Regards
Russ Michaels
From my mobile
On 13 Oct 2011 20:28, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:
Sure they exist. However using a word, such as truthiness doesn't make it
right. People also say flustrated, so since it exists, it's a word, it
doesn't make it right.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at
I dont think your ever going to win against a dictionaryophile dave.
Regards
Russ Michaels
From my mobile
On 15 Oct 2011 00:40, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:
Just for kicks, I tested this in TextEdit, TextWrangler, and MS Word
for
Mac 2011
Ug. Mac. Now it makes sense. You
Also not a word.
--
Shu Ha Ri: Agile and .NET blog
http://www.bifrost.com.au/
On 15 October 2011 17:58, Russ Michaels r...@michaels.me.uk wrote:
dictionaryophile
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
The internet seems to think its a real word
http://www.google.co.uk/search?gcx=wsourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=truthiness
Don't forget all the dumb words people have invented which have ended
up in the dictionary.
I even invented a couple myself back in the 80's in the Comoodore 64
hacking/demo era,
Just for kicks, I tested this in TextEdit, TextWrangler, and MS Word for
Mac 2011
Ug. Mac. Now it makes sense. You likely also think black turtle necks are
fashionable.
Anyway, if you feel intimidated by your spellchecker, perhaps you have
issues that go beyond this discussion.
:) I
Yes Russ. You worked on Commodore thirty years ago. We get it. Stop waving
that flag and move on mate.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Russ Michaels r...@michaels.me.uk wrote:
The internet seems to think its a real word
Finally!
-Original Message-
From: Bobby Hartsfield [mailto:bo...@acoderslife.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:34 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: RE: Shouldn't these statements work?
Say goodbye to your thread Rick. :-/
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
Bobby Hartsfield
http://acoderslife.com
what on earth are u talking about ?
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:
Yes Russ. You worked on Commodore thirty years ago. We get it. Stop waving
that flag and move on mate.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Russ Michaels r...@michaels.me.uk wrote:
The
In the Lisp communities, truthiness is a very commonly used word
because Lisps typically have some specific true / false literals but
also equate other things to true and false in conditionals. You'll
here Lispers talk about truthy values and falsey values too. And
Lisp's been around for over 50
Just for kicks, I tested this in TextEdit, TextWrangler, and MS Word for
Mac 2011
Ug. Mac. Now it makes sense. You likely also think black turtle necks are
fashionable.
Actually, I'm not much of a Mac guy, but I do have to support them,
and it's what I had in front of me at the time.
It sure is a word:
Entry from US dictionary
Like I said. Not a word.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
From Merriam-Webster:
* truthiness
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
*
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:
It sure is a word:
Entry from US dictionary
Interestingly enough, it was there word of the year in 2006:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm
On 13 October 2011 12:42, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:
From Merriam-Webster:
* truthiness
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion
...which is an online survey.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Dominic Watson
watson.domi...@googlemail.com wrote:
Interestingly enough, it was there word of the year in 2006:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm
On 13 October 2011 12:42, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:
...which is an online survey.
Words aren't managed through a central authority. They exist by
consensus. If enough people started using blutz to mean something,
it would be a word.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Software is a
If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would be absolutely correct.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:
...which is an online survey.
Words aren't managed through a central authority. They exist by
consensus. If enough people started using blutz
If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would be absolutely correct.
And, if it were not, I'd still be correct. This is Linguistics 101
stuff. Dictionaries don't create words, they list the words that are
already in use. Words exists before dictionaries recognize them.
Dave Watts, CTO,
Sure they exist. However using a word, such as truthiness doesn't make it
right. People also say flustrated, so since it exists, it's a word, it
doesn't make it right.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:
If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would
In terms of language, what is right? I can say anything I want.
Period. Whether you understand the meaning or not is inconsequential.
Dave is right. Long live blutz and can be move the blutz on please?
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:
Sure they exist.
Sure they exist. However using a word, such as truthiness doesn't make it
right. People also say flustrated, so since it exists, it's a word, it
doesn't make it right.
There's no consensus among English speakers about flustrated, so,
no, it is not yet a word. But if this changes over time,
And I always thought that flustrated was a combination of Flustered and
Frustrated.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:48 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
Sure they exist. However using
What's right in language is subjective of course, but if you use words that
are made up or illustrate a lack of understanding of the language you are
trying to speak, such as flustrated, it hinders your ability to
effectively communicate as well as your ability to be taken seriously.
You can use
What's right in language is subjective of course, but if you use words that
are made up or illustrate a lack of understanding of the language you are
trying to speak, such as flustrated, it hinders your ability to
effectively communicate as well as your ability to be taken seriously.
ALL
True Dave. However the fact that at some far off point in the future
incorrect usage of words may become correct shouldn't be justification for
using them incorrectly now, should it?
Words have specific meanings. That might change in the future, sure. However
when you're trying to communicate in
True Dave. However the fact that at some far off point in the future
incorrect usage of words may become correct shouldn't be justification for
using them incorrectly now, should it?
If I recall correctly, this tangent to the thread came up with your
objection to the word truthiness, which
and the utterly ridiculous txt speak is enough proof of that :-)
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:
True Dave. However the fact that at some far off point in the future
incorrect usage of words may become correct shouldn't be justification for
using them
I think you're being obtuse Dave. And that's your right to do so. You're
right from an idealistic perspective. I'll give you that. My position comes
from the practical world, not the theoretical one. You meet with a CEO and
use truthiness in a presentation you'll look like a fool. You use a world
I'd say Oxford is a more reputable dictionary than Webster.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:
If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would be absolutely correct.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:
...which
Sorry... I may be mistaken.. This STILL is a ColdFusion list.. Correct?
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Brian Kotek brian...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd say Oxford is a more reputable dictionary than Webster.
~|
Order the Adobe
Also: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/truthiness
Entry from World dictionary
Sorry, didn't mean to start a flame war. Just pointing out that it's
definitely a recognized word.
(Ducks)
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:
It sure is a word:
I think you're being obtuse Dave. And that's your right to do so. You're
right from an idealistic perspective. I'll give you that. My position comes
from the practical world, not the theoretical one. You meet with a CEO and
use truthiness in a presentation you'll look like a fool.
Really?
Say goodbye to your thread Rick. :-/
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
Bobby Hartsfield
http://acoderslife.com
http://cf4em.com
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
I can only imagine what a game of scrabble must be like at your house.
In the interest of moving forward and freeing up my spare time I'll concede to
you that truthiness is a word. (Even though the red squiggle under the word
right now seems to be mocking me.)
We'll have to agree to disagree
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
I can only imagine what a game of scrabble must be like at your house.
In the interest of moving forward and freeing up my spare time I'll concede
to you that truthiness is a word. (Even though the red squiggle under the
word right now seems
!
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
Bobby Hartsfield
http://acoderslife.com
http://cf4em.com
-Original Message-
From: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:59 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
I can only imagine what
Hartsfield
http://acoderslife.com
http://cf4em.com
-Original Message-
From: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:59 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
I can only imagine what a game of scrabble must be like at your
I can only imagine what a game of scrabble must be like at your house.
It must be nonexistent, as I don't play Scrabble. That said, my
understanding of the rules is that you use a specific dictionary as an
authoritative answer to whether you can play a word. That's fine, it's
just a game, and
It sure is a word:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/truthiness?region=us
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:
Truthiness is not a word. It may seem like a natural progression, but that
doesn't make it exist. I stand by my statement.
It sure is a word:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/truthiness?region=us
That is 100% PURE Awesome. w00t!!!
G!
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Brian Kotek brian...@gmail.com wrote:
It sure is a word:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/truthiness?region=us
--
Gerald
I checked out the link: and I got it...
Not just comparing string to string, but for any other
type operators and their values.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 4:44 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't
Truthiness?
Oh Lord.
Steven Colbert has made it so far into pop culture that his fake words are
now used in programming discussion.
The end is nigh.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Lists li...@commadelimited.com wrote:
The triple === in JavaScript at least is a strict comparison. It not only
Steven Colbert has made it so far into pop culture that his
fake words are now used in programming discussion.
Truthy and Falsy were used to describe dynamic boolean expressions
long before Colbert coined his specific definition of truthiness.
Expanding a truthy and testing its truthiness is a
Truthiness is not a word. It may seem like a natural progression, but that
doesn't make it exist. I stand by my statement.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Justin Scott leviat...@darktech.orgwrote:
Steven Colbert has made it so far into pop culture that his
fake words are now used in
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage === 'index.cfm'
As everyone's already mentioned, this comparison operator is not an
equality operator. It's an identity operator - it's used to see if two
object references point to the same object. A literal string won't
work here, as
, 2011 1:39 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage === 'index.cfm'
As everyone's already mentioned, this comparison operator is not an
equality operator. It's an identity operator - it's used to see if two
object
comparing strings. Is that not correct?
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:39 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage ===
'index.cfm
is that the === operator
should be used only when comparing strings. Is that not correct?
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:39 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
if ( activeLinkID
My understanding from what I've read is that the === operator
should be used only when comparing strings. Is that not correct?
That is not correct. The identity operator is intended to compare the
identity of two object references.
The triple === in JavaScript at least is a strict comparison. It not only
checks for truthiness, but that both sides are the same type.
Have you tried simple eq or ==
On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.com wrote:
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties'
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' ...
Hi Rick, remember that in JavaScript the === operator checks for value
AND variable type, so if the internal variable types aren't the same
then it will evaluate to false even if the string values match. You
might consider changing that to a
...@darktech.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:37 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' ...
Hi Rick, remember that in JavaScript the === operator checks for value
AND variable type, so if the internal variable types aren't
Try logging each variable and it's type using typeOf. That'll help you move int
the right direction.
On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Lists li...@commadelimited.com wrote:
The triple === in JavaScript at least is a strict comparison. It not only
checks for truthiness, but that both sides are
: Shouldn't these statements work?
The triple === in JavaScript at least is a strict comparison. It not only
checks for truthiness, but that both sides are the same type.
Have you tried simple eq or ==
On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.com
wrote
53 matches
Mail list logo
