> 
>> Thomas wrote 
>>> >There is nothing pedantic or anti-social about 
>>> >telling people the truth.
>> appear in this article, so doing View Source or equivalent is futile.
>
>Indeed.  However, details about what is quoted by me here with a minimal
>attribution line, can be looked up via the References header of the
>message.  Therefore I wrote in
><5212a4ad$0$6567$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>:
>
>| Well, isn't there a big difference between quoting (parts of) the
>| replied message and quoting from somewhere else?

But Thomas points to a de.* news hierarchy paper that allows no
exceptions to the rule that only the name is needed in attributions.

Perhaps you share my opinion that the paper is ill thought out and the
rule is badly designed.

  John

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

#21032 — Quoting in c.l.js (was: [OT] How to find messages by ID)

John Harris wrote:

> But Thomas points to a de.* news hierarchy paper that allows no
> exceptions to the rule that only the name is needed in attributions.
> 
> Perhaps you share my opinion that the paper is ill thought out and the
> rule is badly designed.

I'm not sure which one you mean.  [1] merely mentions that repeating the
message ID and the date (among others) in the attribution line is
superfluous.  [2] doesn't seem to mention attribution lines at all.

Anyway, this NG has its own FAQ[3] dealing with theses issues.  Even
though there are no explicit rules concerning attribution lines, all
examples in the section "Line Wrapping in Quoted Material"[4] just
mention the name (e.g. "An example OP wrote:").

[1] <http://www.kirchwitz.de/~amk/dni/netiquette>
[2] <http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html>
[3] <http://jibbering.com/faq/notes/posting/>
    <http://pointedears.de/scripts/faq/cljs/notes/posting/>
[4] <http://jibbering.com/faq/notes/posting/#ps1LwQu>
    <http://pointedears.de/scripts/faq/cljs/notes/posting/#ps1LwQu>

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

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

#21043 — Re: Quoting in c.l.js (was: [OT] How to find messages by ID)

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:06:53 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
<cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:

>John Harris wrote:
>
>> But Thomas points to a de.* news hierarchy paper that allows no
>> exceptions to the rule that only the name is needed in attributions.
>> 
>> Perhaps you share my opinion that the paper is ill thought out and the
>> rule is badly designed.
>
>I'm not sure which one you mean.  [1] merely mentions that repeating the
>message ID and the date (among others) in the attribution line is
>superfluous.  [2] doesn't seem to mention attribution lines at all.

  <snip>
>[2] <http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html>
  <snip>

You forgot to look at the table of contents. 

By the way [2] is the English version of the document Thomas pointed
to.

  John

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

#21140 — Re: Quoting in c.l.js

John Harris wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:06:53 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
> 
>> John Harris wrote:
>>
>>> But Thomas points to a de.* news hierarchy paper that allows no
>>> exceptions to the rule that only the name is needed in attributions.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you share my opinion that the paper is ill thought out and the
>>> rule is badly designed.
>>
>> I'm not sure which one you mean.  [1] merely mentions that repeating the
>> message ID and the date (among others) in the attribution line is
>> superfluous.  [2] doesn't seem to mention attribution lines at all.
> 
>   <snip>
>> [2] <http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html>
>   <snip>
> 
> You forgot to look at the table of contents. 

Indeed.

> By the way [2] is the English version of the document Thomas pointed
> to.

Well, the document[1] doesn't forbid to mention more than the poster's
name in the attribution line.  It merely explains, why further
specification is unnecessary.  What is not necessary, should better be
avoided, if it can be otherwise distracting, IMHO.

[1] <http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote1.html>
-- 
Christoph M. Becker

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

#21142 — Re: Quoting in c.l.js

Christoph Michael Becker wrote:

> John Harris wrote:
>> […] Christoph Michael Becker wrote:
>>> John Harris wrote:
>>>> But Thomas points to a de.* news hierarchy paper that allows no
>>>> exceptions to the rule that only the name is needed in attributions.
>> […]
>> By the way [2] is the English version of the document Thomas pointed
>> to.
> 
> Well, the document[1] doesn't forbid to mention more than the poster's
> name in the attribution line.  It merely explains, why further
> specification is unnecessary.  What is not necessary, should better be
> avoided, if it can be otherwise distracting, IMHO.
> 
> [1] <http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote1.html>

Exactly.  And the fact that a native speaker of English took the time to 
translate recommendations at first intended only for the German-*speaking* 
Usenet (with known participants, probably readers too, from Germany, 
Austria, Switzerland, and other parts of the world) into English indicates 
that they hold some significance for Big-8 newsgroups as well (where English 
is the prevalent language, as we can see right now).

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#21144 — Re: Quoting in c.l.js

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 00:08:41 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>Christoph Michael Becker wrote:
>
>> John Harris wrote:
>>> […] Christoph Michael Becker wrote:
>>>> John Harris wrote:
>>>>> But Thomas points to a de.* news hierarchy paper that allows no
>>>>> exceptions to the rule that only the name is needed in attributions.
>>> […]
>>> By the way [2] is the English version of the document Thomas pointed
>>> to.
>> 
>> Well, the document[1] doesn't forbid to mention more than the poster's
>> name in the attribution line.  It merely explains, why further
>> specification is unnecessary.  What is not necessary, should better be
>> avoided, if it can be otherwise distracting, IMHO.
>> 
>> [1] <http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote1.html>
>
>Exactly.  And the fact that a native speaker of English took the time to 
>translate recommendations at first intended only for the German-*speaking* 
>Usenet (with known participants, probably readers too, from Germany, 
>Austria, Switzerland, and other parts of the world) into English indicates 
>that they hold some significance for Big-8 newsgroups as well (where English 
>is the prevalent language, as we can see right now).

On the other hand, the uk.* people are much more permissive, as
witness

  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01>

section 3.2.2.1 where it says 

"The attribution MAY contain also a single <newsgroup-name> (the one
from which the followup is being made), the precursor's message
identifier and/or the precursor's Date and Time."

  John

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

#20999 — Re: c.l.js

John Harris wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:52:17 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
> 
>   <snip>
>> Your newsreader should be able to tell you when the message was written
>> (if you need this information at all).  And it will tell you more
>> occasionally interesting information, when you inspect the source code
>> of the message (for instance, the message ID).
> 
> Thomas wrote :
>> There is nothing pedantic or anti-social about 
>> telling people the truth.
> 
> Now tell me when he said it, and the message ID. How long did it take
> you to find out ?

Well, isn't there a big difference between quoting (parts of) the
replied message and quoting from somewhere else?  If not--why don't your
attribution lines contain the message ID?

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

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

#21012 — Re: c.l.js

On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 01:06:41 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
<cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:

>John Harris wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:52:17 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
>> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
>> 
>>   <snip>
>>> Your newsreader should be able to tell you when the message was written
>>> (if you need this information at all).  And it will tell you more
>>> occasionally interesting information, when you inspect the source code
>>> of the message (for instance, the message ID).
>> 
>> Thomas wrote :
>>> There is nothing pedantic or anti-social about 
>>> telling people the truth.
>> 
>> Now tell me when he said it, and the message ID. How long did it take
>> you to find out ?
>
>Well, isn't there a big difference between quoting (parts of) the
>replied message and quoting from somewhere else?  

No, there isn't.


>If not--why don't your
>attribution lines contain the message ID?

Thomas says it's forbidden.

  John

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

#20995 — Re: c.l.js

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:14:27 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
<cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:

>John Harris wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 23:57:20 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
>> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> Even if Thomas' answer didn't address the OP's alleged problem, it did
>>> give valuable hints about the posted code, the usage of the name
>>> "javascript" and posting via Google Groups.
>>   <snip>
>> 
>> So you seriously believe that
>> It is absolutely forbidden to use Google to post to this news group;
>> It is forbidden to use a uk.*-approved attribution in this news group;
>> It is forbidden to use pen names when posting to this news group.
>
>No, I don't think that it's forbidden (and I didn't say so).  But one
>should be aware that posting via Google groups is likely to produce
>messages that are hard to read and even harder to reply to, 

Thomas has said very firmly that you mustn't use Google, so you are
disagreeing with him. That makes you a troll and an idiot, he has
said, too often.


>and that
>using lengthy attributions may not be useful.  

Two physical lines is not excessive, but a 1kB header is (see any
Thomas article). 


>For me it's fine if one
>uses a pen name, but the email address should be valid (for the purpose
>to reply to the sender directly).
  <snip>

Again, you are disagreeing with Thomas.

  John

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

#20997 — Re: c.l.js

On 20/08/2013 1:07 AM, John Harris wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:14:27 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
>
>> John Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 23:57:20 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
>>> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even if Thomas' answer didn't address the OP's alleged problem, it did
>>>> give valuable hints about the posted code, the usage of the name
>>>> "javascript" and posting via Google Groups.
>>>    <snip>
>>>
>>> So you seriously believe that
>>> It is absolutely forbidden to use Google to post to this news group;
>>> It is forbidden to use a uk.*-approved attribution in this news group;
>>> It is forbidden to use pen names when posting to this news group.
>>
>> No, I don't think that it's forbidden (and I didn't say so).  But one
>> should be aware that posting via Google groups is likely to produce
>> messages that are hard to read and even harder to reply to,
>
> Thomas has said very firmly that you mustn't use Google, so you are
> disagreeing with him. That makes you a troll and an idiot, he has
> said, too often.

You certainly like a stretch to try and cause distress to others.

Andrew Poulos

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

#21013 — Re: c.l.js

On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:01:00 +1000, Andrew Poulos
<ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 20/08/2013 1:07 AM, John Harris wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:14:27 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
>> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
>>
>>> John Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 23:57:20 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
>>>> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Even if Thomas' answer didn't address the OP's alleged problem, it did
>>>>> give valuable hints about the posted code, the usage of the name
>>>>> "javascript" and posting via Google Groups.
>>>>    <snip>
>>>>
>>>> So you seriously believe that
>>>> It is absolutely forbidden to use Google to post to this news group;
>>>> It is forbidden to use a uk.*-approved attribution in this news group;
>>>> It is forbidden to use pen names when posting to this news group.
>>>
>>> No, I don't think that it's forbidden (and I didn't say so).  But one
>>> should be aware that posting via Google groups is likely to produce
>>> messages that are hard to read and even harder to reply to,
>>
>> Thomas has said very firmly that you mustn't use Google, so you are
>> disagreeing with him. That makes you a troll and an idiot, he has
>> said, too often.
>
>You certainly like a stretch to try and cause distress to others.

I don't know what you mean by "stretch", but if you mean exaggerate
then you've not remembered what Thomas has been saying over the last
year or so.

  John

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

#21015 — Re: c.l.js

On 21/08/2013 1:20 AM, John Harris wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:01:00 +1000, Andrew Poulos
> <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20/08/2013 1:07 AM, John Harris wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:14:27 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
>>> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 23:57:20 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
>>>>> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if Thomas' answer didn't address the OP's alleged problem, it did
>>>>>> give valuable hints about the posted code, the usage of the name
>>>>>> "javascript" and posting via Google Groups.
>>>>>     <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you seriously believe that
>>>>> It is absolutely forbidden to use Google to post to this news group;
>>>>> It is forbidden to use a uk.*-approved attribution in this news group;
>>>>> It is forbidden to use pen names when posting to this news group.
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't think that it's forbidden (and I didn't say so).  But one
>>>> should be aware that posting via Google groups is likely to produce
>>>> messages that are hard to read and even harder to reply to,
>>>
>>> Thomas has said very firmly that you mustn't use Google, so you are
>>> disagreeing with him. That makes you a troll and an idiot, he has
>>> said, too often.
>>
>> You certainly like a stretch to try and cause distress to others.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "stretch", but if you mean exaggerate
> then you've not remembered what Thomas has been saying over the last
> year or so.

As far as I can tell Thomas has never forbidden anyone from doing 
anything (he can't as its an unmoderated newsgroup). In fact, you 
yourself stated that "Thomas has said very firmly that you mustn't 
use..." so to me the intent of your email was to cause distress.

Andrew Poulos

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

#21016 — Re: c.l.js

In article <Iqqdnaor6_oWeo7PnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@westnet.com.au>,
 Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 21/08/2013 1:20 AM, John Harris wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:01:00 +1000, Andrew Poulos
> > <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 20/08/2013 1:07 AM, John Harris wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:14:27 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
> >>> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> John Harris wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 23:57:20 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
> >>>>> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Even if Thomas' answer didn't address the OP's alleged problem, it did
> >>>>>> give valuable hints about the posted code, the usage of the name
> >>>>>> "javascript" and posting via Google Groups.
> >>>>>     <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So you seriously believe that
> >>>>> It is absolutely forbidden to use Google to post to this news group;
> >>>>> It is forbidden to use a uk.*-approved attribution in this news group;
> >>>>> It is forbidden to use pen names when posting to this news group.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, I don't think that it's forbidden (and I didn't say so).  But one
> >>>> should be aware that posting via Google groups is likely to produce
> >>>> messages that are hard to read and even harder to reply to,
> >>>
> >>> Thomas has said very firmly that you mustn't use Google, so you are
> >>> disagreeing with him. That makes you a troll and an idiot, he has
> >>> said, too often.
> >>
> >> You certainly like a stretch to try and cause distress to others.
> >
> > I don't know what you mean by "stretch", but if you mean exaggerate
> > then you've not remembered what Thomas has been saying over the last
> > year or so.
> 
> As far as I can tell Thomas has never forbidden anyone from doing 
> anything (he can't as its an unmoderated newsgroup). In fact, you 
> yourself stated that "Thomas has said very firmly that you mustn't 
> use..." so to me the intent of your email was to cause distress.

No, that's the intent of such posts from Thomas PointyHead. He takes it 
upon himself to tell other people what to do.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

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

#21019 — Re: c.l.js

On 21/08/2013 8:29 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <Iqqdnaor6_oWeo7PnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@westnet.com.au>,
> Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21/08/2013 1:20 AM, John Harris wrote:
>> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:01:00 +1000, Andrew Poulos
>> > <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 20/08/2013 1:07 AM, John Harris wrote:
>> >>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:14:27 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
>> >>> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> John Harris wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 23:57:20 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
>> >>>>> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Even if Thomas' answer didn't address the OP's alleged problem,
>> it did
>> >>>>>> give valuable hints about the posted code, the usage of the name
>> >>>>>> "javascript" and posting via Google Groups.
>> >>>>>     <snip>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So you seriously believe that
>> >>>>> It is absolutely forbidden to use Google to post to this news
>> group;
>> >>>>> It is forbidden to use a uk.*-approved attribution in this news
>> group;
>> >>>>> It is forbidden to use pen names when posting to this news group.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> No, I don't think that it's forbidden (and I didn't say so).  But
>> one
>> >>>> should be aware that posting via Google groups is likely to produce
>> >>>> messages that are hard to read and even harder to reply to,
>> >>>
>> >>> Thomas has said very firmly that you mustn't use Google, so you are
>> >>> disagreeing with him. That makes you a troll and an idiot, he has
>> >>> said, too often.
>> >>
>> >> You certainly like a stretch to try and cause distress to others.
>> >
>> > I don't know what you mean by "stretch", but if you mean exaggerate
>> > then you've not remembered what Thomas has been saying over the last
>> > year or so.
>>
>> As far as I can tell Thomas has never forbidden anyone from doing
>> anything (he can't as its an unmoderated newsgroup). In fact, you
>> yourself stated that "Thomas has said very firmly that you mustn't
>> use..." so to me the intent of your email was to cause distress.
>
> No, that's the intent of such posts from Thomas PointyHead. He takes it
> upon himself to tell other people what to do.

Wrong. Telling people what to do is in itself not a bad thing. Passing 
on criticism you may have received as criticism others would also 
receive is, in this case, disingenuous.

BTW calling people names is puerile.

Andrew Poulos

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

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

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

csiph-web