Prev: getAttribute in IE
Next: Dynamic iframe caching problem workaround needed for Firefox
From: RobG on 21 Dec 2009 18:42
On Dec 22, 5:23 am, "S.T." <a...(a)anon.com> wrote:
> On 12/21/2009 5:59 AM, Erwin Moller wrote:
>
> > ReMARKable statements.
> > Does c.l.j. equal 'David Mark' in their minds?
>
> I suspect clj is more attributed to wasted overkill, as in a twenty-one
> post thread about trimming whitespace.

How about a 12 post thread on "What is the event when a user presses
the enter key anywhere on the page?"

<URL: http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-en/browse_frm/thread/bb36ead50d1a73f7#
>


> It's a good place to argue and maybe pick up a thing or two amongst the
> shrapnel, but that's about it. It's not an 'end result' type of place if
> you're looking to accomplish something.

As oppposed to the jQuery GG where more than 30% of posts never get a
response at all. Those that are lucky enough to get an answer are
often given awful advice or plain guess-work.


> > Anyway, strange folk over there: This all sounds much like censorship to
> > me.
> > They did ban you earlier from their fora, right?
>
> If they haven't, they probably should. He whines for a year about an
> aspect of the library then, when they say "hmmm... ok, we'll look into
> that", they get threatened with a lawsuit in the event a test case
> possibly resembles his?

Given that post by Resig and the response here, do you still believe
that statement? I considered the lawsuit phrase a bit of rhetoric.


> Not exactly a useful contributor.

I beg to differ.

> Look at it from their perspective... why would you not just write him
> off as a troll?

Because he offers technically sound advice? This is a news group, not
a fan club. There are and have been a number of posters here who have
could be considered abrasive, sometimes rude - however if their advice
is sound it is worth taking note of or at least investigating further.


--
Rob
From: Andrew Poulos on 21 Dec 2009 23:29
On 22/12/2009 12:51 PM, S.T. wrote:

> That's not to say this newsgroup is useless. There's a need to discuss
> javascript in a rigorous academic-type setting. But it's not for the
> masses and a developer with an average knowledge who comes here asking
> questions one isn't likely to find results -- just more confusion
> coupled with berating.
>
> This group is fine the way it is, but shouldn't promote itself as
> something it is not. It is not a friendly, helpful community -- rather
> it's an isolated group that will happily berate those that try to
> accomplish goals in a manner the few regulars here believe to be a less
> efficient approach.

Are you expecting that someone will code your project for you or to
provide a tutorial catering to your needs?

I tend to get all of my questions answered and if someone wants to dump
on something "stupid" that I'm wanting to do then I'm big enough to
accept the criticism.

What peeves me is that when the merits of jquery gets discussed anywhere
if someone puts forward negative criticism then the person gets put
down. Its a very weak rhetoric technique.

Andrew Poulos
From: Erwin Moller on 22 Dec 2009 02:34
David Mark schreef:

> No, that's what raving loons in the jQuery world often say in response
> to reviews critical of their script pal that's fun to be with.

MarvinScript! ;-)

Regards,
Erwin Moller



--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
From: Dr J R Stockton on 23 Dec 2009 14:11
In comp.lang.javascript message <4b30257b$0$1948$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net
>, Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:51:38, S.T. <anon(a)anon.com> posted:
>
>That's not to say this newsgroup is useless. There's a need to discuss
>javascript in a rigorous academic-type setting. But it's not for the
>masses and a developer with an average knowledge who comes here asking
>questions one isn't likely to find results -- just more confusion
>coupled with berating.

It used to be substantially so, but then Thomas Lahn and David Mark came
along.

>This group is fine the way it is, but shouldn't promote itself as
>something it is not.

> It is not a friendly, helpful community -- rather it's an isolated
>group that will happily berate those that try to accomplish goals in a
>manner the few regulars here believe to be a less efficient approach.

That is not what it was set up for, and it is not how it would be most
beneficial. The nasties should be using, for their vituperations, a
private off-Usenet medium. And so also should the more amiable deep
experts who happen not to be reasonably good at communicating with those
who know less than they do.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Grandson-Of-RFC1036 is released. RFC 5536 Netnews Article Format is a
subset of Internet Message Format which is described in RFC 5532. The
RFCs are read together to determine standard Netnews article format.
From: David Mark on 23 Dec 2009 18:50
On Dec 23, 2:11 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply0...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> In comp.lang.javascript message <4b30257b$0$1948$742ec...(a)news.sonic.net
>
> >, Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:51:38, S.T. <a...(a)anon.com> posted:
>
> >That's not to say this newsgroup is useless. There's a need to discuss
> >javascript in a rigorous academic-type setting. But it's not for the
> >masses and a developer with an average knowledge who comes here asking
> >questions one isn't likely to find results -- just more confusion
> >coupled with berating.
>
> It used to be substantially so, but then Thomas Lahn and David Mark came
> along.

Not getting enough attention these days, Johnny?

>
> >This group is fine the way it is, but shouldn't promote itself as
> >something it is not.
> > It is not a friendly, helpful community -- rather it's an isolated
> >group that will happily berate those that try to accomplish goals in a
> >manner the few regulars here believe to be a less efficient approach.
>
> That is not what it was set up for, and it is not how it would be most
> beneficial.  The nasties should be using, for their vituperations, a
> private off-Usenet medium.  And so also should the more amiable deep
> experts who happen not to be reasonably good at communicating with those
> who know less than they do.

That certainly lets you out. :)
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: getAttribute in IE
Next: Dynamic iframe caching problem workaround needed for Firefox