Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

JavaScript Tutorial

3 views
Skip to first unread message

DBA Hussain GGL

unread,
Oct 7, 2008, 4:56:18 AM10/7/08
to
Here is the JavaScript Tutorial with thousands of real and simple
examples send your feed back and suggestions regarding our JavaScript
Tutorial

http://www.globalguideline.com/JavaScript_Guide/index.php

Regards.

frosty

unread,
Oct 7, 2008, 12:22:46 PM10/7/08
to

Interesting language, similar to Engrish:
"Here in JavaScript we will see that JavaScript is used
in web development from several years and a number of
benefits we were using while development of websites."

--
frosty


Ed Sheehan

unread,
Oct 7, 2008, 12:30:40 PM10/7/08
to
"frosty" <fro...@bogus.tld> wrote in message
news:2JOdneBcDfhIEXbV...@centurytel.net...
<cut>

"... and the great Ronald Reagan..."

<paste>
>
> --
> frosty
>

frosty

unread,
Oct 7, 2008, 2:11:49 PM10/7/08
to
>> DBA Hussain GGL wrote:
>>> Here is the JavaScript Tutorial with thousands of real and simple
>>> examples send your feed back and suggestions regarding our
>>> JavaScript Tutorial
>>>
>>> http://www.globalguideline.com/JavaScript_Guide/index.php

> frosty noted:


>> Interesting language, similar to Engrish:
>> "Here in JavaScript we will see that JavaScript is used
>> in web development from several years and a number of
>> benefits we were using while development of websites."

Ed Sheehan wrote:
> <cut>
> "... and the great Ronald Reagan..."
> <paste>

ISTR Reagan as a gifted speaker, who could sell anything,
even things he didn't understand. Maybe you're thinking
of Dubya, who's (in)famous for mangling English.

--
frosty


Ed Sheehan

unread,
Oct 7, 2008, 2:18:53 PM10/7/08
to
"frosty" <fro...@bogus.tld> wrote in message
news:k92dnUlH-t34O3bV...@centurytel.net...
I had my doubts that anyone would get my oblique reference to SNL's Tina Fey
take on Sarah Palin. I like Sarah, but sometimes she can get into linguistic
trouble before landing on a period. Fey's satire last Saturday was quite
funny...

Ed

Tony Gravagno

unread,
Oct 7, 2008, 3:53:57 PM10/7/08
to
"Ed Sheehan"
>I had my doubts that anyone would get my oblique reference to SNL's Tina Fey
>take on Sarah Palin. I like Sarah, but sometimes she can get into linguistic
>trouble before landing on a period. Fey's satire last Saturday was quite
>funny...

I missed both of Tina's skits, did she rip on Sarah for Nucular?
They should have one test for candidates (well, a LOT of tests). If
you're supposed to be responsible for what's in the black bag and you
can't even say Nuclear, then you aren't allowed to run for office.

Hey, with what other job do we get to go to the interview, completely
miss the questions, then leave and get coached, then go and tell
everyone else that we're still qualified and blame the interviewer for
any misconceptions? Oh yeah, and do the same thing at least twice?

Political office should be like any civilian office - no coaching.
You're either qualified or you don't get the job - like in the banking
and mortgage loan industry! ;)

T

dawn

unread,
Oct 7, 2008, 4:21:15 PM10/7/08
to

The one comment I can give from a first glance at your tutorial, other
than to contratulate you for your work, is that you use "JScript"
instead of JavaScript in the sidebar.

You can abbreviate JavaScript as JS, but not as JScript which is a
Microsoft language. Obviously JScript looks a lot like JavaScript,
but it should none-the-less not be confused in this way. JavaScript
is the common name for ECMA Script, the one backed by some industry
standards (rather than simply by one company's standards).

I did not get a chance to go into it further, but thought I would at
least provide that feedback. Best wishes. --dawn
Oh, and Tony, you can see Tina Fey as Sarah Palin on youtube.

Ross Ferris

unread,
Oct 7, 2008, 5:08:26 PM10/7/08
to
Hmmmm,

Wonder how you get the experience or qualifications to BE President
then? Run a smaller country first? Ohhh, sorry, now I see the Banking
reference! I thought a lot of the Banking people had previoously
worked for high flying corporations like Enron where they made similar
transactions, and .... ohh, right, NOW I see. The high level tie in
with Banks like Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank &CitiGroup. The
Collapse, and then the part where people only get a fraction of what
their $$$ are worth

Just an observation from the other side of the ditch :-)

cl...@comcast.net

unread,
Oct 7, 2008, 5:58:25 PM10/7/08
to
On Oct 7, 3:53 pm, Tony Gravagno

Come on Tony. The most qualified man for president, by your standards
was Jimmy Carter. The least qualified would have been Reagan. Who do
you judge most successful? ;)

Patrick, <;=)

BobJ

unread,
Oct 7, 2008, 8:26:35 PM10/7/08
to
For Tony mainly -and top posted so he doesn't have to search for the
bottom.. Every society has its secret lingo and the nuke bunch are no
different. It is a badge of membership to say that word in that strange
way. If you spend much time at one or more of the centers you soon find
yourself saying it as they do - and it takes time and effort to break the
habit. At the other end of the spectrum there is a professional group who
say "masonary" when referring to works of stone or cement. I wonder what
strange word we use that is causing snickers to follow us through the
airport?
BobJ

"Tony Gravagno" <address.i...@removethis.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:qhdne4115jkggbhf1...@4ax.com...

BobJ

unread,
Oct 7, 2008, 8:33:41 PM10/7/08
to
Carter was certainly not a highly regarded President - but try to answer
this question about his administration versus Reagan or either Bush. How
many people were killed in acts of war and how many of those acts of war
were really justified by the best interests - interests, not pride - of the
American people? If Carter had reacted to the Iran Embassy problem as most
other Presidents would have reacted there would have been thousands -
perhaps hundreds of thousands - killed. Most of the casualties would have
been Iranians so we wouldn't have cared that much. Perhaps one or two old
warriors might have cared.
BobJ
<cl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c0e881c9-e865-49de...@y79g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

cl...@comcast.net

unread,
Oct 8, 2008, 11:03:55 AM10/8/08
to
On Oct 7, 8:33 pm, "BobJ" <rjos...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Carter was certainly not a highly regarded President - but try to answer
> this question about his administration versus Reagan or either Bush.  How
> many people were killed in acts of war and how many of those acts of war
> were really justified by the best interests - interests, not pride - of the
> American people?  If Carter had reacted to the Iran Embassy problem as most
> other Presidents would have reacted there would have been thousands -
> perhaps hundreds of thousands - killed.  Most of  the casualties would have
> been Iranians so we wouldn't have cared that much.  Perhaps one or two old
> warriors might have cared.
<snip>
Bob my point was that it is their judgment and beliefs that should be
our primary concern. Being able to quote facts and figures can be
impressive, but is not necessarily the best and obviously not the only
reason to prefer one candidate over another. It's what they believe
that counts. Palin is what she claims to be. I find that refreshing
(and definitely different) in politics.

my 2,
Patrick <;=)

Ed Sheehan

unread,
Oct 8, 2008, 1:46:39 PM10/8/08
to
Sarah wandered a bit at one point in the debate, then concluded with a
remark about Reagan. Fey made some hay of that, and it was pretty knee-jerk
funny. But on the whole, I really like Palin. I think she's more ready for
vp or pres than any of the other three because of her experience as governor
+ mayor + trading partner with Russia + chief of Alaska's national guard.
All executive-type experience that senators always lack. VERY few senators
have become president, and for good reason.

This drives the commie-libs absolutely tapioca. That's a clue that she's
doing something really right.

Everyone has traits that can be laughed at, but I think it's unfair to
belittle someone's motives and honor just because they can field dress a
moose.

Ed

"Tony Gravagno" <address.i...@removethis.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:qhdne4115jkggbhf1...@4ax.com...

cmu...@seeinggreen.net

unread,
Oct 8, 2008, 9:23:24 PM10/8/08
to
It's infinitely depressing to see supposedly intelligent people (of
which I assume Ed, Tom and others are) can be so blinded by the
demagoguery of Palin that they think we who oppose it are "jealous",
"she's doing something right," etc.

Thankfully it might be moot, her brief ascendancy is waning. Even the
conservative pundits are realizing what a dangerous, irrational,
ignorant (not un-smart) person she is.

When do we value mediocrity, ignorance, a passing ability to speak
correct English, exaggeration (I mean, just the fact that she can say
with a straight face that being able to see Russia (which is also a
lie) is "foreign policy experience" would've gotten her hooted off the
stage in gales of derisive laughter in any other county,) sneering,
ethical lapses, slaughtering animals from a helicopter, and a
propensity to stab friends in the back? (No point cataloging Palin's
views, it's not necessary to use them to condemn her.)

On a different note, am I the only one who thinks it's unconscionable
for Palin to lug her 3-month-old baby around? Granted it's Down, but
is it drugged? Can he sleep ALL the time on TV?

As someone once said, America will be the first country to go fascist
by democratic means. We may be at the abyss now, and we may pull back.

Chandru

On Oct 8, 1:46 pm, "Ed Sheehan" <NOedsS...@xmission.com> wrote:
> Sarah wandered a bit at one point in the debate, then concluded with a
> remark about Reagan. Fey made some hay of that, and it was pretty knee-jerk
> funny. But on the whole, I really like Palin. I think she's more ready for
> vp or pres than any of the other three because of her experience as governor
> + mayor + trading partner with Russia + chief of Alaska's national guard.
> All executive-type experience that senators always lack. VERY few senators
> have become president, and for good reason.
>
> This drives the commie-libs absolutely tapioca. That's a clue that she's
> doing something really right.
>
> Everyone has traits that can be laughed at, but I think it's unfair to
> belittle someone's motives and honor just because they can field dress a
> moose.
>
> Ed
>

> "Tony Gravagno" <address.is.in.po...@removethis.com.invalid> wrote in
> messagenews:qhdne4115jkggbhf1...@4ax.com...

Ed Sheehan

unread,
Oct 9, 2008, 1:08:06 PM10/9/08
to
That those who truly hate others become depressed when their hate is
answered by cheer and focus brightens my day. Chandru, your rage saddens me
and others who value civil discourse and who believe in founding principles.

But I've long since come to the conclusion that there are those who cannot
grasp true conservative principles (many Republicans among them). They want
to be "compassionate" to those less fortunate by holding a gun to everyone's
head and saying, "contribute to my favorite charity or I'll plug ya." A sure
sign of mental defect.

But I don't want to sugar coat it: Palin rocks, and is better qualified than
McCain or Nobama.

Ed

<cmu...@seeinggreen.net> wrote in message
news:8368dd1a-cba7-4c5e...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Bill Cooke

unread,
Oct 9, 2008, 1:52:10 PM10/9/08
to
I'm happy that there are amongst the slew of dropouts from k-12 training
in rationality who will likely cancel out your vote, Ed. Palin rocks,
maybe at times, but Tina Fey is consistently better in her chosen
profession. Is being a comic figure really "qualification"? Palin's
ability to insult her audience is topped by few politians. Her call for
getting government out of the way, git outta the way, and then calling
for government to have good controls over the finance business, all in a
single "debate", hurts my mind. McCain's insult to the electorate in
appointing her as his potential replacement is unmatched, even by the
wacko bushies who say they are (trying to) follow god's will when doing
what they were elected to do. If we'd'a wanted god, we'd've elected
her, doggone it.

Taking time out from rationality and reason, particularly by folks who
make their livings out of practicing logic, for political "civil
discourse", is simply out of line. Comedy is one thing, but voting is
deadly serious (see BobJ's recent post).

Personally I love a good rant, and good reasoning, and respect for our
history. I find these in Chandu's key-clicking, and applaud it.

There certainly are Multiple Variables in the quest for an enlightened
electorate. There, we are back on topic, sort of, well, I'll get a cup
of java.

Bill

cmu...@seeinggreen.net

unread,
Oct 9, 2008, 2:31:05 PM10/9/08
to
On Oct 9, 1:08 pm, "Ed Sheehan" <NOedsS...@xmission.com> wrote:
> That those who truly hate others become depressed when their hate is
> answered by cheer and focus brightens my day. Chandru, your rage saddens me
> and others who value civil discourse and who believe in founding principles.

I'm going to rear my head once last time and float over the cyber-
space of comp.databases.pick. Keep an eye on me.

Not *rage*, Ed, I leave that to Palin and her cohorts. Anger. As in
"how can the wealthiest country in the world even think about electing
this non-entity?" She's qualified? For what? Diana the Huntress? She
had to have a helper to manage her 6500 pop. town, whose budgetary
back she broke in one year. You *cannot be serious* about "trading
partner to Russia" being a qualification. Or "chief" of National
Guard? A governor isn't even privy to most of what the Guard plans,
far from actually affecting decisions. Oh I forgot. SHE WAS ON THE
PTA! Corralling all those wild hockey moms makes her very fit to go
toe-to-toe with Ahmadinejad (whose name, you notice, she pronounced
four times on TV to show us what a quick study she is. She'll do "six
thick thistle sticks" next.)

As for valuing civil discourse, wonderful, but...if that's really true
for you, how do you countenance Palin's lies, distortions, smears, and
demagoguery? A little dissonance there, maybe?.

Chandru


> But I've long since come to the conclusion that there are those who cannot
> grasp true conservative principles (many Republicans among them). They want
> to be "compassionate" to those less fortunate by holding a gun to everyone's
> head and saying, "contribute to my favorite charity or I'll plug ya." A sure
> sign of mental defect.
>
> But I don't want to sugar coat it: Palin rocks, and is better qualified than
> McCain or Nobama.
>
> Ed
>

> <cmur...@seeinggreen.net> wrote in message

Kevin Powick

unread,
Oct 9, 2008, 2:44:28 PM10/9/08
to
On Oct 9, 1:08 pm, "Ed Sheehan" <NOedsS...@xmission.com> wrote:
> Palin rocks

And the US rolls... downhill... even more.

--
Kevin Powick

cl...@comcast.net

unread,
Oct 9, 2008, 6:27:42 PM10/9/08
to
On Oct 9, 2:31 pm, cmur...@seeinggreen.net wrote:
> On Oct 9, 1:08 pm, "Ed Sheehan" <NOedsS...@xmission.com> wrote:
>
> > That those who truly hate others become depressed when their hate is
> > answered by cheer and focus brightens my day. Chandru, your rage saddens me
> > and others who value civil discourse and who believe in founding principles.
>
> I'm going to rear my head once last time and float over the cyber-
> space of comp.databases.pick. Keep an eye on me.
>
> Not *rage*, Ed, I leave that to Palin and her cohorts. Anger. As in
> "how can the wealthiest country in the world even think about electing
> this non-entity?" She's qualified? For what? Diana the Huntress? She
> had to have a helper to manage her 6500 pop. town, whose budgetary
> back she broke in one year. You *cannot be serious* about "trading
> partner to Russia" being a qualification. Or "chief" of National
> Guard? A governor isn't even privy to most of what the Guard plans,
> far from actually affecting decisions. Oh I forgot. SHE WAS ON THE
> PTA! Corralling all those wild hockey moms makes her very fit to go
> toe-to-toe with Ahmadinejad (whose name, you notice, she pronounced
> four times on TV to show us what a quick study she is. She'll do "six
> thick thistle sticks" next.)
>
> As for valuing civil discourse, wonderful, but...if that's really true
> for you, how do you countenance Palin's lies, distortions, smears, and
> demagoguery? A little dissonance there, maybe?.
>
> Chandru
>
I think hate describes this rant pretty accurately as well. Being in
denial about it really doesn't help. On the up side it'll be over and
decided in less that month.

I do find these concerns about inexperience a bit amusing from someone
who by the process of elimination must me supporting Obama ;) RTFL

Patrick, <;=)
<snip>

Peter McMurray

unread,
Oct 9, 2008, 6:32:30 PM10/9/08
to
Hi
It may come as a shock to some but most of the world thinks that a person
who considers it normal for an ordinary citizen to hide a handgun in a
briefcase, purse , bra even, is seriously certifiable.
I must admit that her attack on Eastern state interferers was fascinating.
I believe that she is on record as supporting the secession of Alaska so how
come she didn't say the lower 48. Ahah! of course that would have included
her heroes George dubya Texas and John Arizona :-)
If you are really interested in knowing who apart from Exxon and big Pharma
actually rules the roost behind this guns and god diplomacy may I suggest
"The Family - Power, Politics and Fundamentalism's Shadow Elite" by Jeff
Sharlet www.uqp.com.au
Peter McMurray


Kevin Powick

unread,
Oct 9, 2008, 9:20:51 PM10/9/08
to
On Oct 9, 6:32 pm, "Peter McMurray" <excalibu...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> If you are really interested in knowing who apart from Exxon and big Pharma
> actually rules the roost behind this guns and god diplomacy may I suggest
> "The Family - Power, Politics and Fundamentalism's Shadow Elite" by Jeff
> Sharlet  www.uqp.com.au

If you really want to go big try checking out the 2 zeitgeist movies.
The latest one is at the top of the page (big eye). The first is
further down (blue square).

An interesting mix of fact, fiction and conspiracy theory, the the
first hour of the second/latest one is quite informative with regard
to how the monetary system works, or rather, doesn't.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

--
Kevin Powick

art

unread,
Oct 9, 2008, 10:24:18 PM10/9/08
to
Peter McMurray wrote:
> Hi
> It may come as a shock to some but most of the world thinks that a person
> who considers it normal for an ordinary citizen to hide a handgun in a
> briefcase, purse , bra even, is seriously certifiable.

It may come as a shock to the rest of the world that many US citizens
don't give a damn about the rest of the world's opinion about our Right
to Bear Arms. It might have something to do with a British Monarchy and
it's treatment of certain former colonies.
Art

Ed Sheehan

unread,
Oct 10, 2008, 12:20:19 AM10/10/08
to
I knew your response would be amusing. You didn't disappoint. Very snooty.

Ed

<cmu...@seeinggreen.net> wrote in message
news:2a2fdfc7-9c77-43e7...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

Peter McMurray

unread,
Oct 10, 2008, 12:29:59 AM10/10/08
to
HI
Unlike the movies and conspiracy theories the book is verifiable fact.
Peter Mcmurray
"Kevin Powick" <kpo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1b945b0-11b3-4b91...@u28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

Peter McMurray

unread,
Oct 10, 2008, 12:29:59 AM10/10/08
to
Come Come Art! Still fighting imaginary wars. Actually if you read the US
constitution - and many US citizens clearly have not - it refers to a
militia, ie a body of citizens organised for defensive military service, not
a bunch of hoopleheads shooting at anything that moves.
The rest of the world is all too well aware that a significant number of US
citizens have no idea where the rest of the world is nor any idea what the
word democracy means. C'est la vie!
Oh,by the way, that is French, a language spoken in France which is part of
Europe and not as one US college graduate recently said on television "
Europe is a country where they speak French" Misguided Education perhaps
:-)
Peter McMurray
"art" <artm...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gcmecl$29cu$1...@services.telesweet...

Mark Brown

unread,
Oct 10, 2008, 1:12:46 AM10/10/08
to
"Peter McMurray" <excal...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:bTAHk.4454$sc2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Come Come Art! Still fighting imaginary wars. Actually if you read the
> US constitution - and many US citizens clearly have not - it refers to a
> militia, ie a body of citizens organised for defensive military service,
> not a bunch of hoopleheads shooting at anything that moves.


The Wikipedia article on the second amendment probably explains this better.

Who makes up the militia it talks about? The people. Where would the
people get the arms to build a well regulated militia if they didn't already
possess those weapons? Surely no government would house weapons for the
people to arm themselves any time they felt oppressed. So to assure all the
rights of the people, the right of self defense should never be denied.

Probably falsely quoted to Thomas Jefferson: "When a people fears its
government, that is tyranny. When a government fears its people, that is
freedom."

Mark

Peter McMurray

unread,
Oct 10, 2008, 3:20:26 AM10/10/08
to
Hi Mark
I believe that you will find the Swiss solved that problem. We in Australia
have also. I happen to be a reasonable shot although nowhere in the league
of my mates in Queenstown New Zealand. They could go bush for 3 months and
come back averaging 1.25 bullets per deer and that in extremely mountainous
terrain. The really good guys used a 222 because it was light to carry
whilst I had a 303/25, now I am down to a 22 for vermin and injured animals.
In the '60s we used to amble around with our guns underneath our arms -
unloaded of course as it was a sackable offence to enter camp with a loaded
gun, quite apart from being stupid. Now we have to have a licence, proper
locked storage with ammo and guns separate and you cant just carry it down
the street. In other words we have moved on from the Daniel Boone days to a
more civilised society.
However at no time did we ever find it necessary to carry a loaded pistol in
our pants, it is as it should be illegal, and guess what we don't have kids
shooting up the school every week, or mothers shooting their daughters
because they shouted boo when they came in the door, or road rage killers.
It is time the US came to its senses. Art reckons US citizens don't give a
damn, well quite honestly if those that don't give a damn kept to their own
back yard we wouldn't care less either. Unfortunately they take this
boneheaded attitude to places far afield.
Despite desperate attempts by the NRA to prove otherwise, a militia is an
organised trained body with a legitimate chain of command and that is
definitely what is required today not the hoopleheads.
Peter McMurray
"Mark Brown" <Mark_...@DrexelMgt.Com> wrote in message
news:5JidncxOmbTXeXPV...@comcast.com...

Ed Sheehan

unread,
Oct 10, 2008, 11:16:59 AM10/10/08
to
It may be helpful to ask this question: From where does a well-regulated
militia come? Answer: From an un-regulated militia, otherwise known as the
people.

Ed

"Mark Brown" <Mark_...@DrexelMgt.Com> wrote in message
news:5JidncxOmbTXeXPV...@comcast.com...

Ed Sheehan

unread,
Oct 10, 2008, 11:18:52 AM10/10/08
to
It may also be helpful to remember that the people mentioned in the second
amendment are the same people mentioned in the first.

Ed

"Peter McMurray" <excal...@bigpond.com> wrote in message

news:_mDHk.4483$sc2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Chandru Murthi

unread,
Oct 10, 2008, 3:39:13 PM10/10/08
to
Ah, Peter, try posting what you said on a well-read blog and see the
vitriolic responses you'll get. ST&)(PID furriner trying to tell us
red-blooded Ummericans what to do? We got the constitution to uphold, boy!
This happens all the time on the Guardian-on-line when a commentator writes
something even vaguely critical of the US. Fun reading.

Talking about the constitution, it's always amused me how we treat this
document written 400 years ago as if cast in stone. Goes along with the view
(see Palin, earlier,) that America is "perfect."

The problem with the II amendment is it's ambiguously written, so "militia"
can be read as either something official (like the Guard) or just us plain
folk. If we (collectively in the US) had a brain, we would realize that,
unlike Nostradamus, the Founding Fathers probably could not see hundreds of
years into the future and envision the average Joe yearning for a MI-45, the
arming of teachers in Texas, depressed high-school students killing kids and
themselves, or allowing anyone to get away with killing an "intruder" on
their property even if he's a 16 year old stuttering Japanese kid with
limited English skills asking directions.

I mean, what're the chances that we need to take arms against our Government
in the 21st century? They probably can't find us anyway.

Chandru

"Peter McMurray" <excal...@bigpond.com> wrote in message

news:_mDHk.4483$sc2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

frosty

unread,
Oct 10, 2008, 4:32:03 PM10/10/08
to
Chandru Murthi wrote:
> ...I mean, what're the chances that we need to take arms against our
> Government in the 21st century?

Bingo! We have a winner.

--
frosty


cl...@comcast.net

unread,
Oct 10, 2008, 5:05:02 PM10/10/08
to

They passed a law recently forbidding local governments from creating
local gun restrictions. You can basically carry a non-concealed weapon
anywhere that is not a courthouse or school.

Here are the current laws.

http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/f/gunlaw_va.htm

And here is an article with many quotes from the founding fathers on
the subject.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20971

Patrick, <;=)

Peter McMurray

unread,
Oct 10, 2008, 5:13:26 PM10/10/08
to
Hi Ed
You are part way there but "a well regulated militia" does not imply an
un-regulated source. You may notice that I mentioned the Swiss who don't
fight anybody but are prepared to defend with training using long arms that
they take home They do not rely on some loopy woman hiding a 10cm weapon in
her bra or some daft bloke with a 45 in his glove box. They definitely do
not allow people to go to gun shows and buy anything that goes bang for fun.

However the gun debate is a bit off centre and I really don't want to
criticise people for what they do at home, as Chandru says on other sites
there would be total freak-out. I am interested merely because US
government is so intent on exporting its confused view of how the world
should act. Ronny Raygun got a mention the other day, at last count he had
78 small wars against his name. If one goes back further you will find that
Iran was a successful democracy until the US generated a grab for the major
oil supplier and toppled Mossadeq. Now we have a monumental meltdown caused
by Wall Street plus Iraq. By the way it was the Saudis not the Iraqis that
organised 9/11, but the US couldn't attack them because Bin Laden spent a
billion dollars bailing out George dubya when he made a mess of daddy's
business, and any way the Saudis are the major US oil supplier.
You are not alone, we have some hoopleheads too. It has taken 10 years to
get rid of the worst prime minister in the history of Federation and even he
got the personal guns bit right, we just hope that you will get someone
better this time.
Good Luck in your deliberations
Peter McMurray


"Ed Sheehan" <NOed...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:gcnrlg$u0d$1...@news.xmission.com...

frosty

unread,
Oct 10, 2008, 5:28:59 PM10/10/08
to
cl...@comcast.net wrote:
> ...here is an article with many quotes from the founding

Including this gem: "...the Second Amendment wasn't written
into our Bill of Rights so that we could go duck and deer
hunting or shoot clay pigeons over the weekend. The Second
Amendment was given to us as protection against tyranny by
the federal government and the Congress of the United States."

Could not be stated any more clearly.

--
frosty


Chandru Murthi

unread,
Oct 10, 2008, 6:15:18 PM10/10/08
to
"Ed Sheehan" <NOed...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:gcnrlg$u0d$1...@news.xmission.com...
> It may be helpful to ask this question: From where does a well-regulated
> militia come? Answer: From an un-regulated militia, otherwise known as the
> people.

It may also be helpful (or not) to ask "who controls this WRM?". It may not
be self-regulated, it may be the National Guard.

But this is all pissing in the wind. Ed, Patrick, et al, you'll never
convince me that we are not a nation of gun-crazy nuts and I'll never
convince you of the folly of not having strict gun control. Let's talk about
date formats instead.

And I LOVE this: "When a government fears its people, that is freedom"--
did that idiot (the writer, that is) think that fear is hardly the best
motivator for priductivity and negotiation?

Chandru

Peter McMurray

unread,
Oct 10, 2008, 7:09:16 PM10/10/08
to
Hi Dawn
I believe that you will find that JScript is JavaScript. One of the fastest
and most accurate pieces of reverse engineering in the history of computing.
The JScript name was just to avoid Sun's lawyers :-)
Peter McMurray
"dawn" <dawnwo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0890c591-d18c-4028...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 7, 3:56 am, DBA Hussain GGL <mhussainiq...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is the JavaScript Tutorial with thousands of real and simple
> examples send your feed back and suggestions regarding our JavaScript
> Tutorial
>
> http://www.globalguideline.com/JavaScript_Guide/index.php
>
> Regards.

The one comment I can give from a first glance at your tutorial, other
than to contratulate you for your work, is that you use "JScript"
instead of JavaScript in the sidebar.

You can abbreviate JavaScript as JS, but not as JScript which is a
Microsoft language. Obviously JScript looks a lot like JavaScript,
but it should none-the-less not be confused in this way. JavaScript
is the common name for ECMA Script, the one backed by some industry
standards (rather than simply by one company's standards).

I did not get a chance to go into it further, but thought I would at
least provide that feedback. Best wishes. --dawn
Oh, and Tony, you can see Tina Fey as Sarah Palin on youtube.


art

unread,
Oct 10, 2008, 8:55:13 PM10/10/08
to
Peter McMurray wrote:
> Come Come Art! Still fighting imaginary wars. Actually if you read
the US
> constitution - and many US citizens clearly have not

You are assuming I haven't read it? The right to bear arms is not given
to the militia, it's given to the private citizen, with the further
right to form a well-regulated militia. As to the imaginary wars, I
live in the Carolinas, and the battlefields from those "imaginary" wars
are still here. Try looking up King's Mountain in North Carolina, and
see what happened to Britain's finest at the hands of an un-regulated
militia, or Cowpens in South Carolina, for what happened to the Brits
with a well-regulated militia. You'd like to pretend this was all
imaginary, wouldn't you?
Art
P.S., Interesting, aioe.cjb.net wouldn't let me post this message,
something about a "banlist". I guess I just decided which isp I'm going
to subscribe to for news (services.telesweet.net).

art

unread,
Oct 10, 2008, 9:06:44 PM10/10/08
to
I always get a kick out of people that say society is to "civilized" for
something bad to happen today. I'll bet the French in Paris were a very
"civilized" society in 1929!
Art

art

unread,
Oct 10, 2008, 9:24:34 PM10/10/08
to
Chandru Murthi wrote:
> But this is all pissing in the wind. Ed, Patrick, et al, you'll never
> convince me that we are not a nation of gun-crazy nuts and I'll never
> convince you of the folly of not having strict gun control.

Washington DC has had some of the most strict gun control laws since the
Brady bill was signed into law in 1993. And yet, where is it's violent
crime rate? I'll quote Jeremy D. Blanks, Ph.D.;

"A review of the areas in the U.S. with the most restrictive firearm
laws, including such areas as Washington, D.C., Chicago, IL, New York,
NY, and the state of California, shows that these areas have some of the
highest crime (especially violent) crime rates in the U.S. The crime
rates in all of these areas exceeds the national average and they all
have enacted in-depth restrictions on firearm ownership that includes
licensing and registration schemes, various taxes, testing, and even
bans on firearms."

Peter McMurray

unread,
Oct 11, 2008, 3:20:07 AM10/11/08
to
Hi Art
Those wars were hundreds of years ago. Personally I grew up playing on the
Icknield Way - those Romans knew how to build a road - so I suppose I should
be still fighting with the Iceni against the Gauls and the rest of the Roman
mercenaries :-) Trouble is the jerries were bombing the bejaesus out of us
at the time so I was a bit distracted and didn't get to read Caesar, Pliny
and Tacitus until I was a tweenager. Actually recent DNA testing has shown
that even their influence has all but gone so you can forget about Angles
and Saxons as we got done over by Dawn's mob The Friesians. I am afraid
that your reading of the constitution is just way off beam in modern
society.
King's Mountain!! Now doesn't it strike you as strange as the king you are
talking about is the king of the British Empire and the battle you are
talking about is between two armies of British people not Native Americans.
In other words a civil war - Brits fighting Brits :-) more of a class war
than anything else sort of like the French Revolution a couple of years
later, or the Russian revolution of 1917.
By the way the crime figures in places like Washington have everything to do
with poverty and precious little if anything to do with gun laws. Poverty
exacerbated by the enormous number of federal buildings not paying their
dues to the city infrastructure.
How on earth did you get CDP onto a ban list?
Oh also I love the release Palin put out exonerating herself just a couple
of hours before the ethics committee report was released finding her guilty.
Tricky Dicky would be proud of her :-)
Peter McMurray


"art" <artm...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message

news:gcothi$9gh$1...@services.telesweet...

cl...@comcast.net

unread,
Oct 11, 2008, 6:51:31 AM10/11/08
to
On Oct 10, 6:15 pm, "Chandru Murthi" <cmurth_xyz@xyz_seeinggreen.net>
wrote:
> "Ed Sheehan" <NOedsS...@xmission.com> wrote in message

>
> news:gcnrlg$u0d$1...@news.xmission.com...
>
> > It may be helpful to ask this question: From where does a well-regulated
> > militia come? Answer: From an un-regulated militia, otherwise known as the
> > people.
>
> It may also be helpful (or not) to ask "who controls this WRM?". It may not
> be self-regulated, it may be the National Guard.
>
> But this is all pissing in the wind. Ed, Patrick, et al, you'll never
> convince me that we are not a nation of gun-crazy nuts and I'll never
> convince you of the folly of not having strict gun control. Let's talk about
> date formats instead.
>
> And I LOVE this: "When a government fears its people, that is  freedom"--  
> did that idiot (the writer, that is)  think that fear is hardly the best
> motivator for productivity and negotiation?
>
> Chandru

This actually is a quote from Thomas Jefferson. Congratulations, you
may be the first one to call him an idiot. ;)
I believe you are correct on our chances of agreement. Best wishes.

Patrick, <;=)
<snip>

Chandru Murthi

unread,
Oct 11, 2008, 11:49:40 AM10/11/08
to
Peter: Palin's campaign lawyer today said in effect that she could not be
guilty of ethical violations since --get this-- there was no financial gain
involved. What a sick illustration of what we've come to.

I stealeth-not, therefore I'm ethical.

>Art "Washington DC has had some of the most strict gun control laws since

>the Brady bill was signed into law in 1993. And yet, where is it's violent
>crime rate?"

I can't even begin to explain why this has little relationship to guns
without spending hours on US attitudes, how they are inculcated into our
young 'uns at an early age, the influence of the NRA, the poverty of our
cities, racism and other socio-economic factors that tie into the crime
rate. The free availability of guns just makes it easier to maim and kill
and otherwise increase the violence. The root causes are elsewhere.

>Patrick: "a quote from Thomas Jefferson. Congratulations, you may be the

>first one to call him an idiot"

Strictly speaking, I should've said his statement was "idiotic" instead of
him being a idiot, the latter locution being an Indianism that has gotten me
into much trouble with, among others, my wife.

Chandru

"Peter McMurray" <excal...@bigpond.com> wrote in message

news:HsYHk.4741$sc2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Bill_H

unread,
Oct 11, 2008, 1:00:43 PM10/11/08
to
I doubt that.... Descartes Corrollary triumphs again. :-)

Bill

"frosty" <fro...@bogus.tld> wrote in message
news:SuudnXahBpxUJnLV...@centurytel.net...

art

unread,
Oct 11, 2008, 2:24:10 PM10/11/08
to
Peter McMurray wrote:
> Hi Art
> Those wars were hundreds of years ago.
It always amazes me how people like you can in the same breath say both,
that was ancient history and doesn't apply today, and, you're just a
young "Danial Boone" country, and haven't been around as a country long
enough to have "civilized" yet.

> I am afraid that your reading of the constitution is just way off
beam in modern society.

Nice of you to tell me how to read my constitution!

> King's Mountain!! Now doesn't it strike you as strange as the king
you are talking about is the king of the British Empire and the battle
you are talking about is between two armies of British people not Native
Americans.

You need to do a little better research next time. Britain's troops
(which were really American Tories, not British), lead by English Col.
Patrick Ferguson, had taken the high ground at King's mountain and setup
a defense in October 1780, after the British invasion at Charleston SC
in May. A group of rag-tag mountain folk of Scottish descent, Tennessee
“Overmountain Men”, WITH GUNS, were pissed at the treatment by the
Brits, and formed what could be loosely called a militia, and marched
from the North Carolina mountains to almost South Carolina, and
completely wiped out the British position, giving the Patriots their
first major victory after the invasion. Hardly army vs. army. Now the
battle at Cowpens *was* between British regulars and the Continental
army. Still the same result for the Brits!

> By the way the crime figures in places like Washington have
everything to do with poverty and precious little if anything to do with
gun laws.

So you are agreeing with me that gun control is a waste of time at best,
and counter-productive at worst, leaving law-abiding citizens
defenseless? There may be hope for you yet!

> How on earth did you get CDP onto a ban list?

I doubt it was CDP. I had posted to CDP earlier thru that isp. I
suspect it was the content of the message triggered something.

> Oh also I love the release Palin put out exonerating herself just a
couple of hours before the ethics committee report was released finding
her guilty.

By legislators of the opposite party with an axe to grind. And what,
exactly, was it that they supposedly found her guilty of? That her
issues with her former brother-in-law "played a part" in the firing of
his boss. Right! He was fired because he wouldn't go along with budget
reductions.
Art

art

unread,
Oct 11, 2008, 2:32:46 PM10/11/08
to
Chandru Murthi wrote:
> Peter: Palin's campaign lawyer today said in effect that she could not be
> guilty of ethical violations since --get this-- there was no financial gain
> involved. What a sick illustration of what we've come to.
> I stealeth-not, therefore I'm ethical.
Pretty much what I expected from you, Chandru. You've got a political
witch-hunt led by Democrat state legislators, looking for revenge
against a Republican governor that did her best to reign-in the run-away
state government. What did you *think* that report was going to say? It
seems that ever since Nixon, the best way Democrats know to get into
office is to manufacture a scandal on the part of their opponents.

>
>> Art "Washington DC has had some of the most strict gun control laws since
>> the Brady bill was signed into law in 1993. And yet, where is it's violent
>> crime rate?"
> I can't even begin to explain why this has little relationship to guns

So you think gun control is a waste of time also???

> The free availability of guns just makes it easier to maim and kill
> and otherwise increase the violence. The root causes are elsewhere.

We can agree the root causes are elsewhere. I could never figure out
how passing laws makes criminals less armed or dangerous. You think
they give a damn about silly gun-control laws either?

> the latter locution being an Indianism that has gotten me
> into much trouble with, among others, my wife.

Well at least there is some sense in your family! :-)
Art

Chandru Murthi

unread,
Oct 11, 2008, 5:46:04 PM10/11/08
to

"art" <artm...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gcqrgd$25qo$1...@services.telesweet...

> Chandru Murthi wrote:
>> Peter: Palin's campaign lawyer today said in effect that she could not be
>> guilty of ethical violations since --get this-- there was no financial
>> gain involved. What a sick illustration of what we've come to.
>> I stealeth-not, therefore I'm ethical.
> Pretty much what I expected from you, Chandru. You've got a political
> witch-hunt led by Democrat state legislators, looking for revenge against
> a Republican governor that did her best to reign-in the run-away state
> government. What did you *think* that report was going to say? It seems
> that ever since Nixon, the best way Democrats know to get into office is
> to manufacture a scandal on the part of their opponents.

Total rubbish. The committee has 12 R and 4 D. Why is it that mere facts are
considered irrelevant?

Sorry on the second point as well. While I cannot bring up statistics, but
the number of Republican scandals vs. Demos must be at least 3-to-1. No need
to manufacture anything, we can just sit back and wait.

Chandru

>>
>>> Art "Washington DC has had some of the most strict gun control laws
>>> since the Brady bill was signed into law in 1993. And yet, where is
>>> it's violent crime rate?"
>> I can't even begin to explain why this has little relationship to guns
> So you think gun control is a waste of time also???

Good twist on my words. Obviously, not.

Peter McMurray

unread,
Oct 11, 2008, 6:23:45 PM10/11/08
to
Hi Art
You surely can confuse yourself. Just for the record Scotland is part of
Britain. If you check my name you may notice that it is Scottish so I am
quite likely a Celt in descent my father's family being Scottish and my
Mother's being Irish. Yes we had an Irish fruit loop for a grandfather who
supported the IRA bombings in London - paid for by Boston money, now where
did you say terrorists come from?
My reference to Daniel Boone was in regard to my New Zealand experience
where I described me carrying a rifle down the street. Australia and NZ are
younger countries in the European sense than US but more advanced in social
attitudes despite the best efforts of George dubyas little mate Johnie
Howard.
I pointed out that the cause of the crime was poverty, I totally support gun
laws. However when Washington is surrounded by crazy states that happily
supply hand guns to all and sundry it is difficult to stop criminals using
Uzis, one can however reduce the domestic violence figures and give the cops
a bit of a chance.
As for Palin, well you dream up whatever conspiracy theories you like but do
try and check your facts. She was under investigation BEFORE she was put
forward as VP, and yes she is guilty of gross misconduct, albeit typical
small town behaviour.
Oeter McMurray

"art" <artm...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gcqr09$25i1$1...@services.telesweet...

art

unread,
Oct 11, 2008, 10:49:52 PM10/11/08
to
Peter McMurray wrote:
> Hi Art
> You surely can confuse yourself.
Not at all. Just because Scotland has had it's own civil wars with the
British, what's that got to do with the facts about King's mountain?

> I pointed out that the cause of the crime was poverty, I totally support gun
> laws. However when Washington is surrounded by crazy states that happily
> supply hand guns to all and sundry it is difficult to stop criminals using
> Uzis, one can however reduce the domestic violence figures and give the cops
> a bit of a chance.

Gun controls are a feel-good band-aid on the symptoms, not a fix for the
problem.

> As for Palin, well you dream up whatever conspiracy theories you like but do
> try and check your facts. She was under investigation BEFORE she was put
> forward as VP, and yes she is guilty of gross misconduct, albeit typical

> small town behavior.
Typical liberal arrogance. You think I was unaware of the muck-raking
well before this? And I am from a typical small town. You? And the
"guilty of gross misconduct", since that was not in the report, where
did you make it up from?
Quoting directing from the report: "I find that, although Walt Monegan's
refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was
fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to
his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that,
Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful
exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire
executive branch department heads."