QSA--buggy in lots of browsers? [JavaScript]

Prev: Java Lead with GUI & SWT | CA | 10+ months
Next: Presentation of a new native JavaScript database

From: David Mark on 11 Feb 2010 21:01

Garrett Smith wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>> David Mark wrote:
>>>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>>>> David Mark wrote:
>>>>>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> David Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>> Roja Gilwreathe wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> "Ad hominem attacks" is another overused word that often serves
>>>>>>>> only to
>>>>>>>> make the user sound like a laughingstock (see also troll).
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> Ah, here's a prime example. I don't use the stars at all (what a waste
>> of time). If you think that every time you get a one-star rating and/or
>> I get a five-star rating that it is my doing, you are clearly being
>> paranoid. GG is a big world (and I don't use it much either these days).
>>
>
> I don't know.
>
>> And what on earth does any of that have to do with your comment about
>> Dojo?
>>
>>> Regarding my comments about the w3c - those are mostly are factual. I
>>> did express my opinion that they are arrogant and out of control.
>>
>> Eeek! Troll, snark, ad hominem straw man, etc.
>
> Posting what I wrote on w3c list it *would* be flame bait and would not
> be pertinent to any particular discussion
>
>>
>>> Is
>>> that ad hominem? Seems like a stretch.
>>
>> Dunno. My Latin is pretty weak. Personal attack? Sounds like it.
>>
>
> Okay I don't know the post you're referring to. I can sort of agree with
> that.

I'm sort of glad. :)

>
> Calling the code dumb not the same as calling the person who wrote it
> dumb, though, that's what I meant by ad hominem.

Right.

>
>> And I have reason to believe that certain people are (or act like)
>> buffoons. What's the difference.
>>
>>> Fact: The w3c's Philippe Le Hegaret, Art Barstow, Charles
>>> McCathieNevile, Mike Smith, Doug Schepers banned me permanently.
>>
>> LOL. Maybe they are the ones panning your posts?
>>
>
> Uh-huh. And bumping up yours. And Roger Gilreath's.

Roger Gilreath? How many posts does "he" have here? Two? And are you
really delusional enough to think there is some connection between my
post ratings and yours? I've certainly never rated any of your posts.
I think I once rated one of Resig's posts just for the hell of it. And
yeah, it was a one (I'd have given it a zero if it were possible).

>
>>> They
>>> said it was a two-week ban. Philippe Le Hegaret mentioned one statement
>>> I had made on list, using the term "misguided individuals", and also
>>> included lies and corroboration as justification for banning me. The
>>> words "misguided individuals" is possibly considered ad hominem, though
>>> I didn't see it that way in that case.
>>
>> Perspective is everything.
>>
>
> Nokia has significant financial investment and interest. I have no
> corporate backing; it was easy for them to get rid of me.

So get some corporate backing and get rid of _them_.

>
>>> I also stated that the w3c is a pay-to-play organization. That is
>>> another fact, so not ad hominem.
>>
>> Ad hominem implies fiction? My Latin must be worse than I thought.
>>
> No, ad hominem is attack the man. Facts aren't attacks. Finding a
> problem with something and insulting somebody by name calling are
> totally different things.

Pay-to-play would not seem like a personal attack. Misguided would.

>
> Also I suggest looking up tu quoque, which is what it sort of looks like
> here. Yes I do use ad hominem at times. I also lie about stuff to
> people, have been known to women in various situations, etc.

Lie about stuff? Now every time I get a one-star rating on GG, I am
going to think it was you. And yeah, I sure get my share of them. Lot
of nuts out there.

>
> The point I was trying to make is that there is a lot of insults coming
> from you to others. Last week you called Scott Sauyet a buffoon and a
> loser after he posted up test cases but he remained calm about it and
> didn't whine at all.

You know my posts better than I do. I don't remember the details, but I
am sure I had a good reason. Anyway, can we get back on the topic at
hand: QSA--buggy in lots of browsers? (not David Mark--rude?)

>
>> What difference does it make *where* you stated it?
>>
>
> What I say here, after the fact, is not something that could be used as
> justification for banning me from the list. It is here, not there, and
> it is after the fact.

You seem a bit stung by the ban. Get an alias! ;)

From: Garrett Smith on 11 Feb 2010 21:09

From: Garrett Smith on 11 Feb 2010 21:13

David Mark wrote:
> Garrett Smith wrote:
>> David Mark wrote:
>>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>>> David Mark wrote:
>>>>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>>>>> David Mark wrote:
>>>>>>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>> David Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Roja Gilwreathe wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> "Ad hominem attacks" is another overused word that often serves
>>>>>>>>> only to
>>>>>>>>> make the user sound like a laughingstock (see also troll).
>> [...]

>
> Lie about stuff? Now every time I get a one-star rating on GG, I am
> going to think it was you. And yeah, I sure get my share of them. Lot
> of nuts out there.
>

Anyone who says they never lie about anything is full of it.
--
Garrett
comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/

From: David Mark on 11 Feb 2010 21:24

Garrett Smith wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>> David Mark wrote:
>>>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>>>> David Mark wrote:
>>>>>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> David Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Roja Gilwreathe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>> "Ad hominem attacks" is another overused word that often serves
>>>>>>>>>> only to
>>>>>>>>>> make the user sound like a laughingstock (see also troll).
>>> [...]
>
>
>>
>> Lie about stuff? Now every time I get a one-star rating on GG, I am
>> going to think it was you. And yeah, I sure get my share of them. Lot
>> of nuts out there.
>>
>
> Anyone who says they never lie about anything is full of it.

I see. And how do I know you aren't lying about that?

From: David Mark on 13 Feb 2010 19:42

Garrett Smith wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
> > Garrett Smith wrote:
> >> David Mark wrote:
> >>> Garrett Smith wrote:
> >>>> David Mark wrote:
> >>>>> Roja Gilwreathe wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>> "Ad hominem attacks" is another overused word that often serves only to
> >>>>> make the user sound like a laughingstock (see also troll).
> >>> Because it is typically tossed about to describe anybody the poster
> >>> doesn't like. In general usage, it's got no real meaning at this point,
> >>> other than to show that the user is clueless about the origins of the
> >>> term. Technically speaking, most who cry "troll" are in fact trolling
> >>> themselves (like this latest crank).
> >> Huh. I don't see that so much. What is determined to be an insult varies
> >> often the person writing it doesn't see it as the person reading it.
> >
> > Read blog comments, tweets, forum posts, etc. and you will see that word
> > used to describe any behavior that rubs the author the wrong way. It's
> > meaningless at this point.
> >
>
> It might be misused but does that make it totally meaningless?
>
> > And you don't consider this "Roja" post to fit the classic definition of
> > trolling? And how about the various anonymous twits that pop in to
> > insult the entire NG every time a critical code review is posted? Those
> > are trolls in the classic sense.
> >
> >> You write things like buffoon, loser, dumb, idiot a lot. I would call
> >> that ad hominem.
> >
> > Perhaps you are referring to my arguments with you? :)
>
> Yes I have been the brunt of your name calling and I don't know why you
> would be happy about that. what you say about me says more about you
> than it does about me at this point.
>

Searching last night, I stumbled onto one of your typical "have your
cake and eat it too" veiled references. You like to call names
without actually naming names, which is pretty weak (particularly on
the Internet where there is no chance of coming out of it with a
bloody nose).

Since you seem to be into nostalgia (specifically regarding my posts),
I thought you might find it interesting.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/e1979e332400a370

"Some individuals point out shortcomings in jq. Others parrot those
points, obnoxiously."

That's obviously directed at me. Parroting implies mimicry and
repetition. The latter is necessary as there is a constant influx of
new readers who rarely read posts that predate their presence (and who
do you think packs them in here?) Sure it can be tiresome to regular
readers, but so what? Feel free to skip my posts (or even filter
them).

And later in that post:-

""There's the - attr - which still deals with property/attribute
ambiguously, and that can cause more divergence between browsers than
it
solves. "

Now, who's parroting who? And a pretty weak rendition to boot. :)

It's the same old story. You can't stand the fact that _you_ haven't
changed the game. I'm not saying you couldn't have; but, for whatever
reason, you didn't. And piggy-backing on my posts isn't going to
bring you any glory either. In fact, this sort of off-topic babbling
about _me_ has got to be more tiresome to regulars than my code
reviews (which are, after all, on topic for this group).

And speaking of the reviews, as Peter alluded to, do you really think
the message would have seeped through (eventually) if it hadn't been
REALLY LOUD (obnoxious in your spin). I don't. ;)