[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

How to make "generic" YAML calls?

dale.quigg

11/30/2006 11:04:00 PM

Hi,

I have a Test.Yaml file like;
This:
Thing: Foo
That:
Thing: Bar

My program works with this code;
require 'yaml'
LocalTree = YAML.load_file("test.yaml")
puts LocalTree["This"]["Thing"]
puts LocalTree["That"]["Thing"]

However, I want to write a class where I pass something like
'["This"]["Thing"]'
or
'["That"]["Thing"]'
and then make a call like;
puts LocalTree@YamlLocation
but I can't figure out how to make this work.

Any hints/tips appreciated.

Thanks,
Dale
14 Answers

dale.quigg

11/30/2006 11:43:00 PM

0

dale.quigg@aspentech.com wrote:
<snip>
> However, I want to write a class where I pass something like
> '["This"]["Thing"]'
> or
> '["That"]["Thing"]'
> and then make a call like;
> puts LocalTree@YamlLocation
> but I can't figure out how to make this work.

Found it, sorry to bother.
yaml_vari = '["This"]["Thing"]'
puts eval("LocalTree" + yaml_vari)

Gregory Seidman

12/1/2006 2:00:00 PM

0

On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 08:45:05AM +0900, dale.quigg@aspentech.com wrote:
} dale.quigg@aspentech.com wrote:
} <snip>
} > However, I want to write a class where I pass something like
} > '["This"]["Thing"]'
} > or
} > '["That"]["Thing"]'
} > and then make a call like;
} > puts LocalTree@YamlLocation
} > but I can't figure out how to make this work.
}
} Found it, sorry to bother.
} yaml_vari = '["This"]["Thing"]'
} puts eval("LocalTree" + yaml_vari)

In general, eval should be avoided. Try this:

def retrieve(*path)
path.inject(LocalTree) { |obj,key| obj[key] }
end

Call it as retrieve('This', 'Thing'), for your example.

--Greg

dale.quigg

12/4/2006 8:16:00 PM

0

Gregory Seidman wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 08:45:05AM +0900, dale.quigg@aspentech.com wrote:
> } dale.quigg@aspentech.com wrote:
> } <snip>
> } > However, I want to write a class where I pass something like
> } > '["This"]["Thing"]'
> } > or
> } > '["That"]["Thing"]'
> } > and then make a call like;
> } > puts LocalTree@YamlLocation
> } > but I can't figure out how to make this work.
> }
> } Found it, sorry to bother.
> } yaml_vari = '["This"]["Thing"]'
> } puts eval("LocalTree" + yaml_vari)
>
> In general, eval should be avoided. Try this:
>
> def retrieve(*path)
> path.inject(LocalTree) { |obj,key| obj[key] }
> end
>
> Call it as retrieve('This', 'Thing'), for your example.
>
> --Greg

Thank you Greg.

I applied your suggestion to my application and it works.

In trying to further understand how .inject works, I looked in the
pickaxe book and found that this would cause (possibly many)
intermediate values to be retrieved (depending on YAML configuration)
while only the last value is returned. I ran a quick benchmark and the
..inject code was about 28% slower than using eval in my application.

This "slowdown" doesn't really matter, but I was thinking that perhaps
it could be significant if the YAML file size increased. But, if this
happens, perhaps I shouldn't be using YAML to store the data. :-)

Do you know of a way to reduce the number of evaluations that occur
when using inject?

Also, can you give a quick pointer as to why eval should be avoided?

Thanks again for your reply.
Dale

Doug Whitehead

3/8/2013 12:32:00 PM

0

In article <b0tij8hltp6gda6elltj122eas1ev08ouj@4ax.com>
Ed Huntress <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:11:57 -0500, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >news:acgij85skvl7obps4hghdaj2f75ap1mtp1@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 20:38:09 -0500, "Scout"
> >> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"deep" wrote in message news:18eij8l91av6bcqitemqcn44srd1p86rrs@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:01:48 -0800, George Plimpton <george@si.not>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On 3/7/2013 4:53 PM, deep wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:44:13 -0800, George Plimpton <george@si.not>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 3/7/2013 4:10 PM, deep wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:11:45 -0500, "Scout"
> >>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What a crock. If Eric Holder was white, his name wouldn't have
> >>>>>>>>>> even
> >>>>>>>>>> come
> >>>>>>>>>> up
> >>>>>>>>>> in these groups.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We acknowledge your admission of racism.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> After all, who other than you feels that race is an issue?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thus for you a person's race is important.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Therefore you're a racist.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's not what racism is you stupid fucking idiot.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's how you leftists yourself use it, until the accusation comes
> >>>>>>> back
> >>>>>>> at you. You'll take it and you'll like it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A belief that race matters can be called racism just as well as it
> >>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>> be called anything else. It's a pernicious belief, and the left
> >>>>>>> subscribe to it universally.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Wrong again moron.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No, I'm right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Racism most definately has a condition of feeling
> >>>>>> of inferiority or superiority based on race.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That's what you racially obsessed leftists lamely say in your defense
> >>>>>when your race obsession is called racism, but in practice, you use the
> >>>>>word to attack anyone who doesn't subscribe to the race agenda of the
> >>>>>left. You fucking leftists are the ones who unhinged the word from its
> >>>>>original connection with belief in racial superiority. Now you have to
> >>>>>live with it.
> >>
> >> That's true.
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If I or any other clear-eyed person makes an observation about the
> >>>>>massively greater criminality of blacks in America, leftists immediately
> >>>>>accuse the observer of being racist. Merely mentioning blacks in a way
> >>>>>that leftists consider unflattering brings forth the accusation of
> >>>>>racism, *despite* there being no evidence of any belief in racial
> >>>>>superiority on the part of the observer.
> >>
> >> Also true.
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So, that's how it is: "racism" has been divorced from *any* connection
> >>>>>with a required belief in racial superiority, and you thugs are the ones
> >>>>>who did it. Therefore, when you leftist thugs reflexively obsess over
> >>>>>race, and are called racist for it, the accusation sticks. You did it
> >>>>>to yourselves.
> >>
> >> Someone has to hold up the standard in order to maintain the word's
> >> usefulness. That will be me. d8-)
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> See, you are the racist and you just proved it. You presumed blacks
> >>>> are criminals because they are black.
> >>>
> >>>No he didn't. He simply stated, heck, let's just quote it.
> >>>
> >>>"If I or any other clear-eyed person makes an observation about the
> >>>massively greater criminality of blacks in America, leftists immediately
> >>>accuse the observer of being racist."
> >>>
> >>>He's making an observation backed up by statistics, and per his prediction
> >>>you immediately called him a racist for that observation.
> >>>
> >>>He didn't make any presumptions about the causes. Though you did.
> >>
> >> Right. The statistics of racial proclivities is not racism. Declaring
> >> or even implying that it is caused by a characteristic inherent in
> >> race itself is racism.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Looks like he's got you and those like you pegged in how you react.
> >>>
> >>> Oh, and you shouldn't get to nasty about pointing out racism Dudu given
> >>>your documented examples of your racism.
> >>
> >> The meaning of racism is simple and clear. Any dictionary will clear
> >> it up for those who have gotten into the bad habit of using it too
> >> loosely. It requires a belief or action based on the idea that one
> >> race is inherently superior to another. Without that, there is no
> >> racism.
> >
> >That's one definition, but there is at least one other. Maybe you should
> >actually look in a dictionary sometime.
>
> Ah, I sort of live with them. It's my job.

You're supposed to read them, not prop doors open with stacks of
them.

>
> >
> >
> >> We need a new word or two. "Racialism" won't do; it already has a
> >> meaning, too, something close to a non-pejorative equivalent of
> >> racism.
> >
> >Na, racism explains what Dudu has quite well, and is adequate to explain it
> >in the case under discussion.
> >
> >After all, I've already produced a supported definition and cite.
> >
> >Oh, and I will note when you claimed [a definition supplied by Dudu] is the
> >only definition....how do you explain the different definition you posted
> >above when you claim his was the only one, and that there is only one
> >definition?
>
> There is only one definition. It can take several forms. As I
> explained in another post, it can be expressed as the core belief
> (generally the first definition in any dictionary) or as its
> consequents (definitions numbers two or three).

Or whatever tripe some agenda pushing libtard thinks it is that
particular day, week, month.

> But it's all the same core idea, which depends on a belief in inherent
> characteristics of race, and a judgment about them being better or
> worse than those of another race.

Why not use crime statistics and point out how blacks and
muslims are the worst pieces of crap on the entire planet?

Use pictures to show how stupid Barack Obama is, and his
supporters are.

> Think through those second and third definitions, and try not to
> confound their connections in order to make a point. Any such point
> will be an argumentative attempt to avoid the obvious, anyway.

If they don't apply it's pointless.

> >
> >Really? You shouldn't throw around different definitions if you're going to
> >claim there is only one.
>
> They're all the same thing. Different words, but they refer to the
> same idea.

Black scumbags are nothing but trouble?

> --
> Ed Huntress
> >

Ed Huntress

3/8/2013 7:47:00 PM

0

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 13:32:24 +0100, "Doug Whitehead"
<dwhitehead@earthlink.net> wrote:

>In article <b0tij8hltp6gda6elltj122eas1ev08ouj@4ax.com>
>Ed Huntress <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:11:57 -0500, "Scout"
>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> >news:acgij85skvl7obps4hghdaj2f75ap1mtp1@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 20:38:09 -0500, "Scout"
>> >> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>"deep" wrote in message news:18eij8l91av6bcqitemqcn44srd1p86rrs@4ax.com...
>> >>>> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:01:48 -0800, George Plimpton <george@si.not>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>On 3/7/2013 4:53 PM, deep wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:44:13 -0800, George Plimpton <george@si.not>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On 3/7/2013 4:10 PM, deep wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:11:45 -0500, "Scout"
>> >>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> What a crock. If Eric Holder was white, his name wouldn't have
>> >>>>>>>>>> even
>> >>>>>>>>>> come
>> >>>>>>>>>> up
>> >>>>>>>>>> in these groups.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> We acknowledge your admission of racism.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> After all, who other than you feels that race is an issue?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Thus for you a person's race is important.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Therefore you're a racist.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> That's not what racism is you stupid fucking idiot.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> It's how you leftists yourself use it, until the accusation comes
>> >>>>>>> back
>> >>>>>>> at you. You'll take it and you'll like it.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> A belief that race matters can be called racism just as well as it
>> >>>>>>> can
>> >>>>>>> be called anything else. It's a pernicious belief, and the left
>> >>>>>>> subscribe to it universally.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Wrong again moron.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>No, I'm right.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Racism most definately has a condition of feeling
>> >>>>>> of inferiority or superiority based on race.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>That's what you racially obsessed leftists lamely say in your defense
>> >>>>>when your race obsession is called racism, but in practice, you use the
>> >>>>>word to attack anyone who doesn't subscribe to the race agenda of the
>> >>>>>left. You fucking leftists are the ones who unhinged the word from its
>> >>>>>original connection with belief in racial superiority. Now you have to
>> >>>>>live with it.
>> >>
>> >> That's true.
>> >>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>If I or any other clear-eyed person makes an observation about the
>> >>>>>massively greater criminality of blacks in America, leftists immediately
>> >>>>>accuse the observer of being racist. Merely mentioning blacks in a way
>> >>>>>that leftists consider unflattering brings forth the accusation of
>> >>>>>racism, *despite* there being no evidence of any belief in racial
>> >>>>>superiority on the part of the observer.
>> >>
>> >> Also true.
>> >>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>So, that's how it is: "racism" has been divorced from *any* connection
>> >>>>>with a required belief in racial superiority, and you thugs are the ones
>> >>>>>who did it. Therefore, when you leftist thugs reflexively obsess over
>> >>>>>race, and are called racist for it, the accusation sticks. You did it
>> >>>>>to yourselves.
>> >>
>> >> Someone has to hold up the standard in order to maintain the word's
>> >> usefulness. That will be me. d8-)
>> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> See, you are the racist and you just proved it. You presumed blacks
>> >>>> are criminals because they are black.
>> >>>
>> >>>No he didn't. He simply stated, heck, let's just quote it.
>> >>>
>> >>>"If I or any other clear-eyed person makes an observation about the
>> >>>massively greater criminality of blacks in America, leftists immediately
>> >>>accuse the observer of being racist."
>> >>>
>> >>>He's making an observation backed up by statistics, and per his prediction
>> >>>you immediately called him a racist for that observation.
>> >>>
>> >>>He didn't make any presumptions about the causes. Though you did.
>> >>
>> >> Right. The statistics of racial proclivities is not racism. Declaring
>> >> or even implying that it is caused by a characteristic inherent in
>> >> race itself is racism.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>Looks like he's got you and those like you pegged in how you react.
>> >>>
>> >>> Oh, and you shouldn't get to nasty about pointing out racism Dudu given
>> >>>your documented examples of your racism.
>> >>
>> >> The meaning of racism is simple and clear. Any dictionary will clear
>> >> it up for those who have gotten into the bad habit of using it too
>> >> loosely. It requires a belief or action based on the idea that one
>> >> race is inherently superior to another. Without that, there is no
>> >> racism.
>> >
>> >That's one definition, but there is at least one other. Maybe you should
>> >actually look in a dictionary sometime.
>>
>> Ah, I sort of live with them. It's my job.
>
>You're supposed to read them, not prop doors open with stacks of
>them.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> We need a new word or two. "Racialism" won't do; it already has a
>> >> meaning, too, something close to a non-pejorative equivalent of
>> >> racism.
>> >
>> >Na, racism explains what Dudu has quite well, and is adequate to explain it
>> >in the case under discussion.
>> >
>> >After all, I've already produced a supported definition and cite.
>> >
>> >Oh, and I will note when you claimed [a definition supplied by Dudu] is the
>> >only definition....how do you explain the different definition you posted
>> >above when you claim his was the only one, and that there is only one
>> >definition?
>>
>> There is only one definition. It can take several forms. As I
>> explained in another post, it can be expressed as the core belief
>> (generally the first definition in any dictionary) or as its
>> consequents (definitions numbers two or three).
>
>Or whatever tripe some agenda pushing libtard thinks it is that
>particular day, week, month.

This is it:

"Any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial
worldview?the ideology that humans are divided into separate and
exclusive biological entities called ?races,? that there is a causal
link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality,
intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that
some ?races? are innately superior to others."

That's what it means. That's ALL it means, unless you're a brain-dead
rightard or a leftard propagandist.

>
>> But it's all the same core idea, which depends on a belief in inherent
>> characteristics of race, and a judgment about them being better or
>> worse than those of another race.
>
>Why not use crime statistics and point out how blacks and
>muslims are the worst pieces of crap on the entire planet?

Go sit on your skinning knife and rotate, you stinking racist pig.

--
Ed Huntress

>
>Use pictures to show how stupid Barack Obama is, and his
>supporters are.
>
>> Think through those second and third definitions, and try not to
>> confound their connections in order to make a point. Any such point
>> will be an argumentative attempt to avoid the obvious, anyway.
>
>If they don't apply it's pointless.
>
>> >
>> >Really? You shouldn't throw around different definitions if you're going to
>> >claim there is only one.
>>
>> They're all the same thing. Different words, but they refer to the
>> same idea.
>
>Black scumbags are nothing but trouble?
>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Stormin Mormon

3/8/2013 8:10:00 PM

0

Entirely to my surprise, blatetent actuallly *IS* a word.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?te...

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Scout

3/8/2013 9:05:00 PM

0



"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:fl1jj813dfaajoghajd1eotoi9n56bva4g@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 01:00:21 -0500, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:qlqij8tvhqbvm113t7lonclirb7e26pmv5@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:54:39 -0500, "Scout"
>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"deep" wrote in message
>>>>news:5kjij8pm0cf7usmdeh8g713sibhf7d8cbr@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:11:57 -0500, "Scout"
>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:acgij85skvl7obps4hghdaj2f75ap1mtp1@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 20:38:09 -0500, "Scout"
>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"deep" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:18eij8l91av6bcqitemqcn44srd1p86rrs@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:01:48 -0800, George Plimpton
>>>>>>>>> <george@si.not>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 3/7/2013 4:53 PM, deep wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:44:13 -0800, George Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>>> <george@si.not>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/7/2013 4:10 PM, deep wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:11:45 -0500, "Scout"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What a crock. If Eric Holder was white, his name wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in these groups.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We acknowledge your admission of racism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, who other than you feels that race is an issue?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus for you a person's race is important.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you're a racist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what racism is you stupid fucking idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's how you leftists yourself use it, until the accusation
>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
>>>>>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>>>>>> at you. You'll take it and you'll like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A belief that race matters can be called racism just as well as
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> be called anything else. It's a pernicious belief, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> left
>>>>>>>>>>>> subscribe to it universally.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong again moron.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No, I'm right.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Racism most definately has a condition of feeling
>>>>>>>>>>> of inferiority or superiority based on race.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That's what you racially obsessed leftists lamely say in your
>>>>>>>>>>defense
>>>>>>>>>>when your race obsession is called racism, but in practice, you
>>>>>>>>>>use
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>word to attack anyone who doesn't subscribe to the race agenda of
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>left. You fucking leftists are the ones who unhinged the word
>>>>>>>>>>from
>>>>>>>>>>its
>>>>>>>>>>original connection with belief in racial superiority. Now you
>>>>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>live with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If I or any other clear-eyed person makes an observation about the
>>>>>>>>>>massively greater criminality of blacks in America, leftists
>>>>>>>>>>immediately
>>>>>>>>>>accuse the observer of being racist. Merely mentioning blacks in
>>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>>way
>>>>>>>>>>that leftists consider unflattering brings forth the accusation of
>>>>>>>>>>racism, *despite* there being no evidence of any belief in racial
>>>>>>>>>>superiority on the part of the observer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So, that's how it is: "racism" has been divorced from *any*
>>>>>>>>>>connection
>>>>>>>>>>with a required belief in racial superiority, and you thugs are
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>ones
>>>>>>>>>>who did it. Therefore, when you leftist thugs reflexively obsess
>>>>>>>>>>over
>>>>>>>>>>race, and are called racist for it, the accusation sticks. You
>>>>>>>>>>did
>>>>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>>>>to yourselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Someone has to hold up the standard in order to maintain the word's
>>>>>>> usefulness. That will be me. d8-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See, you are the racist and you just proved it. You presumed
>>>>>>>>> blacks
>>>>>>>>> are criminals because they are black.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No he didn't. He simply stated, heck, let's just quote it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"If I or any other clear-eyed person makes an observation about the
>>>>>>>>massively greater criminality of blacks in America, leftists
>>>>>>>>immediately
>>>>>>>>accuse the observer of being racist."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He's making an observation backed up by statistics, and per his
>>>>>>>>prediction
>>>>>>>>you immediately called him a racist for that observation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He didn't make any presumptions about the causes. Though you did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right. The statistics of racial proclivities is not racism.
>>>>>>> Declaring
>>>>>>> or even implying that it is caused by a characteristic inherent in
>>>>>>> race itself is racism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Looks like he's got you and those like you pegged in how you react.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, and you shouldn't get to nasty about pointing out racism Dudu
>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>your documented examples of your racism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The meaning of racism is simple and clear. Any dictionary will clear
>>>>>>> it up for those who have gotten into the bad habit of using it too
>>>>>>> loosely. It requires a belief or action based on the idea that one
>>>>>>> race is inherently superior to another. Without that, there is no
>>>>>>> racism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's one definition, but there is at least one other. Maybe you
>>>>>>should
>>>>>>actually look in a dictionary sometime.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you should try a cite, liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/diction...
>>>>
>>>>I figured I would let you prove I'm right.
>>>>
>>>>Defintion #1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human
>>>>traits
>>>>and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent
>>>>superiority
>>>>of a particular race
>>>>
>>>>Definition #2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
>>>>
>>>>Hmmm... Now in definition number #2 where do I find that superiority you
>>>>claim MUST be part of racism??
>>>
>>> What would be the basis of prejudice if it didn't include a valuing of
>>> inherent characteristics of one race versus the other?
>>
>>Maybe you just don't like people that are different. Not a matter of
>>superiority or inferiority, you just don't like them because they are
>>different.
>
> A prejudice is "an adverse opinion" formed without rational
> justification.

<yawn>

Like I said, it can be for any reason...not just some sense of superiority.

You've lost and will continue to lose on this until and unless you can get
the experts at Webster to recognize how you know so much more than they do.

Scout

3/8/2013 9:06:00 PM

0



"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:n42jj8dn8rhlu7bu9rj95tbeagkhrmst5k@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 01:02:00 -0500, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:b0tij8hltp6gda6elltj122eas1ev08ouj@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:11:57 -0500, "Scout"
>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:acgij85skvl7obps4hghdaj2f75ap1mtp1@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 20:38:09 -0500, "Scout"
>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"deep" wrote in message
>>>>>>news:18eij8l91av6bcqitemqcn44srd1p86rrs@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:01:48 -0800, George Plimpton <george@si.not>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 3/7/2013 4:53 PM, deep wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:44:13 -0800, George Plimpton
>>>>>>>>> <george@si.not>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/7/2013 4:10 PM, deep wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:11:45 -0500, "Scout"
>>>>>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What a crock. If Eric Holder was white, his name wouldn't have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in these groups.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We acknowledge your admission of racism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, who other than you feels that race is an issue?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus for you a person's race is important.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you're a racist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what racism is you stupid fucking idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's how you leftists yourself use it, until the accusation comes
>>>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>>>> at you. You'll take it and you'll like it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A belief that race matters can be called racism just as well as
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> be called anything else. It's a pernicious belief, and the left
>>>>>>>>>> subscribe to it universally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong again moron.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, I'm right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Racism most definately has a condition of feeling
>>>>>>>>> of inferiority or superiority based on race.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's what you racially obsessed leftists lamely say in your
>>>>>>>>defense
>>>>>>>>when your race obsession is called racism, but in practice, you use
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>word to attack anyone who doesn't subscribe to the race agenda of
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>left. You fucking leftists are the ones who unhinged the word from
>>>>>>>>its
>>>>>>>>original connection with belief in racial superiority. Now you have
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>live with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's true.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If I or any other clear-eyed person makes an observation about the
>>>>>>>>massively greater criminality of blacks in America, leftists
>>>>>>>>immediately
>>>>>>>>accuse the observer of being racist. Merely mentioning blacks in a
>>>>>>>>way
>>>>>>>>that leftists consider unflattering brings forth the accusation of
>>>>>>>>racism, *despite* there being no evidence of any belief in racial
>>>>>>>>superiority on the part of the observer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also true.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So, that's how it is: "racism" has been divorced from *any*
>>>>>>>>connection
>>>>>>>>with a required belief in racial superiority, and you thugs are the
>>>>>>>>ones
>>>>>>>>who did it. Therefore, when you leftist thugs reflexively obsess
>>>>>>>>over
>>>>>>>>race, and are called racist for it, the accusation sticks. You did
>>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>>to yourselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone has to hold up the standard in order to maintain the word's
>>>>> usefulness. That will be me. d8-)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See, you are the racist and you just proved it. You presumed blacks
>>>>>>> are criminals because they are black.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No he didn't. He simply stated, heck, let's just quote it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"If I or any other clear-eyed person makes an observation about the
>>>>>>massively greater criminality of blacks in America, leftists
>>>>>>immediately
>>>>>>accuse the observer of being racist."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He's making an observation backed up by statistics, and per his
>>>>>>prediction
>>>>>>you immediately called him a racist for that observation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He didn't make any presumptions about the causes. Though you did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. The statistics of racial proclivities is not racism. Declaring
>>>>> or even implying that it is caused by a characteristic inherent in
>>>>> race itself is racism.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Looks like he's got you and those like you pegged in how you react.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, and you shouldn't get to nasty about pointing out racism Dudu
>>>>>> given
>>>>>>your documented examples of your racism.
>>>>>
>>>>> The meaning of racism is simple and clear. Any dictionary will clear
>>>>> it up for those who have gotten into the bad habit of using it too
>>>>> loosely. It requires a belief or action based on the idea that one
>>>>> race is inherently superior to another. Without that, there is no
>>>>> racism.
>>>>
>>>>That's one definition, but there is at least one other. Maybe you should
>>>>actually look in a dictionary sometime.
>>>
>>> Ah, I sort of live with them. It's my job.
>>
>>Maybe you should try to learn how to use one sometime?
>
> Don't be an ass.

Hey, you are the one that can't find multiple definitions in a dictionary.

Free hint: those little numbers could give you a clue how many definitions
there are.

Scout

3/8/2013 9:10:00 PM

0



"deep" wrote in message news:02rjj85ai5ot5g80lnv8d5hjpm0d2akpjp@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 01:00:21 -0500, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:qlqij8tvhqbvm113t7lonclirb7e26pmv5@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:54:39 -0500, "Scout"
>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"deep" wrote in message
>>>>news:5kjij8pm0cf7usmdeh8g713sibhf7d8cbr@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:11:57 -0500, "Scout"
>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:acgij85skvl7obps4hghdaj2f75ap1mtp1@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 20:38:09 -0500, "Scout"
>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"deep" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:18eij8l91av6bcqitemqcn44srd1p86rrs@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:01:48 -0800, George Plimpton
>>>>>>>>> <george@si.not>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 3/7/2013 4:53 PM, deep wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:44:13 -0800, George Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>>> <george@si.not>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/7/2013 4:10 PM, deep wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:11:45 -0500, "Scout"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What a crock. If Eric Holder was white, his name wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in these groups.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We acknowledge your admission of racism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, who other than you feels that race is an issue?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus for you a person's race is important.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you're a racist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what racism is you stupid fucking idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's how you leftists yourself use it, until the accusation
>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
>>>>>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>>>>>> at you. You'll take it and you'll like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A belief that race matters can be called racism just as well as
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> be called anything else. It's a pernicious belief, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> left
>>>>>>>>>>>> subscribe to it universally.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong again moron.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No, I'm right.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Racism most definately has a condition of feeling
>>>>>>>>>>> of inferiority or superiority based on race.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That's what you racially obsessed leftists lamely say in your
>>>>>>>>>>defense
>>>>>>>>>>when your race obsession is called racism, but in practice, you
>>>>>>>>>>use
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>word to attack anyone who doesn't subscribe to the race agenda of
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>left. You fucking leftists are the ones who unhinged the word
>>>>>>>>>>from
>>>>>>>>>>its
>>>>>>>>>>original connection with belief in racial superiority. Now you
>>>>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>live with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If I or any other clear-eyed person makes an observation about the
>>>>>>>>>>massively greater criminality of blacks in America, leftists
>>>>>>>>>>immediately
>>>>>>>>>>accuse the observer of being racist. Merely mentioning blacks in
>>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>>way
>>>>>>>>>>that leftists consider unflattering brings forth the accusation of
>>>>>>>>>>racism, *despite* there being no evidence of any belief in racial
>>>>>>>>>>superiority on the part of the observer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So, that's how it is: "racism" has been divorced from *any*
>>>>>>>>>>connection
>>>>>>>>>>with a required belief in racial superiority, and you thugs are
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>ones
>>>>>>>>>>who did it. Therefore, when you leftist thugs reflexively obsess
>>>>>>>>>>over
>>>>>>>>>>race, and are called racist for it, the accusation sticks. You
>>>>>>>>>>did
>>>>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>>>>to yourselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Someone has to hold up the standard in order to maintain the word's
>>>>>>> usefulness. That will be me. d8-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See, you are the racist and you just proved it. You presumed
>>>>>>>>> blacks
>>>>>>>>> are criminals because they are black.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No he didn't. He simply stated, heck, let's just quote it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"If I or any other clear-eyed person makes an observation about the
>>>>>>>>massively greater criminality of blacks in America, leftists
>>>>>>>>immediately
>>>>>>>>accuse the observer of being racist."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He's making an observation backed up by statistics, and per his
>>>>>>>>prediction
>>>>>>>>you immediately called him a racist for that observation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He didn't make any presumptions about the causes. Though you did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right. The statistics of racial proclivities is not racism.
>>>>>>> Declaring
>>>>>>> or even implying that it is caused by a characteristic inherent in
>>>>>>> race itself is racism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Looks like he's got you and those like you pegged in how you react.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, and you shouldn't get to nasty about pointing out racism Dudu
>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>your documented examples of your racism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The meaning of racism is simple and clear. Any dictionary will clear
>>>>>>> it up for those who have gotten into the bad habit of using it too
>>>>>>> loosely. It requires a belief or action based on the idea that one
>>>>>>> race is inherently superior to another. Without that, there is no
>>>>>>> racism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's one definition, but there is at least one other. Maybe you
>>>>>>should
>>>>>>actually look in a dictionary sometime.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you should try a cite, liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/diction...
>>>>
>>>>I figured I would let you prove I'm right.
>>>>
>>>>Defintion #1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human
>>>>traits
>>>>and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent
>>>>superiority
>>>>of a particular race
>>>>
>>>>Definition #2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
>>>>
>>>>Hmmm... Now in definition number #2 where do I find that superiority you
>>>>claim MUST be part of racism??
>>>
>>> What would be the basis of prejudice if it didn't include a valuing of
>>> inherent characteristics of one race versus the other?
>>
>>Maybe you just don't like people that are different. Not a matter of
>>superiority or inferiority, you just don't like them because they are
>>different.
>>
>>But feel free to take it up with the experts at Webster's and when they
>>agree you're right I will listen. Until then, you lost.
>>
>
> No he didn't

Yes, he did. And I've shown but you and him to be wrong in your assertion
there is only one definition and that any definition MUST include some
assertion of superiority.

You don't like it? Blow me. The accredited experts at Webster have a whole
lot more creditability that either you or Ed. I won't even mention the two
of you combined because you would drastically pull down the average.

Scout

3/8/2013 9:11:00 PM

0



"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0erjj81vi5468t1o0p4bigmkvac30q7pci@4ax.com...
>>deep wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>Yet once again you tapdance around your own
>>racism by fighting over redefinining words. Exactly like you did with
>>socialism and closed systems. You ignore reality by fighting over
>>nitpicky definitions of words.
>
> Another lie added. You're the one who has no fucking idea what
> socialism is.
>
> And you KNOW the earth is not a closed system.

Poor Dudu, he has a real issue with people using the ACTUAL definitions of
words, or as he puts it the 'nitpicky definitions' such as you find in
Webster.