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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #20045

Re: !0 versus true

Show all headers | View raw

[Supersedes & Cancel due to Copy & Paste error]

Scott Sauyet wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>>>> However, even though the two programs I supplied differ only in one
>>>>> equivalent expression, they have different behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stipulating the definition of equivalent expressions as you've
>>>>> presented it, if we define Document A as the one residing at
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://scott.sauyet.com/Javascript/Demo/2013-05-27a/>
>>>>>
>>>>> and Document B as the one residing at
>>>>>
>>>>> http://scott.sauyet.com/Javascript/Demo/2013-05-27b/>
>>>>
>>>> [libel]
>>
>> This was not libel.  *The record shows* that it *is* typical for you to
>> fail to differentiate between the argument and the person making it.
> 
> I'd be very interested to see any evidence whatsoever of this
> assertion.  What record are you considering?

Do you really want the ugliness of your character revealed here?  So be it, 
fool:

<news:ddd1ea21-b947-4614-89be-7043f50d269e@hq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
<news:c27f1e07-80dd-48ad-b20a-f407e6326dc6@he10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
<news:95f8d3fa-cbf6-4b68-ad2d-88c8e8bca214@y14g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>
<news:1fdd1b94-723f-4f42-8f5f-02d22854e042@r4g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
<news:b4cc9394-21bf-45ca-8204-a3beead37a0a@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
<news:923176ef-2dd8-49db-8c66-4d1b0881bd2e@o2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>

I could live with – and killfile forever – such a troll.  However, the most 
disgusting aspect of your false character is that you actually think you can 
make up for that extreme hostility with subsequent extreme reverence, (and 
I, believing in the good core in people, continuously fall for it):

<news:bd93fc08-185a-4614-91c2-a78ea5b6beaa@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
<news:c6cce191-f2f8-487a-ae89-cb775395730a@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>

That is only what is still online, and from it what I cared to find for this 
occasion.  I was only halfway those the articles matching your name.

Now I know I might not be considered the nicest person around because of the 
facts that I state, but at least I am *honest*: When I say something, I say 
what I think, and I do what I say.  If I sometimes target the person instead 
of the behavior or the argument in question, it is only accidentally, under 
rather extreme circumstances, when forced to react, like now.  For example, 
you have seldom, if ever, seen me talking bad about people behind their back 
like you do, seemingly out of habit.

>>                                                                 One could
>> consider your using my name in this context libel [ ... ]
> 
> Is that what you were blithering about, the fact that I used your name
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> in the damn documents?  If that offended you, I apologize.  I've
> removed your name from them.
 
q.e.d.

>>>>> The argument, in excruciating detail, proceeds as follows:
>>>>> [... elided ...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you accept this argument
>>>>>
>>>> No (but that is not the reason why I also reject your later
>>>>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> interpretation).
>>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Yes, I read it the first time.  I've been making a factual claim and
> an interpretation of that claim.  As far as I can tell, you're arguing
> vigorously against that factual claim. 

No, I am still arguing against your interpretation.  Because I know what I 
wrote and how I meant it, and it was not what you misconstrue it to be.

> I know quite well that you don't agree with my interpretation.

So, there really is nothing else to discuss if all you can base your 
argument on is your interpretation, and if you would not accept the 
possibility that your interpretation could be (and in this case is) wrong.

> I've stated my point there; I'm not trying to convince you.

But you are trying to convince everyone else that your interpretation is 
correct when it has been showed by at least two people that it is not.  Now 
where is the logic in that?

> But if you have a legitimate argument against the factual claim, then I
> would quite like to hear it.

I have made *several* legitimate arguments against your interpretation, 
which is the primary point in question here.  The secondary point that I 
debated is your are preceeding from *another* false assumption: the single 
possibility for the return value of Function.prototype.toString() for a 
given function, regardless of the implementation.

You have chosen to ignore all of them and label them “irrelevant”.  I am not 
going to repeat them for you because quite frankly I have better things to 
do than to teach you how to read properly.

> I'm not holding my breath.

Me too.  He cannot be convinced who thinks he cannot be wrong.

>>>>> If not, which is the first step you reject?
>>>>
>>>> 10.
>>>
>>> In other words, you deny that "Loading Document A and Document B into
>>> Chrome 27.0.1453.94 yield differing output."
>>
>> […]
>> No, I do not deny that "Loading Document A and Document B into Chrome
>> 27.0.1453.94 yield differing output."
> 
> Sorry, I'm not willing to play that game.  You know the rest of the
> argument. 

Yes, I know the rest of your fallacious argument all too well.

> If you choose not to respond, that's your right.  But unless you do, I'm
> going to have to go with "there really is nothing else to discuss."

I *have* responded to your false statement which says that I would “deny” 
your previous factual statement.  It is *your* turn now.

-- 
PointedEars

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

!0 versus true Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2013-05-23 23:31 +1000
  Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-23 07:58 -0700
  Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-23 17:53 +0200
    Re: !0 versus true Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-05-24 12:17 -0700
      Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-24 21:56 +0200
        Re: !0 versus true Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-05-24 13:13 -0700
          Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-24 22:23 +0200
      Re: !0 versus true Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-05-24 22:08 +0000
        Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-25 07:00 +0200
          Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-25 20:04 -0700
            Re: !0 versus true "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2013-05-26 11:07 +0200
            Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-26 13:11 +0200
              Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-26 13:28 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-27 12:07 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-27 11:27 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-27 23:30 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-27 17:12 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-28 02:40 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-27 20:29 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-05-28 15:38 +0100
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-28 08:32 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-28 21:14 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-28 15:38 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-29 13:20 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 06:37 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-29 16:28 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 13:32 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-29 23:34 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 06:30 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-05-29 17:33 +0100
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 11:34 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-05-31 10:22 +0100
                Re: !0 versus true Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2013-05-31 13:04 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-31 18:13 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-31 18:16 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 07:25 -0700
  Re: !0 versus true imma harper <immaterial_uk@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-05-31 09:46 -0700
    Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-31 21:38 +0200
    Re: !0 versus true John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-06-01 17:37 +0100
  Re: !0 versus true Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-06-02 21:03 +0100
    Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-06-03 04:45 -0700
      Re: !0 versus true Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-06-04 17:23 +0100

csiph-web