This newsgroup is not a help desk
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: complete page rewriting
Next: td inner border
From: David Mark on 22 Jul 2010 18:10 On Jul 22, 4:59 pm, SteveYoungTbird <stephen.yo...(a)chello.at> wrote: > On 07/22/2010 01:44 PM, David Mark wrote: > > > Sorry for the blatant advertisement, but having been recently exhorted > > to share my knowledge and experience in book form, I thought I should > > remind readers that books are a relatively limited (and static) > > medium. > > Similar to the cycle of life this is the cycle of DM. ? > > As I wrote herehttp://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thr... Nobody should be interested in your writings at this point. Your reputation was shot long ago. > > It's the usual garbage: > "All JavaScript libraries are rubbish, I'll write a really good one" All *existing* (major GP) libraries are rubbish... Get it? And I obviously wrote a much better one, as evidenced by the patterns showing up in the rest of them (years later). > "All JavaScript books are rubbish. I'll write a really good one" They are and I am. > "Dojo is the best JavaScript library. I'll make it really good" I never said anything like that. I said it would be the best when I got done with it. I rewrote virtually all of it if you recall. Not my fault that their egos couldn't take the hit. > Nothing came of any of this so now we're back at: > "All JavaScript libraries are rubbish, I'll write a really good one" Uh, see above. > It'll be the book next. You are repeating yourself (as usual). I didn't bring up the book, other readers did. Best to read before you write. > > Except instead of the book we get this 'cos its better. What does that mean and why are you obsessed with my various endeavors? It's creepy. > > > Despite virtually zero advertising so far, I'm still disappointed in the number of sign-ups. > > This statement is priceless. You are disappointed that people are not > signing up despite the fact that you are not advertising? Do you not understand "virtually"? Or are you just bleating randomly (as usual)? > > > And, of course, there's the > > almost daily occurrence of newcomers to this group getting frustrated > > by the "staffers" discussions of their present problems. > > This has been less of a problem over the last few weeks but > unfortunately you're back. Don't be stupid. When I'm away, far less gets done here. > > > > > *Conditions apply regarding the scope and depth of questions that may > > be asked > > Of course! > Yes. Don't bother asking things like "Why is Steve Young such a nitwit?" It's too open-ended.
From: David Mark on 22 Jul 2010 18:14 On Jul 22, 5:23 pm, "S.T." <a...(a)anon.com> wrote: > On 7/22/2010 1:59 PM, SteveYoungTbird wrote: > > >> Despite virtually zero advertising so far, I'm still disappointed in > >> the number of sign-ups. > > > This statement is priceless. You are disappointed that people are not > > signing up despite the fact that you are not advertising? > > I most enjoyed how the rates go up in the event "your questions require > more than a minute effort to answer". That's classic. Broad open-ended questions are not included. Those typically lead to consulting, which is a different service. And you'd be surprised what I can answer in a minute. ;) The practice of limiting the scope and depth of questions is standard in the industry. But I suppose you just want to post foolishness (anonymously). Thanks for your interest anyway. :)
From: Alan Gutierrez on 22 Jul 2010 18:14 David Mark wrote: > On Jul 22, 8:12 am, "rf" <r...(a)z.invalid> wrote: >> "David Mark" <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:93a879bd-f6b5-42fe-a6a7-1ee2f87d4556(a)g1g2000pre.googlegroups.com... >> >>> "This newsgroup is not a help desk" >> And it's also not a place to advertise ones wares. > > Not necessarily. If it is of interest to JS developers... It is in bad taste. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
From: Alan Gutierrez on 22 Jul 2010 18:16 David Mark wrote: > On Jul 22, 3:23 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: >> On Jul 22, 6:44 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > As pathetic as a known jQuery apologist (and virtual basket-case on > his worst days) wasting time in a thread that is none of his concern? I'm sorry. I didn't know that you were the man who owned USENET. Is this thread any of my concern? May I post in it. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
From: David Mark on 22 Jul 2010 18:24
On Jul 22, 6:16 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > On Jul 22, 3:23 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 22, 6:44 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > As pathetic as a known jQuery apologist (and virtual basket-case on > > his worst days) wasting time in a thread that is none of his concern? > > I'm sorry. I didn't know that you were the man who owned USENET. Yep, picked it up for a song. It's a fixer-upper. :) > Is this > thread any of my concern? May I post in it. Depends on what you have to say. So far, I'm leaning towards no. :) But seriously, Matt Kruse (and a couple of other jQuery addicts) had nothing to say and said it poorly. There's really no call for that. Such types tend to blame me for bringing them down with regard to all of the time they have invested in "learning" jQuery. Odd considering how much of my advice and code have made it into jQuery. You'd think they'd thank me! ;) |