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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #30022 > unrolled thread

Read binary file

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

Contents

  Read binary file Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2016-03-16 23:20 +0100
    Re: Read binary file Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-17 01:04 +0100
      Re: Read binary file Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 02:34 +0100
        Re: Read binary file Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-17 07:56 +0100
      Re: Read binary file Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2016-03-17 08:31 +0100
        Re: Read binary file Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-17 19:10 +0100
          Re: Read binary file Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 19:59 +0100
            Re: Read binary file Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-17 21:43 +0100
              Re: Read binary file Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2016-03-17 22:36 +0100
                Re: Read binary file Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-17 23:15 +0100
                Re: Read binary file Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 00:43 +0100
                  Re: Read binary file Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-18 17:22 +0100
                    Re: Read binary file Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2016-03-18 21:14 +0100
                      Re: Read binary file Matthias Wiehl <mw@kwarg.de> - 2016-03-19 00:02 +0100
                        Re: Read binary file Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2016-03-19 08:48 +0100
                          There is no javascript (was: Read binary file) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-19 13:02 +0100
                            Re: There is no javascript (was: Read binary file) Mark - <nonemail@spamspamapam.net> - 2016-03-19 14:33 +0000
                              Re: There is no javascript (was: Read binary file) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-20 14:30 +1100
                                Re: There is no javascript (was: Read binary file) Mark - <nonemail@spamspamapam.net> - 2016-03-20 13:07 +0000
                            Re: There is no javascript (was: Read binary file) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-03-20 10:39 +0000
                            Re: There is no javascript (was: Read binary file) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-03-20 11:19 +0000
                              Re: There is no javascript (was: Read binary file) Philip Herlihy <thiswillbounceback@you.com> - 2016-03-21 17:06 +0000
                  Re: Read binary file Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 17:18 -0700
                    Re: Read binary file "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-23 10:12 +0100
                      Re: Read binary file John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-03-23 16:27 +0000
                        Re: Read binary file Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2016-03-24 10:41 +0100
                          Re: Read binary file "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-24 11:14 +0100
                            Re: Read binary file John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-03-24 11:41 +0000
                              Re: Read binary file "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-24 13:36 +0100
                                Re: Read binary file John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-03-25 10:07 +0000
                                  Re: Read binary file "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-25 11:28 +0100
                          Re: Read binary file "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2016-03-24 11:31 +0100
                            Re: Read binary file Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2016-03-24 12:34 +0100
                              Re: Read binary file "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2016-03-24 17:15 +0100
                          Re: Read binary file Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-24 11:33 +0000
                        Re: Read binary file "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-24 11:05 +0100
                      Re: Read binary file Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 20:16 -0700
                        Re: Read binary file "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-24 10:36 +0100
                          Re: Read binary file "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-24 11:18 +0100
                            Re: Read binary file Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 10:22 -0700
                              Re: Read binary file "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-28 00:18 +0200
                                Re: Read binary file Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 05:35 -0700
                                  Re: Read binary file "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-29 00:53 +0200
    Re: Read binary file Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-17 02:23 +0100
    Re: Read binary file Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2016-03-17 08:42 +0100
    Re: Read binary file Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-03-20 22:03 +0000

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

#30060 — Re: There is no javascript (was: Read binary file)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 13:02:59 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

  <snip>
>>>> The commonly used name for all this implementation is "javascript". 
>
>Wishful thinking.  Instead, it is primarily used by people, most of them 
                                   ^^^^^^^^^
>laymen, who do not know what they are talking about when using it (as shown 
>by the very posting that I am just replying to), which inherently 
>constitutes the majority of the people using it

To re-use a Thomas saying :
> *you* have to substantiate that claim.  And *extraordinary* claims 
> require *extraordinary* evidence.



  <snip>
>Second, contrary to common belief, using “javascript” conveys exactly 
>*nothing* to the reader about the referred implementation of ECMAScript;

The whole point of the term 'javascript' is to say absolutely nothing
about the individual implementations. The term is an identifier; it is
simply a way of referring to a long and not very interesting
definition of the members of a collection of languages.



>it does not even convey anything to the reader about the author’s intention 
>to refer to implementations of ECMAScript.

Some of the relevant languages were implemented before ECMAScript came
into existance. It would be wrong to convey anything of the sort.



>  Both are making it impossible
>to assign truth values to any statement made about “javascript” as not
>all implementations are conforming.  Instead, it conveys the misconception 
>(intentionally or not) that there would be a single programming language, 
>“javascript”, that also encompasses all the features actually provided by 
>language-independent APIs that can also be used with implementations of 
>ECMAScript.
  <snip>

How to win the argument :
1 Say that those people think it's only one language.
2 Remark that this is (obviously) untrue.
3 Conclude that those people are wrong and you are right.

It's called a strawman fallacy.

  John

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

#30068 — Re: There is no javascript (was: Read binary file)

In article <8n1tebhhfda809qh8440u1qikqt6hcu8bd@4ax.com>, 
niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid says...
> 
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 13:02:59 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
> 
>   <snip>
> >>>> The commonly used name for all this implementation is "javascript". 
> >

If there is, indeed, no javascript, then this group is badly named.


-- 

Phil, London

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

#30087

Stefan Weiss wrote:

> Please just ignore the "there is no javascript" comment.
> Thomas Lahn has a stick up his ass about the spelling of JavaScript;
> this has caused endless flames and debates over the years (see
> <https://goo.gl/W4CQaX> if you're feeling masochistic). The less
> attention we pay to it, the better.

And, unsurprisingly, the rest of the thread bears this out.

Regulars here have all seen his arguments on this point _ad nauseum_.
He seems to take the fact that they don't choose to accept them as a
personal affront.  And yet he is never swayed by all the counter-
arguments that have been made.

This would all seem somewhat amusing if it weren't (a) so sad, and
(b) so irksome.

The best response I've seen to this is here:

    <http://i.imgur.com/5UhdL.png>

  -- Scott 

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

#30089

Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> wrote on 23 Mar 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> Regulars here have all seen his arguments on this point _ad nauseum_.
> He seems to take the fact that they don't choose to accept them as a
> personal affront.  And yet he is never swayed by all the counter-
> arguments that have been made.

I disagree.

It is maybe some regulars that again and again think this idea of Thomas is 
a personal afront to them. 

Thomas is only not dissuaded by their arguments.

> _ad nauseum_

That is their own fault, if they puke. And Scott, I have inside knowledge 
that not all of them do.

My stand is that Thomas would not be Thomas-as-we-know-him without 
his harmless idée-fixe, which should be a pity.

After all we all have some of those if we search thoroughly enough.

And some roses, by any other name, ...

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

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

#30092

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:12:31 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

  <snip>
>My stand is that Thomas would not be Thomas-as-we-know-him without 
>his harmless id?fixe, which should be a pity.
  <snip>

Harmless? Really?

What do you think someone new to this Newsgroup will think when
someone shouts "There is no javascript" at them with no further
information?

Will they assume that "javascript" is a way of saying there is only
one language? 

Will they know that this meaning is only Thomas' opinion, not a law of
nature and not everyone's opinion, and that the shouting is merely
Thomas-as-we-know-him?

Will they conclude that this Newsgroup is somewhere they don't want
be?

Harmless?

  John

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

#30098

On 23.03.2016 17:27, John Harris wrote:

> What do you think someone new to this Newsgroup will think when
> someone shouts "There is no javascript" at them with no further
> information?

His problem is, that he is not able to express his opinion in
a few, short and understandable sentences. I'm still not sure
what's his problem with "javascript" so I stopped answering him.

As I understand it:

1. There is JavaScript, a trademark of Oracle. Only Oracle defines
   what JavaScript is an who gets a license to use the word JavaScript

2. There is a ECMA-262 standard and a trademark ECMAScript owned by
   Ecma International

3. And there is javascript, a name for a group of languages which
   implements ECMA-262 or part of it or are just similar to
   ECMA-262 or JavaScript.

Now he claims, there can only be a JavaScript, JScript  or ECMAScript
but no javascript program because javascript is no specific language
but only a name for a group of similar languages.

But that doesn't make any sense. With the same argument there
can't be a glass of water but only a glass of H2O or a glass
of "Frankenbrunnen Mineralwasser" (a trademark of FRANKEN BUNNEN)
because water is just a name of similar liquids.

Or there is no English text. Text can be written in British-English,
US-English or Australian-English but not in English, because this is
only a name for a group of similar Languages but not a specific language.

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

#30100

Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> wrote on 24 Mar 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On 23.03.2016 17:27, John Harris wrote:
> 
>> What do you think someone new to this Newsgroup will think when
>> someone shouts "There is no javascript" at them with no further
>> information?
> 
> His problem is, that he is not able to express his opinion in
> a few, short and understandable sentences. I'm still not sure
> what's his problem with "javascript" so I stopped answering him.
> 
> As I understand it:
> 
> 1. There is JavaScript, a trademark of Oracle. Only Oracle defines
>    what JavaScript is an who gets a license to use the word JavaScript
> 
> 2. There is a ECMA-262 standard and a trademark ECMAScript owned by
>    Ecma International
> 
> 3. And there is javascript, a name for a group of languages which
>    implements ECMA-262 or part of it or are just similar to
>    ECMA-262 or JavaScript.
> 
> Now he claims, there can only be a JavaScript, JScript  or ECMAScript
> but no javascript program because javascript is no specific language
> but only a name for a group of similar languages.
> 
> But that doesn't make any sense. With the same argument there
> can't be a glass of water but only a glass of H2O or a glass
> of "Frankenbrunnen Mineralwasser" (a trademark of FRANKEN BUNNEN)
> because water is just a name of similar liquids.
> 
> Or there is no English text. Text can be written in British-English,
> US-English or Australian-English but not in English, because this is
> only a name for a group of similar Languages but not a specific language.

[I would say that excluding Indian-English is a numerical error.]

But what does it matter when/if Thomas is/where wrong?

Does that harmfully hurt the precious souls of the newbees?

Should they be protected from the harm of dissident ideas,
and subjected to repeated utterings of Thomophobian conformists?

Shall we warm ourselves at the campfire of cyber bookburning?

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

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

#30107

On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:14:20 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

  <snip>
>But what does it matter when/if Thomas is/where wrong?
  <snip>

>-- 
>Evertjan.
>The Netherlands.

It's Holland, not Netherlands!

  John

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

#30108

John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 24 Mar 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:14:20 +0100, "Evertjan."
> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> 
>   <snip>
>>But what does it matter when/if Thomas is/where wrong?
>   <snip>
> 
>>-- 
>>Evertjan.
>>The Netherlands.
> 
> It's Holland, not Netherlands!

It is not, I live about 100 km away from Holland.

It does not matter much that you are wrong, btw.

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

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

#30113

On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:36:02 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 24 Mar 2016 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:

  <snip>
>>>-- 
>>>Evertjan.
>>>The Netherlands.
>> 
>> It's Holland, not Netherlands!
>
>It is not, I live about 100 km away from Holland.
>
>It does not matter much that you are wrong, btw.

But ... But ... You said you like misinformation given in a dogmatic
and obnoxious way !

By the way, in England 'Holland' is a common nickname for The
Netherlands. It's easier to say and no worse than the US nickname
'England' for Great Britain.

  John

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

#30114

John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 25 Mar 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:36:02 +0100, "Evertjan."
> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> 
>>John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 24 Mar 2016 in 
>>comp.lang.javascript:
> 
>   <snip>
>>>>-- 
>>>>Evertjan.
>>>>The Netherlands.
>>> 
>>> It's Holland, not Netherlands!
>>
>>It is not, I live about 100 km away from Holland.
>>
>>It does not matter much that you are wrong, btw.
> 
> But ... But ... You said you like misinformation given in a dogmatic
> and obnoxious way !

I did not.

> By the way, in England 'Holland' is a common nickname for The
> Netherlands.

I met a 2nd year university-student of English in Central-Java in the 
1980's, who did not know the difference between London and England,
which is or was fairly common in those parts of our world.

So the commonness of grave errors makes them acceptable?

> It's easier to say

Nice argument: 1 + 2 = 2 is also very easy to say and and a fairly common 
mistake among toddlers.

>  and no worse than the US nickname 'England' for Great Britain.

Nice argument: when US-ians make worse mistakes your own errors become 
acceptable.

Then, imho, everything is acceptable.

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

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

#30103

Herbert Kleebauer wrote:

> On 23.03.2016 17:27, John Harris wrote:
> 
>> What do you think someone new to this Newsgroup will think when
>> someone shouts "There is no javascript" at them with no further
>> information?
> 
> His problem is, that he is not able to express his opinion in
> a few, short and understandable sentences. I'm still not sure
> what's his problem with "javascript" so I stopped answering him.
> 
> As I understand it:
> 
> 1. There is JavaScript, a trademark of Oracle. Only Oracle defines
>    what JavaScript is an who gets a license to use the word JavaScript

ACK.

> 2. There is a ECMA-262 standard and a trademark ECMAScript owned by
>    Ecma International

ACK.

> 3. And there is javascript, a name for a group of languages which
>    implements ECMA-262 or part of it or are just similar to
>    ECMA-262 or JavaScript.

NAK.  The term "javascript" is not generally understood to be synonymous
to "ECMAScript implementations".  The FAQ of this newsgroup[1]
define(s|d) it this way, though.  Anyhow, one of the issues when using
the umbrella term "javascript" is that often not only "ECMAScript
implementations" are meant, but rather libraries/APIs (e.g. the DOM) are
meant as well what dilutes the discussion even more.

[1] <http://jibbering.com/faq/>
    <http://pointedears.de/scripts/faq/cljs/>

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

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

#30106

On 24.03.2016 11:31, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> Herbert Kleebauer wrote:

>> 3. And there is javascript, a name for a group of languages which
>>    implements ECMA-262 or part of it or are just similar to
>>    ECMA-262 or JavaScript.

> NAK.  The term "javascript" is not generally understood to be synonymous
> to "ECMAScript implementations".  

Who is "generally"? You? Some others from this usenet group? Or the people
who use the word "javascript"? Ok, I belong to these "generally", therefore I
wrote "or are just similar to .... JavaScript). Nobody would use the name
javascript if there wouldn't be a relationship to JavaScript. If JavaScript
develops in a total different direction than ECMA-262 then the term "javascript"
most probably would stay by JavaScript, excluding ECMA-262.

So, what exact do you mean with "NAK?

> Anyhow, one of the issues when using
> the umbrella term "javascript" is that often not only "ECMAScript
> implementations" are meant, but rather libraries/APIs (e.g. the DOM) are
> meant as well what dilutes the discussion even more.

Sure. A "if", "for" or "while" doesn't need much discussion. I
really would prefer a good documented minimal low level API.
For example to read a binary file by http or ftp into an
internal array without blocking sites different from the
original html site. I even wouldn't care if I had to do
the jpeg decoding with my own code.

But what has this all to do with the statement:

"There is no javascript."

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

#30109

Herbert Kleebauer wrote:

> On 24.03.2016 11:31, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
>
>> Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
> 
>>> 3. And there is javascript, a name for a group of languages which
>>>    implements ECMA-262 or part of it or are just similar to
>>>    ECMA-262 or JavaScript.
> 
>> NAK.  The term "javascript" is not generally understood to be synonymous
>> to "ECMAScript implementations".  
> 
> Who is "generally"?

I meant to say that not everybody understands the term "javascript" as
you have defined it above.  Therefore your definition is not generally
accepted.

>> Anyhow, one of the issues when using
>> the umbrella term "javascript" is that often not only "ECMAScript
>> implementations" are meant, but rather libraries/APIs (e.g. the DOM) are
>> meant as well what dilutes the discussion even more.
> 
> Sure. A "if", "for" or "while" doesn't need much discussion. I
> really would prefer a good documented minimal low level API.
> For example to read a binary file by http or ftp into an
> internal array without blocking sites different from the
> original html site. I even wouldn't care if I had to do
> the jpeg decoding with my own code.

And that's exactly the crux.  Asking for a "good[sic] documented minimal
low level API" for "javascript" is simply too imprecise (at best).
Which environments do you target?  Browsers?  Which ones?  Which
versions?  Some ECMAScript implementation running on a server?  Or
something else (e.g. Windows Scripting Host, Komodo Edit).

> But what has this all to do with the statement:
> 
> "There is no javascript."

See above.

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

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

#30105

Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> writes:

> On 23.03.2016 17:27, John Harris wrote:
>
>> What do you think someone new to this Newsgroup will think when
>> someone shouts "There is no javascript" at them with no further
>> information?
>
> His problem is, that he is not able to express his opinion in
> a few, short and understandable sentences. I'm still not sure
> what's his problem with "javascript" so I stopped answering him.
>
> As I understand it:
>
> 1. There is JavaScript, a trademark of Oracle. Only Oracle defines
>    what JavaScript is an who gets a license to use the word JavaScript

Somewhat ironically the trademark (both in the UK ad the US) is
JAVASCRIPT.  When you register a word mark (rather than a mark with a
style or design element) it is registered in all caps.  JavaScript is
therefore covered, but so is javascript -- the name that does not denote
a language.

> 2. There is a ECMA-262 standard and a trademark ECMAScript owned by
>    Ecma International
>
> 3. And there is javascript, a name for a group of languages which
>    implements ECMA-262 or part of it or are just similar to
>    ECMA-262 or JavaScript.

Technically a trademark owned by Oracle.  This does not preclude the
everyday use that is so troublesome to some.

-- 
Ben.

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

#30099

John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote on 23 Mar 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:12:31 +0100, "Evertjan."
> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> 
>   <snip>
>> My stand is that Thomas would not be Thomas-as-we-know-him without 
>> his harmless idée-fixe, which should be a pity.
>   <snip>
> 
> Harmless? Really?

Yes.

> What do you think 

Why are you so preoccupied with what people think?

> someone new to this Newsgroup will think 

Why are you so preoccupied with what people think?


> when someone shouts "There is no javascript" at them with no further
> information?

Ah, so it is the further information that mitigates your fears?

> Will they assume that "javascript" is a way of saying there is only
> one language? 

Oh, don't be daft, even most English cyberbetic monoglotic lowbrainers must 
assume there are other languages.

Being a newbee is a harsh situation, which should be made clear, their 
interest should be enhanced by challenge, not just by clearcut helping and 
doing their task of finding out things.

What better challenge is there than to try and learn to understand things 
that possibly don't exist?

> Will they know that this meaning is only Thomas' opinion, 

Immaterial.

> not a law of nature 

Oh, don't be daft. As if your and my opinions are!

> and not everyone's opinion, 

So what, since when is everyone of one opinion? That would be a sorrow 
moment for discussion-groups.

So what, since when is majority opinion the measure of reality? If so, 
Darwin and Einstein would have been terribly wrong.

> and that the shouting is merely Thomas-as-we-know-him?

Immaterial, since the repeated Thomophobian utterings are imho much more 
damaging to the newbies in this NG, as they linger on and on and on, if such 
thing as "damaging to the NG" exists, which I am fairly sure does not and so 
does not matter. 

> Will they conclude that this Newsgroup is somewhere they don't want
> be?

No. They either want to be helped on a single issue or they want to discuss 
Javascript as a continuing pleasure. 

> Harmless?

Yes.

Would you say that saying that god does not exist is harmful too?

... and that Thomophobia does not, beneficial?

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

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

#30095

Evertjan. wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
> 
>> Regulars here have all seen his arguments on this point _ad nauseum_.
>> He seems to take the fact that they don't choose to accept them as a
>> personal affront.  And yet he is never swayed by all the counter-
>> arguments that have been made.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> It is maybe some regulars that again and again think this idea of Thomas is 
> a personal afront to them. 
> 
> Thomas is only not dissuaded by their arguments.

Well, it's clear enough from comments made by many regulars over the
years that they feel much the way I do about this stand Thomas has been
making: it is condescending, ridiculously pedantic, of no value in
the vast majority of the discussions where it's brought forth, and, in
essence, a waste of our time.

Thomas' reaction to these remarks is much less clear-cut, but I stand
by my description.  He does lash out as though he takes offence when 
one disagrees with him on this.

>> _ad nauseum_
> 
> That is their own fault, if they puke. And Scott, I have inside knowledge 
> that not all of them do.

That is not what _ad nauseum_ means:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam>

| Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition or argumentum ad 
| infinitum is an argument made repeatedly (possibly by different people) 
| until nobody cares to discuss it any more. This may sometimes, but not 
| always, be a form of proof by assertion.
| 
| It is not something initially unpleasant; rather, it is something 
| discussed to the point of being so.

Sounds familiar to me.


> My stand is that Thomas would not be Thomas-as-we-know-him without 
> his harmless idée-fixe, which should be a pity.

And would comp.lang.javascript not be altered for the worse if
people stopped arguing with him about this?  :-)

  -- Scott

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

#30097

Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> wrote on 24 Mar 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>>> _ad nauseum_
>> 
>> That is their own fault, if they puke. And Scott, I have inside knowledge
>  
>> that not all of them do.
> 
> That is not what _ad nauseum_ means:
> 
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam>

You are wrong.

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

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

#30101

"Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote on 24 Mar 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> wrote on 24 Mar 2016 in 
> comp.lang.javascript:
> 
>>>> _ad nauseum_
>>> 
>>> That is their own fault, if they puke. And Scott, I have inside 
knowledge
>>  
>>> that not all of them do.
>> 
>> That is not what _ad nauseum_ means:
>> 
>>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam>
> 
> You are wrong.

Thomas will be able to confirm my surmize 
that it means "zum Kotzen".

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

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

#30117

Evertjan. wrote:
> Evertjan. wrote:
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:

>>>>> _ad nauseum_
>>>> 
>>>> That is their own fault, if they puke. And Scott, I have inside 
>>>> knowledge
>>>  
>>>> that not all of them do.
>>> 
>>> That is not what _ad nauseum_ means:
>>> 
>>>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam>
>> 
>> You are wrong.
> 
> Thomas will be able to confirm my surmize 
> that it means "zum Kotzen".

It's a reasonable guess, but not correct.  The expression is Latin, and,
at least when used in English, means what I quoted earlier from Wikipedia,
something to the effect of "having continued so long as to be nauseating",
usually applied to a conversation or an argument, with clear indications
that the discomfort is not mere physical nausea.

  -- Scott

[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