By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
443,706 Members | 2,030 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 443,706 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Internet Explorer JavaScript Weirdness

P: n/a

Hi, All:

I have a JavaScript search engine that always causes MSIE 7 to do a
top-of-page security "warning" (that top-of-page-bar, and not an
"alert" [dialog box])...but other websites' JavaScripts do not trigger
that...what's going on? When I visit other JavaScript sites there's
no warning and the scripts work fine, but mine (it's still under
construction, offline) occasions that warning and I have to manually
allow MSIE to run JavaScript every new session of MSIE....

Also (nothing to do with JavaScript, but I might as well ask, in case
it helps any), I have an animated .jpg that refuses to load in MSIE 7
though Opera 9 and Firefox 2 display that perfectly.
TIA!!
Apr 11 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
26 Replies


P: n/a
Prisoner at War wrote:
I have a JavaScript search engine that always causes MSIE 7 to do a
top-of-page security "warning" (that top-of-page-bar, and not an
"alert" [dialog box])...but other websites' JavaScripts do not trigger
that...what's going on? When I visit other JavaScript sites there's
no warning and the scripts work fine, but mine (it's still under
construction, offline) occasions that warning and I have to manually
allow MSIE to run JavaScript every new session of MSIE....
The "JavaScript" search engine (MSIE 7, like all MSHTML-based UAs, provides
JScript instead) uses an ActiveX/COM object that is deemed insecure by MSIE
7. The other sites that you have checked either do not or they are defined
to be in another Security Zone where less restrictions apply.

This is no guessing game at all. Post some code or the URL of your search
engine.

http://jibbering.com/faq/
Also (nothing to do with JavaScript, but I might as well ask, in case
it helps any), I have an animated .jpg that refuses to load in MSIE 7
though Opera 9 and Firefox 2 display that perfectly.
There are no "animated .jpg", unless the resource name suffix is not
indicative of the file format in your case (bad idea with MSIE). JPEG is
not an image format that allows animation (short of progressive rendering),
you have to use GIF89a or MNG for that (alas, the latter only with limited
support).
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16
Apr 11 '08 #2

P: n/a
On Apr 11, 5:08*pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
>

The "JavaScript" search engine (MSIE 7, like all MSHTML-based UAs, provides
JScript instead) uses an ActiveX/COM object that is deemed insecure by MSIE
7. *The other sites that you have checked either do not or they are defined
to be in another Security Zone where less restrictions apply.
Well, there's a cookie involved...but that's never been an issue
before! 'Matter of fact, until I manually turned it off, I was
getting cookies automatically, while getting that warning from MSIE.
This is no guessing game at all. *Post some code or the URL of your search
engine.
It's the script over at <http://javascriptkit.com/script/script2/jse/
index.shtml>...I've only modified it very slightly and don't think
it's anything I've done...it's rather too long to just post, even if
only just over fifty lines or so....
http://jibbering.com/faq/
Thanks for the ref...though I didn't notice anything specifically
relating to MSIE weirdness....
There are no "animated .jpg", unless the resource name suffix is not
indicative of the file format in your case (bad idea with MSIE).
Sorry, what do you mean "bad idea with MSIE"?? And how could the file
extension given by the OS itself be misleading??
*JPEG is
not an image format that allows animation (short of progressive rendering),
you have to use GIF89a or MNG for that (alas, the latter only with limited
support).
But WinXP says "JPEG" for sure!

?!?!
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
* * navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
* * && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) *// Plone, register_function.js:16
Jun 27 '08 #3

P: n/a

Just for the record...my second problem's now solved!

Turns out that MSIE 7 won't load animation that's been saved as a .jpg
file, but it will load it when that animation is properly labeled
the .gif that it is!!

?!?!

Opera 9 and Firefox 2 had no problems....


On Apr 11, 4:37*pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.comwrote:
>
<SNIP>

Also (nothing to do with JavaScript, but I might as well ask, in case
it helps any), I have an animated .jpg that refuses to load in MSIE 7
though Opera 9 and Firefox 2 display that perfectly.

TIA!!
Jun 27 '08 #4

P: n/a
Prisoner at War wrote on 12 apr 2008 in comp.lang.javascript:
Just for the record...my second problem's now solved!

Turns out that MSIE 7 won't load animation that's been saved as a .jpg
file, but it will load it when that animation is properly labeled
the .gif that it is!!
[Please do not toppost on usenet]

Could be weird, but it is not a javascript issue.

But thank you for pointing this out to me. ;-)
>
?!?!

Opera 9 and Firefox 2 had no problems....
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Jun 27 '08 #5

P: n/a
Prisoner at War wrote:
[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
>The "JavaScript" search engine (MSIE 7, like all MSHTML-based UAs, provides
JScript instead) uses an ActiveX/COM object that is deemed insecure by MSIE
7. The other sites that you have checked either do not or they are defined
to be in another Security Zone where less restrictions apply.

Well, there's a cookie involved...but that's never been an issue
before! 'Matter of fact, until I manually turned it off, I was
getting cookies automatically, while getting that warning from MSIE.
Pardon? I have written "ActiveX/COM object", _not_ "cookie", because the
former is the most common cause for such a warning message. However, the
code you are using does not use ActiveX/COM, so you should state what the
message actually says.
>http://jibbering.com/faq/

Thanks for the ref...though I didn't notice anything specifically
relating to MSIE weirdness....
It was the purpose of this reference that you get yourself informed about
proper behavior in Usenet in general, and comp.lang.javascript in
particular. Especially

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/clj_posts.html

as referred to there.
>There are no "animated .jpg", unless the resource name suffix is not
indicative of the file format in your case (bad idea with MSIE).

Sorry, what do you mean "bad idea with MSIE"?? And how could the file
extension given by the OS itself be misleading??
Well, you have found that out for yourself in the meantime.
> JPEG is
not an image format that allows animation (short of progressive rendering),
you have to use GIF89a or MNG for that (alas, the latter only with limited
support).

But WinXP says "JPEG" for sure!
Windows Explorer does not use MIME-magic, it relies solely on the filename
suffix. And so does Internet Explorer.
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
Jun 27 '08 #6

P: n/a
On Apr 12, 5:14 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
>

Pardon? I have written "ActiveX/COM object", _not_ "cookie", because the
former is the most common cause for such a warning message. However, the
code you are using does not use ActiveX/COM, so you should state what the
message actually says.
It's that "to help protect your security, Internet Explorer has
restricted this webpage from running scripts or ActiveX controls that
could access your computer..." warning along the top of the screen,
just underneath the MSIE tabs. Once I click on it and choose "Allow
Blocked Content" everything works fine.

But, like I'd said, I was getting cookies automatically from all
websites before without that warning! But opening my webpage (which
is offline; I'm still working on it) with the search engine occasions
that warning for some strange reason -- and now, even stranger, the
simple image swap below also gets that warning!!

<img src="something.jpg" id="test" name="test"
onMouseOver="this.src='nothing.jpg;"
onMouseOut="this.src='something.jpg';" />
It was the purpose of this reference that you get yourself informed about
proper behavior in Usenet in general, and comp.lang.javascript in
particular. Especially

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/clj_posts.html

as referred to there.
Ah, okay, thanks...though, you know, I don't like it that even usenet
posting has "scripting rules!" 9_9
Well, you have found that out for yourself in the meantime.
So strange!! What's the point of a file extension, then, if it can be
renamed whatever...well, it still behaves as it should, whatever its
name!
Windows Explorer does not use MIME-magic, it relies solely on the filename
suffix. And so does Internet Explorer.
Okay, thanks again! This is what I hate about computers...the
stupidest things have to be so precise, but then other things can be
just whatever! =\
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
Jun 27 '08 #7

P: n/a
On Apr 12, 2:54 am, "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.netwrote:
>

[Please do not toppost on usenet]
What -- even of myself?!?! ;-)

Seriously...what's with the top-posting issue?? How come no one tells
bloggers to not top-post? (Yes I know usenet isn't a blog -- or,
rather, it's a gigantic public blog -- but I really don't understand
the logic of this top-posting no-no.)
Could be weird, but it is not a javascript issue.
And thank Goodness for that! Enough JavaScript issues as it is
-- ! ;-)
But thank you for pointing this out to me. ;-)
Glad you found it of interest! This stuff is very strange...it's like
trying to talk to President Bush...the damned thing just does what it
wants to do! Why "return false" in one case and "return true" in
another?? Strange stuff here and there....
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Jun 27 '08 #8

P: n/a
Prisoner at War wrote:
[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
>Pardon? I have written "ActiveX/COM object", _not_ "cookie", because the
former is the most common cause for such a warning message. However, the
code you are using does not use ActiveX/COM, so you should state what the
message actually says.

It's that "to help protect your security, Internet Explorer has
restricted this webpage from running scripts or ActiveX controls that
could access your computer..." warning along the top of the screen,
just underneath the MSIE tabs. Once I click on it and choose "Allow
Blocked Content" everything works fine.

But, like I'd said, I was getting cookies automatically from all
websites before without that warning! But opening my webpage (which
is offline; I'm still working on it) with the search engine occasions
that warning for some strange reason -- and now, even stranger, the
simple image swap below also gets that warning!!

<img src="something.jpg" id="test" name="test"
onMouseOver="this.src='nothing.jpg;"
onMouseOut="this.src='something.jpg';" />
(Confirmed for hoverMe accessed via `file:' URI. OMG.)

Internet Explorer 7 imposes several security restrictions on code loaded
from `file:' URIs. I presume this is to protect users from malware that
would not be able to get access to the OS if the OS was properly designed in
the first place.

You should test your "offline" Web sites on a local Web server so that you
can access them with `http:' URIs as you did after they went "online".
Apache is stable, does not eat much memory, is easy to install, open source,
free software, and it is for free:

http://httpd.apache.org/
>Well, you have found that out for yourself in the meantime.

So strange!! What's the point of a file extension, then, if it can be
renamed whatever...well, it still behaves as it should, whatever its
name!
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filename_extensionfor details.
Especially the "Historical limitations" section should prove to be enlightening.
>Windows Explorer does not use MIME-magic, it relies solely on the filename
suffix. And so does Internet Explorer.

Okay, thanks again! This is what I hate about computers...the
stupidest things have to be so precise, but then other things can be
just whatever! =\
That only depends on who writes the OS and the UI, and finally the Web user
agent. For example, GNU/Linux applications show that filename extensions do
not need to matter; Firefox shows that resource names do not need to matter,
even on Windows.
HTH

PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f8*******************@news.demon.co.uk>
Jun 27 '08 #9

P: n/a
On Apr 12, 6:10 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
>

(Confirmed for hoverMe accessed via `file:' URI. OMG.)
?
Internet Explorer 7 imposes several security restrictions on code loaded
from `file:' URIs. I presume this is to protect users from malware that
would not be able to get access to the OS if the OS was properly designed in
the first place.
LOL
You should test your "offline" Web sites on a local Web server so that you
can access them with `http:' URIs as you did after they went "online".
Apache is stable, does not eat much memory, is easy to install, open source,
free software, and it is for free:

http://httpd.apache.org/
Thanks for the ref, but you see how I'm struggling with simple
JavaScript basics here, too! =(
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filename_extensionfor details.
Especially the "Historical limitations" section should prove to be enlightening.
Wow, thanks...this was really amusing: "[the] use of spaces often led
to confusion with novice DOS users, who thought of the "." as part of
the file's identifier, rather than merely a convention for separating
the two components of that identifier"...reminds me of the joke about
customers calling tech support about the "'any' key"....
<SNIP>
Jun 27 '08 #10

P: n/a
On Apr 17, 4:35 am, Jorge <jo...@jorgechamorro.comwrote:
<http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/f...ns/2004-March/
040735.html>

Besides, most email clients invite you to top-post by default.

--Jorge.

Just seems natural, doesn't it? I mean, you presume someone is
following the conversation, so no need to open up with a re-hash of
the previous week's episode, so to speak! And for those who are just
tuning in...there's always the Collectors' Edition DVD! ;-)
Jun 27 '08 #11

P: n/a
Jorge wrote:
<http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/f...ns/2004-March/
040735.html>
Why do you believe this is persuasive? McManis offers no substantial
arguments to support his position; neither is he any sort of authority
on the subject.
Besides, most email clients invite you to top-post by default.
Usenet is not email.

The default behavior of poorly-written software does not constitute a
persuasive argument.

That's zero for two. Care to try again?

--
Michael Wojcik
Jun 27 '08 #12

P: n/a
On Apr 18, 10:18 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Honestly, I think this whole business is nothing more than the ol'
toilet paper debate -- over or under. And you know what: it really
doesn't harm anyone either way. Is the cup half full or half empty?
However you characterize it, you can still drink that water, etc.
That may be in and of itself true. However, if bottom posting is the
clearly-defined preference of THIS group and as you say "doesn't harm
anyone", then why not exercise some common courtesy and adhere to that
methodology?
Jun 27 '08 #13

P: n/a
Prisoner at War <pr*************@yahoo.comwrites:
Honestly, I think this whole business is nothing more than the ol'
toilet paper non-debate -- over or under. 'Cause you know what: it
really doesn't harm anyone either way. Is the cup half full or half
empty? However you characterize it, you can still drink that water,
etc.
It isn't. It really *is* harder to parse a top-posted reply, because it
makes the context harder to find. Top-posting because you don't know any
better is excusable. Top-posting because you don't care about context
just makes you look lazy and uninterested in actually participating in a
civilized discussion; in other words, it's rude.

--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
Jun 27 '08 #14

P: n/a
Prisoner at War meinte:
Honestly, I think this whole business is nothing more than the ol'
toilet paper non-debate -- over or under. 'Cause you know what: it
really doesn't harm anyone either way.
It does. Anyway, if you want people to help you with your problem, you
should follow their suggestions and advices, do them the asked favour.

The way you act, won't help you with your problem, and make you look
like a moron. But you probably don't care about that either.

Gregor

--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
Jun 27 '08 #15

P: n/a
In comp.lang.javascript message <c9f7e60d-91a8-4890-82ed-3710c3563a12@x4
1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:23:47, Prisoner at War
<pr*************@yahoo.composted:
>
I really appreciate your help, but I have a philosophical disagreement
with the notion that a public forum requires its own "law library" and
"legal procedures"....
Arriving and arguing with accepted convention is juvenile, and leads to
the probability of your actual questions being ignored by the more
sensible experts, and yourself ranted at by the All-Höchster.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ??*@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/- FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.
Jun 27 '08 #16

P: n/a
On Apr 18, 4:25 pm, Dr J R Stockton <j...@merlyn.demon.co.ukwrote:
>

Arriving and arguing with accepted convention is juvenile, and leads to
the probability of your actual questions being ignored by the more
sensible experts, and yourself ranted at by the All-Höchster.
I don't know why expressing oneself should be "arguing" to others --
nor, I maintain, why a *public* place belonging to no one should have
rules against things which harms no one -- but wer ist der All-
Höchster when he's at home???
>
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/- FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name..
Jun 27 '08 #17

P: n/a
On Apr 18, 2:58 pm, Kevin Scholl <ksch...@comcast.netwrote:
>

That may be in and of itself true. However, if bottom posting is the
clearly-defined preference of THIS group and as you say "doesn't harm
anyone", then why not exercise some common courtesy and adhere to that
methodology?
Sure thing; I often bottom-post, too, because it really is all the
same to me and I do one or the other without thinking about it,
actually...but this "tyranny of the majority" over what is a non-issue
is something which I find more harmful than bottom-posting. I'd be
against such "rules" even if it were the other way around, if somehow
the majority decided that top-posting is what *should* be the case.

Again, toilet paper over or under...I really can't see "legislating"
such a thing, whether by law or mere public opinion!

Jun 27 '08 #18

P: n/a
On Apr 18, 3:39 pm, Gregor Kofler <use...@gregorkofler.atwrote:
>

It does. Anyway, if you want people to help you with your problem, you
should follow their suggestions and advices, do them the asked favour.
I really hope we as a species will one day get beyond "political
pandering"...it makes for a lot of dishonesty and cynicism in society.
The way you act, won't help you with your problem, and make you look
like a moron. But you probably don't care about that either.
Why do people spend so much time worrying about not looking like a
moron? Honestly, rules are for children. But okay, if we must treat
each other like little JavaScript codes and little JavaScript
interpreters that get thrown off-course by top-posting, all right,
I'll adopt your usenet "semantics"....
Gregor

--http://photo.gregorkofler.at::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografiehttp://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiesehttp://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
Jun 27 '08 #19

P: n/a
On Apr 18, 3:04 pm, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...@newsguy.comwrote:
>

Many people use inline quoting in email, so that statement often isn't
true. Nor is it relevant.

Usenet existed long before blogs, and may well predate the first MUA
that used top-quoting by default. mailx used an external editor, so it
didn't define a quoting behavior per se, but the ~m command formatted
quoted text for inline quotation (ie, indented with a configurable
prefix). VMS Mail's "reply/extract" just copied the original text into
the new message unchanged; quoting style was left to the user. VM/CMS
MAIL favored inline quoting with REPLY TEXT - it copied the message
text into the editor, and suggested you insert lines for you reply
into the quoted text using PF2.

There seems to be a widespread belief that Microsoft Outhouse
popularized top-quoting. It's a very late arrival to this party.

Certainly, top-quoting was rare on Usenet prior to AOL and Eternal
September.

You're free to go elsewhere.

Gosh, that's insightful. No one has ever made *that* particular
sweeping generalization before. Spoken conversation is usually
informal, too. When you quote someone while you're speaking, do you
say your piece first, and then quote them at the end?

(And calling "world wide web" an "instance of 'informal conversation'"
is not just wildly reductive but a category error. The Web is an
information access method, not a mode of expression.)

You're not. There's no shortage of newbies who refuse to learn good
manners.

That's debatable. Truscott and Ellis were graduate students when they
created Usenet, and most of the initial users were either academics or
researchers, but it quickly grew outside that community. Cleveland
Freenet made it generally accessible in 1986, for example. And even
among the early users, few were stereotypical academics in the sense
you mean.

OK, cite *anything* from the _MLA Handbook_ that applies to this
discussion. Pick an edition - I think I have most of them.

Yes. And the people whom you're asking to read your notes have
conventions that they follow, so it would behoove you to follow them.

Once upon a time, students were required to study a modicum of
rhetoric, including how to appeal to their audience. Would that it
were still so.

Fine. No one here needs to read or respond to your postings, either.
I'll be happy to ignore anything else you post that's not properly quoted.

We can. We don't want to. See the difference?
What are y'all, women?? This is how women act -- and then they
complain how guys are always lying to them just to get into their
skirts!

I'm not here to argue about this non-issue, though I've never
discussed this with programmer-types and that's why I've asked you all
your opinions...well, this is my last post in this thread on this,
'cause like everything else about human beings, it's got nothing to do
with logic and reason and everything to do with one's ego (see
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/op...17kristof.html for some
proof of what research studies have found time and time again: people
do not arrive at beliefs through a process of logical deduction).

To me, it seems like a short little response just looks and "feels"
better on top of a big long post, which is why I'd usually be inclined
to put it on top. But since you are so touchy about it, sure, Happy
Birthday, here's my reply on the bottom. And it's so short because I
can see that this is an emotional issue for you all and I don't want
to further offend anyone over this non-issue.
--
Michael Wojcik
Jun 27 '08 #20

P: n/a
Prisoner at War <pr*************@yahoo.comwrites:
But okay; I see I'm among some serious hard-core "Dungeon Masters"
here who are very strict about rules! I still don't really get the
psychology of insisting on only one way of doing things when it comes
to what seems to be a non-issue, but I can certainly respect that most
people want bottom and interleaved posting.
Note that the rules (conventions, realy) are just technicalities about
the format of debates / threads. They say nothing about how to behave or
what to say (besides staying more or less on topic). This is just to
make sure that the debates themselves are easy to follow. In other
words, it's just about not needlessly wasting people's time; they're
already spending their time reading the post at all.

Also, some of the people here *are* strict nit-pickers, but they also
tend to have a fairly high grasp of the topic, so don't piss them off
needlessly if you want to have useful answers to your questions :-)

Anyway, thanks for bending to peer-pressure, I guess :-)

Joost.

--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
Jun 27 '08 #21

P: n/a
Joost Diepenmaat wrote:
Prisoner at War <pr*************@yahoo.comwrites:
>But okay; I see I'm among some serious hard-core "Dungeon Masters"
here who are very strict about rules! I still don't really get the
psychology of insisting on only one way of doing things when it comes
to what seems to be a non-issue, but I can certainly respect that most
people want bottom and interleaved posting.

Note that the rules (conventions, realy) are just technicalities about
the format of debates / threads. They say nothing about how to behave or
what to say (besides staying more or less on topic). [...]
Anyway, thanks for bending to peer-pressure, I guess :-)
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
================================================== ================
Jun 27 '08 #22

P: n/a
In comp.lang.javascript message <f730a795-68d9-4ef2-ac39-55710e95d186@c6
5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:49:26, Prisoner at War
<pr*************@yahoo.composted:
>On Apr 18, 4:25 pm, Dr J R Stockton <j...@merlyn.demon.co.ukwrote:
>>

Arriving and arguing with accepted convention is juvenile, and leads to
the probability of your actual questions being ignored by the more
sensible experts, and yourself ranted at by the All-Höchster.

I don't know why expressing oneself should be "arguing" to others --
nor, I maintain, why a *public* place belonging to no one should have
rules against things which harms no one -- but wer ist der All-
Höchster when he's at home???
>>
--
(c)
Good manners calls for reading for a while before writing. Had you done
so effectively, you would not have needed to ask about Grumpy. Had you
done so, you would have seen and read the newsgroup FAQ, in which the
desire for compliance with accepted convention is indicated. And you
would have known not to quote signatures.

And if you were to use properly-designed newsreader software, you would
have the opportunity of seeing why top-posting is bad.

Grow up, use your own name, get some respectable software, let your
present reputation be forgotten, and you may then reasonably hope for
favourable attention.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html-Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm: about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.
Jun 27 '08 #23

P: n/a
Hi

This is my first post on this news group and it's a shame it should be
on this off topic subject. No doubt it will earn me Elvish wrath.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:02:38 -0700 (PDT), Prisoner at War
<pr*************@yahoo.comwrote:
>On Apr 18, 3:39 pm, Gregor Kofler <use...@gregorkofler.atwrote:
>I really hope we as a species will one day get beyond "political
pandering"...it makes for a lot of dishonesty and cynicism in society.
With respect, it's not anything of the sort. If you join any group of
people from the outside (extending a real world analogy) it is
sensible and minimally polite to take the time to learn the way the
group functions and conform to that. Telling a group of people in
effect "you're a load of stuck up bullies" may be true, but it isn't
going to get you well received, and if you're after help, it's a
matter of enlightened self interest to listen to advice you've been
given. When you're an accepted part of the group you could well
suggest that the virtues of top, bottom and interspersed answering be
debated.
>Why do people spend so much time worrying about not looking like a
moron? Honestly, rules are for children.
Tsk. No they aren't. Polite behaviour is the oil in the machinery of
social interraction. Even Heinlein knew that. If you behaved exactly
as you wished face to face with other people, without regard to their
likes and dislikes or the mores of the group, you would stand a very
good chance of getting a poke in the nose. Here, you'll be spared
that, but I guess you'll also be spared the help you might have got.

That said, I've rarely seen a group of more stuck up self satisfied
arrogant prigs in one place. I first subscribed a fortnight ago to
this newsgroup in the hope of getting help. Having read the level of
"help" I might get, I decided to abandon any attempt. I don't want to
be insulted, condescended to or treated like all kinds of a moron,
simply because I don't HAPPEN to understand Javascript as well as they
do. It doesn't make me dumb, lazy or stupid, merely ignorant, and
being treated as some retarded imbecile doesn't cure my ignorance.

Jun 27 '08 #24

P: n/a
On Apr 19, 7:41 pm, Munged <spuri...@hotmail.comwrote:
>

<SNIP b/c I'd said I won't comment on "top-posting" anymore in this thread (would look like I'm "arguing" even though I'm not!>

That said, I've rarely seen a group of more stuck up self satisfied
arrogant prigs in one place. I first subscribed a fortnight ago to
this newsgroup in the hope of getting help. Having read the level of
"help" I might get, I decided to abandon any attempt. I don't want to
be insulted, condescended to or treated like all kinds of a moron,
simply because I don't HAPPEN to understand Javascript as well as they
do. It doesn't make me dumb, lazy or stupid, merely ignorant, and
being treated as some retarded imbecile doesn't cure my ignorance.
I must say, I actually did get help with my JavaScript questions,
right from the start, so I'm very surprised by your experience! I was
actually afraid of the treatment you actually had, since it seems de
rigeur for usenet to give newbies or even just newcomers to a group
the "hazing" treatment -- but people have been totally helpful right
from the start.

That's so weird...people are so strange, I think when we finally have
a thinking machine it will be built by other machines, not by a
human....
Jun 27 '08 #25

P: n/a
On Apr 19, 3:16 pm, Dr J R Stockton <j...@merlyn.demon.co.ukwrote:
>

<SNIP>

Grow up, use your own name, get some respectable software, let your
present reputation be forgotten, and you may then reasonably hope for
favourable attention.
I think part of being a grown-up is not worrying about "names" and
"brands" ("respectable software") and "reputation" and "favorable
attention"...seriously, it's amazing how many "grown-ups" act like
children, only with more elaborate outward forms to display.
Honestly, just look at the world, and how it's **all** about show and
outward appearance -- AND PEOPLE DON'T EVEN REALIZE IT!

As long as you care about conventions, your mind remains conventional,
no matter what new conventions you might come up with.

So not only top-posting, but a "real name" and "respectable software"
and a "good reputation"...ach, how does anyone expect society to
change if people keep living by the same rules??

I think the whole promise of the internet is precisely its potentially
"anarchical" nature...in life, people might not ever bother helping
each other because of appearances...here, physical appearances are set
aside but the "programming class" of "appearances" still have their
old effects, only on other "variables" now....

Tsk, tsk!
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html-Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm: about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.
Jun 27 '08 #26

P: n/a

Me, troll?

You're the one with pointed ears, after all!

You what's really sad?

Bad enough you have such a small mind...but you spend your time trying
to turn others against me, too.
Wow, just how insecure can you be??

On Apr 19, 2:46 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
>

+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
================================================== ================
Jun 27 '08 #27

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.