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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #31799 > unrolled thread

Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP)

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

Contents

  Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2016-12-11 09:48 -0800
    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Tim Slattery <tim@risingdove.com> - 2016-12-11 13:48 -0500
      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-11 21:47 +0100
        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-12 10:40 +0000
        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-12 20:31 +0000
          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-12-12 21:46 +0000
          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-13 13:51 +0100
            Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-13 14:58 +0000
              Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-13 20:23 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-14 16:42 +0000
                  Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-14 19:26 +0100
                    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-15 14:36 +0000
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-14 16:52 +0000
                  Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-14 19:27 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-15 14:48 +0000
                  Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-15 16:16 +0100
                    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-15 09:28 -0800
                      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-16 09:07 +0100
                        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-16 09:06 -0800
                          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-17 00:33 +0100
                    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-16 10:47 +0000
                      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-16 17:12 +0100
                    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-17 20:40 +0000
                      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-18 10:45 +0100
                        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-19 19:15 +0000
                          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-20 13:13 +1100
                            Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-20 11:39 +0100
                              Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-21 07:03 +1100
                                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-21 00:07 +0100
                                  Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-02 03:55 +0000
                                    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-02 12:26 +0100
                                      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-02 22:39 +1100
                                        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-02 12:48 +0100
                                      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-02 11:42 +0000
                                        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-02 12:53 +0100
                                          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-03 12:02 +1100
                                            Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-03 11:36 +0100
                          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-20 11:37 +0100
                      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-19 09:43 -0800
                        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-19 19:55 +0100
                          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-19 16:05 -0800
                            Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-20 11:28 +0100
                              Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-20 09:44 -0800
                                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-21 00:03 +0100
                                  Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-12-20 23:08 +0000
                                    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-21 10:03 +0100
                                  Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-20 15:24 -0800
                                    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-21 10:01 +0100
                                      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-21 10:20 -0800
                                        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-22 10:59 +0100
          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Tim Slattery <tim@risingdove.com> - 2016-12-13 11:04 -0500
            Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2016-12-13 16:16 +0000
              Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-13 17:26 +0100
              Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-02 03:58 +0000
    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-12-12 12:29 +0700
      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-12 16:12 +0100
    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2016-12-13 02:06 +0000
    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2016-12-14 09:33 -0800
      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2016-12-14 18:47 +0100
        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-14 22:07 +0100
      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-14 22:17 +0100

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

#31881

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:16:20 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 15 Dec 2016 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>> 
>>   <snip>
>>> Do you really want the ugliness of all the ad-hominem nonsense 
>>> you posted 
>>> here over the years exposed?  I don't think so.
>>   <snip>
>> 
>> Wrong. I'd be delighted. Unfortunately it seems that you don't know
>> what ad hominem is, so here is a little tutorial.
>> 
>> An example of an ad hominem argument would be
>>   You are a fool, *therefore* you are wrong.
>> 
>> An example that is not would be
>>   You are a fool *and* you are wrong.
>> This is not an ad hominem argument, simply because it is not an
>> argument. It is a plain statement. It is possibly a minority opinion,
>> possibly malicious, or, indeed, possibly the opinion of nearly
>> everyone. 
>
>Wrong! 
>
>You cannot define something by examples.

Well, I did say it was a *little* tutorial :-)

  John

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

#31884

John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 16 Dec 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:16:20 +0100, "Evertjan."
> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> 
>>John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 15 Dec 2016 in 
>>comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>>> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>>   <snip>
>>>> Do you really want the ugliness of all the ad-hominem nonsense 
>>>> you posted 
>>>> here over the years exposed?  I don't think so.
>>>   <snip>
>>> 
>>> Wrong. I'd be delighted. Unfortunately it seems that you don't know
>>> what ad hominem is, so here is a little tutorial.
>>> 
>>> An example of an ad hominem argument would be
>>>   You are a fool, *therefore* you are wrong.
>>> 
>>> An example that is not would be
>>>   You are a fool *and* you are wrong.
>>> This is not an ad hominem argument, simply because it is not an
>>> argument. It is a plain statement. It is possibly a minority opinion,
>>> possibly malicious, or, indeed, possibly the opinion of nearly
>>> everyone. 
>>
>>Wrong! 
>>
>>You cannot define something by examples.
> 
> Well, I did say it was a *little* tutorial :-)

ACK.


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

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

#31890

In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA6DFA5882E690eejj99@194.109.6.166>,
Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:16:20, Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
posted:

>A [good, imho] definition of "ad hominem" is:
>
>Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to
>undermine their argument.

Does that agree with
        <https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem> ?

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ¬@merlyn.demon.co.uk   Turnpike v6.05   MIME.
 Merlyn Web Site <                       > - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.

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

#31894

Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote on 17 Dec 2016 
in comp.lang.javascript:

> In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA6DFA5882E690eejj99@194.109.6.166>,
> Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:16:20, Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
> posted:
> 
>>A [good, imho] definition of "ad hominem" is:
>>
>>Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to
>>undermine their argument.
> 
> Does that agree with
>         <https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem> ?

Does it?

Should it [need to be]?


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

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

#31908

In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA6E26D806DA37eejj99@194.109.6.166>,
Sun, 18 Dec 2016 10:45:51, Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
posted:

>Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote on 17 Dec 2016
>in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA6DFA5882E690eejj99@194.109.6.166>,
>> Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:16:20, Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
>> posted:
>>
>>>A [good, imho] definition of "ad hominem" is:
>>>
>>>Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to
>>>undermine their argument.
>>
>> Does that agree with
>>         <https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem> ?
>
>Does it?
>
>Should it [need to be]?

Certainly it should agree, and modern usage should agree with the
original.  The expression should not be misused in the way that
"decimated" now is by /hoi polloi/.  But ISTR that your Latin is better
than mine.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ¬@merlyn.demon.co.uk   Turnpike v6.05   MIME.
 Merlyn Web Site <                       > - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.

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

#31910

On 20/12/2016 6:15 AM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

> Certainly it should agree, and modern usage should agree with the
> original.  The expression should not be misused in the way that
> "decimated" now is by /hoi polloi/.

"Hoi polloi" actually means "the majority" but I suspect you're using it 
to mean "the many".

Andrew Poulos

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

#31916

Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote on 20 Dec 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> "Hoi polloi" actually means "the majority" but I suspect you're using it 
> to mean "the many".

You are wrong, it isn't Swahili, in Greek it means "the many".

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

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

#31922

On 20/12/2016 9:39 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
> Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote on 20 Dec 2016 in
> comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> "Hoi polloi" actually means "the majority" but I suspect you're using it
>> to mean "the many".
>
> You are wrong, it isn't Swahili, in Greek it means "the many".
>
When hoi polloi is used in English it can have other meanings as well 
including "ordinary people", "the common people", "multitude", "the 
masses", "the snobby elite"...

Andrew Poulos

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

#31927

Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote on 20 Dec 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On 20/12/2016 9:39 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
>> Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote on 20 Dec 2016 in
>> comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>>> "Hoi polloi" actually means "the majority" but I suspect you're using it
>>> to mean "the many".
>>
>> You are wrong, it isn't Swahili, in Greek it means "the many".
>>
> When hoi polloi is used in English it can have other meanings as well 
> including "ordinary people", "the common people", "multitude", "the 
> masses", "the snobby elite"...

"Used in English" does not mean "actually means".

There are many foreign frases that are misused in English by miniglots.

How is your Swahili, btw?

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

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

#32046

Evertjan. wrote:
> Andrew Poulos wrot:

>> When hoi polloi is used in English it can have other meanings as well
>> including "ordinary people", "the common people", "multitude", "the
>> masses", "the snobby elite"...
 
> "Used in English" does not mean "actually means".
> 
> There are many foreign frases that are misused in English by miniglots.

I believe this is incorrect.  English borrows heavily from other 
languages.  There are so many that it's hard to even begin counting, but 
obviously French, Latin, Greek, German, and Yiddish have all had strong 
influences.

The fact that a word or phrase originally found in another language has 
made its way into English does not imply that it must have the same 
meaning in English that it did there.  Presumably there would be a 
historical trail one might trace from one meaning to the next, but the 
changes could be drastic; the current meaning(s) in English might be far 
from, or even contrary to the meaning(s) in the original language.

Fighting against this is attempting to hold language static, when in 
truth it is ever-changing.

  -- Scott

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

#32048

Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> wrote on 02 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> Evertjan. wrote:
>> Andrew Poulos wrot:
> 
>>> When hoi polloi is used in English it can have other 
meanings as well
>>> including "ordinary people", "the common people", 
"multitude", "the
>>> masses", "the snobby elite"...
>  
>> "Used in English" does not mean "actually means".
>> 
>> There are many foreign frases that are misused in English 
by miniglots.
> 
> I believe this is incorrect.  English borrows heavily from 
other 
> languages.  There are so many that it's hard to even begin 
counting, but 
> obviously French, Latin, Greek, German, and Yiddish have 
all had strong 
> influences.
> 
> The fact that a word or phrase originally found in another 
language has 
> made its way into English does not imply that it must have 
the same 
> meaning in English that it did there.  Presumably there 
would be a 
> historical trail one might trace from one meaning to the 
next, but the 
> changes could be drastic; the current meaning(s) in English 
might be far 
> from, or even contrary to the meaning(s) in the original 
language.
> 
> Fighting against this is attempting to hold language 
static, when in 
> truth it is ever-changing.

While it might be futile to fight against misuse, 
that certainly does not imply there is no misuse.

Methinks even the word "fighting" is misused here, as so 
often, where it is wrongly considered to be brave, and so 
good.

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

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

#32049

On 2/01/2017 10:26 PM, Evertjan. wrote:

> Methinks even the word "fighting" is misused here, as so
> often, where it is wrongly considered to be brave, and so
> good.

The meaning of the word "fighting" does not need to include a sense of 
violence. It can just mean a prolonged effort giving little result (for 
the amount of effort involved).

Andrew Poulos

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

#32051

Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote on 02 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On 2/01/2017 10:26 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
> 
>> Methinks even the word "fighting" is misused here, as so
>> often, where it is wrongly considered to be brave, and so
>> good.
> 
> The meaning of the word "fighting" does not need to include a sense of 
> violence. It can just mean a prolonged effort giving little result (for 
> the amount of effort involved).

Which is often intended and often has disastrous effects.

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

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

#32050

In article <XnsA6F17E883481eejj99@194.109.6.166>, Evertjan.
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>While it might be futile to fight against misuse, 
>that certainly does not imply there is no misuse.
>
>Methinks even the word "fighting" is misused here, as so 
>often, where it is wrongly considered to be brave, and so 
>good.

When English appropriates a word from another language or culture, its
meaning becomes, in the long run, what mother-tongue-English speakers
say it means.

-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.

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

#32052

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote on 02 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> In article <XnsA6F17E883481eejj99@194.109.6.166>, Evertjan.
> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> 
>>While it might be futile to fight against misuse, 
>>that certainly does not imply there is no misuse.
>>
>>Methinks even the word "fighting" is misused here, as so 
>>often, where it is wrongly considered to be brave, and so 
>>good.
> 
> When English appropriates a word from another language or culture, its
> meaning becomes, in the long run, what mother-tongue-English speakers
> say it means.

Well, such plattitude would make "misuse" to be incorrect every time.

Most "mother-tongue-English speakers" are living in India, I presume.

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

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

#32058

On 2/01/2017 10:53 PM, Evertjan. wrote:

> Most "mother-tongue-English speakers" are living in India, I presume.

Man, they do love the sound of leather on willow.

Andrew Poulos

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

#32062

Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote on 03 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On 2/01/2017 10:53 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
> 
>> Most "mother-tongue-English speakers" are living in India, I presume.
> 
> Man, they 

"They"?

> do love the sound of leather on willow.

"Willow on leather" might be better,
as felt by the batsman.

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

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

#31915

Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote on 19 Dec
2016 in comp.lang.javascript: 

> In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA6E26D806DA37eejj99@194.109.6.166>,
> Sun, 18 Dec 2016 10:45:51, Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
> posted:
> 
>>Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote on 17 Dec
>>2016 in comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>>> In comp.lang.javascript message
>>> <XnsA6DFA5882E690eejj99@194.109.6.166>, Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:16:20,
>>> Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> posted:
>>>
>>>>A [good, imho] definition of "ad hominem" is:
>>>>
>>>>Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt
>>>>to undermine their argument.
>>>
>>> Does that agree with
>>>         <https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem> ?
>>
>>Does it?
>>
>>Should it [need to be]?
> 
> Certainly it should agree, and modern usage should agree with the
> original.  The expression should not be misused in the way that
> "decimated" now is by /hoi polloi/. 

That would be an extreme [polluted/pollinated?] example. 

> But ISTR that your Latin is better than mine.

Thank you, John, for your trust, I like such a positive ad-hominem remark.

However, I did not read the la.wikipedia.org article, just because
methinks such agreement is just surmised autority and would not add to the
subject, if it agrees, because then I would think probable the Latin
version to be just a translation of a modern [en,fr,nl,du,etc] one. 

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

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

#31906

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:40:58 +0000, Dr J R Stockton
<reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA6DFA5882E690eejj99@194.109.6.166>,
>Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:16:20, Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
>posted:
>
>>A [good, imho] definition of "ad hominem" is:
>>
>>Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to
>>undermine their argument.
>
>Does that agree with
>        <https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem> ?

     Who knows?  Someone who can read Latin.

     I went for the English version, and I think "it" matches fairly
well.  (It does miss the case of those traits being relevant to the
argument.)

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#31907

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 19 Dec 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:40:58 +0000, Dr J R Stockton
> <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA6DFA5882E690eejj99@194.109.6.166>,
>>Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:16:20, Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
>>posted:
>>
>>>A [good, imho] definition of "ad hominem" is:
>>>
>>>Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to
>>>undermine their argument.
>>
>>Does that agree with
>>        <https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem> ?
> 
>      Who knows?  Someone who can read Latin.
> 
>      I went for the English version, and I think "it" matches fairly
> well.  (It does miss the case of those traits being relevant to the
> argument.)

Discussion should be based on evidence and logic, 
and of an agreed understanding of relevant definitions.

Argumenting by authority or dogma is not sound.

So if you want to use a different definition of 'Argumentum ad hominem',
do so in discussion, not by pointing to sources in an attempt
to "proove" the "right definition". That's what religions do/are for.

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

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

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

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

csiph-web