A script does not require a file!!!
matt_left_coast
clarify what a script is.
http://searchvb.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid8_gci212948,00.html
Although you may find some definitions that say a script is in a file, it is
NOT the traditional meaning of a script. The techtarget definition is about
the best I have seen, it states that a script is a series of commans that
need to go though some sort of processing before running. But unfortunately
they ignore one of the most common scripts around. A simple series of
commands sent via email. I send a small script to someone I want to do some
work for me. It is STILL a script regardless of if it is run in a file or
not. It is a script because it is a sequence of instructions to be run in a
particular order. It does not change from a script if the person I am
sending it to decides to run it by typing each command onto the command
line without putting it into a file.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:Script
You will find both definitions that say it has to do with a file and
repetition and those that state that it is a sequence of commands. Since I
can send a script via email and the end user can CHOOSE to enter the
script, without using a file, on the command line, I don't see the "in a
file" definitions as valid since the "script" did not change.
Even if you do not agree with my assessment, it is clear that one can not
just assume that a script means "in a file".
Curt
>
> You will find both definitions that say it has to do with a file and
> repetition and those that state that it is a sequence of commands. Since I
Well, a _written_ set or sequence of commands designed to _automate_
certain tasks. Written, as in "previously committed to writing".
> can send a script via email and the end user can CHOOSE to enter the
> script, without using a file, on the command line, I don't see the "in a
Isn't the email he's looking at a "file"?
> file" definitions as valid since the "script" did not change.
It's a script if it is _written down_, etymologically speaking.
> Even if you do not agree with my assessment, it is clear that one can not
> just assume that a script means "in a file".
You may write it down on a piece of paper, although the consensus appears
to be that a file is preferable because your machine can read it, thus
avoiding the need to type the instructions on every usage, the latter
being the antithesis of "automation" (we have already "automated" the
cogitation by consigning it to a written form).
Renegade
And to add even more confusion, with the commands are written on paper
and typed in by hand, the script could now be considered an interpreted
language file. ;)
Whiskers
snip
> You may write it down on a piece of paper, although the consensus appears
> to be that a file is preferable because your machine can read it, thus
> avoiding the need to type the instructions on every usage, the latter
> being the antithesis of "automation" (we have already "automated" the
> cogitation by consigning it to a written form).
Just to add fuel to the fire, one of the little tools I have made for
myself is a text file that contains only this line:
tr [a-mn-zA-MN-Z] [n-za-mN-ZA-M]
and nothing else. (It is 'executable'). My XFce4 'panel' has a 'launcher'
with the command
/home/mark/Scripts/ROT13
and the 'Run in terminal' option selected.
Vg frrzf gb jbex whfg svar :))
So, is that 'a script'? Or is it 'two scripts' or even 'three scripts', or
perhaps 'two scripts and a binary executable'? It certainly isn't 'a file'
<G>
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Curt
>
> Just to add fuel to the fire, one of the little tools I have made for
> myself is a text file that contains only this line:
> tr [a-mn-zA-MN-Z] [n-za-mN-ZA-M]
A text file. I see.
> and nothing else. (It is 'executable'). My XFce4 'panel' has a 'launcher'
> with the command
> /home/mark/Scripts/ROT13
> and the 'Run in terminal' option selected.
> Vg frrzf gb jbex whfg svar :))
> So, is that 'a script'? Or is it 'two scripts' or even 'three scripts', or
> perhaps 'two scripts and a binary executable'? It certainly isn't 'a file'
><G>
Gur fpevcg vf gur vafgehpgvba lbh jebgr naq fnirq va gur svyr.
V qba'g frr jurer gur fhogvyvgl vf va lbhe rknzcyr. ;-)
matt_left_coast
> On 2005-07-04, matt_left_coast <n...@chance.org> wrote:
>>
>> You will find both definitions that say it has to do with a file and
>> repetition and those that state that it is a sequence of commands. Since
>> I
>
> Well, a _written_ set or sequence of commands designed to _automate_
> certain tasks. Written, as in "previously committed to writing".
Well, select just ONE of the definitions listed.
>
>> can send a script via email and the end user can CHOOSE to enter the
>> script, without using a file, on the command line, I don't see the "in a
>
> Isn't the email he's looking at a "file"?
But it is NOT written as a file, but if you want to get anal, I could hand
write it on a napkin.
>
>> file" definitions as valid since the "script" did not change.
>
> It's a script if it is _written down_, etymologically speaking.
It can be written down on a napkin, and a napkin is not a file.
>
>> Even if you do not agree with my assessment, it is clear that one can not
>> just assume that a script means "in a file".
>
> You may write it down on a piece of paper, although the consensus appears
> to be that a file is preferable because your machine can read it, thus
> avoiding the need to type the instructions on every usage, the latter
> being the antithesis of "automation" (we have already "automated" the
> cogitation by consigning it to a written form).
You have not said anything that changes the point I was making. But I have
come to the conclusion that you can be very anal to select a SINGLE
definition out of all that were listed.
Another definition used "This is a programming term that refers to a set of
instructions (a program) that is executed by another program rather than
the computer's processor."
This does not require writing down the commands even on paper.
My point still stands, there are multiple definitions for the word "script"
ant there is no consensus that a file is required for something to be
called a script so assuming everything that is called a script is a set of
instructions in a file regardless of the context the term is used is wrong.
matt_left_coast
I see no reason to call something written on paper a "file" unless it is
FILED. Otherwise it is just a note.
WCB
>
> This does not require writing down the commands even on paper.
>
> My point still stands, there are multiple definitions for the word
> "script" ant there is no consensus that a file is required for something
> to be called a script so assuming everything that is called a script is a
> set of instructions in a file regardless of the context the term is used
> is wrong.
Sighhhh.
In Linux, "everything is a file."
A script could be entered at command line
or be called from a file.. once its enterd from the
command line its a temporary file in a buffer.
No script is worth anything to a computer until its a file the
system can understand.
Whether is written on a knapkin you are copying to a file or to a
commandline, or a series of magnetic domains of a hard disk.
Once entered or read, its a file.
You can write on your bum with magic marker and its a script but its nothing
until its a file and in a format the system understands.
--
When I shake my killfile I can hear them buzzing.
Curt
>>
>> Isn't the email he's looking at a "file"?
>
> But it is NOT written as a file, but if you want to get anal, I could hand
> write it on a napkin.
You surpass the anal, Matt. You're deeper. You're genuinely
_gastrointestinal_.
matt_left_coast
> matt_left_coast wrote:
>
>>
>> This does not require writing down the commands even on paper.
>>
>> My point still stands, there are multiple definitions for the word
>> "script" ant there is no consensus that a file is required for something
>> to be called a script so assuming everything that is called a script is a
>> set of instructions in a file regardless of the context the term is used
>> is wrong.
>
> Sighhhh.
>
> In Linux, "everything is a file."
> A script could be entered at command line
> or be called from a file..
That is MY POINT EXACTLY.
> once its enterd from the
> command line its a temporary file in a buffer.
That is what the SYSTEM requires NOT THE SCRIPT.
>
> No script is worth anything to a computer until its a file the
> system can understand.
>
But that is a requirement of the SYSTEM not the script.
> Whether is written on a knapkin you are copying to a file or to a
> commandline, or a series of magnetic domains of a hard disk.
> Once entered or read, its a file.
You do know the difference between a system requirement, the SYSTEM requires
a file AFTER the script is entered from the fact that the script is what
requires the file, right?
>
> You can write on your bum with magic marker and its a script but its
> nothing until its a file and in a format the system understands.
>
You can rant all you want, there is a difference between the SYSTEM
reacquiring a file to process information and the script being what
requires the information.
Here is a definition that describes a script that does NOT rely on files as
any part of the definition:
http://searchvb.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid8_gci212948,00.html
1) In computer programming, a script is a program or sequence of
instructions that is interpreted or carried out by another program rather
than by the computer processor (as a compiled program is).
The script according to this definition does not require a file, /*_IF_*/
the SYSTEM requires a file to accomplish running the script, that is a
SYSTEM REQUIREMENT.
matt_left_coast
>> But it is NOT written as a file, but if you want to get anal, I could
>> hand write it on a napkin.
>
> You surpass the anal, Matt. You're deeper. You're genuinely
> gastrointestinal.
Ahh, I see you can't actually address the points but go on and just rely on
INSULTS. Why am I not surprised?
But I am sick of anal wannabes that are clueless wanting to play semantics
games. You talk about sending a script via Email requires a file and
conclude that the script needs a file, this is WRONG. It is the Email
system and NOT the script that requires the file. Anything that is sent by
Email requires a file because the EMAIL system requires a file but IF that
thing can be sent another way, WITHOUT using a file, then that thing DOES
NOT REQUIRE A FILE.
The anal one here is the one that does not seem to know that just because a
file is used does not mean that a file is REQUIRED. That you be YOU.
Now, if you could actually write something that makes sense, perhaps people
will stop calling you anal and you can stop ignoring everything else that
is said.
But I know your type and that of the others, you must win at all costs.
Logic and assessing what the true requirements are will not matter to you.
you will continue to write irrational responses that are based on nothing
more than to play semantic games, confuse the issue and missplace which
processes require what, to win. I'm really getting sick of people like you.
Blinky the Shark
And in the last post I read, someone said, "You can write on your bum
with magic marker and its a script but its nothing until its a file and
in a format the system understands."
The thread is converging to a central theme. ;)
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
*ALSO contains links for access to the NON-BETA GG archive interface*
matt_left_coast
> Curt wrote:
>
>> On 2005-07-04, matt_left_coast <n...@chance.org> wrote:
>
>>>> Isn't the email he's looking at a "file"?
>
>>> But it is NOT written as a file, but if you want to get anal, I could
>>> hand write it on a napkin.
>
>> You surpass the anal, Matt. You're deeper. You're genuinely
>> _gastrointestinal_.
>
> And in the last post I read, someone said, "You can write on your bum
> with magic marker and its a script but its nothing until its a file and
> in a format the system understands."
It is a script so it IS something, IT IS A SCRIPT. So the person that said
this is wrong. What they may want to say is that it DOES nothing until it
is a file (not true because the commands can be entered in the system
without putting the script in a file first)...
The simple matter of fact is, that a script does not even need to ever be
written down or even run on a system to be a script. I can state a script
off the top of my head to another person over the phone, even if that
person NEVER USES THE SCRIPT, never writes it down, never enters it into a
computer, it is STILL A SCRIPT. To assume that a script means something
written in a file or even that it has ever run, is nonsense.
Dan C
>> But it is NOT written as a file, but if you want to get anal, I could hand
>> write it on a napkin.
> You surpass the anal, Matt. You're deeper. You're genuinely
> _gastrointestinal_.
Haha, I see Matt has found another "cause" to get all riled up over, and
spout off his ranting and raving about. Do yourself a favor, and killfile
the idiot, as I have done.
--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
matt_left_coast
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 17:30:02 +0000, Curt wrote:
>
>>> But it is NOT written as a file, but if you want to get anal, I could
>>> hand write it on a napkin.
>
>> You surpass the anal, Matt. You're deeper. You're genuinely
>> _gastrointestinal_.
>
> Haha, I see Matt has found another "cause" to get all riled up over, and
> spout off his ranting and raving about. Do yourself a favor, and killfile
> the idiot, as I have done.
>
Ahh, I see Dan once again can't address the POINT. No sense listening to
Dan, if he can't even address the POINT.
But I see Dan's "New leaf" is just as brown and dead as always.
Whiskers
Gung vafgehpgvba qbrf abguvat jvgubhg gur shegure vafgehpgvba va gur
'ynhapure', naq gung erdhverf gur 'eha va n grezvany' cneg bs gur KSpr
ynhapure cebtenz orsber vg pna qb nalguvat. Gung ybbxf gb zr yvxr gjb
fpevcgf, ng gur irel yrnfg.
Dave
> Gung vafgehpgvba qbrf abguvat jvgubhg gur shegure vafgehpgvba va gur
> 'ynhapure', naq gung erdhverf gur 'eha va n grezvany' cneg bs gur KSpr
> ynhapure cebtenz orsber vg pna qb nalguvat. Gung ybbxf gb zr yvxr gjb
> fpevcgf, ng gur irel yrnfg.
Pna nalbar wbva va guvf pung?
--
Yvahk: orpnhfr n CP vf n greevoyr guvat gb jnfgr
NBYZ SND - uggc://oyvaxlarg.arg/pbzc/snd_nbyz.ugzy
EYH #300033, ehaavat JZ 0.80.1 haqre ZQX9.1(naq n unys)
Peter T. Breuer
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 21:05:23 +0100, Whiskers wrote:
>
> > Gung vafgehpgvba qbrf abguvat jvgubhg gur shegure vafgehpgvba va gur
> > 'ynhapure', naq gung erdhverf gur 'eha va n grezvany' cneg bs gur KSpr
> > ynhapure cebtenz orsber vg pna qb nalguvat. Gung ybbxf gb zr yvxr gjb
> > fpevcgf, ng gur irel yrnfg.
>
> Pna nalbar wbva va guvf pung?
Nah. Just the rots.
Peter
matt_left_coast
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 21:05:23 +0100, Whiskers wrote:
>
>> Gung vafgehpgvba qbrf abguvat jvgubhg gur shegure vafgehpgvba va gur
>> 'ynhapure', naq gung erdhverf gur 'eha va n grezvany' cneg bs gur KSpr
>> ynhapure cebtenz orsber vg pna qb nalguvat. Gung ybbxf gb zr yvxr gjb
>> fpevcgf, ng gur irel yrnfg.
>
> Pna nalbar wbva va guvf pung?
>
Yes, but I'm not so stupid as to think Rot13 accomplishes anything.
Whiskers
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 21:05:23 +0100, Whiskers wrote:
>
>> Gung vafgehpgvba qbrf abguvat jvgubhg gur shegure vafgehpgvba va gur
>> 'ynhapure', naq gung erdhverf gur 'eha va n grezvany' cneg bs gur KSpr
>> ynhapure cebtenz orsber vg pna qb nalguvat. Gung ybbxf gb zr yvxr gjb
>> fpevcgf, ng gur irel yrnfg.
>
> Pna nalbar wbva va guvf pung?
..-. . . .-.. / ..-. .-. . .
Whiskers
Form two circles, one inside the other, and when the music starts progress in
opposite directions ...
Curt
>>
>> Pna nalbar wbva va guvf pung?
>
> ..-. . . .-.. / ..-. .-. . .
-.-. .- -. / .. / .--. .-.. .- -.-- / - --- --- ..--..
Blinky the Shark
> Form two circles, one inside the other, and when the music starts progress in
> opposite directions ...
Ommmmmmmm...
Dave
> Ommmmmmmm...
"This is not the place for prayer. If you want to speak with OMM you must
go to a UNICHURCH, you know that."
--
Linux: because a PC is a terrible thing to waste
AOLM FAQ - http://blinkynet.net/comp/faq_aolm.html
RLU #300033, running WM 0.80.1 under MDK9.1(and a half)
Whiskers
...- --. / ...- ..-. / -... -.-. .-. .- / ..- -... .... ..-. .-.
Andrew Preater
> On 2005-07-05, Curt <cu...@free.fr> wrote:
>> On 2005-07-05, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>>> Pna nalbar wbva va guvf pung?
>>>
>>> ..-. . . .-.. / ..-. .-. . .
>>
>> -.-. .- -. / .. / .--. .-.. .- -.-- / - --- --- ..--..
>
> ...- --. / ...- ..-. / -... -.-. .-. .- / ..- -... .... ..-.
> .-.
..-. .--. .... --. -..- -.-- ... --- .--- --.- .... ..-. ....
-.-- . -.-. .--. ---
(Rotors: I,II,IV; Start positions: K,D,W; Steckers: AS EJ)
--
Andrew Preater
SINNER
> Renegade wrote:
Semantics. Same could be said of a word typed in a document saved in
bytes on a hard disk, its just a note, not a file or a script.
--
David
To kick or not to kick...
-- Somewhere on IRC, inspired by Shakespeare
matt_left_coast
Thank you, you supported my point.
SINNER
I have a hard time seeing your point, I dont understand the reason for
the post. I was never under the impression that a script had to be a
file that was executed and I would imagine most semi intelligent beings
would feel the same. The word script is self explanatory and does not
insinuate that the 'script' be on or in some meduium to be considered
one.
--
David
I want you to organize my PASTRY trays ... my TEA-TINS are gleaming in
formation like a ROW of DRUM MAJORETTES -- please don't be FURIOUS with me --
matt_left_coast
> * matt_left_coast wrote in alt.os.linux.mandrake:
>> SINNER wrote:
>
>>> * matt_left_coast wrote in alt.os.linux.mandrake:
>>>> Renegade wrote:
>
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:00:02 +0000, Curt wrote:
>
>>>>>> On 2005-07-04, matt_left_coast <n...@chance.org> wrote:
>
>>>>>> You may write it down on a piece of paper, although the consensus
>>>>>> appears to be that a file is preferable because your machine can read
>>>>>> it, thus avoiding the need to type the instructions on every usage,
>>>>>> the latter being the antithesis of "automation" (we have already
>>>>>> "automated" the cogitation by consigning it to a written form).
>
>>>>> And to add even more confusion, with the commands are written on paper
>>>>> and typed in by hand, the script could now be considered an
>>>>> interpreted
>>>>> language file. ;)
>
>>>> I see no reason to call something written on paper a "file" unless it
>>>> is FILED. Otherwise it is just a note.
>
>>> Semantics. Same could be said of a word typed in a document saved in
>>> bytes on a hard disk, its just a note, not a file or a script.
>
>> Thank you, you supported my point.
>
> I have a hard time seeing your point, I dont understand the reason for
> the post.
The REASON was stated in the first line of the OP: "Due to a
missunderstanding that I have seen happen before, I would like to
clarify what a script is. "
> I was never under the impression that a script had to be a
> file that was executed and I would imagine most semi intelligent beings
> would feel the same.
Are you the center of the universe? Are you the only one that could ever
have a missunderstanding? However, It would seem Bit Twister DID as well as
quite a few people that responded within this thread. But I guess that you
are the ONLY person in the world I need to worry about having a
missunderstanding with, eh?
> The word script is self explanatory and does not
> insinuate that the 'script' be on or in some meduium to be considered
> one.
>
Read though the thread and you will see that it is not as "self explanatory"
to everyone.
SINNER
> Read though the thread and you will see that it is not as "self
> explanatory" to everyone.
Even so, to what aim is the thread. You restate it in your reply but
does it matter at all? Not knowing all this has no effect on
accomplishing the task at hand with said script. You sure took offense
to my post though, you should probably take a chill, I merely said I
saw no point for the post, and still dont. Are you planning on
educating the world about useless tidbits one thread at a time?
--
David
matt_left_coast
> * matt_left_coast Wrote in alt.os.linux.mandrake:
>
>> Read though the thread and you will see that it is not as "self
>> explanatory" to everyone.
>
> Even so, to what aim is the thread. You restate it in your reply but
> does it matter at all? Not knowing all this has no effect on
> accomplishing the task at hand with said script.
It DID create problems in communication. Why would you want to stifle
effective communication? Why would you want to stifle efforts to clear up
issues that have caused problems with communication? Do you have a long
list of people repeatedly telling you that you have problems with
communication?
> You sure took offense
> to my post though,
Wow, I respond and you claim I took offense, WTF is your problem? I did
point out that you are not the center of the universe and your opinion is
not the only one that is valid. If you have a problem with that then YOU
HAVE SOME REAL PROBLEMS. One has to wonder why you have to try to controll
everything that is said here.
> you should probably take a chill, I merely said I
> saw no point for the post, and still dont.
Other than to clear up missconceptions that several people had. Why do you
have such problems with people clearing up misconceptions, do you have a
long list of people repeatedly clearing up your misconceptions?
> Are you planning on
> educating the world about useless tidbits one thread at a time?
>
If they cause enough problems with communication. One has to wonder why you
would fear efforts to educate so people about common misconceptions.
Guess you have a problem with educating people. The replies to the thread
show that many people suffered from this misconception and it deserved to
be discussed in its own thread.
But the real question is, why do you think you have the right to say what is
worth saying based on your understanding of the subject? Again, what makes
YOU the center of the universe? Clearly there was a missunderstanding that
caused a problem and clearly there are a number of people that suffer that
same missunderstanding, why would you NOT want the missunderstanding
cleared up? Does it diminish your stature to have educated people around
you?
My guess is that you are overly sensitive to people correcting your
misconceptions because it happens to you a great deal. I would suggest you
take it to your shrink.
SINNER
> Other than to clear up missconceptions that several people had.
> Why do you have such problems with people clearing up
> misconceptions, do you have a long list of people repeatedly
> clearing up your misconceptions?
What is the misconception? That a script has to be a file? This
required a thread in a Mandrake group to discuss? Isn't this more
appropriate in comp.unix.shell?
The tone of your post makes me smile, You really do need to get a life
Matt.
--
David
matt_left_coast
> * matt_left_coast Wrote in alt.os.linux.mandrake:
>
>> Other than to clear up missconceptions that several people had.
>> Why do you have such problems with people clearing up
>> misconceptions, do you have a long list of people repeatedly
>> clearing up your misconceptions?
>
> What is the misconception?
Guess you can't read the other replies.
> That a script has to be a file? This
> required a thread in a Mandrake group to discuss?
The difficulty in communication happened here so it should be delt with
here.
> Isn't this more
> appropriate in comp.unix.shell?
they don't seem to have the same missconceptions, but why do you have a
problems dealling with issues in the group they happen in.
>
> The tone of your post makes me smile,
Denial is bliss, eh?
> You really do need to get a life
> Matt.
I'm not the one trying to controll what and where things are said on unsent!
I think the controll freak should get the life and let others live theirs!
>
SINNER
> SINNER wrote:
>
>> * matt_left_coast Wrote in alt.os.linux.mandrake:
>>
>>> Other than to clear up missconceptions that several people had.
>>> Why do you have such problems with people clearing up
>>> misconceptions, do you have a long list of people repeatedly
>>> clearing up your misconceptions?
>>
>> What is the misconception?
>
> Guess you can't read the other replies.
A bunch of jokes using ROT13, yeah I can read. The number of serious
posts in this thread is duplicated by the not so serious.
>
>
>> That a script has to be a file? This
>> required a thread in a Mandrake group to discuss?
>
> The difficulty in communication happened here so it should be delt
> with here.
Then you probably should have addressed it in the thread that spawned
the issue or at least referred to it in this one. Your post really
seemed to make no sence in its current context. Perhaps had you
pointed out the original thread you and I would not even be having
this exchange as I would have better understood the dilema you were
trying to resolve.
>
>> Isn't this more
>> appropriate in comp.unix.shell?
>
> they don't seem to have the same missconceptions, but why do you
> have a problems dealling with issues in the group they happen in.
I dont, since you didnt point out this was an issue in another thread
until now, the original just seemed out of place.
>
>>
>> The tone of your post makes me smile,
>
> Denial is bliss, eh?
Eh? Denial of what?
>
>> You really do need to get a life
>> Matt.
>
> I'm not the one trying to controll what and where things are said
> on unsent!
Neither am I, I am just trying to understand why you felt the need to
discuss something so trivial. DO I really need to know that the fact
that I issued a series of commands at the CLI is technically a
script? Does it effect the way I use thise commands? No to both, now
if there was some background here.....
> I think the controll freak should get the life and let
> others live theirs!
Control Freak? Have you read some of YOUR other posts?
--
David
Whiskers
Very enigmatic. I'll get back to that one :))
Dave
> A bunch of jokes using ROT13, yeah I can read.
Curses... must try harder next time. ROT14 anyone? ;)
Er... oh yeah... just for matt (*smile* for once!)...
</ot>
SINNER
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:32:44 GMT, SINNER wrote:
>
>> A bunch of jokes using ROT13, yeah I can read.
>
> Curses... must try harder next time. ROT14 anyone? ;)
Well, to be fair, there was some morse code also ;)
>
> Er... oh yeah... just for matt (*smile* for once!)...
> </ot>
>
Seriously...
--
David
Dave
> Well, to be fair, there was some morse code also ;)
Yup, I did notice that. ;)
Dan C
>> Other than to clear up missconceptions that several people had.
>> Why do you have such problems with people clearing up
>> misconceptions, do you have a long list of people repeatedly
>> clearing up your misconceptions?
> What is the misconception? That a script has to be a file? This
> required a thread in a Mandrake group to discuss? Isn't this more
> appropriate in comp.unix.shell?
Matt's way of "thinking" is itself a misconception. The funny part is,
he's the one who actually started the thread! LOL!
> The tone of your post makes me smile, You really do need to get a life
> Matt.
He has no other life. It's especially humorous when he starts SHOUTING in
CAPS, thinking that helps to make his point. You'd do well to just
killfile the moron, as he talks only to see his words in print. Once he
gets to ranting and raving, it'll go on for days. He's a complete idiot,
just ignore him as everyone else around here does...
--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
matt_left_coast
Talk about no other life, what are YOU doing? Stalking me? I thought you
truned over a new leaf? Guess not. But didn't you switch distros? If so,
what are you doing here stalking Mandriva users?
matt_left_coast
> * matt_left_coast Wrote in alt.os.linux.mandrake:
>
>> SINNER wrote:
>>
>>> * matt_left_coast Wrote in alt.os.linux.mandrake:
>>>
>>>> Other than to clear up missconceptions that several people had.
>>>> Why do you have such problems with people clearing up
>>>> misconceptions, do you have a long list of people repeatedly
>>>> clearing up your misconceptions?
>>>
>>> What is the misconception?
>>
>> Guess you can't read the other replies.
>
> A bunch of jokes using ROT13, yeah I can read. The number of serious
> posts in this thread is duplicated by the not so serious.
So, you are now saying that if someone posts non-serious messages they
cancel out serious ones? That is just plain STUPID.
>>
>>
>>> That a script has to be a file? This
>>> required a thread in a Mandrake group to discuss?
>>
>> The difficulty in communication happened here so it should be delt
>> with here.
>
> Then you probably should have addressed it in the thread that spawned
> the issue or at least referred to it in this one. Your post really
> seemed to make no sence in its current context. Perhaps had you
> pointed out the original thread you and I would not even be having
> this exchange as I would have better understood the dilema you were
> trying to resolve.
I thought it important enough to address it separately, I Did not know that
I would have the thought police after me.
>
>>
>>> Isn't this more
>>> appropriate in comp.unix.shell?
>>
>> they don't seem to have the same missconceptions, but why do you
>> have a problems dealling with issues in the group they happen in.
>
> I dont, since you didnt point out this was an issue in another thread
> until now, the original just seemed out of place.
I did not think it was all that important to reference the other thread
since I wanted it to be a point of interest that stood alone. I did not
think I would have to justify myself to an anal thought police officer.
>
>>
>>>
>>> The tone of your post makes me smile,
>>
>> Denial is bliss, eh?
>
> Eh? Denial of what?
Guess you can't follow a thread, why am I not supprised at the limited
attention span?
>
>>
>>> You really do need to get a life
>>> Matt.
>>
>> I'm not the one trying to controll what and where things are said
>> on unsent!
>
> Neither am I, I am just trying to understand why you felt the need to
> discuss something so trivial. DO I really need to know that the fact
> that I issued a series of commands at the CLI is technically a
> script? Does it effect the way I use thise commands? No to both, now
> if there was some background here.....
Wow, what a bunch of rationalization from our thought police. The reasoning
was put if the first paragraph. If you don't like it, killfile me but your
being a control freak.
>
>> I think the controll freak should get the life and let
>> others live theirs!
>
> Control Freak? Have you read some of YOUR other posts?
I'm talking about yours NOW. As you said, if you had an issue with something
in another thread, you should have addressed it there. Fuck, you can't even
practice what you preach.
>
>
matt_left_coast
What makes you think I don't have a great time dealing with controll freaks
like you?
Whiskers
working ... ...
SINNER
>> Seriously...
The fact that I am not a control freak might be a clue...
--
David
echo "Your stdio isn't very std."
-- Larry Wall in Configure from the perl distribution
SINNER
> SINNER wrote:
>> * matt_left_coast Wrote in alt.os.linux.mandrake:
[...]
>>>> What is the misconception?
>>> Guess you can't read the other replies.
>> A bunch of jokes using ROT13, yeah I can read. The number of serious
>> posts in this thread is duplicated by the not so serious.
> So, you are now saying that if someone posts non-serious messages they
> cancel out serious ones? That is just plain STUPID.
Try as I might, I cant find those words up there.
>>>> That a script has to be a file? This
>>>> required a thread in a Mandrake group to discuss?
>>> The difficulty in communication happened here so it should be delt
>>> with here.
>> Then you probably should have addressed it in the thread that spawned
>> the issue or at least referred to it in this one. Your post really
>> seemed to make no sence in its current context. Perhaps had you
>> pointed out the original thread you and I would not even be having
>> this exchange as I would have better understood the dilema you were
>> trying to resolve.
> I thought it important enough to address it separately, I Did not know that
> I would have the thought police after me.
You don't, stop making irrational accusations. The thread seemed out of
nowhere and states the obvious. It reminds me of patrick_darcy posts.
That said, I merely said had you somehow referenced that post we would not
be having this exchange, not that you shouldn't post at all.
>>>> Isn't this more
>>>> appropriate in comp.unix.shell?
>>> they don't seem to have the same missconceptions, but why do you
>>> have a problems dealling with issues in the group they happen in.
>> I dont, since you didnt point out this was an issue in another thread
>> until now, the original just seemed out of place.
> I did not think it was all that important to reference the other thread
> since I wanted it to be a point of interest that stood alone.
That's sort of the point I am making, it doesn't. I keep asking you, what
is the consequence of thinking either way is considered a script?
[...]
>>>> The tone of your post makes me smile,
>>> Denial is bliss, eh?
>> Eh? Denial of what?
> Guess you can't follow a thread, why am I not supprised at the limited
> attention span?
Are you a retard? Please explain how the above, fully in-context snippet,
constitutes denial.
[...]
>>> I think the controll freak should get the life and let
>>> others live theirs!
>> Control Freak? Have you read some of YOUR other posts?
> I'm talking about yours NOW. As you said, if you had an issue with something
> in another thread, you should have addressed it there. Fuck, you can't even
> practice what you preach.
If that ain't the pot callin' the kettle black...
--
David
Alimony and bribes will engage a large share of your wealth.
matt_left_coast
> * matt_left_coast wrote in alt.os.linux.mandrake:
>> SINNER wrote:
>
>>> * matt_left_coast Wrote in alt.os.linux.mandrake:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>> What is the misconception?
>
>>>> Guess you can't read the other replies.
>
>>> A bunch of jokes using ROT13, yeah I can read. The number of serious
>>> posts in this thread is duplicated by the not so serious.
>
>> So, you are now saying that if someone posts non-serious messages they
>> cancel out serious ones? That is just plain STUPID.
>
> Try as I might, I cant find those words up there.
No? Are you seriously saying that you brought up the nubmer or non-serious
posts for NO REASON what so ever? What possible reason could you have to
bring them up and compare them to the number or serios posts execpt to
imply that the tread was not taken seriously? Gezz, I once thought you were
reasonable, now I see you are nothing but a Dan C or a [Pp}eter (yes with
either a P or a p.
>
>>>>> That a script has to be a file? This
>>>>> required a thread in a Mandrake group to discuss?
>
>>>> The difficulty in communication happened here so it should be delt
>>>> with here.
>
>>> Then you probably should have addressed it in the thread that spawned
>>> the issue or at least referred to it in this one. Your post really
>>> seemed to make no sence in its current context. Perhaps had you
>>> pointed out the original thread you and I would not even be having
>>> this exchange as I would have better understood the dilema you were
>>> trying to resolve.
>
>> I thought it important enough to address it separately, I Did not know
>> that I would have the thought police after me.
>
> You don't,
I don't need your approval.
> stop making irrational accusations.
They are not irrational, you just can't accept responsibility for your
behavior.
> The thread seemed out of
> nowhere and states the obvious.
It was NOT obvious to the people that argued that a file WAS needed, but you
were too obsessed with trying to firgure out how to read ROT13 to notice
those, eh?
> It reminds me of patrick_darcy posts.
> That said, I merely said had you somehow referenced that post we would not
> be having this exchange, not that you shouldn't post at all.
>
>>>>> Isn't this more
>>>>> appropriate in comp.unix.shell?
>
>>>> they don't seem to have the same missconceptions, but why do you
>>>> have a problems dealling with issues in the group they happen in.
>
>>> I dont, since you didnt point out this was an issue in another thread
>>> until now, the original just seemed out of place.
>
>> I did not think it was all that important to reference the other thread
>> since I wanted it to be a point of interest that stood alone.
>
> That's sort of the point I am making, it doesn't. I keep asking you, what
> is the consequence of thinking either way is considered a script?
No. But hey, to someone that counts the number of non-serious to serious
posts might think so.
>
> [...]
>
>>>>> The tone of your post makes me smile,
>
>>>> Denial is bliss, eh?
>
>>> Eh? Denial of what?
>
>> Guess you can't follow a thread, why am I not supprised at the limited
>> attention span?
>
> Are you a retard? Please explain how the above, fully in-context snippet,
> constitutes denial.
Have you ever tried to tell an Alcoholic they are an alcoholic? They will
sound just like you here. No matter how I explain it, you will denie it,
that is WHY they call it denial. Read in context to what I was responding
to it makes sense, well, maybe not to someone that counts sererios and
non-serious posts to a thread then claims there was no reason for doing so!
>
> [...]
>
>>>> I think the controll freak should get the life and let
>>>> others live theirs!
>
>>> Control Freak? Have you read some of YOUR other posts?
>
>> I'm talking about yours NOW. As you said, if you had an issue with
>> something in another thread, you should have addressed it there. Fuck,
>> you can't even practice what you preach.
>
> If that ain't the pot callin' the kettle black...
Yes, that is what you were doing. It was YOU that first said to deal with it
in the original thread, then you try to bring up my behavior from other
threads, Yes, I am calling the kettle black when I say that you can't even
live up to your own standards.
SINNER
[complete, incoherant nonsense, snipped]
Give it a rest matt. You are beyond help.
--
David
Give me a Plumber's friend the size of the Pittsburgh dome, and a place
to stand, and I will drain the world.
SINNER
[...]
>> A script could be entered at command line
>> or be called from a file..
> That is MY POINT EXACTLY.
>> once its enterd from the
>> command line its a temporary file in a buffer.
> That is what the SYSTEM requires NOT THE SCRIPT.
How the fuck can you sit here and continually argue semantics and pretend
this thread has any merit?
--
David
Others can stop you temporarily, only you can do it permanently.
matt_left_coast
> * matt_left_coast wrote in alt.os.linux.mandrake:
>> WCB wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> A script could be entered at command line
>>> or be called from a file..
>
>> That is MY POINT EXACTLY.
>
>>> once its enterd from the
>>> command line its a temporary file in a buffer.
>
>> That is what the SYSTEM requires NOT THE SCRIPT.
>
> How the fuck can you sit here and continually argue semantics and pretend
> this thread has any merit?
>
This coming from someone that counts serious and non-serious posts and posts
them for absolutely no reason.
There is not semantics playing only the enlargement that you can write a
script that never gets run. Someone can ask me to write a script, I do and
give it to them, untested (time constraints), but they decide never to run
it. So NONE of the system files that would run the script is needed. It is
NOT a matter of semantics.
I would not expect someone that runs around counting serious and non-serious
posts to understand.
SINNER
>> How the fuck can you sit here and continually argue semantics and pretend
>> this thread has any merit?
[...]
> There is not semantics playing only the enlargement that you can write a
> script that never gets run. Someone can ask me to write a script, I do and
> give it to them, untested (time constraints), but they decide never to run
> it. So NONE of the system files that would run the script is needed. It is
> NOT a matter of semantics.
And so in your above scenario, you contend that those bits and bytes are
or are not a script?
....You should look up semantics.
--
David
Knock, knock!
Who's there?
Sam and Janet.
Sam and Janet who?
Sam and Janet Evening...
matt_left_coast
> * matt_left_coast wrote in alt.os.linux.mandrake:
>> SINNER wrote:
>
>>> How the fuck can you sit here and continually argue semantics and
>>> pretend this thread has any merit?
>
> [...]
>
>> There is not semantics playing only the enlargement that you can write a
>> script that never gets run. Someone can ask me to write a script, I do
>> and give it to them, untested (time constraints), but they decide never
>> to run it. So NONE of the system files that would run the script is
>> needed. It is NOT a matter of semantics.
>
> And so in your above scenario, you contend that those bits and bytes are
> or are not a script?
>
> ....You should look up semantics.
I never even said they were bits and bites, so your deluded mind is making
things up again. A company asks me to write for a price, I write, but never
test, deliver and get paid for the script. But they never run it, so are
you saying that it is not a script? Then why did they pay for the delivery
of a script? You are talking nonsens.
But talking about your irrational nonsens, what does counting serious vs.
non-serious posts have to do with what a script is??? Bwahahahahha, you are
NUTS.
Dan C
>> That is what the SYSTEM requires NOT THE SCRIPT.
> How the fuck can you sit here and continually argue semantics and pretend
> this thread has any merit?
Just ignore the idiot, please. He hates that. After a while, he'll crawl
back under his rock like the rest of the Trolls. He's a Kook, completely
wacko.
matt_left_coast
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 20:16:30 -0500, SINNER wrote:
>
>>> That is what the SYSTEM requires NOT THE SCRIPT.
>
>> How the fuck can you sit here and continually argue semantics and pretend
>> this thread has any merit?
>
> Just ignore the idiot, please. He hates that. After a while, he'll crawl
> back under his rock like the rest of the Trolls. He's a Kook, completely
> wacko.
>
Go for it, Dan C. Spend the rest of your days telling everyone not to
respond to me! Ever hear of the term STALKING?