D
David Håsäther
Michael Winter said:
Pedantry: Actually, "</" followed by a name start character (a-zA-Z),
i.e. ETAGO delmiter-in-context, or NET ("/") if the start tag was NET-
enabling.
Pedantry: Actually, "</" followed by a name start character (a-zA-Z),
i.e. ETAGO delmiter-in-context, or NET ("/") if the start tag was NET-
enabling.
D
Dr John Stockton
JRS: In article <[email protected]>, dated Tue, 21 Jun
2005 11:26:55, seen in Daniel Kirsch
Well, the RegExp test should perhaps be case-sensitive; and you need to
think about what +3H should do to Sun 2005/10/30 00:00:00. As you have
it, it gives 2 o'clock; but with setHours it would give 3 o'clock.
If the change cannot be done, the date should possibly be set to NaN.
vorz = plusMinus.charAt(0) == "+" ? 1 : -1;
or vorz = plusMinus.charAt(0) + "1" // ??
Actually, you don't need vorz; RegExp match with
X = fst.match(/([+-]\d+)([SMHdmy])/)
then +X[1] can be used as val and X[2] as the selector.
Note that a minute after 2005/10/30 01:59:30 it is actually 2005/10/30
01:00:30.
2005 11:26:55, seen in Daniel Kirsch
Well, the RegExp test should perhaps be case-sensitive; and you need to
think about what +3H should do to Sun 2005/10/30 00:00:00. As you have
it, it gives 2 o'clock; but with setHours it would give 3 o'clock.
If the change cannot be done, the date should possibly be set to NaN.
vorz = plusMinus.charAt(0) == "+" ? 1 : -1;
or vorz = plusMinus.charAt(0) + "1" // ??
Actually, you don't need vorz; RegExp match with
X = fst.match(/([+-]\d+)([SMHdmy])/)
then +X[1] can be used as val and X[2] as the selector.
Note that a minute after 2005/10/30 01:59:30 it is actually 2005/10/30
01:00:30.
D
Daniel Kirsch
Dr said:
Of course. But that's pretty theoretical
Works for me. It gives me "2:00:30".
Daniel
D
Dr John Stockton
JRS: In article <[email protected]>, dated Wed, 22 Jun
2005 15:19:02, seen in Daniel Kirsch
Yes; but you're presumably in Germany. Try it in German time, a clock
hour later.
2005 15:19:02, seen in Daniel Kirsch
Yes; but you're presumably in Germany. Try it in German time, a clock
hour later.
C
cwdjrxyz
began in the first place, or that it stopped being necessary years ago.Michael Winter said:
I wonder if you can say the same about multi-line comment tags around
CDATA open and close tags placed in a script in a few years. In xhtml
you are required to surround the script with open and close CDATA tags
to avoid possible conflict with xml, if any is included in the xhtml
page. The problem is that most current browsers do not understand the
xml CDATA tags and completely kill the script, if you use them. The W3C
xhtml 1.0 and 1.1 validators will validate such a page perfectly, if it
has no errors. However if you leave the CDATA tags off, the validators
make a terrible fuss. However if you surround the CDATA open and close
tags with the multi-line javascript tags, everyone is happy. The page
works, and the validators and a proper xhtml delivery see right through
the javascripts to view the XML CDATA tags. I believe I first learned
about this at the Opera forum nearly 2 years ago from a member of the
Opera design team. Of course the easy way out is to use an external
javascript file, which avoids all of this fuss. However, many still
insist on including the script on the main page.
PS The Google beta groups site has been acting up at times for the last
day or two. It sometimes does not put the quoted message in the text
box, and you have to highlight and copy it to the response text box.
Until this problem resolves, some posts made from Google are going to
look strange. Major US ISPs including MSN and AOL have dropped Usenet
groups. I and many others are not interested in newsreaders just to
make a few posts in Usenet. Nearly everyone I know reads NGs online.
Most plans here allow unlimited, or very large, time on line, and many
even with dialup leave the computer on for many hours at a time.
M
Michael Winter
On 23/06/2005 09:40, (e-mail address removed) wrote:
[snip]
The rather blatantly obvious solution is to not serve XHTML(-like)
documents to user agents that don't explicitly state[1] they support it.
There is no benefit in serving XHTML as text/html, and XML tools can
transform their output to HTML so there is no excuse here, either.
[snip]
Mike
[1] IE says it supports anything in its request headers, so you have to
ignore things like that when negotiating XHTML.
[snip]
The rather blatantly obvious solution is to not serve XHTML(-like)
documents to user agents that don't explicitly state[1] they support it.
There is no benefit in serving XHTML as text/html, and XML tools can
transform their output to HTML so there is no excuse here, either.
[snip]
Mike
[1] IE says it supports anything in its request headers, so you have to
ignore things like that when negotiating XHTML.
D
Dr John Stockton
JRS: In article <[email protected]>,
dated Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:40:20, seen in
If providers in your country provide only shoddy services, it is you who
should suffer, not us; you merit no sympathy. Pay for a good service,
and demand it.
If you find that, when you start a News reply, Google does not provide
the previous article in quoted form, note what Keith Thompson wrote in
comp.lang.c, message ID <[email protected]> :-
If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show
options" at the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at
the bottom of the article headers.
Since that is what the experts in this newsgroup prefer to read, it will
be to your advantage to comply.
dated Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:40:20, seen in
If providers in your country provide only shoddy services, it is you who
should suffer, not us; you merit no sympathy. Pay for a good service,
and demand it.
If you find that, when you start a News reply, Google does not provide
the previous article in quoted form, note what Keith Thompson wrote in
comp.lang.c, message ID <[email protected]> :-
If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show
options" at the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at
the bottom of the article headers.
Since that is what the experts in this newsgroup prefer to read, it will
be to your advantage to comply.
T
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Dr said:
I am in Germany where next change from Daylight Saving Time to
"normal" time is scheduled on Sunday, 2005-10-30, 03:00:00.000
local (DS)time, using the German time locale.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050610
Firefox/1.0.4 (Debian package 1.0.4-3) Mnenhy/0.7.2.0
shows for `new Date(2005, 9, 30, 1, 59)'
"Sun Oct 30 2005 01:59:00 GMT+0200 (CEST)"
which is correct;
for `new Date(2005, 9, 30, 2, 59)'
"Sun Oct 30 2005 02:59:00 GMT+0100 (CET)"
which is incorrect
and so for `new Date(new Date(2005, 9, 30, 2, 59).getTime() + 3600000)'
"Sun Oct 30 2005 03:59:00 GMT+0100 (CET)"
which is correct according to "common sense".
Apparently, the JavaScript 1.5 engine of my UA is not up to date or not
properly using the locale. The second expression should have given
"Sun Oct 30 2005 02:59:00 GMT+0200 (CEST)"
as change from local DST to local "normal" time is scheduled only a
minute later (ref. <http://zeitumstellung.de/>). Or am I missing
something?
PointedEars
T
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
^^
This quote is borken, although Google Groups may error-correct that for
display. The technical flaws of Google Groups posts are many, especially
in the new version; please avoid using it, use a proper newsreader
application instead.
No, you are not. As it is but a PCDATA issue, you may instead escape markup
characters within the PCDATA content that script or style content is in
XHTML, e.g. `<' for `<' (JS: less-than operator; CSS: child selector),
> for `>' (JS: greater-than operator) and so on.
It is only that the UA(s) tested with or targeted, most notably Internet
Explorer, are not capable of processing XHTML and so do not support CDATA
_content declarations_ which is why commenting out those declarations is
necessary; not using the unsupported markup language in the first place
(but sticking to widely, if not always, supported HTML 4.01, Strict DTD
if possible) or including/linking to a script or style file would have
avoided the original problem.
PointedEars
D
Dr John Stockton
JRS: In article <[email protected]>, dated Sun, 3 Jul
2005 19:40:18, seen in Thomas 'PointedEars'
Probably.
Rather than looking at such as
new Date(2005, 9, 30, 1, 59)
it would be simpler to look at
new Date(2005, 9, 30, 1, 59).getTimezoneOffset()
or
new Date("2005/10/30 00:59:00 GMT").getTimezoneOffset()
One can get javascript to determine when the clock change is thought to
occur : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-clndr.htm#Ctrls> shows it.
Unfortunately, operating systems are often written and configured in a
country which has a considerable reputation for ignorance both about
time and about the rest of the world; so your OS may have incorrect
data.
You wrote :
for `new Date(2005, 9, 30, 2, 59)'
"Sun Oct 30 2005 02:59:00 GMT+0100 (CET)"
which is incorrect
Is it? Local time 02:59 occurs twice, once at the end of Summer and
once at the start of Winter, and ISTM that you see the latter. After
the clock has been put back, it continues going forwards.
Indeed, AIUI, the first version of Windows 95 (cf. ibid. 13,14/19) sets
the clock back whenever it thinks that the clock has reached 2 a.m. on
the day in question, not just on the first occasion.
2005 19:40:18, seen in Thomas 'PointedEars'
(about ten days ago)Lahn said:
Probably.
Rather than looking at such as
new Date(2005, 9, 30, 1, 59)
it would be simpler to look at
new Date(2005, 9, 30, 1, 59).getTimezoneOffset()
or
new Date("2005/10/30 00:59:00 GMT").getTimezoneOffset()
One can get javascript to determine when the clock change is thought to
occur : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-clndr.htm#Ctrls> shows it.
Unfortunately, operating systems are often written and configured in a
country which has a considerable reputation for ignorance both about
time and about the rest of the world; so your OS may have incorrect
data.
You wrote :
for `new Date(2005, 9, 30, 2, 59)'
"Sun Oct 30 2005 02:59:00 GMT+0100 (CET)"
which is incorrect
Is it? Local time 02:59 occurs twice, once at the end of Summer and
once at the start of Winter, and ISTM that you see the latter. After
the clock has been put back, it continues going forwards.
Indeed, AIUI, the first version of Windows 95 (cf. ibid. 13,14/19) sets
the clock back whenever it thinks that the clock has reached 2 a.m. on
the day in question, not just on the first occasion.
T
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Dr said:
(Please use at least ellipses for omitted text, thanks.)
-120
in [1] Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.8)
Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4
and
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.0.3705)
The same as above in both UAs.
[1] shows
| Summer Time according to your system :-
| Sun, 27 Mar 2005 01:00:00 GMT on off
| Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:00:00 GMT
in Firefox 1.04/Win+GNU/Linux and
| Summer Time according to your system :-
| Sun, 27 Mar 2005 01:00:00 UTC on off
| Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:00:00 UTC
in IE 6/Win.
It has not, other apps performed the change appropriately.
(Please use quote characters in front of lines to indicate
quoted text, thanks.)
I do think so, because of the wrong time zone offset. It is GMT+0100
and should be GMT+0200, since local DST did not end yet.
You're right,
however getTimezoneOffset() of the same date returns -120. It
should be either -60 (to indicate that local DST ended before)
or the string representation should yield
Sun Oct 30 2005 02:59:00 GMT+0200 (CEST)
PointedEars
D
Dr John Stockton
JRS: In article <[email protected]>, dated Sun, 10 Jul
2005 21:04:22, seen in Thomas 'PointedEars'
On that day, at 2:59 #1 local, it is still summer time - don't use DST,
it is a merkinism; use the British or German term - preferably the
former, since British introduced it first - and the clock goes back a
minute later to 2:00 local, and about an hour later it shows 2:59 #2.
AIUI, German law, unless since upset by the EU, defines these hours as
starting at 02:00 "A" & "B".
Therefore on that day the third and fourth hours of the day occur at the
same local time, and the choice of UTC for a given local time is
arbitrary by an hour.
Inversely, for me both
new Date("2005/03/27 01:30")
new Date("2005/03/27 02:30")
give, on default string conversion, Sun Mar 27 01:30:00 UTC 2005 ; in a
better world, the first would give NaN. Perhaps it does in other
browsers.
2005 21:04:22, seen in Thomas 'PointedEars'
On that day, at 2:59 #1 local, it is still summer time - don't use DST,
it is a merkinism; use the British or German term - preferably the
former, since British introduced it first - and the clock goes back a
minute later to 2:00 local, and about an hour later it shows 2:59 #2.
AIUI, German law, unless since upset by the EU, defines these hours as
starting at 02:00 "A" & "B".
Therefore on that day the third and fourth hours of the day occur at the
same local time, and the choice of UTC for a given local time is
arbitrary by an hour.
Inversely, for me both
new Date("2005/03/27 01:30")
new Date("2005/03/27 02:30")
give, on default string conversion, Sun Mar 27 01:30:00 UTC 2005 ; in a
better world, the first would give NaN. Perhaps it does in other
browsers.
T
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Dr said:
I did not state the opposite, on the contrary.
Not Google, none of my many English printed and online dictionaries, not
even the Wikipedia, which tends to be comprehensive and verbose, really
explains that term. Would you do it, please?
Sources are contradictory but it turns out that your information is probably
incorrect:
,-<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time>
| [...]
| It was first seriously proposed by William Willett in the "Waste of
| Daylight" [2], published in 1907, but he was unable to get the British
| government to adopt it, despite considerable lobbying.
|
| [...]
| The idea of daylight saving time was first put into practice by the German
| government during the First World War between April 30, 1916 and October
| 1, 1916. Shortly afterward, the United Kingdom followed suit, first
| adopting DST between May 21, 1916 and October 1, 1916. [...]
Most interestingly, the German Wikipedia's "Sommerzeit" article suggests
that "Daylight Saving Time" (sic!) was introduced first in the former Irish
Republic shortly after the Easter Rising in 1916 AD. Although the Irish
fought for independence, technically speaking Ireland was then still a part
of the UK which would explain the second sentence in the first source as
well as your statement. I take it that the rest of the UK introduced it
after the Truce in 1921. (DST was introduced in the Federal Republic of
Germany late in 1980, mostly as a reaction to the energy crisis of 1973
and to conform with the other countries that introduced it earlier.)
DST/ST was primarily introduced to save electric energy (yes, energy cannot
be saved, only transformed) in summer when the days (i.e. the time between
sunrise and sunset) are of course longer in the (Central European) summer
months than in the winter months. Switching local time ahead one hour in
the summer months allows to make better use of sunlight during normal
working hours.
Therefore I consider the original term, Daylight Saving Time, the more
correct one, "summer time" (in German: "Sommerzeit") is rather a colloquial
form of that although I do recognize that "British Summer Time (BST)" as
well as "Irish Summer Time (IST)" are known terms for DST in Britain and in
the Republic of Ireland.
(However, DST has been and is still questionable: statistics show that
indeed less electric energy is consumed (or rather: transformed) in the
evenings but also more energy is consumed/transformed with heating in the
morning hours, especially in the colder months of March, April and October.
Additionally, the change has a yet underestimated impact on the biorhythm
and so the health of many individuals, especially shift workers. Last but
not least, in a global economy there is not much point in referring to
local time when it comes to working hours, DST rather introduces confusion
in normal business. But that kind of discussion also does not really
belong here.)
I do not understand what you mean with "'A' & 'B'".
Anyway, DST in the Federal Republic of Germany (which happens to be
my home country) is standardized and enforced by the "Gesetz über die
Zeitbestimmung"/ "Zeitgesetz" (Law Regarding the Definition of Time/
Time Law) since 1980, currently to start at 0200 CET/0100 GMT and end at
_0300_ CEST/0200 CET/0100 GMT (thus implementing the European Community
directive 2000/84/EG), see e.g. <http://zeitumstellung.de/> (from your
postings in de.comp.lang.javascript I understand that you understand at
least a bit German).
So, to be at least a bit on-topic here:
That means if the implementation would take heed of what the OS already
"knows", consequently, it would show "...02:59:00+02:00 CEST" _and_ a time
zone offset of -120 for the given date, not only one of them. It does not.
While ECMAScript does not require a conforming implementation to take heed
of local DST changes, I consider it a JS bug that the time zone offset in
the string representation and the time zone offset retrieved using the
object's method differ for the same Date object. But this merely
emphasizes your point that a date computation performed with JS has to be
watched for DST change.
PointedEars
D
Dr John Stockton
JRS: In article <[email protected]>, dated Mon, 11 Jul
2005 21:31:02, seen in Thomas 'PointedEars'
Don't rely on Wikipedia[*]. And, independently of that, don't rely on
information on locations outside the USA that is, or may have been, US-
sourced.
No. The UK adopted Summer Time, but not its future murrican acronym.
And that quote is badly written, since 1916-05-21 was not after
1916-10-01. No ambiguity, but an avoidable infelicity.
They are letters of the alphabet; used (I have read) to discriminate
between the first and second occurrences of the ambiguous civil hour.
Not really true. It is standardised by the EU in Brussels; Germany is
obliged to comply. In spite of the events of 1914 & 1940, Germany is
now ruled from Brussels.
ECMAscript explicitly expects that it will do so; but in practice it
will have to rely on the OS to provide the information, and, no doubt,
ECMA was aware that it would not always be practical to do so. Consider
what you might do if you were to take a portable on a short visit to Tel
Aviv, since AIUI Israeli law is not compatible with ECMA 262 15.9.1.9
(and, up to a decade or two ago, UK law was not, either). Rightly, ECMA
has not declared the impracticable to be mandatory.
That, if true, is not a javascript bug; it is a javascript
implementation bug.
In my IE4, which is misinformed by Windows 98 about the UTC of the
transition believing it to be at 02:00 UTC,
document.writeln('<pre>')
for ( K=-1 ; K<9 ; K++ ) {
D = new Date(Date.UTC(2005, 10-1, 30, 0, 15 + 30*K))
document.writeln(D.getTimezoneOffset(), '\t', D.UTCstr(), '\t', D)
}
document.writeln('</pre>')
(UTCstr is shown in js-nclds.htm) gives :
-60 2005-10-29 23:45:00 Sun Oct 30 00:45:00 UTC+0100 2005
-60 2005-10-30 00:15:00 Sun Oct 30 01:15:00 UTC+0100 2005
-60 2005-10-30 00:45:00 Sun Oct 30 01:45:00 UTC+0100 2005
-60 2005-10-30 01:15:00 Sun Oct 30 02:15:00 UTC+0100 2005
-60 2005-10-30 01:45:00 Sun Oct 30 02:45:00 UTC+0100 2005
0 2005-10-30 02:15:00 Sun Oct 30 02:15:00 UTC 2005
0 2005-10-30 02:45:00 Sun Oct 30 02:45:00 UTC 2005
0 2005-10-30 03:15:00 Sun Oct 30 03:15:00 UTC 2005
0 2005-10-30 03:45:00 Sun Oct 30 03:45:00 UTC 2005
0 2005-10-30 04:15:00 Sun Oct 30 04:15:00 UTC 2005
which is entirely self-consistent; I do not see any error such as you
assert. With that code, you should see offsets -60 minutes "greater",
the same UTC column, local times an hour "later" with offsets an hour
greater.
BTW, to describe BST as UTC+0100 seems reasonable. To describe
Sommerzeit as "<time>+02:00 CEST" does not; "<time> CEST [UTC]+02[:]00"
would.
Never trust software of US origin to handle dates and times rationally
or efficiently; nor to do so correctly outside the USA.
[*] Unless recently corrected, de.wiki has an error in its Zeller
material; the author has not understood the source he cites. Plain wiki
lacks the material to have the error in.
2005 21:31:02, seen in Thomas 'PointedEars'
Lahn said:
Don't rely on Wikipedia[*]. And, independently of that, don't rely on
information on locations outside the USA that is, or may have been, US-
sourced.
No. The UK adopted Summer Time, but not its future murrican acronym.
And that quote is badly written, since 1916-05-21 was not after
1916-10-01. No ambiguity, but an avoidable infelicity.
They are letters of the alphabet; used (I have read) to discriminate
between the first and second occurrences of the ambiguous civil hour.
Not really true. It is standardised by the EU in Brussels; Germany is
obliged to comply. In spite of the events of 1914 & 1940, Germany is
now ruled from Brussels.
ECMAscript explicitly expects that it will do so; but in practice it
will have to rely on the OS to provide the information, and, no doubt,
ECMA was aware that it would not always be practical to do so. Consider
what you might do if you were to take a portable on a short visit to Tel
Aviv, since AIUI Israeli law is not compatible with ECMA 262 15.9.1.9
(and, up to a decade or two ago, UK law was not, either). Rightly, ECMA
has not declared the impracticable to be mandatory.
That, if true, is not a javascript bug; it is a javascript
implementation bug.
In my IE4, which is misinformed by Windows 98 about the UTC of the
transition believing it to be at 02:00 UTC,
document.writeln('<pre>')
for ( K=-1 ; K<9 ; K++ ) {
D = new Date(Date.UTC(2005, 10-1, 30, 0, 15 + 30*K))
document.writeln(D.getTimezoneOffset(), '\t', D.UTCstr(), '\t', D)
}
document.writeln('</pre>')
(UTCstr is shown in js-nclds.htm) gives :
-60 2005-10-29 23:45:00 Sun Oct 30 00:45:00 UTC+0100 2005
-60 2005-10-30 00:15:00 Sun Oct 30 01:15:00 UTC+0100 2005
-60 2005-10-30 00:45:00 Sun Oct 30 01:45:00 UTC+0100 2005
-60 2005-10-30 01:15:00 Sun Oct 30 02:15:00 UTC+0100 2005
-60 2005-10-30 01:45:00 Sun Oct 30 02:45:00 UTC+0100 2005
0 2005-10-30 02:15:00 Sun Oct 30 02:15:00 UTC 2005
0 2005-10-30 02:45:00 Sun Oct 30 02:45:00 UTC 2005
0 2005-10-30 03:15:00 Sun Oct 30 03:15:00 UTC 2005
0 2005-10-30 03:45:00 Sun Oct 30 03:45:00 UTC 2005
0 2005-10-30 04:15:00 Sun Oct 30 04:15:00 UTC 2005
which is entirely self-consistent; I do not see any error such as you
assert. With that code, you should see offsets -60 minutes "greater",
the same UTC column, local times an hour "later" with offsets an hour
greater.
BTW, to describe BST as UTC+0100 seems reasonable. To describe
Sommerzeit as "<time>+02:00 CEST" does not; "<time> CEST [UTC]+02[:]00"
would.
Never trust software of US origin to handle dates and times rationally
or efficiently; nor to do so correctly outside the USA.
[*] Unless recently corrected, de.wiki has an error in its Zeller
material; the author has not understood the source he cites. Plain wiki
lacks the material to have the error in.
T
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Dr said:
Your demonstrated paranoia regarding anything non-UK is somewhat refreshing.
For a while.
You have yet to prove that.
Whatever "murrican" means again.
A matter of perspective.
I don't argue with that.
That is probably the time it was introduced in parliament and the time it
was ratified.
Yes, after I have done further research, that is probably the case.
YMMD. *You* *really* tell *me* what's going on in *my* home country!
You want to either read more carefully or get informed before you make
further such claims. The "Zeitgesetz" existed long before (1980) the EC/EU
directive (2000). It was adapted to comply to the directive, that's all.
I really don't know what to reply to such a piece of junk. ISTM that you
have either been just badly misinformed and believe anything that you are
exposed to except in this group (maybe you are part of some extreme
circles, I don't really care), you are trolling, or you are just foolish
enough to believe that anyone believes what you say. JFTR: Many laws
(AFAIK about 70%) that affect Germany originate from Brussels nowadays,
but that does not make the country in any way ruled from there; many of
the EU laws have to be ratified by the German Bundestag (in Berlin) before
they become active law in Germany.
I could post the URL of an excellent Wikipedia article that could manage
to explain that to you more in detail but then I doubt you will even bother
to follow the link, let alone carefully reading it.
No, it does not. Read ECMAScript ed. 3, section 15.9.1.8 carefully again.
Splitting hairs again?
Fortunately you don't have allowed your judgement to be clouded by an
extreme nationalist attitude and do not show a strong tendence towards
xenophobia.
You, as any person that understands the used language, are
in a position to change that, even without registering.
PointedEars
D
Dr John Stockton
JRS: In article <[email protected]>, dated Wed, 13 Jul
2005 00:17:48, seen in Thomas 'PointedEars'
It appears that you have not understood that sentence. The Americans
are notoriously unreliable in understanding the ways of the rest of the
world.
You have yet to follow the indications given to you. Your Web searching
technique is inadequate. And you have shown no sign at all of having
considered the implications of setting clocks back on 1915-09-26.
You see, even you can show yourself to be in error!
You need to consider the difference between "is" and "was". Germany was
competent to organise its own clocks; it is no longer allowed to do so.
The present Germany is about as independent as East Germany used to be.
Indeed; but in very many cases that ratification is obligatory.
When you are in less of a temper, you can write quite passable English.
But not necessarily, it appears, otherwise.
I don't *write* German. Those who read the de.wiki may see the error
themselves, or find it by other means; it is explained in the linked
material that the author of the German used. It's your language; you
fix it. If you refuse, maybe Martin might consider doing it.
2005 00:17:48, seen in Thomas 'PointedEars'
Lahn said:
It appears that you have not understood that sentence. The Americans
are notoriously unreliable in understanding the ways of the rest of the
world.
You have yet to follow the indications given to you. Your Web searching
technique is inadequate. And you have shown no sign at all of having
considered the implications of setting clocks back on 1915-09-26.
You see, even you can show yourself to be in error!
You need to consider the difference between "is" and "was". Germany was
competent to organise its own clocks; it is no longer allowed to do so.
The present Germany is about as independent as East Germany used to be.
Indeed; but in very many cases that ratification is obligatory.
When you are in less of a temper, you can write quite passable English.
But not necessarily, it appears, otherwise.
I don't *write* German. Those who read the de.wiki may see the error
themselves, or find it by other means; it is explained in the linked
material that the author of the German used. It's your language; you
fix it. If you refuse, maybe Martin might consider doing it.
M
Matt Kruse
Dr said:
Dear Doctor,
Your bigotry and persistent prejudiced generalizations about individuals
based on their country of origin has been demonstrated sufficiently on this
newsgroup.
Having embarassed yourself enough, we strongly recommend that you stop being
such an arrogant asshole.
Thank you,
The Management
E
Evertjan.
Matt Kruse wrote on 13 jul 2005 in comp.lang.javascript:
While the management debases itself with such coarse language,
I will side with the Doctor, as his value to this NG is beond measure.
One could certainly wonder where the management is based. Would the
management be so angry, if it did not feel a schred of truth in the
doctor's words? Moreover, being "notoriously unreliable" only states the
notoriousness of the unreliability, not the unreliability itself.
While the management debases itself with such coarse language,
I will side with the Doctor, as his value to this NG is beond measure.
One could certainly wonder where the management is based. Would the
management be so angry, if it did not feel a schred of truth in the
doctor's words? Moreover, being "notoriously unreliable" only states the
notoriousness of the unreliability, not the unreliability itself.
M
Mick White
Matt Kruse wrote:
[snip]
Do you not recognize the good natured "tongue-in-cheekness" of the good
doctor's responses?
Mick.
[snip]
[snip]
Do you not recognize the good natured "tongue-in-cheekness" of the good
doctor's responses?
Mick.