|
|
Posted by Steve on 10/02/07 21:47
>>Proove it. You call it that, nobody else is. I supplied you with 10
>>current examples. Match it, or admit you're wrong.
>
> Actually none of the examples you provided proved anything since first
> of all search strings ARE NOT CASE SENSITIVE, so if you search for
> javascript you'll get results with both spellings and vice versa. The
> other problem is that none of the links you provided were situations
> in which ALL TYPES were being described.
hmmm, so because you can't remember where you got your fucked up notion in
your head and because you can't find your own evidence to back up your
insanity, you think you've adequately refuted her argument? lol. what's
next? are you going to next say that it's just common sense?
> And there's nothing to prove, it's common fuckin sense.
ROFLMFAO!
i was wrong! it's just common *fuckin* sense...LOL.
> I mean it's
> like your stupid ass wants to call every single box of tissues
> "Kleenex", when there is ONLY ONE BRAND called "Kleenex", you fuckin
> retard.
more like band-aids almost not being allowed the TM of their name since,
even though there are hundreds of other bandage manufacturers, each is
referred by the public to as 'band-aid'. sorry, the name just kind of covers
the *genre*, not the brand.
get a better example, mental fuckwit.
> In the case with javascript types though, there IS NO fall back term,
> so it's not like with "Kleenex" where you can just use the generic
> term "tissue". javascript types didn't have a generic term outside of
> "web scripting languages", which was verbose and wordy. So the SMART
> developers started using the phrase "javascript", purposefully
> uncapitalized to show a distinction from the actual JavaScript
> language.
omg! only according to the world of lunatic fantasy...yours.
> Again though, the problem is that idiot fucks like you came
> along and suddenly started capitalizing the word, not even realizing
> that every time you did you were limiting the scope of your message to
> just Netscape's javascript type...and boy howdy there are some REALLY
> fuckin hilarious examples of retards like yourself talking about
> "JavaScript" whilst making reference to JScript specific syntax.
here's a clue, unless you specify the exact type and even version, the
browser implements ITS DEFAULT interpreter for javascript. it doesn't matter
in the least how you spell it. netscape's javascript type...LOL.
> It should probably also be noted that quite a number of employers will
> use little things like that as tests, to see if you really know yer
> stuff or not. Any competent developer would know not to capitalize
> the word in a conversation that includes all ECMAscript types, only a
> bumbling amateur college flunkie wouldn't know.
so, in addition to avoiding proving your point with specific examples, you
simply allude to the *possibility* that even more such proof exist - and in
such frequency that you shouldn't have any trouble producing some.
now would be a good time to show your proof rather than skirting the issue
with more of your uninformed, arrogant drivel.
let's see some, flunkie. ;^)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|