|
|
Posted by Steve on 10/02/07 22:26
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <usenet@backwater-productions.net> wrote in message
news:m7f5g31tf1odltit34pk3uqhi8e5vkv6ao@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:47:20 -0500, "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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?
>
> I know yer slow Stevie The Wonder Retard, so I'll explain this again,
> REAL slow.
>
> SEARCH ENGINES ARE NOT CASE SENSITIVE
>
> ...woah, what a fuckin revelation for you, huh Sunshine?
>
> I mean, it's a lil hard to cite something that can't the fuck be cited
> in the first place you idiot fuck.
lol. that's like saying 'my dog ate my homework'. by your logic, since a
search engine is case insensitive when searching, you can't find proof for
your argument...so, your point is valid and made.
slow enough for you? rolfmao.
>>> And there's nothing to prove, it's common fuckin sense.
>
>>ROFLMFAO!
>
> He's laughing everybody, he uh, he just wants to make sure we all know
> how much of a good time he's having...it's important to him. *nods*
he's 'nodding' (new term for omh) everybody, he uh, he just wants to make
sure we all know that he does in fact have something attached to his neck -
desipte having proof that there is.
>>i was wrong! it's just common *fuckin* sense...LOL.
>
> Uh huh, you just keep referring to all ECMAscript types as JavaScript,
> Bumbles, see how many smiles you get from developers beyond your
> limited comprehension. Free cl00, they WON'T bother bitch slapping
> you with reality. Most high level designers/programmers make it a
> point to try and leave amateurs at the amateur level by NOT explaining
> certain things to them.
i suppose those would be the ones who have to make long, simple, drawn-out
explanations of bits, bytes, shifting, and masking for the fuckwit noobz
that have no clue what they are. wait, that would be me and a host of others
to had to spoon feed that lesson to your 75 iq having programming wannabe
ass. yeah, i'd take your advice, only it applies to you and not me. there's
your free clue.
>>> 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.
>
> You mental fuckwit, you just PROVED my argument by NOT CAPITALIZING
> the word "band-aid". If you had capitalized it, you would be
> referring ONLY to Band-Aid brand band-aids in the same way that if you
> capitalize javascript you are referring ONLY to Netscape's JavaScript,
> you bumbling retard!
lol. to a browser javascript/JAVASCRIPT/JavaScript/jAvAsCrIpT/etc. are the
same fucking thing. had you a brain, you'd know that no matter HOW Band-Aid
spelled their name, they were almost denied a TM since everyone knew
bandages by 'band-aid'. and following that example, you noticed that their
commercial changed from 'i am stuck on band-aid, cuz band-aid stuck on me'
to 'i am stuck on band-aid brand, cuz band-aid stuck on me'. if you don't
specify the BRAND of javascript you want, you get the default javascript
engine of the browser...i.e. javascript1.2 for instance.
do try and keep up.
>>> 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.
>
> Oh the irony...did you even realize at all, on any level, that you
> further proved my argument by using the word exactly like I told you
> to? Then again, you don't seem to capitalize the first word of your
> sentences, so maybe yer just a dumbfuck all over...or your shift key
> is broken (probably has dried spooge stuck in it from all the times
> you jacked yerself off to my posts you stupid fuckin Hatter Addict).
'proving' your argument would etail that you first supply *proof* that
JavaScript is somehow different than javascript. i'm really just reaffirming
my point...not yours. get a grip (of something other than the dick being
thrust in your mouth at present).
>>> 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.
>
> The next thing you know this retard will be asking me to "prove" that
> cars have wheels. *rolls eyes*
well, better roll them in big enough circles to avert everyone's attention
to them rather than the fact that you can't prove your point. if i take you
to a car with other people, i could point to the wheels and we'd all say,
that's a wheel. you simply cannot take us to your cite (ANY cite) and show
us the load of shite you'd have us swollow.
>>let's see some, flunkie. ;^)
>
> Onideus Mad Hatter called, he says he wants his material back, you
> flunkie rip off artist.
it's called a 'call-back'. iow, you are the flunkie. your 'material' is not
even amusing. however, seeing the way your 'thought' processes 'work', is.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|