Saving only comments in HTML

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by Oldbitcollector, Nov 28, 2005.

  1. *Sorry if this is offtopic*

    I'm using Simple::LWP to fetch an HTML page into @page.

    I'm trying to find a way to save only infromation found between
    <!-- and --> while discarding everything else.

    In other words, I only want the comments from a the HTML documents
    I'm retrieving. (strange huh?) The comments will be multi-lined in
    most cases
    so I also want the CR's.

    I've got some nice code for stripping HTML tags
    ( $line =~ s/<.*?>//g; ) but can someone help me find a way to do this?

    Thanks
    Oldbitcollector
     
    Oldbitcollector, Nov 28, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Oldbitcollector

    Guest

    Oldbitcollector wrote:
    > In other words, I only want the comments from a the HTML documents
    > I'm retrieving.


    CPAN has a number of HTML parsers. For example, HTML::parser

    http://search.cpan.org/~gaas/HTML-Parser-3.47/Parser.pm

    shows an example of how to strip out comments from HTML. If you just
    swap the handlers, it will do what you want (strip everything except
    the comments).
     
    , Nov 28, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Oldbitcollector

    Matt Garrish Guest

    "Oldbitcollector" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > *Sorry if this is offtopic*
    >
    > I'm using Simple::LWP to fetch an HTML page into @page.
    >
    > I'm trying to find a way to save only infromation found between
    > <!-- and --> while discarding everything else.
    >


    foreach my $commented ($page[0] =~ /<!--(.*?)-->/gs) {
    # do something with commented-out text
    }

    But you should really be using a parser to extract markup data.

    > In other words, I only want the comments from a the HTML documents
    > I'm retrieving. (strange huh?) The comments will be multi-lined in
    > most cases
    > so I also want the CR's.
    >
    > I've got some nice code for stripping HTML tags
    > ( $line =~ s/<.*?>//g; ) but can someone help me find a way to do this?
    >


    That's not nice code. See perlfaq 9: "How do I remove html from a string"
    for a full explanation.

    Matt
     
    Matt Garrish, Nov 28, 2005
    #3
  4. Oldbitcollector

    robic0 Guest

    On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:05:13 -0500, "Matt Garrish"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Oldbitcollector" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> *Sorry if this is offtopic*
    >>
    >> I'm using Simple::LWP to fetch an HTML page into @page.
    >>
    >> I'm trying to find a way to save only infromation found between
    >> <!-- and --> while discarding everything else.
    >>

    >
    >foreach my $commented ($page[0] =~ /<!--(.*?)-->/gs) {

    ^
    . == [^\n]
    Make sure $page[0] is not like this:
    <!-- Comments all over
    the place,
    more and more,
    still more
    -->

    > # do something with commented-out text
    >}
    >
    >But you should really be using a parser to extract markup data.
    >
    >> In other words, I only want the comments from a the HTML documents
    >> I'm retrieving. (strange huh?) The comments will be multi-lined in
    >> most cases
    >> so I also want the CR's.
    >>
    >> I've got some nice code for stripping HTML tags
    >> ( $line =~ s/<.*?>//g; ) but can someone help me find a way to do this?
    >>

    >
    >That's not nice code. See perlfaq 9: "How do I remove html from a string"
    >for a full explanation.
    >
    >Matt
    >
     
    robic0, Nov 29, 2005
    #4
  5. robic0 wrote:
    > Matt Garrish wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>foreach my $commented ($page[0] =~ /<!--(.*?)-->/gs) {

    > ^
    > . == [^\n]
    > Make sure $page[0] is not like this:
    > <!-- Comments all over
    > the place,
    > more and more,
    > still more
    > -->


    And why would that make a difference? You'd better take the whole m//
    operator into consideration, including the modifiers.

    --
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
     
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, Nov 29, 2005
    #5
  6. Oldbitcollector

    robic0 Guest

    On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 07:11:06 +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    <> wrote:

    >robic0 wrote:
    >> Matt Garrish wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>foreach my $commented ($page[0] =~ /<!--(.*?)-->/gs) {

    >> ^
    >> . == [^\n]
    >> Make sure $page[0] is not like this:
    >> <!-- Comments all over
    >> the place,
    >> more and more,
    >> still more
    >> -->

    >
    >And why would that make a difference? You'd better take the whole m//
    >operator into consideration, including the modifiers.

    Its too late to look, and what does the /g"s", s modifier do,
    given $page[0] contains the whole page (even though it might be
    stripped of "\n". If /s modifies ".*" just say so.
     
    robic0, Nov 29, 2005
    #6
  7. robic0 wrote:
    > Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>robic0 wrote:
    >>>Matt Garrish wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>foreach my $commented ($page[0] =~ /<!--(.*?)-->/gs) {
    >>> ^
    >>> . == [^\n]
    >>>Make sure $page[0] is not like this:
    >>><!-- Comments all over
    >>>the place,
    >>>more and more,
    >>>still more
    >>>-->

    >>
    >>And why would that make a difference? You'd better take the whole m//
    >>operator into consideration, including the modifiers.

    >
    > Its too late to look,


    Really? In that case it was too late to post in the first place.

    > and what does the /g"s", s modifier do,
    > given $page[0] contains the whole page (even though it might be
    > stripped of "\n". If /s modifies ".*" just say so.


    perldoc says it just fine.

    --
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
     
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, Nov 29, 2005
    #7
  8. Oldbitcollector

    robic0 Guest

    On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:28:03 +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    <> wrote:

    >robic0 wrote:
    >> Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>>robic0 wrote:
    >>>>Matt Garrish wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>foreach my $commented ($page[0] =~ /<!--(.*?)-->/gs) {
    >>>> ^
    >>>> . == [^\n]
    >>>>Make sure $page[0] is not like this:
    >>>><!-- Comments all over
    >>>>the place,
    >>>>more and more,
    >>>>still more
    >>>>-->
    >>>
    >>>And why would that make a difference? You'd better take the whole m//
    >>>operator into consideration, including the modifiers.

    >>
    >> Its too late to look,

    >
    >Really? In that case it was too late to post in the first place.
    >
    >> and what does the /g"s", s modifier do,
    >> given $page[0] contains the whole page (even though it might be
    >> stripped of "\n". If /s modifies ".*" just say so.

    >
    >perldoc says it just fine.

    Just to let you know, still didn't look.
    It was only relavent to me in that you asserted it and
    incumbent upon youself to explain it. Otherwise its not
    on record nor relavent to anything posted here and read
    by any new usenet readers.

    Another thread turned to ashes...
    For future readers on this thread, I contend you don't
    know what your talking about.
     
    robic0, Dec 1, 2005
    #8
  9. robic0 wrote:
    > Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>robic0 wrote:
    >>>Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>>>robic0 wrote:
    >>>>>Matt Garrish wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>foreach my $commented ($page[0] =~ /<!--(.*?)-->/gs) {
    >>>>> ^
    >>>>> . == [^\n]
    >>>>>Make sure $page[0] is not like this:
    >>>>><!-- Comments all over
    >>>>>the place,
    >>>>>more and more,
    >>>>>still more
    >>>>>-->
    >>>>
    >>>>And why would that make a difference? You'd better take the whole m//
    >>>>operator into consideration, including the modifiers.
    >>>
    >>>and what does the /g"s", s modifier do,
    >>>given $page[0] contains the whole page (even though it might be
    >>>stripped of "\n". If /s modifies ".*" just say so.

    >>
    >>perldoc says it just fine.

    >
    > Just to let you know, still didn't look.
    > It was only relavent to me in that you asserted it and
    > incumbent upon youself to explain it.


    Scarcely. You posted an incorrect comment on Matt's suggestion, and I
    pointed out that you were wrong. When posting answers, or criticizing
    answers posted by others, you'd better make efforts to get it right. If
    you don't understand that, you may just as well go away.

    <further rambling snipped>

    --
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
     
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, Dec 1, 2005
    #9
  10. robic0 wrote:

    > For future readers on this thread, I contend you don't
    > know what your talking about.


    Wrong again. Future readers will not accept anything you claim, unless
    it is technically accurate.

    This thread points out clearly that Gunnar's expertise stands far above
    yours. He knows exactly what he's talking about. I doubt you do.

    --
    Bart
     
    Bart Van der Donck, Dec 2, 2005
    #10
  11. Oldbitcollector

    robic0 Guest

    On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:41:48 +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    <> wrote:

    >robic0 wrote:
    >> Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>>robic0 wrote:
    >>>>Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>>>>robic0 wrote:
    >>>>>>Matt Garrish wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>foreach my $commented ($page[0] =~ /<!--(.*?)-->/gs) {
    >>>>>> ^
    >>>>>> . == [^\n]
    >>>>>>Make sure $page[0] is not like this:
    >>>>>><!-- Comments all over
    >>>>>>the place,
    >>>>>>more and more,
    >>>>>>still more
    >>>>>>-->
    >>>>>
    >>>>>And why would that make a difference? You'd better take the whole m//
    >>>>>operator into consideration, including the modifiers.
    >>>>
    >>>>and what does the /g"s", s modifier do,
    >>>>given $page[0] contains the whole page (even though it might be
    >>>>stripped of "\n". If /s modifies ".*" just say so.
    >>>
    >>>perldoc says it just fine.

    >>
    >> Just to let you know, still didn't look.
    >> It was only relavent to me in that you asserted it and
    >> incumbent upon youself to explain it.

    >
    >Scarcely. You posted an incorrect comment on Matt's suggestion, and I
    >pointed out that you were wrong. When posting answers, or criticizing
    >answers posted by others, you'd better make efforts to get it right. If
    >you don't understand that, you may just as well go away.
    >
    ><further rambling snipped>


    Listen jerk, your qualification without explanation won't fly.
    You expanded the parameters of the discussion. If you think
    your God then why don't you just fuckin cure cancer.
    Your not responding on the level of the question. Perldoc
    statements make you a useless son uf a bitch, biotch........
     
    robic0, Dec 3, 2005
    #11
  12. Oldbitcollector

    robic0 Guest

    On 2 Dec 2005 01:16:26 -0800, "Bart Van der Donck" <>
    wrote:

    >robic0 wrote:
    >
    >> For future readers on this thread, I contend you don't
    >> know what your talking about.

    >
    >Wrong again. Future readers will not accept anything you claim, unless
    >it is technically accurate.
    >
    >This thread points out clearly that Gunnar's expertise stands far above
    >yours. He knows exactly what he's talking about. I doubt you do.
    >

    i doubt you know how many balls you got asshole
     
    robic0, Dec 3, 2005
    #12
  13. Oldbitcollector

    Matt Garrish Guest

    <robic0> wrote in message news:...
    > On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:41:48 +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>robic0 wrote:
    >>> Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>>>robic0 wrote:
    >>>>>Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>>>>>robic0 wrote:
    >>>>>>>Matt Garrish wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>foreach my $commented ($page[0] =~ /<!--(.*?)-->/gs) {
    >>>>>>> ^
    >>>>>>> . == [^\n]
    >>>>>>>Make sure $page[0] is not like this:
    >>>>>>><!-- Comments all over
    >>>>>>>the place,
    >>>>>>>more and more,
    >>>>>>>still more
    >>>>>>>-->
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>And why would that make a difference? You'd better take the whole m//
    >>>>>>operator into consideration, including the modifiers.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>and what does the /g"s", s modifier do,
    >>>>>given $page[0] contains the whole page (even though it might be
    >>>>>stripped of "\n". If /s modifies ".*" just say so.
    >>>>
    >>>>perldoc says it just fine.
    >>>
    >>> Just to let you know, still didn't look.
    >>> It was only relavent to me in that you asserted it and
    >>> incumbent upon youself to explain it.

    >>
    >>Scarcely. You posted an incorrect comment on Matt's suggestion, and I
    >>pointed out that you were wrong. When posting answers, or criticizing
    >>answers posted by others, you'd better make efforts to get it right. If
    >>you don't understand that, you may just as well go away.
    >>
    >><further rambling snipped>

    >
    > Listen jerk, your qualification without explanation won't fly.
    > You expanded the parameters of the discussion. If you think
    > your God then why don't you just fuckin cure cancer.
    > Your not responding on the level of the question. Perldoc
    > statements make you a useless son uf a bitch, biotch........
    >


    You're the only imbecile here for making such a stupid assertion and then
    trying to stick to it. If you don't understand regex modifiers, which you
    obviously don't, then don't attempt to correct valid regular expressions
    that use them. Maybe over recess you should take the time to read perlre.

    Matt
     
    Matt Garrish, Dec 3, 2005
    #13
  14. Oldbitcollector

    robic0 Guest

    On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:03:41 -0500, "Matt Garrish"
    <> wrote:

    >
    ><robic0> wrote in message news:...
    >> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:41:48 +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>robic0 wrote:
    >>>> Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>>>>robic0 wrote:
    >>>>>>Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>>>>>>robic0 wrote:
    >>>>>>>>Matt Garrish wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>foreach my $commented ($page[0] =~ /<!--(.*?)-->/gs) {
    >>>>>>>> ^
    >>>>>>>> . == [^\n]
    >>>>>>>>Make sure $page[0] is not like this:
    >>>>>>>><!-- Comments all over
    >>>>>>>>the place,
    >>>>>>>>more and more,
    >>>>>>>>still more
    >>>>>>>>-->
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>And why would that make a difference? You'd better take the whole m//
    >>>>>>>operator into consideration, including the modifiers.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>and what does the /g"s", s modifier do,
    >>>>>>given $page[0] contains the whole page (even though it might be
    >>>>>>stripped of "\n". If /s modifies ".*" just say so.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>perldoc says it just fine.
    >>>>
    >>>> Just to let you know, still didn't look.
    >>>> It was only relavent to me in that you asserted it and
    >>>> incumbent upon youself to explain it.
    >>>
    >>>Scarcely. You posted an incorrect comment on Matt's suggestion, and I
    >>>pointed out that you were wrong. When posting answers, or criticizing
    >>>answers posted by others, you'd better make efforts to get it right. If
    >>>you don't understand that, you may just as well go away.
    >>>
    >>><further rambling snipped>

    >>
    >> Listen jerk, your qualification without explanation won't fly.
    >> You expanded the parameters of the discussion. If you think
    >> your God then why don't you just fuckin cure cancer.
    >> Your not responding on the level of the question. Perldoc
    >> statements make you a useless son uf a bitch, biotch........
    >>

    >
    >You're the only imbecile here for making such a stupid assertion and then
    >trying to stick to it. If you don't understand regex modifiers, which you
    >obviously don't, then don't attempt to correct valid regular expressions
    >that use them. Maybe over recess you should take the time to read perlre.
    >
    >Matt
    >

    Why don't you put it "ALL" down in print for the record so anybody
    that reads the archives will know exactly wtf you are talking about.
    Thats right mother fucker. Just take out your handy fuckin keyboard
    and write down the fopa's from beginning to fucking end.
    Use some qutes too asshole, we want to find out just what the ****
    all you jackoffs are ranting about.
     
    robic0, Dec 5, 2005
    #14
  15. robic0 wrote:
    > ... we want to find out just what the ****
    > all you jackoffs are ranting about.


    "We"? Some grammatical errors do upset me, like when somebody refers to
    himself in plural.

    --
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
     
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, Dec 5, 2005
    #15
  16. Oldbitcollector

    Matt Garrish Guest

    <robic0> wrote in message news:...
    > On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:03:41 -0500, "Matt Garrish"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >><robic0> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:41:48 +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>robic0 wrote:
    >>>>> Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>>>>>robic0 wrote:
    >>>>>>>Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>>>>>>>robic0 wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>Matt Garrish wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>foreach my $commented ($page[0] =~ /<!--(.*?)-->/gs) {
    >>>>>>>>> ^
    >>>>>>>>> . == [^\n]
    >>>>>>>>>Make sure $page[0] is not like this:
    >>>>>>>>><!-- Comments all over
    >>>>>>>>>the place,
    >>>>>>>>>more and more,
    >>>>>>>>>still more
    >>>>>>>>>-->
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>And why would that make a difference? You'd better take the whole
    >>>>>>>>m//
    >>>>>>>>operator into consideration, including the modifiers.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>and what does the /g"s", s modifier do,
    >>>>>>>given $page[0] contains the whole page (even though it might be
    >>>>>>>stripped of "\n". If /s modifies ".*" just say so.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>perldoc says it just fine.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Just to let you know, still didn't look.
    >>>>> It was only relavent to me in that you asserted it and
    >>>>> incumbent upon youself to explain it.
    >>>>
    >>>>Scarcely. You posted an incorrect comment on Matt's suggestion, and I
    >>>>pointed out that you were wrong. When posting answers, or criticizing
    >>>>answers posted by others, you'd better make efforts to get it right. If
    >>>>you don't understand that, you may just as well go away.
    >>>>
    >>>><further rambling snipped>
    >>>
    >>> Listen jerk, your qualification without explanation won't fly.
    >>> You expanded the parameters of the discussion. If you think
    >>> your God then why don't you just fuckin cure cancer.
    >>> Your not responding on the level of the question. Perldoc
    >>> statements make you a useless son uf a bitch, biotch........
    >>>

    >>
    >>You're the only imbecile here for making such a stupid assertion and then
    >>trying to stick to it. If you don't understand regex modifiers, which you
    >>obviously don't, then don't attempt to correct valid regular expressions
    >>that use them. Maybe over recess you should take the time to read perlre.
    >>
    >>

    > Why don't you put it "ALL" down in print for the record so anybody
    > that reads the archives will know exactly wtf you are talking about.


    For the record: robic0 does not understand regular expressions. When you see
    a reply from him in regards to any question you might have about regular
    expressions, ignore said response.

    Matt
     
    Matt Garrish, Dec 5, 2005
    #16
  17. Oldbitcollector

    John Bokma Guest

    Gunnar Hjalmarsson <> wrote:

    > robic0 wrote:
    >> ... we want to find out just what the ****
    >> all you jackoffs are ranting about.

    >
    > "We"? Some grammatical errors do upset me, like when somebody refers to
    > himself in plural.


    It does upset us as well :-D

    --
    John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
    Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
    I ploink googlegroups.com :)
     
    John Bokma, Dec 5, 2005
    #17
  18. Matt Garrish wrote:
    > For the record: robic0 does not understand regular expressions. When you see
    > a reply from him in regards to any question you might have about regular
    > expressions, ignore said response.


    s/ about regular.+?expressions//s;

    --
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
     
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, Dec 5, 2005
    #18
  19. Oldbitcollector

    robic0 Guest

    On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 20:50:17 -0500, "Matt Garrish"
    <> wrote:

    >
    ><robic0> wrote in message news:...
    >> On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:03:41 -0500, "Matt Garrish"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>><robic0> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:41:48 +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>robic0 wrote:
    >>>>>> Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>>>>>>robic0 wrote:
    >>>>>>>>Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>robic0 wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>Matt Garrish wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>foreach my $commented ($page[0] =~ /<!--(.*?)-->/gs) {
    >>>>>>>>>> ^
    >>>>>>>>>> . == [^\n]
    >>>>>>>>>>Make sure $page[0] is not like this:
    >>>>>>>>>><!-- Comments all over
    >>>>>>>>>>the place,
    >>>>>>>>>>more and more,
    >>>>>>>>>>still more
    >>>>>>>>>>-->
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>And why would that make a difference? You'd better take the whole
    >>>>>>>>>m//
    >>>>>>>>>operator into consideration, including the modifiers.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>and what does the /g"s", s modifier do,
    >>>>>>>>given $page[0] contains the whole page (even though it might be
    >>>>>>>>stripped of "\n". If /s modifies ".*" just say so.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>perldoc says it just fine.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Just to let you know, still didn't look.
    >>>>>> It was only relavent to me in that you asserted it and
    >>>>>> incumbent upon youself to explain it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Scarcely. You posted an incorrect comment on Matt's suggestion, and I
    >>>>>pointed out that you were wrong. When posting answers, or criticizing
    >>>>>answers posted by others, you'd better make efforts to get it right. If
    >>>>>you don't understand that, you may just as well go away.
    >>>>>
    >>>>><further rambling snipped>
    >>>>
    >>>> Listen jerk, your qualification without explanation won't fly.
    >>>> You expanded the parameters of the discussion. If you think
    >>>> your God then why don't you just fuckin cure cancer.
    >>>> Your not responding on the level of the question. Perldoc
    >>>> statements make you a useless son uf a bitch, biotch........
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>You're the only imbecile here for making such a stupid assertion and then
    >>>trying to stick to it. If you don't understand regex modifiers, which you
    >>>obviously don't, then don't attempt to correct valid regular expressions
    >>>that use them. Maybe over recess you should take the time to read perlre.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Why don't you put it "ALL" down in print for the record so anybody
    >> that reads the archives will know exactly wtf you are talking about.

    >
    >For the record: robic0 does not understand regular expressions. When you see
    >a reply from him in regards to any question you might have about regular
    >expressions, ignore said response.
    >
    >Matt
    >

    My IQ is 170. I think I will reffer to you as a droit motherfuckin
    asshole.

    Is that ok with u?
     
    robic0, Dec 5, 2005
    #19
  20. Oldbitcollector

    Matt Garrish Guest

    <robic0> wrote in message news:...
    > On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 20:50:17 -0500, "Matt Garrish"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>For the record: robic0 does not understand regular expressions. When you
    >>see
    >>a reply from him in regards to any question you might have about regular
    >>expressions, ignore said response.
    >>
    >>

    > My IQ is 170. I think I will reffer to you as a droit motherfuckin
    > asshole.
    >


    Trouble with the decimal place? That happens when your iq is 17. Perhaps you
    might care to look up droit in a dictionary over lunch break, and then work
    on figuring out exactly what saying you thought you understood but were
    incapable of repeating...

    Matt
     
    Matt Garrish, Dec 5, 2005
    #20
    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. Luis Esteban Valencia
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,555
    Luis Esteban Valencia
    Jan 6, 2005
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,177
  3. Monk
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,538
    Michael Wojcik
    Apr 20, 2005
  4. Peps
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    377
    Steve C. Orr [MCSD, MVP, CSM, ASP Insider]
    Jun 4, 2007
  5. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    648
    Dr John Stockton
    Jun 3, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page