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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #19741 > unrolled thread

Test2

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

Contents

  Test2 workmail123456@gmail.com - 2013-05-13 01:07 -0700
    Re: Test2 Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-05-13 08:40 -0700
      Re: Test2 Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-05-14 17:39 +0100
        Re: Test2 Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-05-14 15:56 -0700
        Re: Test2 Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2013-05-15 09:30 +1000
          Re: Test2 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-05-15 11:42 -0700
            Re: Test2 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-05-15 22:16 +0100
              Re: Test2 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-05-16 09:49 -0700
            Re: Test2 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2013-05-15 23:47 +0200
              Re: Test2 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-05-16 09:48 -0700
                Re: Test2 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2013-05-16 21:55 +0200
                  Re: Test2 Mike Duffy <Use.web.form@website_in_sig.com> - 2013-05-16 21:29 +0000

#19741 — Test2

Test2, sorry I need to do one more.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#19744

On 5/13/13 1:07 AM, workmail123456@gmail.com wrote:
> Test2, sorry I need to do one more.
There is a newsgroup specifically designed for receiving test posts. 
alt.test

Testing anywhere else is a failure of etiquette.

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

#19748

In comp.lang.javascript message <lP7kt.15779$iY4.1409@newsfe13.iad>,
Mon, 13 May 2013 08:40:03, Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinit
y.net> posted:

>On 5/13/13 1:07 AM, workmail123456@gmail.com wrote:
>> Test2, sorry I need to do one more.
>There is a newsgroup specifically designed for receiving test posts.
>alt.test
>
>Testing anywhere else is a failure of etiquette.


You are being unreasonably rude to a newcomer: we do not need another
TL.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, nr London UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
   Web <http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
   Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> :  about usage of News.
 No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.

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

#19749

On 5/14/13 9:39 AM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In comp.lang.javascript message <lP7kt.15779$iY4.1409@newsfe13.iad>,
> Mon, 13 May 2013 08:40:03, Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinit
> y.net> posted:
>
>> On 5/13/13 1:07 AM, workmail123456@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Test2, sorry I need to do one more.
>> There is a newsgroup specifically designed for receiving test posts.
>> alt.test
>>
>> Testing anywhere else is a failure of etiquette.
>
>
> You are being unreasonably rude to a newcomer: we do not need another
> TL.
Perhaps you couldn't see my friendly smile through the electrons 
transmitting my message, but I wasn't being rude. Just exact and specific.

It *is* against etiquette to post test messages to a discussion group. I 
merely stated that and pointed the "newcomer" to a more appropriate 
group to post such tests.

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

#19751

On 15/05/2013 2:39 AM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In comp.lang.javascript message <lP7kt.15779$iY4.1409@newsfe13.iad>,
> Mon, 13 May 2013 08:40:03, Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinit
> y.net> posted:
>
>> On 5/13/13 1:07 AM, workmail123456@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Test2, sorry I need to do one more.
>> There is a newsgroup specifically designed for receiving test posts.
>> alt.test
>>
>> Testing anywhere else is a failure of etiquette.
>
>
> You are being unreasonably rude to a newcomer: we do not need another
> TL.

So what does "reasonably rude" mean?

In fact this group needs more people with the level of knowledge that TL 
has.

Andrew Poulos

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

#19754

On Wed, 15 May 2013 09:30:10 +1000, Andrew Poulos
<ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 15/05/2013 2:39 AM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

[snip]

>> You are being unreasonably rude to a newcomer: we do not need another
>> TL.
>
>So what does "reasonably rude" mean?

     "unreasonably rude" is being unreasonable and rude.

>In fact this group needs more people with the level of knowledge that TL 
>has.

     Yes, but with a much better UI.  The one we have is very rude.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#19755

In article <aml7p8pg54k0tdl3dp3csdofak6g6tdvoa@4ax.com>,
 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 May 2013 09:30:10 +1000, Andrew Poulos
> <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On 15/05/2013 2:39 AM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >> You are being unreasonably rude to a newcomer: we do not need another
> >> TL.
> >
> >So what does "reasonably rude" mean?
> 
>      "unreasonably rude" is being unreasonable and rude.
> 
> >In fact this group needs more people with the level of knowledge that TL 
> >has.
> 
>      Yes, but with a much better UI.  The one we have is very rude.

A very polite and restrained way of putting it.

-- 
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]

#19767

On Wed, 15 May 2013 22:16:33 +0100, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

>In article <aml7p8pg54k0tdl3dp3csdofak6g6tdvoa@4ax.com>,
> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 09:30:10 +1000, Andrew Poulos
>> <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> >In fact this group needs more people with the level of knowledge that TL 
>> >has.
>> 
>>      Yes, but with a much better UI.  The one we have is very rude.
>
>A very polite and restrained way of putting it.

     Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#19756

Gene Wirchenko wrote on 15 mei 2013 in comp.lang.javascript:

>>So what does "reasonably rude" mean?
> 
>      "unreasonably rude" is being unreasonable and rude.

It does not.

That does only mean that the stated rudeness is unreasonable.

It precludes as being part of the statement any other unresonability,
[for instance any unreasonable kindness,]
as well as any reasonable rudeness.

I think that one can reasonably reason about any rudeness,
and conclude that unreasonable rudeness cannot exist.

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

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

#19766

On Wed, 15 May 2013 23:47:34 +0200, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko wrote on 15 mei 2013 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>>>So what does "reasonably rude" mean?
>> 
>>      "unreasonably rude" is being unreasonable and rude.
>
>It does not.
>
>That does only mean that the stated rudeness is unreasonable.
>
>It precludes as being part of the statement any other unresonability,
>[for instance any unreasonable kindness,]
>as well as any reasonable rudeness.
>
>I think that one can reasonably reason about any rudeness,
>and conclude that unreasonable rudeness cannot exist.

     "reasonably" also means somewhat.  It is very easy to conflate
the two.

     It does exist.  There can be times when something normally rude
is acceptable.  (I am thinking of emergencies.)  It might be arguable
as to whether it is still rude.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#19768

Gene Wirchenko wrote on 16 mei 2013 in comp.lang.javascript:

> On Wed, 15 May 2013 23:47:34 +0200, "Evertjan."
> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> 
>>Gene Wirchenko wrote on 15 mei 2013 in comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>>>>So what does "reasonably rude" mean?
>>> 
>>>      "unreasonably rude" is being unreasonable and rude.
>>
>>It does not.
>>
>>That does only mean that the stated rudeness is unreasonable.
>>
>>It precludes as being part of the statement any other unresonability,
>>[for instance any unreasonable kindness,]
>>as well as any reasonable rudeness.
>>
>>I think that one can reasonably reason about any rudeness,
>>and conclude that unreasonable rudeness cannot exist.
> 
>      "reasonably" also means somewhat. 

Reasonably does mean more than nothing,
I would even say it means quite a lot.

> It is very easy to conflate the two.

Methinks that is an unreasonable assumption in this context.
I would certainly not conflate them, 
as it unarguably leads to unreasonable deflatory meaning.

>      It does exist.  There can be times when something normally rude
> is acceptable. 

Acceptability is a very subjective scale of measurement.
Why do you need to add "acceptable" in the argument?

> (I am thinking of emergencies.) 

Are you being distracted by the news on the telly?

> It might be arguable as to whether it is still rude.

So you are contradicting yourself: 
Rudeness being [more] acceptable in circumstances 
where rudeness is not rude? 

Do you reasonably think there is a difference between "arguable" and 
"reasonable"?


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

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

#19769

"Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote in 
news:XnsA1C2DF1C65D30eejj99@194.109.133.133:

> Do you reasonably think there is a difference between "arguable" and 
> "reasonable"?

Do you arguably think .....

-- 
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web