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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #25049 > unrolled thread

Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript)

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: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-06-26 20:09 +0200
    Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Philip Herlihy <bounceback@you.com> - 2014-06-27 00:02 +0100
      Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-06-27 02:34 +0200
        Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-26 22:43 -0300
          JavaScript and CSS in external files???, was Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-06-27 09:19 +0200
          Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-27 10:22 +0200
            Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2014-06-27 17:23 -0300
              Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-27 23:28 +0200
                Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-27 23:45 -0300
                  Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-28 10:30 +0100
        Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-27 10:19 +0200
      Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-27 10:12 +0200
      Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-27 10:16 +0200
      Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-27 10:16 +0200
      Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Philip Herlihy <bounceback@you.com> - 2014-06-30 11:02 +0100
    Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) BootNic <bootnic.bounce@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 23:18 -0400
      Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Philip Herlihy <bounceback@you.com> - 2014-06-30 11:31 +0100
        Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-06-30 13:37 +0200
          Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-06-30 13:40 +0200
            Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Philip Herlihy <bounceback@you.com> - 2014-07-01 12:41 +0100
              Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-07-01 14:28 +0200
                Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Philip Herlihy <bounceback@you.com> - 2014-07-01 15:52 +0100
                  Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-07-01 18:08 +0200
          Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2014-06-30 06:22 -0700
            Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-06-30 14:32 +0000
              Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2014-06-30 13:16 -0700
                Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-06-30 23:14 +0000
                  Re: Dynamic CSS adjustments (JavaScript) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-07-01 09:02 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#25153

Philip Herlihy <bounceback@you.com> wrote on 01 jul 2014 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> I am surprised you have been so quick with your criticisms when it is 
> now clear that you did not immediately understand the code which BootNic 
> helpfully substituted for some of yours.  I did wonder why you asked:
> "I have no idea what you are talking about.
> What selectors do you mean? 
> I did not use any <input>."  and
> "No, you did make it impossible to understand youe entry."

Due to your wrong quoting, my conclusion was that you responded to my code.

Of course you may be surprised if you do not understand that, as surprise 
while often due to lack of data, is far more often to dogmatic preoccupation 
and so misunderstanding the real facts or methods.

On the whole your childish behavour seems more directed to hide your mistake 
than to try to understand code.

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

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

#25154

In article <XnsA35D932D9C88Deejj99@194.109.133.133>, 
exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net says...
> 
> Philip Herlihy <bounceback@you.com> wrote on 01 jul 2014 in 
> comp.lang.javascript:
> 
> > I am surprised you have been so quick with your criticisms when it is 
> > now clear that you did not immediately understand the code which BootNic 
> > helpfully substituted for some of yours.  I did wonder why you asked:
> > "I have no idea what you are talking about.
> > What selectors do you mean? 
> > I did not use any <input>."  and
> > "No, you did make it impossible to understand youe entry."
> 
> Due to your wrong quoting, my conclusion was that you responded to my code.
> 
> Of course you may be surprised if you do not understand that, as surprise 
> while often due to lack of data, is far more often to dogmatic preoccupation 
> and so misunderstanding the real facts or methods.
> 
> On the whole your childish behavour seems more directed to hide your mistake 
> than to try to understand code.

Let me be a little more "Dutch" about this:  I think you make a fool of 
yourself.

This correspondence is closed.

-- 

Phil, London

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

#25155

Philip Herlihy <bounceback@you.com> wrote on 01 jul 2014 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> Let me be a little more "Dutch" about this:  I think you make a fool of 
> yourself.

That is my prerogative.

> This correspondence is closed.

That is not for you to deside on usenet.

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

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

#25135

Evertjan. wrote:
> Being offended does not really fit Usenet.

Really?


Really?!?  You must be participating in a different USENET than the one I've been on for the last twenty years!  :-)

  -- Scott

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

#25136

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:22:59 -0700, Scott Sauyet wrote:

> Evertjan. wrote:
>> Being offended does not really fit Usenet.
> 
> Really?
> 
> Really?!?  You must be participating in a different USENET than the one
> I've been on for the last twenty years!  :-)

I think you're interpreting the statement in different ways.

I think Evertjan means that people who are easily offended should not 
take part in usenet discussions, because they will be offended by what 
others say.

I think you mean that people who take part in usenet discuissions are 
often offended by what others say.

Both interpretations are correct, and are in fact the same, and speaking 
as a native english speaker, it's always a good idea to step back and 
think carefully about what a non native english speaker might mean in 
forums. Sometimes I have to sit back and work out if I really understand 
what the native english speakers are posting.

-- 
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

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

#25144

Denis McMahon wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> Evertjan. wrote:

>>> Being offended does not really fit Usenet.
> 
>> Really?!?  You must be participating in a different USENET than the one
>> I've been on for the last twenty years!  :-)
> 
> I think you're interpreting the statement in different ways.
> 
> I think Evertjan means that people who are easily offended should not 
> take part in usenet discussions, because they will be offended by what 
> others say.

Perhaps, but saying what they should do doesn't really address the huge
portion of those who do participate who are easily offended.


> I think you mean that people who take part in usenet discuissions are 
> often offended by what others say.

I did consider both interpretations, and found the descriptive one
really funny and the proscriptive one fairly naive (and still funny!)


> Both interpretations are correct, and are in fact the same, and speaking 
> as a native english speaker, it's always a good idea to step back and 
> think carefully about what a non native english speaker might mean in 
> forums. Sometimes I have to sit back and work out if I really understand 
> what the native english speakers are posting.

(Heck, sometimes I have to sit back to work out if I really understand
what *I'm* posting!)


I wasn't trying to take Evertjan to task, just make light of something that struck me really funny.  Sorry if I got your dander up.

  -- Scott

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

#25149

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:16:47 -0700, Scott Sauyet wrote:

> I wasn't trying to take Evertjan to task, just make light of something
> that struck me really funny.  Sorry if I got your dander up.

Nope, didn't get my dander up, but too often I see apparently intelligent 
people get into arguments over linguistic semantics where one of them 
makes a comment and the other one interprets it differently.

-- 
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

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

#25150

Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> wrote on 01 jul 2014 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:16:47 -0700, Scott Sauyet wrote:
> 
>> I wasn't trying to take Evertjan to task, just make light of something
>> that struck me really funny.  Sorry if I got your dander up.
> 
> Nope, didn't get my dander up, but too often I see apparently intelligent 
> people get into arguments over linguistic semantics where one of them 
> makes a comment and the other one interprets it differently.

I seem to have lost my dander years ago, while dandering down some really 
steep piece of Pascal source-code to be compiled under MS-DOS.

Nowadays, I don't even remember what the word ment to me.

> and the other one interprets it differently.

I still have this memory that compiling is nicer than downright 
interpreting. At least it gave a sense of miracle to the end-user.

Nowadays newbees take the most terrible pieces of script, saying "it doesn't 
work" without having the faintest idea what it was ment to do.

The only language where it is polite to keep semantically dandering about, 
in this international NG, is not English, but Javascript.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web