|
|
Posted by Steve on 01/03/08 15:52
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:fMWdneiJEscK9-HanZ2dnUVZ_tWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:VuydnRBwdfYti-HanZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>> PHP doesn't have pointers. Period. End of statement. You cant
>>> describe references in relationship to something which doesn't exist.
>>
>> sure you can. for the newbie, 'pointer' means nothing. they have no
>> knowledge of pointers as defined by another language. that is WHY i use
>> the term to describe references in php...because people 'get' it.
>>
>
> Sure - YOU CAN. But intelligent people know better.
<yawn> did you say something, jerr?
>> and for taking you literally...bollocks. it's called inference. try and
>> use it sometime, as it is the key to intelligence.
>>
>
> You wouldn't know inference if it bit you in the ass.
<rubbing eyes> sorry, what was that again, jerr?
>>>> illiterate twit.
>>>>
>>> Projecting again, huh, Stevie?
>>
>> no, stucco.
>>
>
> ROFLMAO! I haven't heard that one since third grade. But that's about
> your intelligence level.
kinda like 'stevie', huh. lol.
your spray is being blown back in your face there, jerr. aim down-wind...it
helps.
>>>>> You've just once again opened your "mouth" and removed all doubt about
>>>>> your stoopidity.
>>>> a cliche you just mangled...and have no idea who originated it -
>>>> outside of google.
>>>>
>>> No mangling. Just paraphrasing to match the circumstances. But I'm
>>> sorry - I used a word which was too big for you.
>>
>> and by 'stoopid', you're trying to emulate another troll...OMH? or, is
>> that just more confirmation of your illiteracy?
>>
>
> Nope. Just trying to phrase things in words you can understand.
after i describe it, most generally need no further explaination...and the
conversation typically ends with 'oh, that makes sense. i get it now.
thanks'.
>>> And if you must know, it was Mark Twain - one of the many familiar
>>> sayings he coined.
>>
>> lol...googling again?
>>
>
> Nope. Unlike you, I didn't need to google it.
where do you get this stuff, jerry? how do you 'infer' that i needed to
google anything? ad-homs work best if you can make it stick rather than just
taking the 'i'm rubber, you're glue' approach.
>>>>>>> You're just a stoopid troll, Stevie, who uses people in a desperate
>>>>>>> attempt to get some kind of acceptance. You don't use your real
>>>>>>> name here because you're so afraid people will find out you're not
>>>>>>> really a programmer.
>>>>>> is that right.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yep. You give yourself away virtually every time you respond to a
>>>>> post here.
>>>> you're funny.
>>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>
>> no, no...not a compliment.
>>
>
> From you, it is.
ok, i guess that makes sense if i take you to be truly desperate for such
affections.
>>>>>>> But you're stoopidity has given you away once again. Any programmer
>>>>>>> with more than two weeks of *real experience* in C++ programming
>>>>>>> knows the difference between pointers and references - and knows how
>>>>>>> wrong you are.
>>>>>> php != c++ ... your point is moot.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Then why did you bring it up? Backpedaling again, stoopid troll?
>>>> i didn't. micha did initially. secondarily, you did. my first mention
>>>> was the *caveat* that the *behavioral* description was not literally
>>>> correct with c-style languages.
>>>>
>>> You're the one who tried to compare PHP references to something which
>>> doesn't exist.
>>
>> rof! pointers DO exist. if pointers DID exist in *PHP*, i'd have used a
>> different descriptive for references in *PHP*. but, i've already
>> addressed that...and your statement here is simply stupid as you leave
>> out the context for the claim 'doesn't exist'.
>>
>
> No, PHP pointers do not exist. And that's what you tried to compare
> reference to you.
you really should have said php pointers the first time. we've been talking
about php *and* other c-style languages. just making the statement is stupid
without context, dumbass. as for:
"And that's what you tried to compare reference to you."
makes you sound like a 60 year old mongol who just picked up a book whos
title translated means "english for dummies". try again, illiterate fuckwit.
> And if you're taking about C/C++ pointers, it shows how little you
> understand those pointers. Not at all the same.
get a clue jerry. i'm talking about php. it just happens that in *php* when
i say more than one variable 'points' to the same thing, the noobie gets it
a lot quicker than saying they 'refer' to the same thing.
> But only programmers understand that, so it's no wonder you get them mixed
> up.
no, you just have a great propensity to trip over your own feet. read for
comprehension. may i further recommend, "reading english for dummies"...and
that book used small words and short sentences, which should help. inference
is biting you in the ass...haven't you noticed?
>>>>>>> You're the worst kind of loser.
>>>>>> is that anything like a dipshit who keeps posting the same drivel day
>>>>>> after day just to have someone to chat with? sounds more like you
>>>>>> jerry than me.
>>>>> Just the truth, Stevie. But you can't handle it. You could always
>>>>> stop responding. But I know you won't.
>>>> again, jerry, for me to be effected emotionally by your insults, i'd
>>>> have to care about your opinion. i don't. you can stop trolling
>>>> now...it has no effect.
>>>>
>>> Quite frankly, I don't give a damn if your AFFECTED or not. But you do
>>> need to get a dictionary.
>>
>> then why bother hurling them, lame-ass.
>>
>
> Then why do you bother responding, STOOPID TROLL. Because it does affect
> you! ROFLMAO!
bad conclusion, jerr. it's entertaining. it doesn't effect me in the least.
and at least OMH has a litany of 'creatively' spelled alternatives.
'stoopid' is just getting plain old. were i you, i'd consider completing
your jedi training by doing *everything* OMH does...and not just some.
anyway, answer my question first. why bother?
> If it didn't affect you, you'd just ignore them and not respond. Your
> responses are proof that you're lying - AGAIN.
they don't. you seem to think they do...so, good for you. i'm feeding the
troll named jerry stucco. it's quite amusing. it has nothing to do with your
ability to ad-hom like an 8 year old...or your lack of ability.
>>>> further, you still respond because *you're* a troll.
>>>>
>>> ROFLMAO!
>>>
>>>>> Now I hear your mommy calling. Better go see what she wants.
>>>> lol. she did call. having christmas together with the rest of the fam.
>>>> are you trying to say you've found out my age. i think your only safe
>>>> assumption there is that i am younger than you. that's a *safe*
>>>> assumption simply for the fact that i know your *exact* age...and MOST
>>>> EVERYONE here is younger than you. :)
>>>>
>>>> cheers, pops.
>>> No, there are several here who are older than I am. But it's not hard to
>>> find out how old I am. I don't try to hide behind an alias.
>>
>> good for you. your point?
>
> Nothing. YOU brought it up, STOOPID!
i brought up you saying there are several here who are older than i [you]
am? lol. am i to take that three sentence blurt to mean something? i think
your point *was* nothing...regardless of who brought up what. that's why i
have to directly ask what your point was.
> But there isn't anyone here YOUNGER than you - at least in intellectual
> maturity.
lol. no, you are proof to the contrary. what's worse is that whatever my
maturity level, it is more close to my age than the distance between your
physical age and immaturity. i guess you, old dog, did not learn and cannot
hope to resolve the casm between the two.
> Not to mention your lack of programming knowledge.
brought to you by 'stucco-productions', jerry stucco, executive
director..."the world projects from us".
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|