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


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Why do these two code blocks have different behavior?

yuricake

5/5/2007 4:43:00 AM

I am not a total newbie in ruby, but I am still hazy on how things
like blocks, proc objects and contexts work under the covers. I have
experience with Lisp lambdas, so feel free to get technical.

My question is - why do the following two functions have different
behavior?

require "pp"

@@a = [1, 2, 3]

def q1
@@a.inject(0) {|sum, x|
pp x
return sum + x
}
end

def q2
@@a.inject(0) {|sum, x|
pp x
sum + x
}
end
39 Answers

Gary Wright

5/5/2007 5:05:00 AM

0


On May 5, 2007, at 12:45 AM, yuricake wrote:
> My question is - why do the following two functions have different
> behavior?
>
> require "pp"
>
> @@a = [1, 2, 3]
>
> def q1
> @@a.inject(0) {|sum, x|
> pp x
> return sum + x
> }
> end
>
> def q2
> @@a.inject(0) {|sum, x|
> pp x
> sum + x
> }
> end

Because the return statement terminates the method q1 and not the
block that is associated with the call to inject. You are effectively
bailing out of inject on the first iteration.

In q2, when control runs off the end of the block, control is returned
to inject, which can continue with its iterations.

Gary Wright

Jano Svitok

5/5/2007 5:07:00 AM

0

On 5/5/07, yuricake <yuricake@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not a total newbie in ruby, but I am still hazy on how things
> like blocks, proc objects and contexts work under the covers. I have
> experience with Lisp lambdas, so feel free to get technical.
>
> My question is - why do the following two functions have different
> behavior?
>
> require "pp"
>
> @@a = [1, 2, 3]
>
> def q1
> @@a.inject(0) {|sum, x|
> pp x
> return sum + x
this return will jump out of the method altogether. So the method will
print x once, and then return sum + x, that is 0 + 1 = 1
> }
> end
>
> def q2
> @@a.inject(0) {|sum, x|
> pp x
> sum + x
> }
> end

in this case, there's no return to interrupt the inject loop, so the
sum will be calculated properly and return value from the method will
be the return value of inject, i.e. the sum 6.

Sylvain Joyeux

5/5/2007 10:04:00 AM

0

> def q1
> @@a.inject(0) {|sum, x|
> pp x
> return sum + x
> }
> end
I'll add one thing to the other's explanations: 'next' does what you
thought 'return' was doing: it terminates the block, returning the value
given as argument

def q1
@@a.inject(0) do |sum, x|
pp x
next sum + x
end
end

will also work
--
Sylvain Joyeux

Mitchell Holman

8/28/2007 11:45:00 AM

0

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:46D3A165.DF991AA0@yahoo.co.uk:

>
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:46D37C5A.906DE48A@yahoo.co.uk:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> >> news:46D301D6.4A32F404@yahoo.co.uk:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Rich Travesty wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> patient WA-2349-06 male Caucasian, paranoid-schizophrenic
>> >> >> Boogerbrain Bill wrote:
>> >> >> > Rich Travesty wrote:
>> >> >> > > patient WA-2349-06 male Caucasian, paranoid-schizophrenic
>> >> >> > > Billie Bunghole wrote:
>> >> >> > > > Rich Trolsky wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > patient WA-2349-06 male Caucasian, paranoid-schizophrenic
>> >> >> > > > > Dinkie Bill wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > > Rich Travesty wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > > > Clave wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > > > > "David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:43:44 -0700, "Bill Bonde (
>> >> >> > > > > > > > > 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>David Johnston wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:50:58 -0700, "Bill Bonde
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> (
>> 'Hi
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> ho' )"
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > You mean by working with his own party on
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > legislation?
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >>
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> No, by putting party over country.
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >>
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >What does that mean? How did the legislation
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >get
>> to
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >his desk if he's the
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >only one putting something or someone before
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >the country?
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> Who said he was the only one?
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>So voting or allowing through any "earmarks"
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >>isn't putting the country before your party?
>> >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > > > What the hell are you talking about?
>> >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > > He's trying to tread water.
>> >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > > Not doing all that good a job of it, either.
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > His "prudent" and have "a plan" bit is destined to be
>> >> >> > > > > > > a classic! And asking what "putting party over
>> >> >> > > > > > > country" means... holee cow
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > So you don't think there should be a plan? And you are
>> >> >> > > > > > changing what I write even though it's still above:
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > "no reason to wait" snicker
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > Are you defective? You *know* that is a quote in the
>> >> >> > > > context of Clinton and not of some new president.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Uh, we know it's your dodge.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > How am I dodging anything at all? I've expressed my view
>> >> >> > cogently many times. You've shat on the porch and lit it on
>> >> >> > fire. Who's serious here?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm not the one having to ask what "putting party over country"
>> >> >> means...
>> >> >>
>> >> > Probably because you refuse to think about the meaning of those
>> >> > words. You seem to imply that working with your party is putting
>> >> > the party
>> over
>> >> > the country. Since opposing your party means you are going into
>> >> > the bigger battles alone, I suspect that that isn't something
>> >> > you'd do if you wanted to have the greatest chances of winning.
>> >>
>> >> Winning what?
>> >>
>> > Your legislative battles.
>>
>> What legislative battles? The ones Bush never fought
>> because he signed everything Congress sent him?
>>
> You act like he's not involved until that point.
>


Just tell us what legistlative battles you are talking about.



Mitchell Holman

Federal deficit in 2001 = 0
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 427 Billion
Spending bills vetoed by Bush = 0

RichTravsky

9/2/2007 5:21:00 AM

0

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
>
> Rich Travsky wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
> > > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> > > > > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > > > >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> > > > >> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > > > >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> > > > >> >> > Rich Travesty wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> patient WA-2349-06 male Caucasian, paranoid-schizophrenic
> > > > >> >> >> Boogerbrain Bill wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > Rich Travesty wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > > patient WA-2349-06 male Caucasian, paranoid-schizophrenic
> > > > >> >> >> > > Billie Bunghole wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > > > Rich Trolsky wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > patient WA-2349-06 male Caucasian, paranoid-schizophrenic
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > Dinkie Bill wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Rich Travesty wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > Clave wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > "David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:43:44 -0700, "Bill Bonde (
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>David Johnston wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:50:58 -0700, "Bill Bonde
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> (
> > > > >> 'Hi
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> ho' )"
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > You mean by working with his own party on
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > legislation?
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> No, by putting party over country.
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >What does that mean? How did the legislation
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >get
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >his desk if he's the
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >only one putting something or someone before
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >the country?
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> Who said he was the only one?
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>So voting or allowing through any "earmarks"
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>isn't putting the country before your party?
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > What the hell are you talking about?
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > He's trying to tread water.
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Not doing all that good a job of it, either.
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > His "prudent" and have "a plan" bit is destined to be
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > a classic! And asking what "putting party over
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > country" means... holee cow
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > So you don't think there should be a plan? And you are
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > changing what I write even though it's still above:
> > > > >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> >> > > > > "no reason to wait" snicker
> > > > >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> >> > > > Are you defective? You *know* that is a quote in the
> > > > >> >> >> > > > context of Clinton and not of some new president.
> > > > >> >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >> > > Uh, we know it's your dodge.
> > > > >> >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >> > How am I dodging anything at all? I've expressed my view
> > > > >> >> >> > cogently many times. You've shat on the porch and lit it on
> > > > >> >> >> > fire. Who's serious here?
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> I'm not the one having to ask what "putting party over country"
> > > > >> >> >> means...
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> > Probably because you refuse to think about the meaning of those
> > > > >> >> > words. You seem to imply that working with your party is putting
> > > > >> >> > the party
> > > > >> over
> > > > >> >> > the country. Since opposing your party means you are going into
> > > > >> >> > the bigger battles alone, I suspect that that isn't something
> > > > >> >> > you'd do if you wanted to have the greatest chances of winning.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Winning what?
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > Your legislative battles.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What legislative battles? The ones Bush never fought
> > > > >> because he signed everything Congress sent him?
> > > > >>
> > > > > You act like he's not involved until that point.
> > > >
> > > > Just tell us what legistlative battles you are talking about.
> > > >
> > > I think the biggest one right now is to keep troops in Iraq.
> >
> > No, it should be to get them out.
> >
> We disagree about that. If we remove the troops, Iraq won't be in as
> good a position to move forward and build a democracy, in fact it will
> roil in anarchy. How is that in the American interest? How is leaving
> Iraq as a base for al Qaeda in the American interest? Answer.

Iraq would split into three countries. Democracy in Iraq is a joke.

And AQ will not be a factor.

RT

Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')

9/2/2007 4:24:00 PM

0



Rich Trolsky wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
> >
> > Rich Travsky wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
> > > > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > > > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> > > > > > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > > > > >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> > > > > >> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > > > > >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> > > > > >> >> > Rich Travesty wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> patient WA-2349-06 male Caucasian, paranoid-schizophrenic
> > > > > >> >> >> Boogerbrain Bill wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> > Rich Travesty wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> > > patient WA-2349-06 male Caucasian, paranoid-schizophrenic
> > > > > >> >> >> > > Billie Bunghole wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > Rich Trolsky wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > patient WA-2349-06 male Caucasian, paranoid-schizophrenic
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Dinkie Bill wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Rich Travesty wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > Clave wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > "David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:43:44 -0700, "Bill Bonde (
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>David Johnston wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:50:58 -0700, "Bill Bonde
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> (
> > > > > >> 'Hi
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> ho' )"
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > You mean by working with his own party on
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > legislation?
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> No, by putting party over country.
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >What does that mean? How did the legislation
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >get
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >his desk if he's the
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >only one putting something or someone before
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >the country?
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> Who said he was the only one?
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>So voting or allowing through any "earmarks"
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>isn't putting the country before your party?
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > What the hell are you talking about?
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > He's trying to tread water.
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Not doing all that good a job of it, either.
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > His "prudent" and have "a plan" bit is destined to be
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > a classic! And asking what "putting party over
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > country" means... holee cow
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > So you don't think there should be a plan? And you are
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > changing what I write even though it's still above:
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > "no reason to wait" snicker
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > Are you defective? You *know* that is a quote in the
> > > > > >> >> >> > > > context of Clinton and not of some new president.
> > > > > >> >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >> > > Uh, we know it's your dodge.
> > > > > >> >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >> > How am I dodging anything at all? I've expressed my view
> > > > > >> >> >> > cogently many times. You've shat on the porch and lit it on
> > > > > >> >> >> > fire. Who's serious here?
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> I'm not the one having to ask what "putting party over country"
> > > > > >> >> >> means...
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > Probably because you refuse to think about the meaning of those
> > > > > >> >> > words. You seem to imply that working with your party is putting
> > > > > >> >> > the party
> > > > > >> over
> > > > > >> >> > the country. Since opposing your party means you are going into
> > > > > >> >> > the bigger battles alone, I suspect that that isn't something
> > > > > >> >> > you'd do if you wanted to have the greatest chances of winning.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Winning what?
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > Your legislative battles.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What legislative battles? The ones Bush never fought
> > > > > >> because he signed everything Congress sent him?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > You act like he's not involved until that point.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just tell us what legistlative battles you are talking about.
> > > > >
> > > > I think the biggest one right now is to keep troops in Iraq.
> > >
> > > No, it should be to get them out.
> > >
> > We disagree about that. If we remove the troops, Iraq won't be in as
> > good a position to move forward and build a democracy, in fact it will
> > roil in anarchy. How is that in the American interest? How is leaving
> > Iraq as a base for al Qaeda in the American interest? Answer.
>
> Iraq would split into three countries. Democracy in Iraq is a joke.
>
Why is it a 'joke'? Democracy is something that takes time to learn
about. I think you dismiss these people too quickly.


> And AQ will not be a factor.
>
Are you saying that by letting al Qaeda off its leash in the Middle East
in Iraq, Bush has allowed it to burn itself out?


--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

Mitchell Holman

9/3/2007 8:12:00 PM

0

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:46D9AE74.6AE8212B@yahoo.co.uk:

>
>
> Rich Travsky wrote:
>>
>> > >
>> > > Just tell us what legistlative battles you are talking about.
>> > >
>> > I think the biggest one right now is to keep troops in Iraq.
>>
>> No, it should be to get them out.
>>
> We disagree about that. If we remove the troops, Iraq won't be in as
> good a position to move forward and build a democracy, in fact it will
> roil in anarchy.


So you are saying that US troops will have to
stay in Iraq permanently to protect the government
from it's own citizens?

Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')

9/3/2007 10:16:00 PM

0



Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:46D9AE74.6AE8212B@yahoo.co.uk:
>
> >
> >
> > Rich Travsky wrote:
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > Just tell us what legistlative battles you are talking about.
> >> > >
> >> > I think the biggest one right now is to keep troops in Iraq.
> >>
> >> No, it should be to get them out.
> >>
> > We disagree about that. If we remove the troops, Iraq won't be in as
> > good a position to move forward and build a democracy, in fact it will
> > roil in anarchy.
>
> So you are saying that US troops will have to
> stay in Iraq permanently to protect the government
> from it's own citizens?
>
"Its own citizens", you mean. In any case, no. I don't advocate making
Iraq the 51st state.

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

Mitchell Holman

9/3/2007 11:14:00 PM

0

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:46DC879C.152636DB@yahoo.co.uk:

>
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:46D9AE74.6AE8212B@yahoo.co.uk:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Rich Travsky wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Just tell us what legistlative battles you are talking about.
>> >> > >
>> >> > I think the biggest one right now is to keep troops in Iraq.
>> >>
>> >> No, it should be to get them out.
>> >>
>> > We disagree about that. If we remove the troops, Iraq won't be in as
>> > good a position to move forward and build a democracy, in fact it will
>> > roil in anarchy.
>>
>> So you are saying that US troops will have to
>> stay in Iraq permanently to protect the government
>> from it's own citizens?
>>
> "Its own citizens", you mean. In any case, no. I don't advocate making
> Iraq the 51st state.


So how long do you insist on US troops doing the job
that Iraqis have no interest in doing for themselves?

RichTravsky

9/5/2007 2:32:00 AM

0

patient WA-2349-06 male Caucasian, paranoid-schizophrenic Ballless Bill wrote:
> Rich Trolsky wrote:
> > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
> > > Rich Travsky wrote:
> > > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
> > > > > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > > > > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> > > > > > > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > > > > > >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> > > > > > >> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> > > > > > >> >> > Rich Travesty wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >> patient WA-2349-06 male Caucasian, paranoid-schizophrenic
> > > > > > >> >> >> Boogerbrain Bill wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >> > Rich Travesty wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > patient WA-2349-06 male Caucasian, paranoid-schizophrenic
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > Billie Bunghole wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > Rich Trolsky wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > patient WA-2349-06 male Caucasian, paranoid-schizophrenic
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Dinkie Bill wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Rich Travesty wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > Clave wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > "David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:43:44 -0700, "Bill Bonde (
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>David Johnston wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:50:58 -0700, "Bill Bonde
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> (
> > > > > > >> 'Hi
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> ho' )"
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > You mean by working with his own party on
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > legislation?
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> No, by putting party over country.
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >What does that mean? How did the legislation
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >get
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >his desk if he's the
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >only one putting something or someone before
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >the country?
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> Who said he was the only one?
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>So voting or allowing through any "earmarks"
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>isn't putting the country before your party?
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > What the hell are you talking about?
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > He's trying to tread water.
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Not doing all that good a job of it, either.
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > His "prudent" and have "a plan" bit is destined to be
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > a classic! And asking what "putting party over
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > country" means... holee cow
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > So you don't think there should be a plan? And you are
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > changing what I write even though it's still above:
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > "no reason to wait" snicker
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > Are you defective? You *know* that is a quote in the
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > context of Clinton and not of some new president.
> > > > > > >> >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >> > > Uh, we know it's your dodge.
> > > > > > >> >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >> > How am I dodging anything at all? I've expressed my view
> > > > > > >> >> >> > cogently many times. You've shat on the porch and lit it on
> > > > > > >> >> >> > fire. Who's serious here?
> > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> >> I'm not the one having to ask what "putting party over country"
> > > > > > >> >> >> means...
> > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > Probably because you refuse to think about the meaning of those
> > > > > > >> >> > words. You seem to imply that working with your party is putting
> > > > > > >> >> > the party
> > > > > > >> over
> > > > > > >> >> > the country. Since opposing your party means you are going into
> > > > > > >> >> > the bigger battles alone, I suspect that that isn't something
> > > > > > >> >> > you'd do if you wanted to have the greatest chances of winning.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> Winning what?
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > Your legislative battles.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> What legislative battles? The ones Bush never fought
> > > > > > >> because he signed everything Congress sent him?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > You act like he's not involved until that point.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just tell us what legistlative battles you are talking about.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I think the biggest one right now is to keep troops in Iraq.
> > > >
> > > > No, it should be to get them out.
> > > >
> > > We disagree about that. If we remove the troops, Iraq won't be in as
> > > good a position to move forward and build a democracy, in fact it will
> > > roil in anarchy. How is that in the American interest? How is leaving
> > > Iraq as a base for al Qaeda in the American interest? Answer.
> >
> > Iraq would split into three countries. Democracy in Iraq is a joke.
> >
> Why is it a 'joke'? Democracy is something that takes time to learn
> about. I think you dismiss these people too quickly.

Iraq was held together by one guy - he's gone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR20070716...
Tuesday, July 17, 2007

If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three
developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive
Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern
Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish
north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there.
In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.

That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted
for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly
don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq
and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."
...

Let them work it out without American blood and hundreds of billions of our money.

> > And AQ will not be a factor.
> >
> Are you saying that by letting al Qaeda off its leash in the Middle East
> in Iraq, Bush has allowed it to burn itself out?

The violence in Iraq is sectarian.

RT