Subject | Re: Snit post-editing |
From | Steve Carroll |
Date | 12/11/2015 01:22 (12/10/2015 16:22) |
Message-ID | <cef21fef-9726-475d-b8e4-dd095a7dc70c@googlegroups.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
Follows | owl |
Followups | owl (16m) > Steve Carroll |
owlYeah but it's an example of a (very simple) function factory, so that sorta defeats the point.
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com>wrote:Steve Carrollowl
On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 3:05:52 PM UTC-7, owl wrote:owlSteve Carroll
Barry H <barryum@linuxmail.org>wrote:Barry H (Snit)owl
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:24:32 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:owlBarry H (Snit)
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com>wrote:Steve Carrollowl
On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 1:23:54 PM UTC-7, owl wrote:owlSteve Carroll
The lying scumbag Snit responds to one of my posts and adds words to my post. Stop humping my leg you pathetic Assburger!
Message-ID: <D28F2200.669CB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/OseGBQy6UHc/0P5QrUP8BQAJ
I had not quoted anyone in that post, yet the lying Assburger Snitfeen Pathtik added all that crap above my post as if I had responded to a post of his.
This is another one of those famous "unquotable lies" of his.
WTF is he on now?! Meth?
Now the lying tweeker is lying yet again, saying that my newsreader somehow "snipped context" from my own original post -- which was not a reply to any other post from which context could even have been snipped!
How so?
My post was not a reply to any post. Fucktard added quoted material from another thread to my post as if I had quoted it in a reply.
This was my original post: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/OseGBQy6UHc/Tc3uspv7BQAJ
This was Snit's reply to that: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/OseGBQy6UHc/0P5QrUP8BQAJ
I see no removed content, I only see you point to a link and some text... so he's lying some more, as expected. We all know that instead of doing things like working on his 'business' he'd much rather use all that 'production, efficiency and error reduction' to whine how much of a 'victim' he is. If this wasn't the case he might know why you don't leave the 'doctype' element out of an HTML document... he might even be able to explain how this javascript works:
function greeting(troll) { return function(name, remark) { if (troll === 'Snit') { console.log(name+', you friggin\' '+remark+'!'); }
if (troll === 'other') { console.log('Yes, '+name+', Snit is a '+remark+'.'); } } }
var slamSnit = greeting('Snit'); var greetOther = greeting('other');
slamSnit('Snit', 'crackhead'); greetOther('owl', 'crackhead');
But I'm thinking...
<http://www.retroland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Magic-8-Ball.jpg>
Interesting. Works this way too: #!/usr/bin/nodejs function greeting(troll) { return function(name, remark) { if (troll === 'Snit') { console.log(name+', you friggin\' '+remark+'!'); } if (troll === 'other') { console.log('Yes, '+name+', Snit is a '+remark+'.'); } } } //var slamSnit = greeting('Snit'); //var greetOther = greeting('other'); //slamSnit('Snit', 'crackhead'); //greetOther('owl', 'crackhead'); greeting('Snit')('Snit','crackhead'); greeting('other')('owl','crackhead');