Re: JSON extracting data

Scott Sauyet wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Scott Sauyet wrote:
It looks as though I unintentionally opened a can of worms here.
So you have realized that this is a discussion group after all?

I'm curious. Did you *mean* that to sound so patronizing?

I do not know how a *written* question *sounds* to you, nor do I care. It
was a rhetorical question anyway, so while your answer was informative and
is appreciated, I did not consider it necessary.

Although I am new to clj, I started in USENET in the early 1990s. I
know that discussions often veer off in unusual directions; heck,
this thread started as a discussion on the use of JSONP.

Yes, somebody should have changed the Subject header long ago ...

A comment like "Oops, I seem to have opened a can of worms," is, I
believe, widely recognized as shorthand for something like this:

"The discussion has gone in a direction I didn't intend, and has
turned more controversial than expected. I'm sorry to have
brought to this group the rancor recently seen. And I'd like to
refocus on a less controversial aspect."

But there is little discussion without controversy. Be careful what you
wish for.

I'm by no means worried about discord. I cut my USENET teeth in
alt.atheism, which was at the time one of the most disputatious
forums around. [...]

AIUI, alt.* does not belong to Usenet, though.

The assumption can be made that those who are not aware of the possible
side effects would do it regardless what the function is. Hence the
points made.

Remember that Jorge was suggesting some code to paste into a JS
console. To assume that anyone would use this one-off code as a
model for their own JS coding style seems far-fetched. OF course
"the assumption can be made", but it doesn't strike me as a likely
thing or something to get particularly worked up about.

I do not know what you mean by "worked up". Anyhow, seeing ridiculously
stupid things like jQuery going on for *years*, should we not hope for the
best, but must we not expect the worst from the casual reader? A little
explanation does not hurt anyone (except if one does want to take it
personally), and is certainly better than letting people in the dark.


F'up2 poster

PointedEars
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mossbauer effect and retarded interactions
    ... > lattice emits a gamma quantum and the recoil is felt instantaneously ... Do you smell any controversy between this ... > fact and the retarded propagation of interactions required by ... solid propagate with the speed of sound. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: I cant figure out if I like the new Eminem track....
    ... It also had that subtle flavor of "undergroundness", the tracks were warmer in sound and they did sound more real I think, despite quite obvious technical deficiencies in the process of mixing/mastering the stuff. ... It had a bunch of underground tracks from Slim Shady EP, and the controversy around Marshall was new, so it was - I think - more interesting and more appealing... ...
    (rec.music.hip-hop)
  • Re: Carmina Burana - de Burgos - Ouch!
    ... "ideal" recording, there is a certain haziness, fogginess around it, ... sheer volume and richness of the sound HvK got from the orchestra. ... As usual, we need to make distinctions, something all of us too frequently omit to do when participating in a controversy. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: More from Qaaludeovic
    ... >controversy as to whether they sound different. ... >> the same,when ABX tested. ... There has to be a reasonble controversy. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)