more than one statement in a post perlish condition

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by Alexander Jack, Aug 11, 2009.

  1. Dear community ,
    I wanted to know that how do I give more than one statement in a post
    perlish condition ,

    for ex:
    print "YES" if ( $yes eq "yes");


    I want to change the value of $yes if it is true that means it should
    execute after
    print statement.

    Thanks in Advance
    Alexander Jack, Aug 11, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alexander Jack <> writes:

    > Dear community ,
    > I wanted to know that how do I give more than one statement in a post
    > perlish condition ,
    >
    > for ex:
    > print "YES" if ( $yes eq "yes");


    For more than one simple statement I would almost always use a real if
    block

    if ($yes eq "yes") {
    print "YES";
    $yes = "no;
    }

    If you for some reason want to hide the condition as a statement
    modifier you could use a do block:

    do {
    print "YES";
    $yes = "no";
    } if $yes eq "yes";

    It is possible to do something like

    print("YES"), $yes = "no" if $yes eq "yes";
    (print "YES"), $yes = "no" if $yes eq "yes";
    print "YES" and $yes = "no" if $yse eq "yes";

    but I consider all of them less readable than the block forms and at
    least the last example isn't obvious for people not quite used to perl
    precedence rules.

    //Makholm.
    Peter Makholm, Aug 11, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ben Morrow <> writes:

    >> print("YES"), $yes = "no" if $yes eq "yes";
    >> (print "YES"), $yes = "no" if $yes eq "yes";
    >> print "YES" and $yes = "no" if $yse eq "yes";

    >
    > The last example is also Wrong, in that print can fail. It's not common,


    Correct, I should have mentioned that the last one wasn't semantically
    equivalent with the others.

    //Makholm
    Peter Makholm, Aug 11, 2009
    #3
  4. Alexander Jack

    Justin C Guest

    On 2009-08-11, Alexander Jack <> wrote:
    > Dear community ,
    > I wanted to know that how do I give more than one statement in a post
    > perlish condition ,
    >
    > for ex:
    > print "YES" if ( $yes eq "yes");
    >
    > I want to change the value of $yes if it is true that means it should
    > execute after
    > print statement.


    print "yes" if (($yes eq "yes") && ($yes = 'no'));


    Justin.

    --
    Justin C, by the sea.
    Justin C, Aug 13, 2009
    #4
  5. Alexander Jack

    Uri Guttman Guest

    >>>>> "JC" == Justin C <> writes:

    JC> On 2009-08-11, Alexander Jack <> wrote:
    >> Dear community ,
    >> I wanted to know that how do I give more than one statement in a post
    >> perlish condition ,
    >>
    >> for ex:
    >> print "YES" if ( $yes eq "yes");
    >>
    >> I want to change the value of $yes if it is true that means it should
    >> execute after
    >> print statement.


    JC> print "yes" if (($yes eq "yes") && ($yes = 'no'));

    it is nice to be helpful but better to be correct. the latter is = which
    is very wrong in two ways: it is an assignment and not a comparison and
    it is also numeric (assuming you meant ==) and not a string
    comparison. then the logic is also tortured. why would you check for
    'yes' and ALSO 'no'. it can't be both. next the OP wanted multiple
    statements with a single modifier, not multiple booleans in one
    modifier. finally all the parens aren't needed and are noisy.

    uri

    --
    Uri Guttman ------ -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
    ----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
    --------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
    --------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------
    Uri Guttman, Aug 13, 2009
    #5
  6. Alexander Jack

    Willem Guest

    Uri Guttman wrote:
    )>>>>> "JC" == Justin C <> writes:
    )
    ) JC> On 2009-08-11, Alexander Jack <> wrote:
    ) >> I want to change the value of $yes if it is true that means it should
    ) >> execute after
    ) >> print statement.
    )
    ) JC> print "yes" if (($yes eq "yes") && ($yes = 'no'));
    )
    ) it is nice to be helpful but better to be correct. the latter is = which
    ) is very wrong in two ways: it is an assignment and not a comparison and
    ) it is also numeric (assuming you meant ==) and not a string
    ) comparison. then the logic is also tortured. why would you check for
    ) 'yes' and ALSO 'no'. it can't be both. next the OP wanted multiple
    ) statements with a single modifier, not multiple booleans in one
    ) modifier. finally all the parens aren't needed and are noisy.

    *whoosh*


    SaSW, Willem
    --
    Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
    made in the above text. For all I know I might be
    drugged or something..
    No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
    #EOT
    Willem, Aug 13, 2009
    #6
  7. Alexander Jack

    Scott Bryce Guest

    Uri Guttman wrote:
    >
    > JC> print "yes" if (($yes eq "yes") && ($yes = 'no'));
    >
    > it is nice to be helpful but better to be correct. the latter is =
    > which is very wrong in two ways: it is an assignment and not a
    > comparison and it is also numeric (assuming you meant ==) and not a
    > string comparison. then the logic is also tortured. why would you
    > check for 'yes' and ALSO 'no'. it can't be both. next the OP wanted
    > multiple statements with a single modifier, not multiple booleans in
    > one modifier. finally all the parens aren't needed and are noisy.



    Did I miss something? What the OP wants to do is evaluate $yes. If $yes
    contains 'yes', then print it and change its value.

    The line if code JC provided does that. If $yes evaluates to 'yes' then
    $yes is set to 'no'. Since setting $yes to 'no' evaluates to TRUE, the
    print statement is executed.




    use strict;
    use warnings;

    my $yes = 'yes';

    print 'yes' if (($yes eq 'yes') && ($yes = 'no'));

    print "\nYes now equals $yes";


    ----------

    yes
    Yes now equals no
    Scott Bryce, Aug 13, 2009
    #7
  8. Alexander Jack

    Uri Guttman Guest

    >>>>> "SB" == Scott Bryce <> writes:

    SB> Uri Guttman wrote:
    >>

    JC> print "yes" if (($yes eq "yes") && ($yes = 'no'));
    >>
    >> it is nice to be helpful but better to be correct. the latter is =
    >> which is very wrong in two ways: it is an assignment and not a
    >> comparison and it is also numeric (assuming you meant ==) and not a
    >> string comparison. then the logic is also tortured. why would you
    >> check for 'yes' and ALSO 'no'. it can't be both. next the OP wanted
    >> multiple statements with a single modifier, not multiple booleans in
    >> one modifier. finally all the parens aren't needed and are noisy.



    SB> Did I miss something? What the OP wants to do is evaluate $yes. If $yes
    SB> contains 'yes', then print it and change its value.

    SB> The line if code JC provided does that. If $yes evaluates to 'yes' then
    SB> $yes is set to 'no'. Since setting $yes to 'no' evaluates to TRUE, the
    SB> print statement is executed.

    not what i read but i could be wrong. in any case (and regardless of the
    correctness of the above code) it is horrible. using assignment INSIDE a
    conditional of a modifier is nuts. it should never be done especially in
    a compound boolean. it LOOKS like a bug and will always be read as one.

    uri

    --
    Uri Guttman ------ -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
    ----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
    --------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
    --------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------
    Uri Guttman, Aug 13, 2009
    #8
  9. Alexander Jack

    Nathan Keel Guest

    Willem wrote:

    > Uri Guttman wrote:
    > )>>>>> "JC" == Justin C <> writes:
    > )
    > ) JC> On 2009-08-11, Alexander Jack <> wrote:
    > ) >> I want to change the value of $yes if it is true that means it
    > should
    > ) >> execute after
    > ) >> print statement.
    > )
    > ) JC> print "yes" if (($yes eq "yes") && ($yes = 'no'));
    > )
    > ) it is nice to be helpful but better to be correct. the latter is =
    > which ) is very wrong in two ways: it is an assignment and not a
    > comparison and ) it is also numeric (assuming you meant ==) and not a
    > string ) comparison. then the logic is also tortured. why would you
    > check for ) 'yes' and ALSO 'no'. it can't be both. next the OP wanted
    > multiple ) statements with a single modifier, not multiple booleans in
    > one ) modifier. finally all the parens aren't needed and are noisy.
    >
    > *whoosh*
    >
    >
    > SaSW, Willem


    LOL!
    Nathan Keel, Aug 13, 2009
    #9
  10. Justin C <> writes:

    >> print "YES" if ( $yes eq "yes");
    >>
    >> I want to change the value of $yes if it is true that means it should
    >> execute after
    >> print statement.

    >
    > print "yes" if (($yes eq "yes") && ($yes = 'no'));


    As Uri has explained this is very prone to mis-readings and is thus
    unmaintainable. If we go by the example you solution works, but the
    assignment happens *before* the print statement, which could be argued
    to be wrong according to "the spec".

    //Makholm
    Peter Makholm, Aug 13, 2009
    #10
  11. Alexander Jack

    Nathan Keel Guest

    Peter Makholm wrote:

    > As Uri has explained this is very prone to mis-readings


    I think it's more that Uri is proe to mis-reading. Anyway, that was one
    example by one person. If you prefer it to read different (nothing
    wrong with that, maybe there's everything right with that), then feel
    free to make the alternative suggestion. Saying someone's wrong
    because you're too excited about arguing with people on the usenet
    group (which is often what uri does), is pointless.
    Nathan Keel, Aug 14, 2009
    #11
  12. Alexander Jack

    Uri Guttman Guest

    >>>>> "NK" == Nathan Keel <> writes:

    NK> Peter Makholm wrote:
    >> As Uri has explained this is very prone to mis-readings


    NK> I think it's more that Uri is proe to mis-reading. Anyway, that was one

    proe? do i read that correctly? anyhow, your experience here is nothing
    to shout about.

    NK> example by one person. If you prefer it to read different (nothing
    NK> wrong with that, maybe there's everything right with that), then feel
    NK> free to make the alternative suggestion. Saying someone's wrong
    NK> because you're too excited about arguing with people on the usenet
    NK> group (which is often what uri does), is pointless.

    pointless is your middle name. you have yet to actually comment on the
    code or ideas in this thread. how about sticking to perl and not some
    inane comments about me? but you won't because you are obsessed with
    me. your issue not mine.

    and my last comment still stands. the last example was horrible code
    regardless of its logical correctness or not. you don't mix assignments
    in a complex boolean. if you don't get that then you shouldn't be
    commenting on other people's code.

    uri

    --
    Uri Guttman ------ -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
    ----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
    --------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
    --------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------
    Uri Guttman, Aug 14, 2009
    #12
  13. >>>>> "JC" == Justin C <> writes:

    JC> On 2009-08-11, Alexander Jack <> wrote:

    >> Dear community , I wanted to know that how do I give more than
    >> one statement in a post perlish condition ,
    >>
    >> for ex: print "YES" if ( $yes eq "yes");
    >>
    >> I want to change the value of $yes if it is true that means it
    >> should execute after print statement.


    JC> print "yes" if (($yes eq "yes") && ($yes = 'no'));

    While technically correct, this is a really stupid construction because
    it's so prone to misreading (as uri so aptly demonstrated). Why
    not just say what you mean?

    if ($yes eq 'yes')
    {
    print $yes;
    $yes = 'no';
    }

    What benefit do you get from making it so confusing to parse and
    understand?

    Charlton


    --
    Charlton Wilbur
    Charlton Wilbur, Aug 14, 2009
    #13
  14. Alexander Jack

    Nathan Keel Guest

    Uri Guttman wrote:

    >>>>>> "NK" == Nathan Keel <> writes:

    >
    > NK> Peter Makholm wrote:
    > >> As Uri has explained this is very prone to mis-readings

    >
    > NK> I think it's more that Uri is proe to mis-reading. Anyway, that
    > was one
    >
    > proe? do i read that correctly? anyhow, your experience here is
    > nothing to shout about.


    Believe it or not, the fact you're an arrogant prick to everyone here
    and I didn't put up with your BS, doesn't actually mean squat. I know
    that's hard for you to accept. Anyway, you said you killfiled me, but
    as usual, you never did, because you're an arrogant fraud. Now, ****
    off already.

    > NK> example by one person. If you prefer it to read different
    > (nothing NK> wrong with that, maybe there's everything right with
    > that), then feel
    > NK> free to make the alternative suggestion. Saying someone's wrong
    > NK> because you're too excited about arguing with people on the
    > usenet NK> group (which is often what uri does), is pointless.
    >
    > pointless is your middle name. you have yet to actually comment on the
    > code or ideas in this thread. how about sticking to perl and not some
    > inane comments about me? but you won't because you are obsessed with
    > me. your issue not mine.


    Oh yeah, it's proof that I'm obsessed with you, all because I let the
    poster know how you are (and you *are* like that). Get over yourself.
    Maybe if you did more than insult people, your misunderstood responses
    would be better received. But, don't actually dare and be a better
    person by my account!

    > and my last comment still stands. the last example was horrible code
    > regardless of its logical correctness or not. you don't mix
    > assignments in a complex boolean. if you don't get that then you
    > shouldn't be commenting on other people's code.
    >
    > uri

    nal cake

    Who gives a damn what you think? It's easily understood, the poster
    offered help. They were right, and the subject went right over your
    head because you were too busy intent on insulting someone (as usual).
    Believe it or not, I don't agree it was the most logical to look at
    either, but it wasn't that big of a deal. If you don't get that
    everyone doesn't agree with your extreme, arrogant and insulting views,
    to where you think they have no business expressing their opinion, then
    you direly need to get a clue. Anyway, how about you go back to
    "killfiling" me, like you said you did (which you clearly never did).
    And, don't worry, I've not been mentioning you other than yesterday,
    and because you suck. I won't be spending time in an effort to bother
    (expose) you.
    Nathan Keel, Aug 14, 2009
    #14
  15. Alexander Jack

    Uri Guttman Guest

    >>>>> "NK" == Nathan Keel <> writes:

    NK> Believe it or not, the fact you're an arrogant prick to everyone here
    NK> and I didn't put up with your BS, doesn't actually mean squat. I know
    NK> that's hard for you to accept. Anyway, you said you killfiled me, but
    NK> as usual, you never did, because you're an arrogant fraud. Now, ****
    NK> off already.

    fraud? are you accusing me of fraud? a perl ponzi scheme? please pay up
    and i will repay your perl with 20% better code. hell, in your case 50%
    is guaranteed!

    NK> Oh yeah, it's proof that I'm obsessed with you, all because I let the
    NK> poster know how you are (and you *are* like that). Get over yourself.
    NK> Maybe if you did more than insult people, your misunderstood responses
    NK> would be better received. But, don't actually dare and be a better
    NK> person by my account!

    i don't insult people, just non-entities. or those who bitch and don't
    actually help with perl. you fit both categories just fine.

    >> and my last comment still stands. the last example was horrible code
    >> uri

    NK> nal cake

    wow. such witlessness. such originality. did your father help you out
    with that? does making up stupid names make you feel better? this is
    what i mean by obsessed. you resort to that same silly nickname each
    time. the depth of your wit is as shallow as your perl skills. (now THAT
    is an insult).

    NK> Who gives a damn what you think? It's easily understood, the
    NK> poster offered help. They were right, and the subject went right
    NK> over your head because you were too busy intent on insulting
    NK> someone (as usual). Believe it or not, I don't agree it was the
    NK> most logical to look at either, but it wasn't that big of a deal.
    NK> If you don't get that everyone doesn't agree with your extreme,
    NK> arrogant and insulting views, to where you think they have no
    NK> business expressing their opinion, then you direly need to get a
    NK> clue. Anyway, how about you go back to "killfiling" me, like you
    NK> said you did (which you clearly never did). And, don't worry,
    NK> I've not been mentioning you other than yesterday, and because you
    NK> suck. I won't be spending time in an effort to bother (expose)
    NK> you.

    and the code sucked. others have agreed. regardless of its
    correctness. you don't get that and you won't. you are blinded against
    all i could ever say. more like the birthers and the town-hall loonies,
    you rant about me but never say anything coherent. i will not let you
    stop my perl health reform progress.

    now go learn python and annoy them.

    uri

    --
    Uri Guttman ------ -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
    ----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
    --------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
    --------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------
    Uri Guttman, Aug 14, 2009
    #15
  16. Alexander Jack

    Nathan Keel Guest

    Uri Guttman wrote:

    >>>>>> "NK" == Nathan Keel <> writes:

    >
    > NK> Believe it or not, the fact you're an arrogant prick to everyone
    > here
    > NK> and I didn't put up with your BS, doesn't actually mean squat.
    > I know
    > NK> that's hard for you to accept. Anyway, you said you killfiled
    > me, but
    > NK> as usual, you never did, because you're an arrogant fraud. Now,
    > **** NK> off already.
    >
    > fraud? are you accusing me of fraud? a perl ponzi scheme? please pay
    > up and i will repay your perl with 20% better code. hell, in your case
    > 50% is guaranteed!


    Yes, you're a fraud, I didn't say scammer. A fraud is someone that acts
    like something for some benefit, and acts a different way in other
    situations. Whatever you think makes you look smarter, regardless of
    how much of a worthless prick you are about stuff. Who cares what
    skills you have if you're just a dick to everyone ALL OF THE TIME!?
    Your arrogance toward anyone that doesn't put up with your bullshit is
    boring.

    > NK> Oh yeah, it's proof that I'm obsessed with you, all because I
    > let the
    > NK> poster know how you are (and you *are* like that). Get over
    > yourself. NK> Maybe if you did more than insult people, your
    > misunderstood responses
    > NK> would be better received. But, don't actually dare and be a
    > better NK> person by my account!
    >
    > i don't insult people, just non-entities. or those who bitch and don't
    > actually help with perl. you fit both categories just fine.


    You're just acting like a little bitch because you think you can
    cyber-bully people around and you react poorly to anyone that tells you
    how it is. You're pathetic. And, actually, you are rude, arrogant and
    a prick to people that didn't deserve it. You can act like I deserve
    it because I'm putting you in your place, but those other people
    didn't. With you, it doesn't seem to matter, people are deserving of
    your arrogant abuse no matter what, so I may as well put you in your
    place.

    > >> and my last comment still stands. the last example was horrible
    > >> code uri

    > NK> nal cake
    >
    > wow. such witlessness. such originality.


    Thank you.

    > did your father help you out
    > with that?


    Yes. My entire family was there. It was a big event. You ARE that
    important.

    > does making up stupid names make you feel better?


    Sometimes.

    > this is
    > what i mean by obsessed.


    You mean me calling you by a name when you're being a worthless prick,
    is somehow proof that I'm obsessed? I won't question where you get
    your degree or rationalization to qualify such claims, because I know
    you believe in your own mind that you're that special and I don't want
    to hurt your fragile feelings.

    > you resort to that same silly nickname each
    > time.


    Yes, I do.

    > the depth of your wit is as shallow as your perl skills. (now
    > THAT is an insult).


    That actually wasn't a very good insult, especially since I'm confident
    of myself and my skills (though I don't pretend to know everything, I
    don't randomly and baselessly treat fellow civil group members like the
    worthless piles of shit you do... and that you *are*) Anyway, I'm
    talking about how you treat everyone in general, not me. I realize me
    putting you in your place is something you'd react poorly to (of course
    you would, I would, too. So, I don't fault you for that, but you care
    not for the "why", you just see a chance to self-boast). You honestly
    do not impress me, not in the least.

    > NK> Who gives a damn what you think? It's easily understood, the
    > NK> poster offered help. They were right, and the subject went
    > right NK> over your head because you were too busy intent on
    > insulting
    > NK> someone (as usual). Believe it or not, I don't agree it was the
    > NK> most logical to look at either, but it wasn't that big of a
    > deal. NK> If you don't get that everyone doesn't agree with your
    > extreme, NK> arrogant and insulting views, to where you think they
    > have no NK> business expressing their opinion, then you direly need
    > to get a
    > NK> clue. Anyway, how about you go back to "killfiling" me, like
    > you
    > NK> said you did (which you clearly never did). And, don't worry,
    > NK> I've not been mentioning you other than yesterday, and because
    > you
    > NK> suck. I won't be spending time in an effort to bother (expose)
    > NK> you.
    >
    > and the code sucked. others have agreed. regardless of its
    > correctness.


    Yet, somehow, this all came about because the OP's question went zooming
    right over your thick head. Odd...

    > you don't get that and you won't.


    In fact, I do get it. And, in fact, I do "get" that it's better
    written. I never disagreed with that. I disagree with how you choose
    to interact with people, because you suck.

    > you are blinded against
    > all i could ever say.


    Not really, I realize you have Perl skills. I'm just saying you're a
    fucking dick.

    > more like the birthers and the town-hall
    > loonies, you rant about me but never say anything coherent.


    Believe it or not, just saying I'm not being coherent because I'm
    pointing out valid points that embarrass you (as you should well be),
    doesn't actually make it so. Granted, I realize you think you're
    important enough to just randomly make wild accusations and believe
    that's all the proof you need to make it true, but you're just not that
    important. Everything I have said is factual and offers perfect
    clarity. Perhaps you disagree and chose to lie or defend yourself (who
    wouldn't?), but to claim it's incoherent in response just shows how
    desperate, foolish and self conscious you are.

    > i will not
    > let you stop my perl health reform progress.


    I am exposing your shitty attitude, I did not put into question your
    Perl skills.

    > now go learn python and annoy them.


    Uh huh.

    > uri

    nal cake.
    >
    Nathan Keel, Aug 14, 2009
    #16
  17. Alexander Jack

    Nathan Keel Guest

    Tad J McClellan wrote:

    > Nathan Keel <> wrote:
    >
    >> Who cares what
    >> skills you have if you're just a dick to everyone ALL OF THE TIME!?

    >
    >
    > Making obviously false statements does not help support your position.


    You intentionally neglecting and defending your co-troll-cohort and
    auto-siding on issues doesn't help support your position.

    >
    >> I'm just saying you're a
    >> fucking dick.

    >
    >
    > Ad hominem attacks do not help support your position either.


    Then again, nothing would make any difference to you anyway, as is also
    proven, so who fuckin' cares?

    > Get control of yourself man.


    I'm under control. Believe it or not, people not tolerating your
    insolence isn't an indication of an emotional problem. I know that's
    difficult for arrogant people to accept.

    I leave you with a South Park quote that will sum it up: “Your
    ego has made you believe things happen differently,†Cartman said. “You
    have such a huge ego you do these mental gymnastics to make yourself a
    part of things ... now I realize that some people just have egos that
    are so out of whack that no matter what people tell them they can’t
    accept the truth of who they are.â€

    Truly, there are people out there that applies to. I have a sense of
    humor and decency, no one offline thinks anything but good things about
    me. Sure, I tend to care less online, as you do, about how I interact
    with people, so I tell you how it is. You can use that as a basis to
    claim I am the one with the problem, but FFS, do you not own a mirror,
    or are you truly that delusional? In all, I'm well under control, and
    I chose to aggressively respond to arrogant pricks online. Of course
    it's not necessary, but I'd not feel right with letting jerks just take
    over and run the place. Yes, I realize the irony that you must feel
    about me saying that, and I know you and uri are both convinced
    everyone else is the jerk and you guys have some inalienable right to
    tell someone off on usenet and so on. Big yawn.

    You really should watch the "FishSticks" full episode of South Park and
    consider yourself at least a little bit Cartman and a little bit Kanye.
    I know you'll never change, but I'll also never cease putting you in
    your place. I don't give a **** if you two have Perl skills and offer
    help now and again, because it's far outweighed by the arrogance you
    two displat more than not. It's too bad, because if you two didn't
    suck so bad at being people, you'd have a lot more going for you.
    Yeah, yeah, again, I realize how me saying this must sound to you, and
    you can convince yourself that it's everyone else with the problem and
    not you. Me, I'm willing to concede I'm not perfect, and I don't go
    out of my way to be rude, insulting and arrogant to random people
    online (or offline). Give me a reason, I will, but otherwise I will
    not. It's a pretty simple and easy thing to live by. I hope you see
    the way you are, but I guess you can't help it (referencing the Cartman
    quote above). I'll leave you with "zoom!".
    Nathan Keel, Aug 15, 2009
    #17
  18. Alexander Jack

    Nathan Keel Guest

    Tad J McClellan wrote:

    > Nathan Keel <> wrote:
    >> Tad J McClellan wrote:

    >
    >>> Get control of yourself man.

    >>
    >> I'm under control.

    >
    >
    > Pffft!


    Thanks for side stepping all of the other valid points I had made, just
    to repeat what you accused me of previously. In the end, the problem
    is that there is a lot of unnecessary arrogance and rudeness on usenet
    (it's not just you two). If someone gives a reason, while it's all
    pretty petty anyway, at least that's understandable. But, to just have
    this shitty attitude in general to everyone, I think it's a bit
    strange. Indeed, I believe people like you are out of control, rather
    than the people that don't tolerate it, but I'm sure we can both
    "control" ourselves enough to just ignore all of the bullshit.
    Nathan Keel, Aug 15, 2009
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ThaDoctor
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    296
    Jim Langston
    Oct 3, 2007
  2. harryos
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    372
    harryos
    Oct 13, 2010
  3. Merciadri Luca
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    798
  4. Steven D'Aprano
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    75
    Steven D'Aprano
    Dec 23, 2013
  5. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    68
    Gary Herron
    Dec 23, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page