DanS,

> You're a liar.

Prove it. You only need to quote what I said and than how I later said
something else. That should be easy, right ? Good luck. I won't hold my
breath though. Make a wild guess why.

And while you are at it, also try to respond to my "Andy tried to make it
sound as if there was /but one/ solution" statement, like by quoting where
he said *something different* than 'just enable JS' (and no, thats not a
quote).

> You repetetively repeated this requirement following post after
> post telling you not using JS is virtually impossible for what you
> wanted to do.

:-) Kid, people with no skills whatsoever will declare *everything* is
impossible.

Like you. You have zero idea about how it could be done differently, so you
tell me that its "virtually impossible"(1) - fully (purposely?) ignoring the
times people (including myself) have already mentioned something different.

And yes, I "repetetively repeated this requirement" to those nitwits who
kept "suggesting" that I use JS anyway.

I could give you another hint to look a few posts back to find someone
mentioning something to circumvent twitters login + JS requirement (similar
to facebook), but as you seem to be allergic to hints I won't. :-)

(1) Quite a nice "escape hatch" you build yourself there. Now if someone
comes by with a solution or when I create one myself you yourself can always
backpeddle by pointing that that, right ? :-p

> Your "hints" are just another way for you to backlpeddle and be
> good little Usenet troll moving the goal posts, and being cryptic
> and ambiguous.

You're free to quote where and how I was/am "moving the goal posts". Up
until that you're just one of those "claim a lot, prove nothing" blowhards.

So, I expect that your next post contains proof of your accusations. When
not or you try to backpeddle yourself I won't hesitate to call you out on
it.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Mayayana,

> he enjoys being adversarial and likes an impossible
> challenge.

:-) If it was only that ...

Most of what I ask is something stupid I run into while trying to accomplish
something else.

> So he does things like ask in the scripting group how one
> can have sex via command line while using a VBScript
> to edit the 7th layer of a Paint Shop Pro image.

:-) I do not even have PSP, but I get the gist of it.

By the way, which subject was that ? Somehow I now want to read that
back...

> We try to explain that WSH doesn't recognize .PSP format,
> but he won't listen.

As a (hobby) programmer I know that pretty-much nothing computer-related is
impossible, it just takes more time, energy and/or knowledge.

> He just answers, "That's not what I asked, fool! Go away,
> little boy, if you can't say anything helpful!" :)

True, I do not respond well to "I don't know how to do it, so its impossible
that someone else will be able to" or "I've never heard of it, so it doesn't
exist" kind of replies - especially not when I get told that several times
over in the same thread (like now).

What I normally ask for is /suggestions/. Maybe something I forgot to take
into consideration, or something I did not know existed. You know,
*possibilities*. I can wel do without the "you should not even /want/ to do
that" responders. :-(

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote

| > So he does things like ask in the scripting group how one
| > can have sex via command line while using a VBScript
| > to edit the 7th layer of a Paint Shop Pro image.
| | :-) I do not even have PSP, but I get the gist of it.
| | By the way, which subject was that ? Somehow I now want to read that
| back...
|

I'm not going to tell you how to have sex via command line.
Then everyone would want to do it.

In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote

> | > So he does things like ask in the scripting group how one
> | > can have sex via command line while using a VBScript
> | > to edit the 7th layer of a Paint Shop Pro image.
> |
> | :-) I do not even have PSP, but I get the gist of it.
> |
> | By the way, which subject was that ? Somehow I now want to read that
> | back...
> |

> I'm not going to tell you how to have sex via command line.
> Then everyone would want to do it.

unzip; strip; touch; finger; grep; mount; fsck; more; yes; fsck; fsck; umount; clean; sleep
--
Yesterday was still kind of crowded outside. The Batman was overrated!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

Mayayana,

> I'm not going to tell you how to have sex via command line.
> Then everyone would want to do it.

:-p

But seriously, if you can remember where you think I pulled such shennigans
I would like to re-read it - if only to see if I can, looking back,
recognise in it what you said.

You see, I might be a bit direct (focussed on getting a problem solved or at
least getting to know why it can't be solved), but normally have no
intention being offensive.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote

| But seriously, if you can remember where you think I pulled such
shennigans
| I would like to re-read it - if only to see if I can, looking back,
| recognise in it what you said.
| | You see, I might be a bit direct (focussed on getting a problem solved or
at
| least getting to know why it can't be solved), but normally have no
| intention being offensive.

You're almost always offensive. That's OK. Everyone seems
to be a bit more Aspergers online.

Mayayana,

> You're almost always offensive.

I can't say I enjoy hearing that ... As said, not my intention.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In article <t3o9hm$1omu$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser wrote...
>
> Mayayana,
>
> > You're almost always offensive.
>
> I can't say I enjoy hearing that ... As said, not my intention.
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

If you mean that, then a little diplomacy will avoid a lot of unpleasantness,
which itself is a distraction from the issue at hand.

Most people responding (most of the time) are trying to be helpful.

If you are carrying some misapprehension, someone who points that out is doing
you a favour, and one I've learned to value.

If you allow yourself to get heated, then you're more likely to damage your own
reputation than to "score" any meaningful "points" in any argument.

Here, I think much of the friction, and your (understandable) impatience
actually arose from a lack of the right emphasis in your original question. We
understand now that you prefer (strongly, it seems) not to allow JS to run in
your browser. That's becoming less common, even among those with the expertise
to understand the issues involved, but most people would still readily accept
that as a premise for your question - provided it's importance to you is
signalled clearly. I'll readily admit that your reference to "random scripts"
went right over my head. Was that my fault for not stopping to ponder what you
must mean by that, or your fault for expressing your preference obliquely?
Most likely both.

Usenet (or whatever we should call these groups these days) is not an arena for
competition but for cooperation - for sharing, and for mutual help. So let's
all be a bit kinder to our fellow-travellers here.

--

Phil, London

Philip,

> If you mean that, then a little diplomacy will avoid a lot of
> unpleasantness, which itself is a distraction from the issue at hand.

If you have a suggestion to how to deal with people who refuse to even read
the question - or think they can just discard requirements mentioned in it
because its inconvenient to them - than I'm all ears.

> Most people responding (most of the time) are trying to be helpful.

I've got a different experience. Just take the number of people here who
just tried to convince me to enable JS in my browser and be done with it.
Not the kind of "help" I asked for or need.

> That's becoming less common, even among those with the expertise
> to understand the issues involved, but most people would still readily
> accept
> that as a premise for your question - provided it's importance to you is
> signalled clearly.

I mentioned not wanting to run random scripts as one of just two conditions
in my initial question/post. I assumed that that would be enough to
indicate its importance to me. But if you have a suggestion to how to
express such a thing better, I'm again all ears.

> I'll readily admit that your reference to "random scripts" went right
> over my head. Was that my fault for not stopping to ponder what you
> must mean by that, or your fault for expressing your preference obliquely?
> Most likely both.

:-) There is no way anyone can express himself in such a way that
/everyone/ will be able to understand it. That is why a question is
normally the start of a dialog.

I have to ask though : even if the "random" in it was not clear enough for
you, how come you missed the "no scripts" (in my browser) part ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote

| > You're almost always offensive.
| | I can't say I enjoy hearing that ... As said, not my intention.
|

I'm not easily offended, so it was meant partially as a joke.
But it doesn't take much to set off a lot of people. Then we get
long arguments about whose grandmother wears army boots.

I'm afraid we're all getting old. And Windows is no longer
worth fixing. And far fewer people are doing independent
programming. So we're left with arguments about grandmothers
wearing army boot... and John Gilliver occasionally scolding us
for not performing British politeness.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 16:07:07, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote
>
>| > You're almost always offensive.
>|
>| I can't say I enjoy hearing that ... As said, not my intention.
>|
>
> I'm not easily offended, so it was meant partially as a joke.
>But it doesn't take much to set off a lot of people. Then we get
>long arguments about whose grandmother wears army boots.
>
> I'm afraid we're all getting old. And Windows is no longer
>worth fixing. And far fewer people are doing independent
>programming. So we're left with arguments about grandmothers
>wearing army boot... and John Gilliver occasionally scolding us
>for not performing British politeness.
>
Wow, never thought of myself in that role! I can lapse into rudeness
too, I'm afraid - I'm sure I have with you occasionally, for example,
for which I apologise (and in advance as I'll probably do it again).
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in
silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in
silencing mankind. -John Stuart Mill, philosopher and economist (1806-1873)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 at 18:00:17, R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>What I normally ask for is /suggestions/. Maybe something I forgot to take
>into consideration, or something I did not know existed. You know,
>*possibilities*. I can wel do without the "you should not even /want/ to do
>that" responders. :-(
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>
>
That's a bit like "what happened before the big bang?". [I do have some
grasp - through a glass, darkly, as the saying goes - why the question
is indeed invalid, but I like asking it anyway, if only to wind up those
who do understand the subject!]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in
silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in
silencing mankind. -John Stuart Mill, philosopher and economist (1806-1873)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 14:51:53, R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>I mentioned not wanting to run random scripts as one of just two conditions
>in my initial question/post. I assumed that that would be enough to
>indicate its importance to me. But if you have a suggestion to how to
>express such a thing better, I'm again all ears.
>
>> I'll readily admit that your reference to "random scripts" went right
>> over my head. Was that my fault for not stopping to ponder what you
>> must mean by that, or your fault for expressing your preference obliquely?
>> Most likely both.
>
>:-) There is no way anyone can express himself in such a way that
>/everyone/ will be able to understand it. That is why a question is
>normally the start of a dialog.
>
>I have to ask though : even if the "random" in it was not clear enough for
>you, how come you missed the "no scripts" (in my browser) part ?
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>
>
I suspect your use of "random" was the problem: had you just said "I
don't want to run scripts" (or "any scripts"), the question would have
been clearer. "Random" is in this case somewhat subjective: the web page
authors (or more likely, the authors of the software they used to put
together the web page) knew exactly which scripts they intended you to
run. So they weren't "random" to them. But they were to you.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in
silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in
silencing mankind. -John Stuart Mill, philosopher and economist (1806-1873)

John,

> I suspect your use of "random" was the problem: had you just said "I don't
> want to run scripts" (or "any scripts"), the question would have been
> clearer.

And I would have lied.

For one, I've got an add-on named GreaseMonkey (to scrub and generally
reformat webpages) which, you guessed it, uses JS to do its work.

Also, the "random" was quite intentionally - I would have few problems with
a (vetted by me and) locally stored, static script. IOW, I tried to keep
my options open.

> "Random" is in this case somewhat subjective: the web page authors (or
> more likely, the authors of the software they used to put together the web
> page) knew exactly which scripts they intended you to run. So they weren't
> "random" to them.

:-) Are you sure ?

*Any* webpage which has (JS driven) ads on it negates that "I know what my
users are getting" idea. And that means it goes for 98.36% of all webpages
out there (and yes, I plucked that number outof thin air. :-) ).

Same goes for all those JS-driven facebook, twitter and other "social media"
buttons you see everywhere. Definitily not under the control of the page
authors ...

And thats besides the "my JS has got some dependencies, lets load it from
(not controlled by them) somewhere else" ofcourse.

Add to that that most, if not all "page authors" use webpage designing
programs which hide the nitty-gritty from them and I think I can quite
confidently state that not even they know what, in regard to JS, their page
actually does on their users machines.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In article <t3p4tt$lhv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser wrote...
>
> Philip,
>
> > If you mean that, then a little diplomacy will avoid a lot of
> > unpleasantness, which itself is a distraction from the issue at hand.
>
> If you have a suggestion to how to deal with people who refuse to even read
> the question - or think they can just discard requirements mentioned in it
> because its inconvenient to them - than I'm all ears.
>
> > Most people responding (most of the time) are trying to be helpful.
>
> I've got a different experience. Just take the number of people here who
> just tried to convince me to enable JS in my browser and be done with it.
> Not the kind of "help" I asked for or need.
>
> > That's becoming less common, even among those with the expertise
> > to understand the issues involved, but most people would still readily
> > accept
> > that as a premise for your question - provided it's importance to you is
> > signalled clearly.
>
> I mentioned not wanting to run random scripts as one of just two conditions
> in my initial question/post. I assumed that that would be enough to
> indicate its importance to me. But if you have a suggestion to how to
> express such a thing better, I'm again all ears.
>
> > I'll readily admit that your reference to "random scripts" went right
> > over my head. Was that my fault for not stopping to ponder what you
> > must mean by that, or your fault for expressing your preference obliquely?
> > Most likely both.
>
> :-) There is no way anyone can express himself in such a way that
> /everyone/ will be able to understand it. That is why a question is
> normally the start of a dialog.
>
> I have to ask though : even if the "random" in it was not clear enough for
> you, how come you missed the "no scripts" (in my browser) part ?
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

I think it's a safe bet that most of us scan the posts at speed for anything of
interest, or with which we might be able to assist. Your question was sloppily
written, heavily coloured by your idiosyncratically strong views on running
JavaScript, to the extent that the emphasis was muddied. I did, in an earlier
post, offer a full suggestion of how your question could have been worded to
elicit better targeted replies. Your enquiry touched on something I know more
about than most, so I offered some key details which you'd have to know to
stand any chance of obtaining the information you want to access, however you
wish to attempt it. Instead of clarifying that particular requirement to
anyone like me who happened to miss it, here you are fulminating about all
these fools on Usenet...

No-one here owes you a thing, and you're not a victim. So learn to be nicer
when you ask for help - and that includes being more understanding when people
trying to provide help haven't picked up your intended emphasis quite the way
you assumed.

But you're clearly not going to get this, so that's it from me.

--

Phil, London

Philip,

> Your question was sloppily written, heavily coloured by your
> idiosyncratically strong views on running JavaScript, to the
> extent that the emphasis was muddied.

I see you have a lot to complain about, but have privided nothing in regard
to how to do it better. As such this conversation is also terminated.

Goodbye.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser