Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Crockford

paulstraw.svbtle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 117 posts

Re: Crockford

#91

Post by [deleted] »

sebringj wrote: post #80
ZoF wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it is what it is. Consider backing up your denigration with facts next time; people aren't stupid, we can rationally analyze things. Also 'the trump thing' and 'the name calling' are the same thing. You called him a retard because you find him offensive; don't try to rewrite history. You changing your story now doesn't change the fact that you've insulted the mentally handicapped by painting them as something y…

Thankfully, this threading depth only goes so far which perfectly coincides with my interest in responding.

[deleted]

Re: Crockford

#92

Post by [deleted] »

sebringj wrote: post #80
ZoF wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it is what it is. Consider backing up your denigration with facts next time; people aren't stupid, we can rationally analyze things. Also 'the trump thing' and 'the name calling' are the same thing. You called him a retard because you find him offensive; don't try to rewrite history. You changing your story now doesn't change the fact that you've insulted the mentally handicapped by painting them as something y…

Thankfully, this threading depth only goes so far which perfectly coincides with my interest in responding.

[deleted]

Re: Crockford

#93

Post by ZoF »

sebringj wrote: post #80
ZoF wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it is what it is. Consider backing up your denigration with facts next time; people aren't stupid, we can rationally analyze things. Also 'the trump thing' and 'the name calling' are the same thing. You called him a retard because you find him offensive; don't try to rewrite history. You changing your story now doesn't change the fact that you've insulted the mentally handicapped by painting them as something y…

Thankfully, this threading depth only goes so far which perfectly coincides with my interest in responding.

Cool. Your displayed intellect also trends towards where my interest is heading. Which would be none at all.

Don't slip.

Re: Crockford

#95

Post by sebringj »

ZoF wrote: post #68
sebringj wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think Crockford is a standup guy and probably went to far with the Trump thing and the name calling but whatever. Sometimes you get passionate about a topic, it is what it is.

Sure, it is what it is. Consider backing up your denigration with facts next time; people aren't stupid, we can rationally analyze things. Also 'the trump thing' and 'the name calling' are the same thing. You called him a retard because you find him offensive; don't try to rewrite history. You changing your story now doesn't change the fact that you've insulted the mentally handicapped by painting them as something y…

stay anonymous

Re: Crockford

#96

Post by ZoF »

sebringj wrote: post #95
ZoF wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it is what it is. Consider backing up your denigration with facts next time; people aren't stupid, we can rationally analyze things. Also 'the trump thing' and 'the name calling' are the same thing. You called him a retard because you find him offensive; don't try to rewrite history. You changing your story now doesn't change the fact that you've insulted the mentally handicapped by painting them as something y…

stay anonymous

I will. Stay dox-able friend.

This is the game; good to see you learning the rules.

Re: Crockford

#97

Post by lawnchair_larry »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #18
sebringj wrote: post #9

Crockford did nothing wrong. Fuck Nodevember. If you have huevos or egos or whatever, don't support that conference. He is one of those guys that will email you back if you have a technical question. I know because he already did twice to me. Who can say that about someone so influential?

It's another conference scam anyway. They're charging $350 for tickets with unconfirmed speakers and they have an open call for speakers. Considering the main value is out of the speakers selling before having much of anything confirmed or even finished just screams like yet another conference trying to cash in (they're even taking sponsors, too). I don't mind conferences where you have to pay mind you but I've only…

This is standard. I don't really like it either but all conferences I've attended do this and they aren't scams. I'm not sure if there is a deliberate reason or if it's just the natural order of conference logistics.

You always have the option of not buying a ticket until seeing the speakers list, but you risk losing your early bird pricing or the conference selling out. I suppose that if attendees have so much confidence that they are willing to commit before seeing the speaker list and the conference sells out, one can't really argue against this model.

Re: Crockford

#98

Post by pandaman »

barrkel wrote: post #7

Mr. Straw is part of the problem, imo. There's a lawful vs chaotic dichotomy going on - Mr. Straw started out lawful conservative, but then found out about a different set of laws he could leverage into a position of power. It's a similar but different power leverage being exercised elsewhere by a new generation. Feeling excluded by more usual measures like achievement or talent, they've taken to using social taboos…

>he very lack of talent that people who use social manoeuvres to get to the top means the groups they dominate won't be very important or effective

You'd be surprised. I grew up in the USSR. People you've just described were everywhere where there was a slight resemblance of power. You don't need to be very effective when you can just stomp your competition into the ground and if you can do this then you are very important.

Re: Crockford

#100

Post by sjwright »

dodyg wrote: post #47

First they came for Brendan Eich and I did not speak out because I was pro gay marriage. Then they came for Douglas Crockford and I did not speak out because I did not attend JavaScript conferences. Then they came for me—and it did not matter because I am a C# programmer.

Cute. However conflating or equating what Douglas Crockford has done with Brendan Eich is in my estimation unreasonable.

As far as anyone can tell, at worst Crockford has a conversational style that isn't excessively concerned with political correctness or charm. He used words like "gonads" and "promiscuous" in a way that can be misconstrued.

At worst, Brendan Eich can be accused of working to actively work against the aspirations of a community because they are different to him, even though these aspirations don't materially affect him.

Post reply on HN