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 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#32017 — Re: What I learned today

Stefan Ram wrote:

>   So, today, I worked a little bit on my JavaScript course
>   again, and I learned this:

You "learned" some nonsense, again.

>   - The "references" are in ECMAscript to describe what is
>     happening when functions return values that can be
>     assigned to ("references"), but this only is intended
>     for host objects. Otherwise, JavaScript can be described
>     with the concept of bindings (to names) alone.

Nonsense.  It is perfectly OK for a function/method to return a reference to 
a native object, and no names/identifiers are necessary to refer to it.

  (function () {
    "use strict";

    var _foo = "baz";

    return {
      bar: function () { console.log(_foo); }
    };
  }()).bar();

References are _not_ "values that can be assigned to".
 
>   - The term "DHTML" occurred in 1997 together with the
>     generation »4« of Browsers, but it is unknown who
>     coined the term. I was not able to locate when exactly
>     (in 1996 or 1997) the term "DHTML" was first used.
>     NN4 was released with "layers" in June of 1997 and
>     IE4 without layers but with CSS scripting in October
>     of 1997.

<https://github.com/PointedEars/JSX/blob/dbd87d81167ef03773a74791a2640a98a3a8d35f/dom.js#L7-L17>

<http://wayback.archive.org/web/20080505054830/http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms533050.aspx>
 
>   - You already can show a lot of possibilities to script
>     with essentially only two entries from a DOM:
>     »getElementByID« and »innerHTML«,

_“getElementById”_ (case matters) and “innerHTML” are not "entries from a 
DOM"; *the* DOM is a concept and an API.  But they are properties of DOM 
element objects, that which implement the (HTML)Element interface of the W3C 
and WHATWG DOMs.  Of those properties the “innerHTML” property is 
proprietary, i.e. there is no public standard that specifies it or an 
interface with an attribute of the same name.

>     . To show simple forms of event processing, one only needs to use
>     parameterless functions, even arrow functions will suffice. So one
>     does not have to teach a lot of DOM entries and
>     JavaScript features up front before one shows some DOM
>     applications.

Not even wrong.
 
>     (The first version of my course, first taught »pure
>     JavaScript« /and then/ DOM applications. But the
>     participants did not like the long delay before the
>     first DOM applications where shown. The idea for the
>     design of my course was that JavaScript today is
>     independent of browsers, but the typical participant
>     of my courses has never heard of Node.js.)

You have yet to learn that “JavaScript” reasonably can only refer to a 
subset of ECMAScript implementations, namely those that carry the name.
IOW, it is not just one programming language that you are dealing with here, 
not even if you limit yourself to Web browsers.  (You have been told this 
/ad nauseam/ already, but your record strongly indicates that you are too 
full of yourself to reconsider any of your preconceptions when the flaws in 
them are pointed out to you.)

Given your many misconceptions that you so readily display here, I still 
seriously doubt that it is of advantage to take any of your courses (which, 
JFTR, take place either online for free or in a *Volkshochschule* [German 
adult education center], not in any institution of higher education) in the 
first place.  In fact, at this point I must recommend against taking them, 
at least with regard to “JavaScript”.  Students will be much better off 
reading MDN articles, de.comp.lang.javascript, and this newsgroup instead.

-- 
PointedEars, shaking his head
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] | [next] | [standalone]

#32031

Am 29.12.2016 um 04:32 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

> Students will be much better off 
> reading MDN articles, de.comp.lang.javascript, and this newsgroup instead.

Only if someone tells them to put you in ignore.

Your knowlegde is good, perhaps better than all others, but your writing
style and your way to answer questions is, at best, that of an asshole.

Greetz,
MK
-- 
Kopp-Verlag-Gläubige, Religionsdeppen, rechte Vollidioten
 und ähnlicher Bio-Abfall werden ohne Hinweis ignoriert!

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

#32032

Maik Koenig <usenetspam@maikkoenig.de> wrote on 29 Dec 2016 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

> Am 29.12.2016 um 04:32 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> 
>> Students will be much better off 
>> reading MDN articles, de.comp.lang.javascript, and this newsgroup
>> instead. 
> 
> Only if someone tells them to put you in ignore.
> 
> Your knowlegde is good, perhaps better than all others, but your writing
> style and your way to answer questions is, at best, that of an asshole.

So this NG should be more about style and about ad hominem 
than about knowledge and method?

Not in my book.

Please, Thomas, go on giving your knowledge in this NG,
and where possible control your style.


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

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

#32078

Am 29.12.2016 um 21:45 schrieb Evertjan.:
> Maik Koenig <usenetspam@maikkoenig.de> wrote on 29 Dec 2016 in
> comp.lang.javascript: 
> 
>> Am 29.12.2016 um 04:32 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> 
>>> Students will be much better off 
>>> reading MDN articles, de.comp.lang.javascript, and this newsgroup
>>> instead. 
>> 
>> Only if someone tells them to put you in ignore.
>> 
>> Your knowlegde is good, perhaps better than all others, but your writing
>> style and your way to answer questions is, at best, that of an asshole.
> 
> So this NG should be more about style 

I never said that.

> and about ad hominem 
> than about knowledge and method?

My comment was not "ad hominem".

> Not in my book.

That is your opinion. My differs. And now?

> Please, Thomas, go on giving your knowledge in this NG,
> and where possible control your style.

It should ALWAYS be possible to control ones style. But of course,
nobody has to read any posting. Neither his nor mine nor yours.

But Thomas regularly mentions a "netiquette". Perhaps he should read it
himself from time to time. Me too, now that I think about it.

Anyway. My opinion stands. You dont have to like it or understand it, it
still is my opinion. Could we now please move on?

Greetz,
MK
-- 
Kopp-Verlag-Gläubige, Religionsdeppen, rechte Vollidioten
 und ähnlicher Bio-Abfall werden ohne Hinweis ignoriert!

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

#32084

Maik Koenig <usenetspam@maikkoenig.de> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>> Not in my book.
> 
> That is your opinion. My differs. And now?

That is the cornerstone of discussion, you should embrace it.

Agreement does not lead to knowledge, dissagreement and doubt does.

Discussion is not about winning, but about hearing other ideas and reactions 
than your own. As such Thomas has as much value as you and me.

My book is not closed, 
were it only that it would diminish the joy of discussion.

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

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

#32090

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 10:48:07 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Maik Koenig <usenetspam@maikkoenig.de> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>>> Not in my book.
>> 
>> That is your opinion. My differs. And now?
>
>That is the cornerstone of discussion, you should embrace it.
>
>Agreement does not lead to knowledge, dissagreement and doubt does.

     Where did you get that idea from?

     With agreement, it is quite possible to attain knowledge.  For
example, two people agreeing on a basis can develop from there.

>Discussion is not about winning, but about hearing other ideas and reactions 
>than your own. As such Thomas has as much value as you and me.
>
>My book is not closed, 
>were it only that it would diminish the joy of discussion.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#32094

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>> Agreement does not lead to knowledge, dissagreement and doubt does.
> 
> Where did you get that idea from?

What an idea that one should get an idea FROM someone or somewhere.
And why would you want to know?
Isn't an argument interesting by it's own value?

Are you playing the authority falacy?

> With agreement, it is quite possible to attain knowledge. 

No, an agreement does not help.

> For example, two people agreeing on a basis can develop from there.

No agreement necessary, knowledge does not need agreement.

Agreement, btw, is often compromize.

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

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

#32035

On 30/12/2016 7:20 AM, Maik Koenig wrote:
> Am 29.12.2016 um 04:32 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>
>> Students will be much better off
>> reading MDN articles, de.comp.lang.javascript, and this newsgroup instead.
>
> Only if someone tells them to put you in ignore.
>
> Your knowledge is good, perhaps better than all others, but your writing
> style and your way to answer questions is, at best, that of an asshole.

I have learnt much from Thomas and I'm thankful that he still 
contributes regularly here.

Andrew Poulos

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

#32037

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 19:12:32 +1100, Andrew Poulos
<ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 30/12/2016 7:20 AM, Maik Koenig wrote:
>> Am 29.12.2016 um 04:32 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>
>>> Students will be much better off
>>> reading MDN articles, de.comp.lang.javascript, and this newsgroup instead.
>>
>> Only if someone tells them to put you in ignore.
>>
>> Your knowledge is good, perhaps better than all others, but your writing
>> style and your way to answer questions is, at best, that of an asshole.
>
>I have learnt much from Thomas and I'm thankful that he still 
>contributes regularly here.

     I have not.  Unfortunately, his posts have curves in them. Often,
it was to the point where I could not extract anything useful from
them.  I KFed him long ago.  From what I see in other comments, it was
and continues to be a good decision.

     I think that Andrew's paragraph "Your knowledge ..." nails it.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#32040

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 30 Dec 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>>I have learnt much from Thomas and I'm thankful that he still 
>>contributes regularly here.
> 
>      I have not.  Unfortunately, his posts have curves in them. Often,
> it was to the point where I could not extract anything useful from
> them. 

Well, couldn't that equally reflect to the possibillity that your 
understanding of the subject lacks substantially?

> I KFed him long ago.  From what I see in other comments, it was
> and continues to be a good decision.

Wow, so your argument just rests on authority,
you are acting like a religious sectarian:
"I don't want to know what he said, 
because it is not what we believe to be the true faith".

You are confusing dislike for someone with his arguments,
which is the kind of ad hominem falacy one should distrust severely.

Dat does not imply I distrust you,
it just means I distrust your argument.

>      I think that Andrew's paragraph "Your knowledge ..." nails it.

Wow, "nails it", you seem to be very certain about what you profess to have 
gone to great length not to want to hear by plonking him "long ago".

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

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

#32041

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 6:39:33 PM UTC-5, Evertjan. wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 30 Dec 2016 in 
> comp.lang.javascript:
> 
> >>I have learnt much from Thomas and I'm thankful that he still 
> >>contributes regularly here.
> > 
> >      I have not.  Unfortunately, his posts have curves in them. Often,
> > it was to the point where I could not extract anything useful from
> > them. 
> 
> Well, couldn't that equally reflect to the possibillity that your 
> understanding of the subject lacks substantially?
> 
> > I KFed him long ago.  From what I see in other comments, it was
> > and continues to be a good decision.
> 
> Wow, so your argument just rests on authority,
> you are acting like a religious sectarian:
> "I don't want to know what he said, 
> because it is not what we believe to be the true faith".
> 
> You are confusing dislike for someone with his arguments,
> which is the kind of ad hominem falacy one should distrust severely.
> 
> Dat does not imply I distrust you,
> it just means I distrust your argument.
> 
> >      I think that Andrew's paragraph "Your knowledge ..." nails it.
> 
> Wow, "nails it", you seem to be very certain about what you profess to have 
> gone to great length not to want to hear by plonking him "long ago".
> 

Wasn't Andrew's paragraph either. Perhaps they got confused trying to follow a redacted thread.

Censoring by the individual beats moderation where an anointed "authority" censors for everybody, but they do it at their own risk of missing points and losing track of the conversation.

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

#32054

On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 00:39:15 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 30 Dec 2016 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>>>I have learnt much from Thomas and I'm thankful that he still 
>>>contributes regularly here.
>> 
>>      I have not.  Unfortunately, his posts have curves in them. Often,
>> it was to the point where I could not extract anything useful from
>> them. 
>
>Well, couldn't that equally reflect to the possibillity that your 
>understanding of the subject lacks substantially?

     No.

     It is a factor of why I read here: to learn.  One who is learning
about a subject does have less understanding of a subject.  It does
not make the person defective.

     Mr. Lahn's statements are often very difficult to follow and have
nasty curves in them.  I do not need to waste time on that.  There are
other sources of information.

>> I KFed him long ago.  From what I see in other comments, it was
>> and continues to be a good decision.
>
>Wow, so your argument just rests on authority,
>you are acting like a religious sectarian:
>"I don't want to know what he said, 
>because it is not what we believe to be the true faith".

     How do you get things so wrong?

  1) I am not relying on anyone's authority.

  2) I am here to learn.  It has little to do with what I believe.

  3) I would discard a bad textbook.  Similarly, I discard (ignore)
other bad information sources.  Mr. Lahn is a bad information source.

>You are confusing dislike for someone with his arguments,
>which is the kind of ad hominem falacy one should distrust severely.

     No.  I do not like his arguments.  That he has continued on and
on with them has engendered some dislike.  The dislike of his
argumentative style came first.

     I think you are the one confusing the dislikes.

>Dat does not imply I distrust you,
>it just means I distrust your argument.
>
>>      I think that Andrew's paragraph "Your knowledge ..." nails it.
>
>Wow, "nails it", you seem to be very certain about what you profess to have 
>gone to great length not to want to hear by plonking him "long ago".

     Since I can see comments of his in other posts, it is not as if I
never see anything of his.  I can see that his style does not seem to
have changed.

     Quite a nonsensical post on your part.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#32055

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 02 Jan 2017 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

> On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 00:39:15 +0100, "Evertjan."
> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> 
>>Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 30 Dec 2016 in 
>>comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>>>>I have learnt much from Thomas and I'm thankful that he still 
>>>>contributes regularly here.
>>> 
>>>      I have not.  Unfortunately, his posts have curves in them. Often,
>>> it was to the point where I could not extract anything useful from
>>> them. 
>>
>>Well, couldn't that equally reflect to the possibillity that your 
>>understanding of the subject lacks substantially?
> 
>      No.
> 
>      It is a factor of why I read here: to learn.  One who is learning
> about a subject does have less understanding of a subject.  It does
> not make the person defective.

I never said or suggested you are or might be defective or that I would 
think so. But in general [and perhaps even more when learning] "your 
understanding of the subject might lack substantially" without that in any 
way reflect on any defectiveness on your part. 

I stipulate that your "no" professes your absolute felt certaincy that there 
is no "possibility that your understanding of the subject lacks 
substantially".

Well, that attitude would extremely prohibit any "factor of why I read here: 
to learn".

> Mr. Lahn's statements are often very difficult to follow 

That might be a reason why "your understanding of the subject might lack 
substantially".

> and have nasty curves in them. 

That should not alter the appreciation of any facts or ideas. 
If it did, that would only show your [perhaps understandable, but not 
realistic] lack of willingness to probe his statements. 

> I do not need to waste time on that. 

No, you do not "need" to do anything. But then you should say so, and not 
state that your undertanding of the subject is complete and does not need 
his arguments because your understanding does not lack.

> There are other sources of information.

So?

> 
>>> I KFed him long ago.  From what I see in other comments, it was
>>> and continues to be a good decision.
>>
>>Wow, so your argument just rests on authority,
>>you are acting like a religious sectarian:
>>"I don't want to know what he said, 
>>because it is not what we believe to be the true faith".
> 
>      How do you get things so wrong?
> 
>   1) I am not relying on anyone's authority.

You wrote: "From what I see in other comments, it was and continues to be a 
good decision."

Those other comments, are they not the "authority" on which you profess the 
quality of your decision?

>   2) I am here to learn.  It has little to do with what I believe.

Well, you seem to believe in authority.
 
>   3) I would discard a bad textbook.

On what basis do you decide such "badness"?

>  Similarly, I discard (ignore) other bad information sources. 

Same objection. You can discard (ignore) because you are a free person, 
but you would have to be knowledgable or believing in authority to label 
someting as "bad".

> Mr. Lahn is a bad information source.

Ah, because you do not like his style?

Methinks that is bad judgement.

>>You are confusing dislike for someone with his arguments,
>>which is the kind of ad hominem falacy one should distrust severely.
> 
>      No.  I do not like his arguments.  That he has continued on and
> on with them has engendered some dislike.  The dislike of his
> argumentative style came first.

So it is not the arguments but the style.

>      I think you are the one confusing the dislikes.
> 
>>Dat does not imply I distrust you,
>>it just means I distrust your argument.
>>
>>>      I think that Andrew's paragraph "Your knowledge ..." nails it.
>>
>>Wow, "nails it", you seem to be very certain about what you profess to
>>have gone to great length not to want to hear by plonking him "long
>>ago". 
> 
>      Since I can see comments of his in other posts, it is not as if I
> never see anything of his.  I can see that his style does not seem to
> have changed.

Indeed, you confuse style with the content of arguments.

>      Quite a nonsensical post on your part.

Why "on your part"? 
Again you confuse arguments with who says it.
 
> Sincerely,

Are you sure?


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

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

#32056

Evertjan wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> Evertjan wrote:
>>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:

>>>> I KFed him long ago.  From what I see in other comments, it was and
>>>> continues to be a good decision.
>>>
>>> Wow, so your argument just rests on authority,
>>> you are acting like a religious sectarian:
>>> "I don't want to know what he said,
>>> because it is not what we believe to be the true faith".
>> 
>>      How do you get things so wrong?
>> 
>>   1) I am not relying on anyone's authority.
> 
> You wrote: "From what I see in other comments, it was and continues to
> be a good decision."
> 
> Those other comments, are they not the "authority" on which you profess
> the quality of your decision?

Killfiling someone -- except in some extreme situations where you refuse 
to view any thread in which the subject has posted -- does not stop you 
from seeing someone's comments when they are quoted by another.  Thomas 
Lahn is quoted plenty often; it's easy enough to imagine that Gene 
Wirchenko has seen plenty of Mr. Lahn's posts, even though he has him 
KF'd.

There is no reason to expect that Mr. Wirchenko is relying on external 
authority for his decision.  Thomas Lahn's own words could easily 
reinforce his decision on their own.


>>   3) I would discard a bad textbook.
> 
> On what basis do you decide such "badness"?

Whether it's a moral judgment or a utilitarian decision about fitness for 
his task or some other choice, why would you question his decision in 
this matter?

>>  Similarly, I discard (ignore) other bad information sources.
> 
> Same objection. You can discard (ignore) because you are a free person,
> but you would have to be knowledgable or believing in authority to label
> someting as "bad".

He has to be knowledgeable only so far as making that call for his own 
purposes.  If Mr. Wirchenko decided that a good source is one that he 
could learn from without being subjected to too much snark, pedantry, or 
superciliousness, do you have any basis to object?

>> Mr. Lahn is a bad information source.
> 
> Ah, because you do not like his style?
> 
> Methinks that is bad judgement.

And on what do you base your idea here of "bad"?


>>> You are confusing dislike for someone with his arguments,
>>> which is the kind of ad hominem falacy one should distrust severely.
>> 
>>      No.  I do not like his arguments.  That he has continued on and
>> on with them has engendered some dislike.  The dislike of his
>> argumentative style came first.
> 
> So it is not the arguments but the style.

Why in the world cannot not be *both*?

> [ ... ]

>>      Since I can see comments of his in other posts, it is not as if I
>> never see anything of his.  I can see that his style does not seem to
>> have changed.
> 
> Indeed, you confuse style with the content of arguments.

To assume they are entirely independent is ridiculous.


>>      Quite a nonsensical post on your part.
> 
> Why "on your part"?
> Again you confuse arguments with who says it.

It's never clear when talking in English with one who is not a native 
speaker when some idiom is getting in the way.  That was just another way 
of saying, "Your post was quite nonsensical."  It doesn't refer to you 
except indirectly as the author of the post.

  
>> Sincerely,
> 
> Are you sure?

People who challenge others' sincerity seem the ones most likely to be 
posting insincere messages.  People who respond to social niceties with 
aggression are a big part of what's wrong with electronic communications.

  -- Scott

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

#32060

On 3/01/2017 10:24 AM, Scott Sauyet wrote:
> Evertjan wrote:

>> Why "on your part"?
>> Again you confuse arguments with who says it.
>
> It's never clear when talking in English with one who is not a native
> speaker when some idiom is getting in the way.  That was just another way
> of saying, "Your post was quite nonsensical."  It doesn't refer to you
> except indirectly as the author of the post.

Well to me it reads as nothing more than a taunt (directed at the author).

Andrew Poulos

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

#32064

Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> wrote on 03 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> He has to be knowledgeable only so far as making that call for his own 
> purposes.  If Mr. Wirchenko decided that a good source is one that he 
> could learn from without being subjected to too much snark, pedantry, or 
> superciliousness, do you have any basis to object?

Yes, I have and I do.

Why would "too much snark, pedantry, or superciliousness" impede the quality 
as a source to learn from?

Gene [sorry Gene about the third person] may decide he does not want to 
learn from Thomas for any reason he wants, but if he professes that that 
reason influences the quality of the content of Thomases words, I object.

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

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

#32079

Evertjan. wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:

>> He has to be knowledgeable only so far as making that call for his own
>> purposes.  If Mr. Wirchenko decided that a good source is one that he
>> could learn from without being subjected to too much snark, pedantry,
>> or superciliousness, do you have any basis to object?
> 
> Yes, I have and I do.
> 
> Why would "too much snark, pedantry, or superciliousness" impede the
> quality as a source to learn from?
> 
> Gene [sorry Gene about the third person] may decide he does not want to
> learn from Thomas for any reason he wants, but if he professes that that
> reason influences the quality of the content of Thomases words, I
> object.

So if someone were to post their comments, switching every sentence 
between Swahili, Hopi, and Aramaic, but their technical content was 
correct, do you think I would have a basis for making *my own decision* 
on whether the post was not useful to me?  (I speak none of those 
languages, BTW.)  If it was written full of vulgarities or other forms of 
offensive speech that I find myself unwilling to read, should I not be 
able to claim that it is useless to me?

You seem to be looking for some objective definition of quality content.  
I doubt such exists.  Something that is of high quality in, say, a 
specification document, might be entirely useless for a teach-ten-year-
olds-to-program course.  And vice versa.

Gene Wirchenko did not claim that Thomas Lahn's posts were worthless to 
anyone.  He only said that they did not meet his standards.  Why are you 
riding him on this?

  -- Scott

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

#32085

Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> wrote on 04 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>> Gene [sorry Gene about the third person] may decide he does not want to
>> learn from Thomas for any reason he wants, but if he professes that that
>> reason influences the quality of the content of Thomases words, I
>> object.
> 
> So if someone were to post their comments, switching every sentence 
> between Swahili, Hopi, and Aramaic, but their technical content was 
> correct, do you think I would have a basis for making *my own decision* 
> on whether the post was not useful to me?  (I speak none of those 
> languages, BTW.)  If it was written full of vulgarities or other forms of 
> offensive speech that I find myself unwilling to read, should I not be 
> able to claim that it is useless to me?

If you think a discussion is not usefull FOR YOU, you are free, imho, 
to say so and stop being part of such discussion.

But that has no inkling on the value of the arguments, only of the 
discussion.

If you were momentarily blind or your computerscreen fails, and no one [and 
no Cortana] could read the discusion to you, would that change the value of 
an argument?

I submit you are just blind to Swahili, Hopi, and Aramaic.

Reading the Talmud, which is mainly in Arameic, which is for 90% argumenting 
and counterargumenting, is a joy and very informative about discussion.

The arguments in the Talmud sometimes read as a computer programme, with if-
then-else constructs or tripolar evaluation.

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

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

#32067

On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 23:24:15 -0000 (UTC), Scott Sauyet
<scott@sauyet.com> wrote:

[snip]

     Thank you.  You got it quite fine.  Evertjan worked very hard to
refute my post, and the straining at gnats showed.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#32068

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 03 Jan 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 23:24:15 -0000 (UTC), Scott Sauyet
> <scott@sauyet.com> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>      Thank you.  You got it quite fine.  Evertjan worked very hard to
> refute my post, and the straining at gnats showed.

Thanking someone because he or she agrees with you is a strange, perhaps 
morbid, gesture, because agreeing with an argument is not, or should not be, 
done to please you, but because of the content of such argument.

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.

"Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which 
an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other 
attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the 
argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>

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

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web