Prev: Java Lead with GUI & SWT | CA | 10+ months
Next: Presentation of a new native JavaScript database
From: rf on 10 Feb 2010 04:17
Roja Gilwreathe wrote:
> It

Ah, a top poster.

Enough said.


From: slebetman on 10 Feb 2010 04:26
On Feb 10, 4:35 pm, Roja Gilwreathe <rojagilwrea...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>  This thread was a completely un-
> instigated set of potshots against jQuery just to make your own ideas
> and library sound great and wonderful.

Wow, pointing out that buggy code is buggy is taking potshots? I
thought that was how opensource (and just plain old good academic
discussion) was supposed to work.

> Of course, this is standard
> operating procedure on this alleged 'newsgroup,' which devolved long
> ago into your personal dumping ground for whichever axe you feel like
> grinding at the moment.

To me, open, honest criticism of code is excellent policy. If you
can't stand honesty then it's your loss. Honesty is always valuable
regardless of weather or not I agree with the idea (and I often find
myself disagreeing with David).

> You should have figured out a long time ago that relevance goes hand
> in hand with manners.

Manners have little to do with how well code is written. I'd much
prefer code that is as bug-free as possible to code written by polite
people. After all, I'm not aiming to be David Mark's or John Resig's
friend. I just want to use the code.

Criticisms like Davids is extremely useful because there are faults
pointed out in his posts that are not acknowledged on jQuery's bug
tracker because its developers don't consider them to be bugs.

> You may be a damn clever JS developer, but no
> one, I assure you, no one, thinks of you as anything more than a forum
> troll with severe anger and jealousy issues.
> <snipped the rest>

Well.. definitely not no one unless your universe consist entirely of
jQuery fanboys.

From: rf on 10 Feb 2010 06:49
Roja Gilwreathe wrote:
> Would

Gee, another top post, against all the rules of this newsgroup.

Obviously not a regular reader. Just a drop in troll angry that is favourite
library is being exposed as totally flawed.



From: Jake Jarvis on 10 Feb 2010 07:22
On 10.02.2010 12:49, wrote rf:
> Roja Gilwreathe wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sounds familiar.

>> Would
>
> Gee, another top post, against all the rules of this newsgroup.
>
> Obviously not a regular reader. Just a drop in troll angry that is favourite
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I would actually bet on the opposite, see above.

> library is being exposed as totally flawed.
>

--
Jake Jarvis
From: rf on 10 Feb 2010 07:36
Jake Jarvis wrote:
> On 10.02.2010 12:49, wrote rf:
>> Roja Gilwreathe wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Sounds familiar.

Not here.

>>> Would
>>
>> Gee, another top post, against all the rules of this newsgroup.
>>
>> Obviously not a regular reader. Just a drop in troll angry that is
>> favourite
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I would actually bet on the opposite, see above.

A search for the word Gilwreathe in google groups reveals zero hits

A search on my news server reveals exactly two hits. The two posts in this
thread.

A general search for Gilwreathe on the web returns exactly one hit, oddly
enough a chinese "lets copy usenet" site that reveals my first post in this
thred.

No, not familar at all.

I don't care who this dipstick is, I'm on Davids side. Lets get rid of these
stupid "libraries" and replace them with code that actually works.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: Java Lead with GUI & SWT | CA | 10+ months
Next: Presentation of a new native JavaScript database