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


 

Forums >

comp.lang.python

regarding html source code

jainshasha

2/11/2008 5:35:00 PM

hello friends

well i want to create a program which can read my html based coding or
any other web page code

so i want to know how python can help me in this regard

so anyone have ay idea about this thing please reply soon

Thanks In Advance
16 Answers

Evolution

5/14/2009 3:26:00 PM

0

Joe wrote:
> On May 13, 1:07 pm, David <acomp1et...@fake.address> wrote:
>> Why do you take such umbrage at using the same name for Gays'
>> marriages, given that they end up with exactly the same set of rights
>> and benefits?
>
> Why do gays take such umbrage when civil unions with the same exact
> rights as marriage are proposed?
>
> I guess I'm stubborn and unreasonable....like they are :-)
>

That's the first thing you've said that makes sense... I just don't get
this hang up on the name, for either gays or christians. Maybe because
it's hard to say "We're getting civil unioned..."



--
Laurie

http://lauriehester.blo...

Evolution

5/14/2009 3:30:00 PM

0

stuthalblum@comcast.net wrote:
> On May 13, 1:22 pm, Joe <obri6...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On May 13, 11:53 am, "stuthalb...@comcast.net"
>>
>> <stuthalb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Has nothing to do with you, either. So why do you want to prevent the
>>> participants from doing it?
>> it's an institution that I have an investment in. I don't wish to see
>> any changes to that institution. As an American I have an inherent
>> right to express my opinion and vote my conscience. That vote says
>> no....
>
> It doesn't affect your investment in that institution in any way.
>
> You have a right to your opinion, and you have a right to change it if
> you EVOLVE.

I just think it's so funny that 50 years ago, Joe couldn't have married
his wife in some states, and the people who supported that law said the
same things Joe is now saying against gay marriage. He doesn't see it.
Back then, marriage was defined as two people of the same race, and
mixed marriage was an abomination and would destroy the institution of
marriage. Really funny that he can't see the ignorance of that position.

>
> As said above, the majority doesn't get to vote on the constitutional
> rights of the minority.

Exactly. And that's why interracial marriage is now legal. And why gay
marriage will be legal.

>
> Regards.


--
Laurie

http://lauriehester.blo...

Evolution

5/14/2009 4:09:00 PM

0

Joe wrote:
> On May 13, 1:43 pm, "stuthalb...@comcast.net"
> <stuthalb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> You have a right to your opinion, and you have a right to change it if
>> you EVOLVE.
>>
>> As said above, the majority doesn't get to vote on the constitutional
>> rights of the minority.
>
> Except that gay-marriage has never been recognized as a constitutional
> right.
>
>

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. " --
Ninth Amendment.

--
Laurie

http://lauriehester.blo...

David

5/14/2009 6:50:00 PM

0

On Thu, 14 May 2009 08:30:03 -0700, Evolution <myname@rcn.com> wrote:

>I just think it's so funny that 50 years ago, Joe couldn't have married
>his wife in some states, and the people who supported that law said the
>same things Joe is now saying against gay marriage. He doesn't see it.
> Back then, marriage was defined as two people of the same race, and
>mixed marriage was an abomination and would destroy the institution of
>marriage. Really funny that he can't see the ignorance of that position.

That *is* pretty striking.
--
Reply to david at habermehl dot com

Ukes

5/14/2009 11:55:00 PM

0

On Thu, 14 May 2009 08:30:03 -0700, Evolution <myname@rcn.com> wrote:


> Back then, marriage was defined as two people of the same race, and
>mixed marriage was an abomination and would destroy the institution of
>marriage.


That's not correct.

The racial restrictions on marriage were anti-miscegenation laws. The
perceived danger wasn't to marriage, it was race mixing. And the
racial restrictions didn't change the definition of marriage as a
union between one man and one woman, they were akin to an additional
prohibited degree, such as an uncle can't marry his niece (which is
permitted in some states).

Joe

5/15/2009 1:49:00 AM

0

On May 14, 12:09 pm, Evolution <myn...@rcn.com> wrote:

> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "  --
> Ninth Amendment.

Nonsense :-)

Joe

5/15/2009 1:54:00 AM

0

On May 14, 2:50 pm, David <acomp1et...@fake.address> wrote:

> That *is* pretty striking.

Not very striking at all...considering that the two issues ARE NOT
even closely related.

Joe

5/15/2009 1:55:00 AM

0

On May 14, 7:55 pm, Ukes <duke_of_did...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> That's not correct.
>
> The racial restrictions on marriage were anti-miscegenation laws. The
> perceived danger wasn't to marriage, it was race mixing. And the
> racial restrictions didn't change the definition of marriage as a
> union between one man and one woman, they were akin to an additional
> prohibited degree, such as an uncle can't marry his niece (which is
> permitted in some states).

Thank you sir....

Maureen

5/15/2009 6:06:00 AM

0

On May 14, 9:54 pm, "A to Z" <addietzREM...@SPAMFILTERverizon.net>
wrote:
> I hear that Maine has good lobsters. Never had one. How are those lobster
> rolls?

***********************

Awesome.
Try the Dale Arnold (named after a sportscaster in Boston from Maine)
at the Maine Diner. Basically, just huge chunks of lobster meat with
drawn butter in a grilled hot dog roll.
Lobster doesn't get any better than that!

stuthalblum@comcast.net

5/15/2009 2:05:00 PM

0

On May 14, 12:09 pm, Evolution <myn...@rcn.com> wrote:
> Joe wrote:
> > On May 13, 1:43 pm, "stuthalb...@comcast.net"
> > <stuthalb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> You have a right to your opinion, and you have a right to change it if
> >> you EVOLVE.
>
> >> As said above, the majority doesn't get to vote on the constitutional
> >> rights of the minority.
>
> > Except that gay-marriage has never been recognized as a constitutional
> > right.
>
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "  --
> Ninth Amendment.
>
> --
> Laurie
>
> http://lauriehester.blo...

The Ninth Amendment is even more vague than most of the others, and
until Rehnquist's Federalism Revolution, was almost never cited.

I rely on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, because
"equal means equal."