QSA--buggy in lots of browsers?
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Java Lead with GUI & SWT | CA | 10+ months
Next: Presentation of a new native JavaScript database
From: Garrett Smith on 11 Feb 2010 16:16 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. You write things like buffoon, loser, dumb, idiot a lot. I would call that ad hominem. Roja Gilwreathe is probably an ironic pun on Roger Gilreath. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: David Mark on 11 Feb 2010 16:18 jdalton wrote: >> I don't mean that the idea can't work for XML documents, just that the >> current implementations are not equipped for that (e.g. botched handling >> of get/hasAttribute and expandos which may be disallowed in XML DOM's). >> On the latter, I think some _attempt_ to detect XML and set custom >> attributes in lieu of expandos, but that's really shaky. > Actually some, like NWMatcher and other new comers, are supporting XML/ > XHTML/SVG documents I fully support XHTML, though feel it is folly at this point (will be making that a build-time option in the near future). The basic DOM stuff should work with other XML documents as well, but I am not sure about the queries. > >> Thanks for the vote of confidence. Contrary to popular belief, I am not >> "trolling" here, nor am I interested in flame wars. > I don't know, some of your threads seem to be full of flame bait. > You could have probably approached them in a better way to provide > constructive feedback without the flame injected into them. Perhaps. But there's a long history here (i.e. there have been lots of flames from both "sides" over the course of many years). It's particularly irritating that the "major" library contributors (seemingly all of them) denigrate this newsgroup as full of "trolls", when in reality (actual reality, not their idea of a "real world" where they just "get things done"), this is where they should be looking for answers (virtually any question you can think of has an answer somewhere in the archive, so you don't even have to converse with anybody to solve problems). > >> I want to raise awareness for problems that I see as continuing endlessly for no good >> reason (e.g. browser sniffing, botched DOM traversal, etc.) It is >> certainly counter-productive when things devolve into non-arguments. :) > I agree, I think those are problems that should be highlighted. > Speaking of raising awareness, have you thought about submitting > speaking proposals to the various JS conferences ? Not really. Why travel and speak at podiums when I can reach the whole world right here from my den? Of course, if the price was right... :)
From: jdalton on 11 Feb 2010 16:27 > Not really. Why travel and speak at podiums when I can reach the whole > world right here from my den? Of course, if the price was right... :) If you are chosen to speak many times the conf covers travel and hotel arrangements :D I would love to see you speak at SXSW or JSConf, go for it ! :D
From: David Mark on 11 Feb 2010 17:01 jdalton wrote: >> Not really. Why travel and speak at podiums when I can reach the whole >> world right here from my den? Of course, if the price was right... :) > If you are chosen to speak many times the conf covers travel and hotel > arrangements :D Er, that would be a break even venture at best (and I hate traveling). :( > I would love to see you speak at SXSW or JSConf, go for it ! :D > Thanks. If they can do it virtually, maybe I will. But the chance that I would actually take the time out to go to those (assuming they aren't holding them in Cincinnati) is virtually nil. Sorry.
From: Garrett Smith on 11 Feb 2010 20:51
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. Calling the code dumb not the same as calling the person who wrote it dumb, though, that's what I meant by ad hominem. > 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. >> 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. >> 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. 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. 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. > 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. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/ |